My son just turned 2. Not only is he tossing out some spectacular tantrums, he's also showing some real intelligence and some cute behavior.
It is common nowadays for him to deliver long sentences & paragraphs worth of baby talk. They're veritable speeches! My wife and I just laugh with how funny and cute he is when he's doing this. Last night I belatedly tried to get some of this on video but he had paused, and then he slipped off the chair hitting both his chin and the back of his head and the video opportunity was gone.
If I manage to get one of those delightful speeches on video, I'll post it here.
The other thing my son is doing is that he decided on his own word for "yes." He says "hai" or "aye," always short and clipped, and emphatic and high-pitched. It's really funny. It's making communication with him so much easier, and he's less frustrated because he can help us figure out what he wants faster.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
A Very Curious Thing
The more aware I become of my own brokenness and tendency toward disobedience to God, the more I rely on him and turn to him and more desperately need him. And that's weird, if you think about it.
Because on the one hand, depending more fully on God could be described as good and growing in spirituality. And tending toward disobedience, especially with an increasing awareness of it, could be described as evil and lacking in spirituality. So which is it?
I'm inclined to think that I am noticing it more, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily increasing. It's that I am more aware of what has always been there. So whether there's a net change in corruption (and I sure hope there is in the lesser direction) there's definitely a net change in my trusting God.
And that's a good thing.
Because on the one hand, depending more fully on God could be described as good and growing in spirituality. And tending toward disobedience, especially with an increasing awareness of it, could be described as evil and lacking in spirituality. So which is it?
I'm inclined to think that I am noticing it more, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily increasing. It's that I am more aware of what has always been there. So whether there's a net change in corruption (and I sure hope there is in the lesser direction) there's definitely a net change in my trusting God.
And that's a good thing.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Religion and religion
A friend of mine is a Roman Catholic and was hurt by my last post. I am not sure what to make of that. I most definitely did not want to hurt him. But I also wish to be free to say what I really think. I don't think I was gratuitously offensive, and I don't believe there's some kind of open season on every religious belief in the world nor on Roman Catholicism in particular. So how out of line was I? I don't know.
It also makes it hard when one adds to the mix that this friend has been quite critical of my own beliefs many times and was not apparently overconcerned about tact and my feelings (although to be fair most of it was when he was not a Roman Catholic but rather something much more liberal). I managed to avoid most offense and hurt simply by realizing that he was sadly mistaken (from my perspective, of course). Can he not do this for my words? He wants me to cherish his cherishing of his beliefs nearly as much as he cherishes them. But I cannot do that.
At the same time, I have no desire to tear down someone's religion for the sake of destruction. And I do not want to argue about disagreements of theology unless doing so will be positively productive in some way. It is clear that my friend finds very dear the religious institution that is the Catholic Church. I do not. He believes it is near exactly the proper expression of God's true church, and I do not. To me, it is a human political institution invaded by Stuff.
So how do I answer the charge, then, that what I believe is shamelessly invented? Dawkins lists later in his book many "embarassing" things that a Christian/Catholic has to say he believes. Looking at those, I do in fact believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. I don't believe that during the Eucharist, bread and juice turn into Jesus's flesh and blood, even in a spiritual way. To an atheist, the one is hardly different than the other: both bizarre, unbelievable that an intelligent person could believe this, plainly invented by humans and ultimately laughable.
I cannot in this one short post address all the reasons why I believe as I do. Yes, it does have to do with the Bible. Yes, it does have to do with the historical veracity of the events recorded there. And there is a lot more to it than that.
You know, people love to flesh out the details. Speculation easily becomes certainty. "O.J. Simpson committed suicide!" a coworker told me one afternoon. Oh, wait, he hadn't done that after all. But she sure wanted to believe it. It made such a juicy story.
None of this proves anything. We all already know that people have a ridiculous tendency to credulousness, in religious matters and in non-religious matters. I am sure that I believe some things that are false, and probably ridiculous in retrospect. I have some thought to do before I'll be able to say much more on this topic.
But one thing that occurs to me is that I only want to worry about beliefs that add to the good news of Jesus' work on the cross and the availability of forgiveness to all who repent of their rebellion from God. Anything that is a side issue, unimportant to The Main Thing, I think is better to abandon except for speculative entertainment. This leaves me defending much less, and including many people who ought to be included. Rituals and doctrines and Extra Things that aren't crucial have the potential for getting in the way of our following Christ and having a good witness to the world.
It is enough to defend a miracle like Jesus's virgin birth. I don't need other difficult things to defend that have far less evidence. Does it make any difference to what Christianity is actually about whether or not Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? No. Does it make a difference to the core of Christianity whether Mary was a virgin at Jesus's conception? Yes.
There are many miracles that Jesus performed that are not in the Bible. A tradition of what those were probably was passed down for many years. And if that tradition kept going until today, it could even be true. But that it could be true does not mean the story need be told. Were the writers of the New Testament in error to not write down just that one more miracle that Jesus performed, that if we only knew it for sure our relationship with God would be bettered? I don't think that. I think that what's in the Bible is enough.
