Just a quick word of thanks to Brian B.
He has been a friend and an inspiration in my religious growth.
Thanks Brian, for being one of those life long friends that we always see in the movies and no one thinks is real. Thanks for helping me move all those times, for keeping my head on straight, for the rides, putting up with my Psycho Ex Girlfrineds, My rambeling, for gaming and for being a great friend. If your as good as one tenth the father to your son, as the friend you have been, then the kid is gonna turn out pretty good.
Just One More Thing...
DONT FIRE ROCKET LAUNCHERS AT GUARD DOGS!!!
.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Smallholder
Every morning, after I've checked my comments and my tracvkbacks and my email, the very first other Blog I usually go read is Naked Villainy. Maximum Leader has a real talent for writing and is an erudite fellow. Smallholder is equally interesting to read, as he has knowledge of arcane subjects which I find interesting -- agriculture, et6c. And while I usually disagree with his political views, I respect him for being a man of convictions. He has extended me the same courtesy. Today I feel the need to take greater exception than normal with one of his posts, and to more mildly disagree with two others.
The post with which I take exception is this dig at the Pope. Now, I'm not one to fall back merely on the defense "Don't speak ill of the dead". I'll speak ill of those deserving ill speech, and speak well of those deserving praise, be they dead or alive. What I do find troublesome about the post is argument that the Pope's decision about his own death is somehow incongruous with JP II's stance on the Terri Schiavo case.
Now, if I agreed with Smallholder on every point of the Schiavo case, I'd have to agree with him about the Pope. But I don't. I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't agree. For the Pope's stance to have been hypocritical, Il Papa would have had to reach the same conclusion that Terri was dead and unsaveable. Take SH's comment Surely he had more "life" to be held in sanctity than a woman with spinal fluid where her cerebral cortex ought to have been. While this conclusion is Smallholder's firm assertion, while it is Michael Schiavo's firm conviction, and while it was the judge's firm conviction and thus legal ruling, it was not an undisputed point. A great many people did not believe this to be the case, and for them, there is no moral conflict between a desire to give Teri a chance and a personal choice not to prolong their own lives past hope. The crux of the matter is that if you don't believe Terri needed heroic measures (whether you were correct in this belief or not), then that's different from choosing to forego heroic measures.
Furthermore, there is the question of whether or not the choice made for Terri was her own. Again, Smallholder believes it was. Many do not. While that assertion is open to debate, the Popes decision on his own behalf is not.
Finally, I find this comment troubling: But perhaps, at the very end, he realized he could not follow those convictions into a prolonged death struggle.
Two points. First, I do think that this is a bit if an unkind dig at a man who was dealing with a terrible illness, an illness I hope Smallholder never suffers. Secondly, I seem to recall that many of those who agree with Smallholder regarding the Schiavo case (and perhaps even SH himself, I can't remember) argued that the efforts to keep Terri alive were motivated by a fear of death, an unwillingness to accept immortality. But this comment seems to imply that JP II's decision was to embrace death out of a fear of facing prolonged suffering in life. So my question to Smallholder, and to other potetnial Papal detractors, is this: If is was cowardice to prolong life, and it was cowardice to refrain prolonging life, how was His Holiness to please you? Not that that was ever his goal....
Regarding two other Smallholder posts:
As for the media. Smallholder would sarcastically have us believe that current news coverage of the awarding of a Congressional Medal of Honor is proof that the Media is not biased in its coverage of Iraq. I shall avoid relying solely on the old maxim that the exception proves the rule, because that alone would be a weak argument. I will, however, point out that the first presentation of our nation's highest military honor in twelve years is quite a newsworthy event, and not something the media could easily ignore. As for front page news, I'm curious as to which paper and which day. Today'sRed Register Guard certainly didn't place it there (Although they do have an interesting and highly important story of a man trapped in an elevator for four days). It would be easy to argue that the every day acts of bravery that fails to meet CMH criteria is the reason those acts are not reported upon, to which I would respond by asking why every day acts of cowardice and savagery are deemed more noteworthy?