Turning back to capital-R Religion, I have used the historical corruption and fallacy of the Mormon Church and of the Watchtower & Tract Society as arguments that my listener's religions were untenable. And when I think about the Roman Catholic Church, things like indulgences and Martin Luther come to mind. While some of the worst parts of the Catholic Church were fixed in badly needed reforms, how do we know that all the parts that needed reform got it? Did Paul practice indulgences? If not, then it crept in along the way. There go the arguments for the weight of the long Christian/Catholic history. How long someone has done something doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Indulgences were as much a principal and cherished canon of faith to Catholics back then. Ought I to be any more charitable to things like Mary over-veneration as Luther was to indulgences? I cannot imagine a good reason to keep the official doctrine of the Catholic church at so many junctures. It is not an organization that God has protected from error (that much is clear). And I don't look to any human organization to be God's vehicle for me.
Considering indulgences and rejecting the Catholic Church is not the same as considering the crusades and rejecting Christianity or rejecting religion entirely. The fact is that indulgences were not true Christianity and Christ-following: the corruption accrues to the political institution or to individual people, not to Christ himself. The crusades accrue to capital-R religiosity and the evilness of individual people, not to the teachings of Christ.
There is no law against love, faith, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self-control. But I believe in a moral and spiritual law against self-made religion. And my mind and my heart both say that there is too much self-made religion in the Catholic religion.
No institution is my religion. I am not Catholic, but I am part of the catholic (little c, that is, universal) church because I am part of the body of Christ, which consists of all who truly follow him. I don't need any other identification. I attend a Baptist church. I am even involved in church leadership there. But I am not a Baptist.
I am not a Paulist. I am not a Catholic. I am not an Apollonian. I am not a Baptist. I am a Christ-follower.
So anyway, what do I do? How do I respect people's religious beliefs when I disagree strongly with them? Dawkins says, and he is right, that in our society one often is not allowed to criticize someone's sincerely held religious beliefs. Muslims are allowed to wear turbans instead of motorcycle helmets. But only because it's a religious belief. There has to be a line somewhere, and I believe there is. But who gets to draw the line? An atheist, with his own religious beliefs (at least, beliefs full of content about the same topics as religious beliefs address)? That doesn't sound so good either.
So much is unclear. But I will press on and do my best to in all things love God, and love my neighbor, and do precious little else.
2007-10-26: I edited the paragraph about the Eucharist to correct some minor details. They don't change the meaning of my words.
It also makes it hard when one adds to the mix that this friend has been quite critical of my own beliefs many times and was not apparently overconcerned about tact and my feelings (although to be fair most of it was when he was not a Roman Catholic but rather something much more liberal). I managed to avoid most offense and hurt simply by realizing that he was sadly mistaken (from my perspective, of course). Can he not do this for my words? He wants me to cherish his cherishing of his beliefs nearly as much as he cherishes them. But I cannot do that.
At the same time, I have no desire to tear down someone's religion for the sake of destruction. And I do not want to argue about disagreements of theology unless doing so will be positively productive in some way. It is clear that my friend finds very dear the religious institution that is the Catholic Church. I do not. He believes it is near exactly the proper expression of God's true church, and I do not. To me, it is a human political institution invaded by Stuff.
So how do I answer the charge, then, that what I believe is shamelessly invented? Dawkins lists later in his book many "embarassing" things that a Christian/Catholic has to say he believes. Looking at those, I do in fact believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. I don't believe that during the Eucharist, bread and juice turn into Jesus's flesh and blood, even in a spiritual way. To an atheist, the one is hardly different than the other: both bizarre, unbelievable that an intelligent person could believe this, plainly invented by humans and ultimately laughable.
I cannot in this one short post address all the reasons why I believe as I do. Yes, it does have to do with the Bible. Yes, it does have to do with the historical veracity of the events recorded there. And there is a lot more to it than that.
You know, people love to flesh out the details. Speculation easily becomes certainty. "O.J. Simpson committed suicide!" a coworker told me one afternoon. Oh, wait, he hadn't done that after all. But she sure wanted to believe it. It made such a juicy story.
None of this proves anything. We all already know that people have a ridiculous tendency to credulousness, in religious matters and in non-religious matters. I am sure that I believe some things that are false, and probably ridiculous in retrospect. I have some thought to do before I'll be able to say much more on this topic.
But one thing that occurs to me is that I only want to worry about beliefs that add to the good news of Jesus' work on the cross and the availability of forgiveness to all who repent of their rebellion from God. Anything that is a side issue, unimportant to The Main Thing, I think is better to abandon except for speculative entertainment. This leaves me defending much less, and including many people who ought to be included. Rituals and doctrines and Extra Things that aren't crucial have the potential for getting in the way of our following Christ and having a good witness to the world.
It is enough to defend a miracle like Jesus's virgin birth. I don't need other difficult things to defend that have far less evidence. Does it make any difference to what Christianity is actually about whether or not Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? No. Does it make a difference to the core of Christianity whether Mary was a virgin at Jesus's conception? Yes.
There are many miracles that Jesus performed that are not in the Bible. A tradition of what those were probably was passed down for many years. And if that tradition kept going until today, it could even be true. But that it could be true does not mean the story need be told. Were the writers of the New Testament in error to not write down just that one more miracle that Jesus performed, that if we only knew it for sure our relationship with God would be bettered? I don't think that. I think that what's in the Bible is enough.