As for the debate on the merits of recovering the dead during combat:
Smallholder's points are at least worthy of consideration. So are the points of those who disagree with him, as well as those who agree. I'm just curious to hear input from one other, very important point of view: The guys who actually have to carry out this policy. I don't know any of these bloggers well enough to know if they're service veterans, let alone combat vets. But when it comes to this policy, it seems to me that their opinion should weigh heavily. Now, normally I am reticent to weigh in on issues having to do with the combat experience, because I am a career civilian. However, on this topic I think I've learned enough military history to have an opinion.
Smallholder's original argument against the policy (Whether this is the entire crux of his objection or not) was that he would be reticent as an officer to send other men in to die to recover a body, and further, to have to tell the families of those new dead why their son died: to recover a corpse.
I'd like to address the second part of the equation first. I find this expression of concern for the families of the dead somewhat inconcruous with the previous statement "Private Snuffy was dead and his family would have to grieve, with or without the shell." which seems somewhat (if unintentionally) cavalier. Any combat death is a tragedy, and should be treated with as much dignity and respect and compassion as possible. They should also be avoided if possible. But in warfare, deaths occur. That is the nature of the beast. If the goal acheived, or at least striven for, is worthy of the sacrifice, soldiers must be, and almost always are, willing to make that sacrifice, and officers must be willing to send them to that doom, as hard a choice as it may be.
Which brings us to the question of whether or not recovering a fallen camrade's body is a worthy enough cause to warrant another soldier's death. To answer that question, we must first ask and answer the question of what good the recovery does? Why do we not abandon our dead?
Smallholder and Ally argue that it's all about "Honor and Dignity", and assail these concepts as moot in the case of the dead. Bill, in arguing against this position, focuses on the needs of the individual dying, and his family, to know he'll be honored in death. I think he's on to something here, but I also believe he falls a bit short.
I agree with Bill that it is not asinine to recover the dead. But I go a bit further in my reason why. It is not for the sake of the dead man in his dying, nor for his family, that I believe our military holds this policy. And while I do believe that Honor has something to do with it, I do not believe, as SH and Ally do, that it's honor for honor's sake alone -- some hidebound tradition without reason. Ultimately, I believe that we adhere to this policy, that we display this honor, for the sake of the living soldiers, for the sake of those who may become the dead, as well as for the sake of those who will be called on to risk and even give their own lives to recover those dead.
If you spend any amount of time reading the annals and recollections of combat veterans, if you have watched their interviews, one thing sticks out in your mind. While they were recruited with varying degrees of willingness, for a multitude of causes, and fought under a thousand banners, they all seem to agree on this thing. When the drums roll, and the trumpets sound, and the swords clash, and the bombs drop, and the shells explode, and the bullets fly, and the blood flows, they have all fought for the same reason: They fight for the man to their left and the man to their right.
It's the inspiration of all good soldiers, not just the title of a miniseries: They're a band of brothers. They fight, kill, and die to protect and support each other. They rely on each other, trust each other. Even though it's a bond forged in battle and thus dissolves to some extent with the peace, in ways this bond is a vow more binding than the marriage vow: I'm married to my wife "till death do us part". Soldiers are bound to each other even in death. This is why they do not leave their dead behind. And this is why I believe (though any vets out their are as always welcome to correct me) that they are not only willing to, but believe strongly that they should, risk their own lives to recover the bodies of their fallen buddies. And if we release them from this obligation, furthermore, if an officer by his orders bars them from carrying out this obligation, that vow has been broken. They have not kept the faith, they have broken the bonds of brotherhood that bind even in death. And if that vow, which has been made can be broken in death, what's to keep the bond in life? The foundation of trust and honor which keeps good soldiers fighting for each other has been eroded. And in the end, soldiers who cannot trust each other cannot defend each other. And if they cannot defend each other, they cannot survive. And that is why, I believe, the living risk their lives to honor the dead.
Oh, as an aside to Smallholder: Congratulations on the birth of your sheep's twins.