Turning back to capital-R Religion, I have used the historical corruption and fallacy of the Mormon Church and of the Watchtower & Tract Society as arguments that my listener's religions were untenable. And when I think about the Roman Catholic Church, things like indulgences and Martin Luther come to mind. While some of the worst parts of the Catholic Church were fixed in badly needed reforms, how do we know that all the parts that needed reform got it? Did Paul practice indulgences? If not, then it crept in along the way. There go the arguments for the weight of the long Christian/Catholic history. How long someone has done something doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Indulgences were as much a principal and cherished canon of faith to Catholics back then. Ought I to be any more charitable to things like Mary over-veneration as Luther was to indulgences? I cannot imagine a good reason to keep the official doctrine of the Catholic church at so many junctures. It is not an organization that God has protected from error (that much is clear). And I don't look to any human organization to be God's vehicle for me.
Considering indulgences and rejecting the Catholic Church is not the same as considering the crusades and rejecting Christianity or rejecting religion entirely. The fact is that indulgences were not true Christianity and Christ-following: the corruption accrues to the political institution or to individual people, not to Christ himself. The crusades accrue to capital-R religiosity and the evilness of individual people, not to the teachings of Christ.
There is no law against love, faith, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self-control. But I believe in a moral and spiritual law against self-made religion. And my mind and my heart both say that there is too much self-made religion in the Catholic religion.
No institution is my religion. I am not Catholic, but I am part of the catholic (little c, that is, universal) church because I am part of the body of Christ, which consists of all who truly follow him. I don't need any other identification. I attend a Baptist church. I am even involved in church leadership there. But I am not a Baptist.
The Bible New American Standard Version
1 Corinthians 3:4-5
For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
I am not a Paulist. I am not a Catholic. I am not an Apollonian. I am not a Baptist. I am a Christ-follower.
So anyway, what do I do? How do I respect people's religious beliefs when I disagree strongly with them? Dawkins says, and he is right, that in our society one often is not allowed to criticize someone's sincerely held religious beliefs. Muslims are allowed to wear turbans instead of motorcycle helmets. But only because it's a religious belief. There has to be a line somewhere, and I believe there is. But who gets to draw the line? An atheist, with his own religious beliefs (at least, beliefs full of content about the same topics as religious beliefs address)? That doesn't sound so good either.
So much is unclear. But I will press on and do my best to in all things love God, and love my neighbor, and do precious little else.
2007-10-26: I edited the paragraph about the Eucharist to correct some minor details. They don't change the meaning of my words.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Reading
I have been reading some C. S. Lewis and it's been great. I picked up "The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics" and have so far read Mere Christianity and Miracles.
I've actually read these books before, and it's become clear to me that I carried away many things from them without consciously remembering it--my philosophy has definitely been informed by this writer. Reading them again was such a pleasure. I plan to read the others very soon and also to pick up other C. S. Lewis books I have missed in the past like The Four Loves.
As part of a reading exchange with an atheist I know that I think might find these books meaningful, I also just picked up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and read the first 58 pages last night. What's been interesting so far is the mix, paragraph by paragraph or even sentence by sentence, where I wholehearted agree with him (and might even say it more strongly myself) and then shortly have to question his very foundation and all his assumptions. For example:
I have to agree with the shamelessly invented part. I don't mean to needlessly slander the Roman Catholic faith. But All This Religious Stuff piled on top of a pure devotion to Jesus is at best distracting and at worst contributes to people losing their faith or alternately insulating themselves against ever acquiring it.
So far:
• The book is rife with ad hominem attacks
• He presupposes Naturalism (that is, non-Supernaturalism) in every argument without adequately supporting this contention (we'll see how the rest of the book does)
• At one point he said something about God in the Universe (I'll try to find the reference and speak more specifically). But that's precisely the problem. If you assume that the universe is everything that is, and that everything that is is physical, you have assumed God right out of existence from the start with nothing more than a skip, a jump, a lighthearted flip of the hand, and a very jolly sort of giggle. The proposition about God is that the Universe is not all that is. One must leave off nonsense about God in the Universe as though it was his container as it is ours.
I'll briefly point out something C. S. Lewis had to say that I predict will be the best and lasting criticism of Dawkins' entire book: men get so busy thinking that they forget that they are doing it, much like we can read an entire book without once thinking about reading itself. And when one turns to thinking, the question one has to ask is: how do I suppose that my reason has any validity or merit whatsoever?
If I am to think that my thinking can arrive at any kind of truth (or for those who can't stomach truth, arrive at stuff worth believing) then I have already disposed of pure Naturalism. For when something is fully explained by previous events it is then it is least true, as in "you are only saying that because you love her" or "you only believe that because you were taught it as a child." If these are convincing, then how convincing ought the argument be that "you only think there is no God because each event in the universe progresses to the next event, and your brain is part of the universe, and you could no less think another thought than you could fail to fall to the ground by the force of gravity should you step off the top of a building."
You see? If Reason's cause is fully natural, there is no reason to suppose that its conclusions merit belief. All reason becomes mere animal urges and feelings. To say then that "the chances of God's existence are near zero," for the Naturalist, cannot be any different than "I have a great fondness for cheese and I just absolutely can't stand spiders." Who cares? If that is all you have to say, go home and stop shouting at everyone about it all.