The post with which I take exception is this dig at the Pope. Now, I'm not one to fall back merely on the defense "Don't speak ill of the dead". I'll speak ill of those deserving ill speech, and speak well of those deserving praise, be they dead or alive. What I do find troublesome about the post is argument that the Pope's decision about his own death is somehow incongruous with JP II's stance on the Terri Schiavo case.
Now, if I agreed with Smallholder on every point of the Schiavo case, I'd have to agree with him about the Pope. But I don't. I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't agree. For the Pope's stance to have been hypocritical, Il Papa would have had to reach the same conclusion that Terri was dead and unsaveable. Take SH's comment Surely he had more "life" to be held in sanctity than a woman with spinal fluid where her cerebral cortex ought to have been. While this conclusion is Smallholder's firm assertion, while it is Michael Schiavo's firm conviction, and while it was the judge's firm conviction and thus legal ruling, it was not an undisputed point. A great many people did not believe this to be the case, and for them, there is no moral conflict between a desire to give Teri a chance and a personal choice not to prolong their own lives past hope. The crux of the matter is that if you don't believe Terri needed heroic measures (whether you were correct in this belief or not), then that's different from choosing to forego heroic measures.
Furthermore, there is the question of whether or not the choice made for Terri was her own. Again, Smallholder believes it was. Many do not. While that assertion is open to debate, the Popes decision on his own behalf is not.
Finally, I find this comment troubling: But perhaps, at the very end, he realized he could not follow those convictions into a prolonged death struggle.
Two points. First, I do think that this is a bit if an unkind dig at a man who was dealing with a terrible illness, an illness I hope Smallholder never suffers. Secondly, I seem to recall that many of those who agree with Smallholder regarding the Schiavo case (and perhaps even SH himself, I can't remember) argued that the efforts to keep Terri alive were motivated by a fear of death, an unwillingness to accept immortality. But this comment seems to imply that JP II's decision was to embrace death out of a fear of facing prolonged suffering in life. So my question to Smallholder, and to other potetnial Papal detractors, is this: If is was cowardice to prolong life, and it was cowardice to refrain prolonging life, how was His Holiness to please you? Not that that was ever his goal....
Regarding two other Smallholder posts:
As for the media. Smallholder would sarcastically have us believe that current news coverage of the awarding of a Congressional Medal of Honor is proof that the Media is not biased in its coverage of Iraq. I shall avoid relying solely on the old maxim that the exception proves the rule, because that alone would be a weak argument. I will, however, point out that the first presentation of our nation's highest military honor in twelve years is quite a newsworthy event, and not something the media could easily ignore. As for front page news, I'm curious as to which paper and which day. Today's
As for the debate on the merits of recovering the dead during combat:
Smallholder's points are at least worthy of consideration. So are the points of those who disagree with him, as well as those who agree. I'm just curious to hear input from one other, very important point of view: The guys who actually have to carry out this policy. I don't know any of these bloggers well enough to know if they're service veterans, let alone combat vets. But when it comes to this policy, it seems to me that their opinion should weigh heavily. Now, normally I am reticent to weigh in on issues having to do with the combat experience, because I am a career civilian. However, on this topic I think I've learned enough military history to have an opinion.
Smallholder's original argument against the policy (Whether this is the entire crux of his objection or not) was that he would be reticent as an officer to send other men in to die to recover a body, and further, to have to tell the families of those new dead why their son died: to recover a corpse.
I'd like to address the second part of the equation first. I find this expression of concern for the families of the dead somewhat inconcruous with the previous statement "Private Snuffy was dead and his family would have to grieve, with or without the shell." which seems somewhat (if unintentionally) cavalier. Any combat death is a tragedy, and should be treated with as much dignity and respect and compassion as possible. They should also be avoided if possible. But in warfare, deaths occur. That is the nature of the beast. If the goal acheived, or at least striven for, is worthy of the sacrifice, soldiers must be, and almost always are, willing to make that sacrifice, and officers must be willing to send them to that doom, as hard a choice as it may be.
Which brings us to the question of whether or not recovering a fallen camrade's body is a worthy enough cause to warrant another soldier's death. To answer that question, we must first ask and answer the question of what good the recovery does? Why do we not abandon our dead?
Smallholder and Ally argue that it's all about "Honor and Dignity", and assail these concepts as moot in the case of the dead. Bill, in arguing against this position, focuses on the needs of the individual dying, and his family, to know he'll be honored in death. I think he's on to something here, but I also believe he falls a bit short.
I agree with Bill that it is not asinine to recover the dead. But I go a bit further in my reason why. It is not for the sake of the dead man in his dying, nor for his family, that I believe our military holds this policy. And while I do believe that Honor has something to do with it, I do not believe, as SH and Ally do, that it's honor for honor's sake alone -- some hidebound tradition without reason. Ultimately, I believe that we adhere to this policy, that we display this honor, for the sake of the living soldiers, for the sake of those who may become the dead, as well as for the sake of those who will be called on to risk and even give their own lives to recover those dead.
If you spend any amount of time reading the annals and recollections of combat veterans, if you have watched their interviews, one thing sticks out in your mind. While they were recruited with varying degrees of willingness, for a multitude of causes, and fought under a thousand banners, they all seem to agree on this thing. When the drums roll, and the trumpets sound, and the swords clash, and the bombs drop, and the shells explode, and the bullets fly, and the blood flows, they have all fought for the same reason: They fight for the man to their left and the man to their right.
It's the inspiration of all good soldiers, not just the title of a miniseries: They're a band of brothers. They fight, kill, and die to protect and support each other. They rely on each other, trust each other. Even though it's a bond forged in battle and thus dissolves to some extent with the peace, in ways this bond is a vow more binding than the marriage vow: I'm married to my wife "till death do us part". Soldiers are bound to each other even in death. This is why they do not leave their dead behind. And this is why I believe (though any vets out their are as always welcome to correct me) that they are not only willing to, but believe strongly that they should, risk their own lives to recover the bodies of their fallen buddies. And if we release them from this obligation, furthermore, if an officer by his orders bars them from carrying out this obligation, that vow has been broken. They have not kept the faith, they have broken the bonds of brotherhood that bind even in death. And if that vow, which has been made can be broken in death, what's to keep the bond in life? The foundation of trust and honor which keeps good soldiers fighting for each other has been eroded. And in the end, soldiers who cannot trust each other cannot defend each other. And if they cannot defend each other, they cannot survive. And that is why, I believe, the living risk their lives to honor the dead.
Oh, as an aside to Smallholder: Congratulations on the birth of your sheep's twins.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Bad Uncle, Good Aunt
Yesterday was my nephew's 5th birthday, and I forgot it. I feel incredibly guilty, and want to make it up to him (he's halfway across the country). Suggestions?
UPDATE:
Here's a good suggestion. Be married to a woman who remembered for you.
UPDATE:
Here's a good suggestion. Be married to a woman who remembered for you.
Home (State) Cooking
I realized last night that it has been quite some time since I posted anything of substance, and that it has also been quite some time since I blogged on two of my favorite topics: My beloved home state, and cooking. I shall endeavor to kill three birds with one stone.
Now, for a long time, there was no "Oregon Cuisine" to speak of, at least not in restaurants. We have been an economically poor state for some time, and were predominantly rural as well. This didn't lend itself to a commercial gourmet identity. But there was a foundation waiting to be built upon, and recently some Oregon chefs have started to build on it. Most notable of these is Caprial Pence.
To understand a region's cuisine, you must look at its history and culture. And to understand Oregon's history and culture, one must start with a three-word phrase: The Oregon Trail.