Dawkins has forgotten that he is doing something unnatural, even super-natural, constantly in his book: reasoning. What are we to make of someone who yells at great length at us that there is no such thing as yelling?
I've actually read these books before, and it's become clear to me that I carried away many things from them without consciously remembering it--my philosophy has definitely been informed by this writer. Reading them again was such a pleasure. I plan to read the others very soon and also to pick up other C. S. Lewis books I have missed in the past like The Four Loves.
As part of a reading exchange with an atheist I know that I think might find these books meaningful, I also just picked up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and read the first 58 pages last night. What's been interesting so far is the mix, paragraph by paragraph or even sentence by sentence, where I wholehearted agree with him (and might even say it more strongly myself) and then shortly have to question his very foundation and all his assumptions. For example:
Dawkins, Richard —The God Delusion p.35: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
And we mustn't forget the four Choirs of Angelic Hosts, arrayed in nine orders: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels (heads of all hosts), and just plain old Angels, including our closest friends, the ever-watchful Guardian Angels. What impresses me about Catholic mythology is partly its tasteless kitsch but mostly the airy nonchalance with which these people make up the details as they go along. It is just shamelessly invented.
I have to agree with the shamelessly invented part. I don't mean to needlessly slander the Roman Catholic faith. But All This Religious Stuff piled on top of a pure devotion to Jesus is at best distracting and at worst contributes to people losing their faith or alternately insulating themselves against ever acquiring it.
So far:
• The book is rife with ad hominem attacks
• He presupposes Naturalism (that is, non-Supernaturalism) in every argument without adequately supporting this contention (we'll see how the rest of the book does)
• At one point he said something about God in the Universe (I'll try to find the reference and speak more specifically). But that's precisely the problem. If you assume that the universe is everything that is, and that everything that is is physical, you have assumed God right out of existence from the start with nothing more than a skip, a jump, a lighthearted flip of the hand, and a very jolly sort of giggle. The proposition about God is that the Universe is not all that is. One must leave off nonsense about God in the Universe as though it was his container as it is ours.
I'll briefly point out something C. S. Lewis had to say that I predict will be the best and lasting criticism of Dawkins' entire book: men get so busy thinking that they forget that they are doing it, much like we can read an entire book without once thinking about reading itself. And when one turns to thinking, the question one has to ask is: how do I suppose that my reason has any validity or merit whatsoever?
If I am to think that my thinking can arrive at any kind of truth (or for those who can't stomach truth, arrive at stuff worth believing) then I have already disposed of pure Naturalism. For when something is fully explained by previous events it is then it is least true, as in "you are only saying that because you love her" or "you only believe that because you were taught it as a child." If these are convincing, then how convincing ought the argument be that "you only think there is no God because each event in the universe progresses to the next event, and your brain is part of the universe, and you could no less think another thought than you could fail to fall to the ground by the force of gravity should you step off the top of a building."
You see? If Reason's cause is fully natural, there is no reason to suppose that its conclusions merit belief. All reason becomes mere animal urges and feelings. To say then that "the chances of God's existence are near zero," for the Naturalist, cannot be any different than "I have a great fondness for cheese and I just absolutely can't stand spiders." Who cares? If that is all you have to say, go home and stop shouting at everyone about it all.
Dawkins has forgotten that he is doing something unnatural, even super-natural, constantly in his book: reasoning. What are we to make of someone who yells at great length at us that there is no such thing as yelling?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Calmness in the Face of Provocation
Just a quick note that I'm doing better on this, slowly and surely.
• Even when things aren't fair, getting upset doesn't do any good and when I am upset I feel worse than when I'm not upset. Peace feels good. And my own peace depends on me, not on circumstances.
• Other people take cues from me and when I get upset, they get upset. If I remain calm and become even more gentle and quiet when those around me are losing it, they have a chance to anchor to me and yield some equanimity from it. It does us both some good.
• I'm finding life to simply be more pleasant. And unpleasant circumstances are less unpleasant than before. Cool.
It's hard to put these in bullet points. Bullet points aren't going to make real change in a person. I'm merely trying to express something that has a much deeper and more complex reality going on already.
• Even when things aren't fair, getting upset doesn't do any good and when I am upset I feel worse than when I'm not upset. Peace feels good. And my own peace depends on me, not on circumstances.
• Other people take cues from me and when I get upset, they get upset. If I remain calm and become even more gentle and quiet when those around me are losing it, they have a chance to anchor to me and yield some equanimity from it. It does us both some good.
• I'm finding life to simply be more pleasant. And unpleasant circumstances are less unpleasant than before. Cool.
It's hard to put these in bullet points. Bullet points aren't going to make real change in a person. I'm merely trying to express something that has a much deeper and more complex reality going on already.
Friday, September 7, 2007
How to Fry Cheese
Fried cheese. A recipe invented on the spot by yours truly.
• Select a medium hard cheese. Good examples are Cheddar, firm Mozzarella, Swiss, and Gouda.
- Avoid soft cheeses like Havarti or fresh Mozzarella because of their liquid content--they take much longer to fry and are much more messy.
- Avoid really hard cheeses like Parmesan because they don't melt very well.
• Cut some slices of your selected cheese(s) approximately 1/8th inch thick (3 mm). You can use thicker slices but it will just take longer and will spread out in the pan anyway.