The Oregon Trail was the largest voluntary land migration in recorded history. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 people made the arduous crossing from Independence, Missouri, to the Willamette Valley. Just like the nation it became the 33rd state of, Oregon was founded by immigrants. But there's a catch. Most of the immigrants who came to Oregon came from America itself. So while old families in the east can say that their ancestors came from Germany or England or Ireland, many old Oregon families can say that our ancestors came from Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Maine, or Virginia. The implication for our culture, and our cuisine, should be obvious. It is derived directly from the cuisines of the regions from which those original settlers came. You’ll find Southern influences, Midwestern influences, and New England influences. And often you’ll find an amalgam of all these. In addition, because of the Spartan conditions on the trail, most settlers arrived here with very little left in the way of foodstuffs. So while they brought their recipes with them, they had to modify them to use local ingredients.
Luckily for these early Oregonians, there were plenty of local ingredients from which to choose. The Pacific Northwest was (and still is to a lesser extent) teeming with game, seafood, and wild edible plants. These too added their influence to Oregon food, as did the indigenous people who had used them for centuries. We became addicted to salmon and crab, halibut and rockfish and clams and venison and elk and trout.
Another way that the Oregon Trail influenced our cuisine is in the very reason for the migration: arable land. Every year the Willamette River and its tributaries carry tons of rich, dark volcanic soil down from the mountains into the valley where is becomes some of the most fertile farmland in the nation. Over the years, the very foodstuffs that the settlers and their descendants have grown for sale to other places have also become inextricably tied to our own diets: berries, pears, mint, potatoes and onions, milk and cheese, winter wheat, filberts (hazelnuts to people who live where they’re not grown). Recently the big player in this has been wine.
There have been other influences as well. Later eaves of immigration brought people directly from other countries, so there are direct ethnic influences as well, sometimes localized in specific communities – Junction City, just north of Eugene, is Scandinavian. Mt. Angel outside of Salem is very German. As part of the Ring of Fire, there’s also a strong Asian influence.
I have become more and more aware of this as, after returning to my home state as an adult, I have attempted to develop recipes and dishes and meals that have a distinctly Oregon flavor. I have tried to take two different tacks: One is to take recipes with origins in other regions, states, and countries, and replace key ingredients with Oregon products. My Beef Oregonian is one example of this. The other approach has been to start with a main Oregon ingredient, and build a recipe around it. My efforts so far have produced few recipes, but those I have developed make me proud.
And so, bearing all of this in mind, I would like to submit a good spring/summer grilling recipe, with an Oregon flavor to it:
Brian’s Filbert Encrusted Steelhead
This dish is a variation on a method for cooking fish, especially salmon and steelhead, that has been used by indigenous peoples in the Northwest for centuries. I have added a modern Oregon twist to it. I prefer steelhead, but you could also use salmon (steelhead is not a salmon; it is a subspecies of rainbow trout). Top preference in this case goes to Coho, but use farm salmon if you must.
This is definitely a dish best served over a grill, though you can use an oven if necessary. If you use a grill, use an aromatic wood on the grill. The native tree favored for such grilling here in the Northwest is alder, though oak or apple would work too. Avoid mesquite or hickory, as these are not native to the Northwest. Absolutely necessary for the recipe are four untreated cedar planks, thoroughly soaked with water. Originally the Indians pegged the salmon to these boards, but we will alter that method slightly, for reasons that will become plain later.
The recipe calls for:
4 steelhead filets, skin on, 6-8 oz.
1 cup finely chopped raw filberts
1 cup honey
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon finely chopped dill weed
1 lemon, quartered
4 sprigs dill weed for garnish
Mince the garlic as finely as possible. The dill weed should also be finely chopped. Mix both with the honey. Place the steelhead filets on the cedar planks, skin down. Lightly sprinkle them with lemon, then salt and pepper to taste. Spread the honey mixture over the steelhead until it is completely coated. Sprinkle the chopped filberts on top until they completely encrust the tops of the filets. Place the planks on the grill or in a 300 degree oven, close the grill lid and cook until the flesh of the fish is firm. The filberts should be slightly toasted and the honey should be caramelized at the edges.
Plating suggestions:
Leave the steelhead on the planks, garnish with more dill weed.
Side dishes that will go well with this dish and give a further PNW flavor would be:
Fried russet potatoes (what did you think the “ORE” in “ORE-IDA” stood for?). Do not peel. Slice into rounds and fry with slices of sweet yellow onions – Oregon Hood Rivers or Washington Walla Wallas. Simple seasoning is the best – salt, pepper, maybe paprika.
A Northwest-influenced salad: cranberries, mixed greens, pears, and more filberts with a raspberry vinaigrette.
I prefer a soft red wine with salmon and steelhead, not white. You might try a blush, I never have. If you do, a good Pinot Noir Blanc, if you can get it, is almost as complex as a straight P.N., but is more refreshing in summer (note to fellow Oregonians: Saginaw Vineyards, between Eugene and Cottage Grove just off I-5, makes one that rocks). Of course the natural match for Oregon wines would be Pinot Noir. Otherwise a Shiraz or Syrah might also work, but I haven’t tried them.
Now, for a long time, there was no "Oregon Cuisine" to speak of, at least not in restaurants. We have been an economically poor state for some time, and were predominantly rural as well. This didn't lend itself to a commercial gourmet identity. But there was a foundation waiting to be built upon, and recently some Oregon chefs have started to build on it. Most notable of these is Caprial Pence.
To understand a region's cuisine, you must look at its history and culture. And to understand Oregon's history and culture, one must start with a three-word phrase: The Oregon Trail.
The Oregon Trail was the largest voluntary land migration in recorded history. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 people made the arduous crossing from Independence, Missouri, to the Willamette Valley. Just like the nation it became the 33rd state of, Oregon was founded by immigrants. But there's a catch. Most of the immigrants who came to Oregon came from America itself. So while old families in the east can say that their ancestors came from Germany or England or Ireland, many old Oregon families can say that our ancestors came from Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Maine, or Virginia. The implication for our culture, and our cuisine, should be obvious. It is derived directly from the cuisines of the regions from which those original settlers came. You’ll find Southern influences, Midwestern influences, and New England influences. And often you’ll find an amalgam of all these. In addition, because of the Spartan conditions on the trail, most settlers arrived here with very little left in the way of foodstuffs. So while they brought their recipes with them, they had to modify them to use local ingredients.
Luckily for these early Oregonians, there were plenty of local ingredients from which to choose. The Pacific Northwest was (and still is to a lesser extent) teeming with game, seafood, and wild edible plants. These too added their influence to Oregon food, as did the indigenous people who had used them for centuries. We became addicted to salmon and crab, halibut and rockfish and clams and venison and elk and trout.
Another way that the Oregon Trail influenced our cuisine is in the very reason for the migration: arable land. Every year the Willamette River and its tributaries carry tons of rich, dark volcanic soil down from the mountains into the valley where is becomes some of the most fertile farmland in the nation. Over the years, the very foodstuffs that the settlers and their descendants have grown for sale to other places have also become inextricably tied to our own diets: berries, pears, mint, potatoes and onions, milk and cheese, winter wheat, filberts (hazelnuts to people who live where they’re not grown). Recently the big player in this has been wine.
There have been other influences as well. Later eaves of immigration brought people directly from other countries, so there are direct ethnic influences as well, sometimes localized in specific communities – Junction City, just north of Eugene, is Scandinavian. Mt. Angel outside of Salem is very German. As part of the Ring of Fire, there’s also a strong Asian influence.
I have become more and more aware of this as, after returning to my home state as an adult, I have attempted to develop recipes and dishes and meals that have a distinctly Oregon flavor. I have tried to take two different tacks: One is to take recipes with origins in other regions, states, and countries, and replace key ingredients with Oregon products. My Beef Oregonian is one example of this. The other approach has been to start with a main Oregon ingredient, and build a recipe around it. My efforts so far have produced few recipes, but those I have developed make me proud.
And so, bearing all of this in mind, I would like to submit a good spring/summer grilling recipe, with an Oregon flavor to it:
Brian’s Filbert Encrusted Steelhead
This dish is a variation on a method for cooking fish, especially salmon and steelhead, that has been used by indigenous peoples in the Northwest for centuries. I have added a modern Oregon twist to it. I prefer steelhead, but you could also use salmon (steelhead is not a salmon; it is a subspecies of rainbow trout). Top preference in this case goes to Coho, but use farm salmon if you must.