• Put some slices in a frying pan and fry them at medium to high heat. Don't use any cooking oil at all. Adjust heat so frying doesn't go too slowly but you are not getting to unnecessarily high temperatures. Signs of being too hot (much too hot, turn it down!) are smoking, uneven browning, and crackling oil.
• Your fried cheese is ready when it is browned and has hardened some. It is kind of like bacon, being edible from fairly soft through ultra crunchy, and it all depends on personal taste. The cheese when it cools will be harder than when you take it out of the pan. You can get fried cheese to become extremely hard and crunchy if you keep it going long enough (harder than I like).
• Use a spatula to remove the fried cheese to paper towels on a plate and blot away excess oil.
• Eat.
When cheese is fried it goes through some recognizable stages:
• Melting and spreading out
• Bubbling and giving off liquid/oil
• Browning
If you fry a lot of cheese at once, the oil it gives off will slow the frying process. Either fry in small amounts or be ready with a paper towel to blot up oil from the edges of the pan. If you try to blot the cheese directly, you'll just get gooey cheese stuck to the paper.
I don't fry cheese by itself very often. More often, I intentionally put extra cheese in a grilled cheese sandwich or a quesadilla, or I am deliberately uncareful when sprinkling cheese over food so some lands on the pan directly. Depending on the space in the pan and the amount and type of cheese, blotting up excess oil is often mandatory (and helpful to prevent sogging the food). One ends up with a corona of fried cheese stuck to the outside of the item. Yum.
Another way to get fried cheese is to put a slice or sprinkle shredded cheese on the top of a quesadilla or sandwich. Use a lid on the pan to help melt the cheese that's inside and on top. When you flip the sandwich, the melted cheese will fry now that it's on the bottom. It's best to do it on only one side so you still have an ungreasy side for eating purposes, but I have done it on both sides before and it can be good.
When frying cheese together with other food, make sure to use a lower temperature than with cheese alone so nothing burns. Using a lid helps get the temperature up faster and keeps the temperature more even, and by retaining moisture helps prevent the food from drying out. If you experiment you can find the right fairly low temperature where the cheese will eventually fry wonderfully and nothing burns, and you can walk away and do something else for 15 minutes. Be sure to check back often until you are experienced with the stove and pan you're using.
I think that mixing several kinds of cheese yields the best flavor. Grate several cheeses and place in a large ziploc bag. Inflate the bag and seal it. Shake and "roll" the bag to mix the cheeses together. Voila!
If you don't like the flavor of cheese you won't like fried cheese, because frying intensifies the flavor. On the other hand, if you don't like the texture of cheese, frying changes the texture, so you may like fried cheese even though you don't like plain or melted cheese.
Note: It is best when cooking to cook at the lowest temperature that gets the job done. If you want to brown something, do it at the end if possible, with the majority of the cooking done at a lower temperature. The reason for this is that heat damages food, and the higher the heat, the more damage is done.
High heat:
• creates carcinogens,
• creates trans fats,
• generally breaks down and alters proteins and other parts of the food.
350 degrees Fahrenheit (175 C) is one number I seem to remember from my reading about a good goal temperature for keeping food below, where the damage really starts to occur above that.
If you don't know about trans fats, briefly, they interfere with the body's ability to render carcinogens harmless. They also get integrated into cell walls and throughout the body but have the wrong permeability (and that is a Bad Thing). And the body can't distinguish between trans fats and regular saturated fats so they go everywhere and they stick around. And unlike other health topics where there is disagreement, everyone agrees that there is no safe level of trans fat consumption except zero.
Beware of products that tout "0 grams of trans fat per serving" or even simply "0 grams of trans fat." This means they can have up to 1/2 a gram per serving. If a serving size is 20 grams, that could be 2.5% trans fat!
Cheese is healthier than many people believe because, coming from animal fat, it is higher in saturated fats, which are more resistant to denaturing due to heat, light, and time. The last thing you want to do is deep fry in highly unsaturated (vegetable) oil because you'll be creating carcinogens and trans fats right and left. French fries cooked in vegetable oil are one of the worst foods you could ever eat. At the end of the day, the oil in a fast food's french fry fryer can be more than 30 percent trans. Yuck! If you're going to fry, do it in butter, tropical oils like coconut or palm, or animal fat such as beef tallow. The food will not only be less greasy, but it will taste better. I fry in coconut oil all the time and the food doesn't taste coconutty.
I think I'll post about oils some time and try to cover all this stuff in more detail.
• Select a medium hard cheese. Good examples are Cheddar, firm Mozzarella, Swiss, and Gouda.
- Avoid soft cheeses like Havarti or fresh Mozzarella because of their liquid content--they take much longer to fry and are much more messy.
- Avoid really hard cheeses like Parmesan because they don't melt very well.
• Cut some slices of your selected cheese(s) approximately 1/8th inch thick (3 mm). You can use thicker slices but it will just take longer and will spread out in the pan anyway.
• Put some slices in a frying pan and fry them at medium to high heat. Don't use any cooking oil at all. Adjust heat so frying doesn't go too slowly but you are not getting to unnecessarily high temperatures. Signs of being too hot (much too hot, turn it down!) are smoking, uneven browning, and crackling oil.