This is definitely a dish best served over a grill, though you can use an oven if necessary. If you use a grill, use an aromatic wood on the grill. The native tree favored for such grilling here in the Northwest is alder, though oak or apple would work too. Avoid mesquite or hickory, as these are not native to the Northwest. Absolutely necessary for the recipe are four untreated cedar planks, thoroughly soaked with water. Originally the Indians pegged the salmon to these boards, but we will alter that method slightly, for reasons that will become plain later.
The recipe calls for:
4 steelhead filets, skin on, 6-8 oz.
1 cup finely chopped raw filberts
1 cup honey
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon finely chopped dill weed
1 lemon, quartered
4 sprigs dill weed for garnish
Mince the garlic as finely as possible. The dill weed should also be finely chopped. Mix both with the honey. Place the steelhead filets on the cedar planks, skin down. Lightly sprinkle them with lemon, then salt and pepper to taste. Spread the honey mixture over the steelhead until it is completely coated. Sprinkle the chopped filberts on top until they completely encrust the tops of the filets. Place the planks on the grill or in a 300 degree oven, close the grill lid and cook until the flesh of the fish is firm. The filberts should be slightly toasted and the honey should be caramelized at the edges.
Plating suggestions:
Leave the steelhead on the planks, garnish with more dill weed.
Side dishes that will go well with this dish and give a further PNW flavor would be:
Fried russet potatoes (what did you think the “ORE” in “ORE-IDA” stood for?). Do not peel. Slice into rounds and fry with slices of sweet yellow onions – Oregon Hood Rivers or Washington Walla Wallas. Simple seasoning is the best – salt, pepper, maybe paprika.
A Northwest-influenced salad: cranberries, mixed greens, pears, and more filberts with a raspberry vinaigrette.
I prefer a soft red wine with salmon and steelhead, not white. You might try a blush, I never have. If you do, a good Pinot Noir Blanc, if you can get it, is almost as complex as a straight P.N., but is more refreshing in summer (note to fellow Oregonians: Saginaw Vineyards, between Eugene and Cottage Grove just off I-5, makes one that rocks). Of course the natural match for Oregon wines would be Pinot Noir. Otherwise a Shiraz or Syrah might also work, but I haven’t tried them.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Speaker for the Read
Book Lists. Just about everyone's got 'em. Books you want to read, books you have read and recommend others read, books your mom or dad read to you... The list of lists goes on.
Well, I have a list. Or two or three, actually. But in this case, I'm referring to one specific list. It isn't actually codified, or fixed, but it's a running tally in my head. Let's call it my list of shame. This is a list of books that I not only WANT to read, but am ashamed to admit never HAVE read. Let's not go into all of the entries, or you might lose all respect for me.
There are many books on this list. Some are books I believe EVERYONE should read, or at least be familiar with. Others are genre specific -- books that should be read if you consider yourself a fan of a given genre.
Well, this week I get to cross a book off of the latter list. It's a book that I have long had an interest in, but finally my good friend Brian (aka Lurch in the comments) gave me as a gift on his recent visit. I started reading it Monday night, read it on the bus and on breaks yesterday, and polished it off last night.
As a long time Sci Fi fan, particularly military Sci Fi, I am ashamed to say that it took me until my 36th year to be able to proudly say, I have read Ender's Game. What a read!
I have to admit that there were a couple of things that disappointed me. One of them was the ease with which I deduced a couple of plot twists that were supposed to be surprises (I won't spoil it for anyone by saying which ones). The other was that I struggled with a suspension of disbelief in accepting some of the dialogue, both internal and external, as being consistent with the age of the characters, regardless of their life experience. But these were minor irritants, and overall I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys the genre.
Well, I have a list. Or two or three, actually. But in this case, I'm referring to one specific list. It isn't actually codified, or fixed, but it's a running tally in my head. Let's call it my list of shame. This is a list of books that I not only WANT to read, but am ashamed to admit never HAVE read. Let's not go into all of the entries, or you might lose all respect for me.