• Your fried cheese is ready when it is browned and has hardened some. It is kind of like bacon, being edible from fairly soft through ultra crunchy, and it all depends on personal taste. The cheese when it cools will be harder than when you take it out of the pan. You can get fried cheese to become extremely hard and crunchy if you keep it going long enough (harder than I like).
• Use a spatula to remove the fried cheese to paper towels on a plate and blot away excess oil.
• Eat.
When cheese is fried it goes through some recognizable stages:
• Melting and spreading out
• Bubbling and giving off liquid/oil
• Browning
If you fry a lot of cheese at once, the oil it gives off will slow the frying process. Either fry in small amounts or be ready with a paper towel to blot up oil from the edges of the pan. If you try to blot the cheese directly, you'll just get gooey cheese stuck to the paper.
I don't fry cheese by itself very often. More often, I intentionally put extra cheese in a grilled cheese sandwich or a quesadilla, or I am deliberately uncareful when sprinkling cheese over food so some lands on the pan directly. Depending on the space in the pan and the amount and type of cheese, blotting up excess oil is often mandatory (and helpful to prevent sogging the food). One ends up with a corona of fried cheese stuck to the outside of the item. Yum.
Another way to get fried cheese is to put a slice or sprinkle shredded cheese on the top of a quesadilla or sandwich. Use a lid on the pan to help melt the cheese that's inside and on top. When you flip the sandwich, the melted cheese will fry now that it's on the bottom. It's best to do it on only one side so you still have an ungreasy side for eating purposes, but I have done it on both sides before and it can be good.
When frying cheese together with other food, make sure to use a lower temperature than with cheese alone so nothing burns. Using a lid helps get the temperature up faster and keeps the temperature more even, and by retaining moisture helps prevent the food from drying out. If you experiment you can find the right fairly low temperature where the cheese will eventually fry wonderfully and nothing burns, and you can walk away and do something else for 15 minutes. Be sure to check back often until you are experienced with the stove and pan you're using.
I think that mixing several kinds of cheese yields the best flavor. Grate several cheeses and place in a large ziploc bag. Inflate the bag and seal it. Shake and "roll" the bag to mix the cheeses together. Voila!
If you don't like the flavor of cheese you won't like fried cheese, because frying intensifies the flavor. On the other hand, if you don't like the texture of cheese, frying changes the texture, so you may like fried cheese even though you don't like plain or melted cheese.
Note: It is best when cooking to cook at the lowest temperature that gets the job done. If you want to brown something, do it at the end if possible, with the majority of the cooking done at a lower temperature. The reason for this is that heat damages food, and the higher the heat, the more damage is done.
High heat:
• creates carcinogens,
• creates trans fats,
• generally breaks down and alters proteins and other parts of the food.
350 degrees Fahrenheit (175 C) is one number I seem to remember from my reading about a good goal temperature for keeping food below, where the damage really starts to occur above that.
If you don't know about trans fats, briefly, they interfere with the body's ability to render carcinogens harmless. They also get integrated into cell walls and throughout the body but have the wrong permeability (and that is a Bad Thing). And the body can't distinguish between trans fats and regular saturated fats so they go everywhere and they stick around. And unlike other health topics where there is disagreement, everyone agrees that there is no safe level of trans fat consumption except zero.
Beware of products that tout "0 grams of trans fat per serving" or even simply "0 grams of trans fat." This means they can have up to 1/2 a gram per serving. If a serving size is 20 grams, that could be 2.5% trans fat!
Cheese is healthier than many people believe because, coming from animal fat, it is higher in saturated fats, which are more resistant to denaturing due to heat, light, and time. The last thing you want to do is deep fry in highly unsaturated (vegetable) oil because you'll be creating carcinogens and trans fats right and left. French fries cooked in vegetable oil are one of the worst foods you could ever eat. At the end of the day, the oil in a fast food's french fry fryer can be more than 30 percent trans. Yuck! If you're going to fry, do it in butter, tropical oils like coconut or palm, or animal fat such as beef tallow. The food will not only be less greasy, but it will taste better. I fry in coconut oil all the time and the food doesn't taste coconutty.
I think I'll post about oils some time and try to cover all this stuff in more detail.
Stress Affects Different People in Different Ways
My son is having heart surgery this coming Thursday (September 13, 2007).
I don't consciously feel very tense or worried, but I am finding myself doing things that indicate I am preoccupied or distracted:
• I thought I'd left my cell phone at home. I even left a message for someone I needed to contact saying that she had to leave a message for me at home because I forgot it today. And then, there it is on my belt clip.
• I tried to call someone, forgetting my bluetooth headset was connected to the phone, and three times I couldn't figure out why I wasn't getting any sound.
• I couldn't find my badge at work today, so at the cafeteria I had to have the lady punch in my employee number. Only, someone had found my badge and given it to me earlier in the day and I was wearing it. No wonder the woman didn't need me to confirm my name after she punched in the number. Bleh.
I did have some moisture in my eyes today thinking about the possibility of losing him, but I definitely cope with the stress in a different way than my wife.
She seems to be more in touch with her feelings and for some months, as long as we've known about his surgery date, has cried a little from time to time. She worries about this being a sign of weakness, but it's not. There's a place for appropriate emotion about things. I was actually more concerned about myself and that I wasn't feeling it enough. But I'm just a different person. And a man, too, who compartmentalizes fairly well.
I don't consciously feel very tense or worried, but I am finding myself doing things that indicate I am preoccupied or distracted:
• I thought I'd left my cell phone at home. I even left a message for someone I needed to contact saying that she had to leave a message for me at home because I forgot it today. And then, there it is on my belt clip.
• I tried to call someone, forgetting my bluetooth headset was connected to the phone, and three times I couldn't figure out why I wasn't getting any sound.
• I couldn't find my badge at work today, so at the cafeteria I had to have the lady punch in my employee number. Only, someone had found my badge and given it to me earlier in the day and I was wearing it. No wonder the woman didn't need me to confirm my name after she punched in the number. Bleh.
I did have some moisture in my eyes today thinking about the possibility of losing him, but I definitely cope with the stress in a different way than my wife.
She seems to be more in touch with her feelings and for some months, as long as we've known about his surgery date, has cried a little from time to time. She worries about this being a sign of weakness, but it's not. There's a place for appropriate emotion about things. I was actually more concerned about myself and that I wasn't feeling it enough. But I'm just a different person. And a man, too, who compartmentalizes fairly well.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Co-Sleeping With a Baby Is Not a Good Idea
Subtitle: "How To Construct A Torture Chamber Out Of Your Own Bed"
I love my son. I wanted to do every good thing for him.
I did research about the dangers of co-sleeping, and found that unless the adult is intoxicated or ill, there is essentially zero danger to the infant, as we have subconscious awareness even during sleep. The same thing that keeps adults from falling out of bed in their sleep also keeps them from crushing a baby.
Thinking of some emotional benefit he could reap from being close to us (and also thinking of not having to get out of bed to tend to him) we tried let him sleep in our king size bed, right in the middle.
There was plenty of room. We used rolled towels folded in with sheets to give him a little edged bowl that was his own. He stayed in that place pretty well--infants don't really move much at all, let alone in their sleep, so the rolled towels were adequate.
But now, 16 months later, I wish ever so much that we hadn't done that. Now my son thinks his place is in our bed.
Every night, we put him to sleep in the playpen. (The crib experiment failed miserably and I have yet to do it again--ask me some other time about what happened). Then, somewhere during the night, he wakes up. No big deal. All children do. And we're working on putting into practice the principles from the book The No-Cry Sleep Solution, so there's hope. So that'll be good, some day. And often I can get him to go back to sleep and I put him right back in the playpen.
But then he wakes up again. Then again. And again. And again. And again. I notate the hours I've seen. 11. 12. 3. 3 again. 3 again. 4. 5. His ability to wake up surpasses my ability to tolerate putting him back to sleep. He DOES NOT WANT to be in the playpen. It's not his place, he thinks. So eventually I give in because I'm tired of leaping up to console and placate and tease him back to sleep, and I put him in our bed. The sheet/towel thing is long gone.
There the real torture begins. The whimpering and moaning and crying in his sleep, which awakens me but not him (he's teething). The kicking--he loves to get his feet on one of us and kick and prod. The hand smacking me in the face. The climbing on top of me or my pillow or my face. The very real danger of a vicious head-butt to the nose (poise hard and heavy weight called child's head above face, now child has just to fall over--and falling is a frequent activity by toddlers). The sheet pulling. Put him on top of the sheet and he manages to kick the sheet down. Put the sheet over him and he even more quickly rolls over and tangles in it and then wakes me up.
I've only repaired to the couch once so far. But I've seriously considered it again several times since then.
Our next child is going to sleep in a crib. All the time. Avoiding torturing the parents is a very valuable emotional advantage for a child. Just think of all the potential benefit to the child from having parents who aren't in a bad mood because of that child!
Think very carefully before you let your child sleep in your bed.
P.S. I confess that I haven't very carefully done everything in that book I linked above, so don't knock the book at all when you contemplate our failure to get our son to sleep through the night. I'm sure there's probably something in there that will help. I haven't even finished the book.
We also bought the second book that talks about getting toddlers to sleep, and it has even more detail and ideas. My wife is reading it, and so far we're pretty sure my son is actually suffering from sleep deprivation and we need to put him to bed earlier every night. Now, I haven't read it yet, but I think that pretty soon I'm going to make it a priority. (I've just been distracted with reading some older Andre Norton novels.)
I love my son. I wanted to do every good thing for him.
I did research about the dangers of co-sleeping, and found that unless the adult is intoxicated or ill, there is essentially zero danger to the infant, as we have subconscious awareness even during sleep. The same thing that keeps adults from falling out of bed in their sleep also keeps them from crushing a baby.
Thinking of some emotional benefit he could reap from being close to us (and also thinking of not having to get out of bed to tend to him) we tried let him sleep in our king size bed, right in the middle.
There was plenty of room. We used rolled towels folded in with sheets to give him a little edged bowl that was his own. He stayed in that place pretty well--infants don't really move much at all, let alone in their sleep, so the rolled towels were adequate.
But now, 16 months later, I wish ever so much that we hadn't done that. Now my son thinks his place is in our bed.
Every night, we put him to sleep in the playpen. (The crib experiment failed miserably and I have yet to do it again--ask me some other time about what happened). Then, somewhere during the night, he wakes up. No big deal. All children do. And we're working on putting into practice the principles from the book The No-Cry Sleep Solution, so there's hope. So that'll be good, some day. And often I can get him to go back to sleep and I put him right back in the playpen.
But then he wakes up again. Then again. And again. And again. And again. I notate the hours I've seen. 11. 12. 3. 3 again. 3 again. 4. 5. His ability to wake up surpasses my ability to tolerate putting him back to sleep. He DOES NOT WANT to be in the playpen. It's not his place, he thinks. So eventually I give in because I'm tired of leaping up to console and placate and tease him back to sleep, and I put him in our bed. The sheet/towel thing is long gone.
There the real torture begins. The whimpering and moaning and crying in his sleep, which awakens me but not him (he's teething). The kicking--he loves to get his feet on one of us and kick and prod. The hand smacking me in the face. The climbing on top of me or my pillow or my face. The very real danger of a vicious head-butt to the nose (poise hard and heavy weight called child's head above face, now child has just to fall over--and falling is a frequent activity by toddlers). The sheet pulling. Put him on top of the sheet and he manages to kick the sheet down. Put the sheet over him and he even more quickly rolls over and tangles in it and then wakes me up.
I've only repaired to the couch once so far. But I've seriously considered it again several times since then.
Our next child is going to sleep in a crib. All the time. Avoiding torturing the parents is a very valuable emotional advantage for a child. Just think of all the potential benefit to the child from having parents who aren't in a bad mood because of that child!
Think very carefully before you let your child sleep in your bed.
P.S. I confess that I haven't very carefully done everything in that book I linked above, so don't knock the book at all when you contemplate our failure to get our son to sleep through the night. I'm sure there's probably something in there that will help. I haven't even finished the book.
We also bought the second book that talks about getting toddlers to sleep, and it has even more detail and ideas. My wife is reading it, and so far we're pretty sure my son is actually suffering from sleep deprivation and we need to put him to bed earlier every night. Now, I haven't read it yet, but I think that pretty soon I'm going to make it a priority. (I've just been distracted with reading some older Andre Norton novels.)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Reflective Magnification
Cranky toddlers make me cranky. Perhaps I should say cranky toddler makes me cranky. Since I have only one.
I'm working on this character flaw. And it's a really weird one. I seem to have some kind of problem about overdone behavior. And what I do in the face of it, is engage in overdone behavior. Oh, it feels all justified and right and not overdone when I'm doing it. But after examining it carefully later, I can see it.
Someone deletes a forum thread that I started, and I think they were overreacting. Then I overreact and post a new thread about how much I detested the deletion.
My wife gets a little irritated with a cranky toddler who ought to be going to sleep and isn't, and I get all upset that she's upset. A short time later when she's stopped being upset, and the boy is sound asleep, I'm still out of kilter.
Some coward posts nasty comments to my technical blog (he or she posted anonymously) and I feel I have to use all the wits at my disposal to defend myself and make the person look foolish. Mission probably accomplished (gratuitously insulting people generally makes one look foolish all by itself). But why the heat? Why the overreaction? Have I now been the foolish one by insulting back, though more sophisticatedly? Even if it wasn't gratuitous?
I have some real thinking to do about this. I've seen it a lot lately. I don't think it's because I'm really doing it more, but that I'm seeing it more.
I know I have some real hot buttons around fairness and basic "niceness." And yes I know that's a really blah way to put it, but I haven't really come up with a better way. The fact is, I like to be nice. I like people to be nice. When I feel people aren't being nice, I behave not nicely. The problem is, that isn't nice. What it is is hypocritical.
I've got to stop reflecting what's hurled at me, reflecting and magnifying it.
I'm working on this character flaw. And it's a really weird one. I seem to have some kind of problem about overdone behavior. And what I do in the face of it, is engage in overdone behavior. Oh, it feels all justified and right and not overdone when I'm doing it. But after examining it carefully later, I can see it.
Someone deletes a forum thread that I started, and I think they were overreacting. Then I overreact and post a new thread about how much I detested the deletion.
My wife gets a little irritated with a cranky toddler who ought to be going to sleep and isn't, and I get all upset that she's upset. A short time later when she's stopped being upset, and the boy is sound asleep, I'm still out of kilter.
Some coward posts nasty comments to my technical blog (he or she posted anonymously) and I feel I have to use all the wits at my disposal to defend myself and make the person look foolish. Mission probably accomplished (gratuitously insulting people generally makes one look foolish all by itself). But why the heat? Why the overreaction? Have I now been the foolish one by insulting back, though more sophisticatedly? Even if it wasn't gratuitous?
I have some real thinking to do about this. I've seen it a lot lately. I don't think it's because I'm really doing it more, but that I'm seeing it more.
I know I have some real hot buttons around fairness and basic "niceness." And yes I know that's a really blah way to put it, but I haven't really come up with a better way. The fact is, I like to be nice. I like people to be nice. When I feel people aren't being nice, I behave not nicely. The problem is, that isn't nice. What it is is hypocritical.
I've got to stop reflecting what's hurled at me, reflecting and magnifying it.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
My Kind of Humor
I admit that I like clever phrases and sayings. And I like the kind of humor that makes a person think in order to understand the joke. So today I invented the following (hopefully) humorous saying:
- A creature's liquid output is chronologically linked with its liquid input
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)