There are many books on this list. Some are books I believe EVERYONE should read, or at least be familiar with. Others are genre specific -- books that should be read if you consider yourself a fan of a given genre.
Well, this week I get to cross a book off of the latter list. It's a book that I have long had an interest in, but finally my good friend Brian (aka Lurch in the comments) gave me as a gift on his recent visit. I started reading it Monday night, read it on the bus and on breaks yesterday, and polished it off last night.
As a long time Sci Fi fan, particularly military Sci Fi, I am ashamed to say that it took me until my 36th year to be able to proudly say, I have read Ender's Game. What a read!
I have to admit that there were a couple of things that disappointed me. One of them was the ease with which I deduced a couple of plot twists that were supposed to be surprises (I won't spoil it for anyone by saying which ones). The other was that I struggled with a suspension of disbelief in accepting some of the dialogue, both internal and external, as being consistent with the age of the characters, regardless of their life experience. But these were minor irritants, and overall I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys the genre.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Fatherhood, Wallenda Style
Good News and Scary News With Regards to the Lad!
(And all in one day)
First, the good news:
The Feared Redhead called from The Lad's pediatrician's office. The good doctor has DC'ed (discontinued) use of the apnea/bradicardia monitor.
Now, the scary news:
The Feared Redhead called from The Lad's pediatrician's office. The good doctor has DC'ed (discontinued) use of the apnea/bradicardia monitor.
I feel like the last two months (as of yesterday) have been practice, and suddenly I'm stepping out onto the high wire without a net for the first time. It's exciting, and thrilling, and absolutely terrifying.
(And all in one day)
First, the good news:
The Feared Redhead called from The Lad's pediatrician's office. The good doctor has DC'ed (discontinued) use of the apnea/bradicardia monitor.
Now, the scary news:
The Feared Redhead called from The Lad's pediatrician's office. The good doctor has DC'ed (discontinued) use of the apnea/bradicardia monitor.
I feel like the last two months (as of yesterday) have been practice, and suddenly I'm stepping out onto the high wire without a net for the first time. It's exciting, and thrilling, and absolutely terrifying.
Mutual of Omaha Vs. Soylent Green:
They're BOTH people, you know....
Thanks for the Memory (and memories) to the Llama Butchers.
Apparently today marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Marlin Perkins, one of the men who helped define my childhood tyelevision viewing experience. He was the host of the TV series Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, which was iconic for many of us. As Robbo points out, it was commonplace to the point of cliche for Marlin to pose as the host and hero of theshow while his younger, humbler, and more virile assistant, Jim Fowler, did almost all of the hard, dirty, dangerous work. I also remember Marlin's uncanny ability to use any situation they encountered as a point from which to seque in to a plug for their sponsors:
"Jim is attempting to circumcise the Cape Buffalo. It looks like the big fella is trampling Jim into a lifeless mush. When life leaves me feeling trampled underfoot, I turn to my good friends at Mutual of Omaha."
Happy Birthday, Marlin, and Rest in Peace.
Thanks for the Memory (and memories) to the Llama Butchers.
Apparently today marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Marlin Perkins, one of the men who helped define my childhood tyelevision viewing experience. He was the host of the TV series Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, which was iconic for many of us. As Robbo points out, it was commonplace to the point of cliche for Marlin to pose as the host and hero of theshow while his younger, humbler, and more virile assistant, Jim Fowler, did almost all of the hard, dirty, dangerous work. I also remember Marlin's uncanny ability to use any situation they encountered as a point from which to seque in to a plug for their sponsors:
"Jim is attempting to circumcise the Cape Buffalo. It looks like the big fella is trampling Jim into a lifeless mush. When life leaves me feeling trampled underfoot, I turn to my good friends at Mutual of Omaha."
Happy Birthday, Marlin, and Rest in Peace.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Crippled Fat Johnny Nixon
Thanks for the Memory to Wicked Thoughts:
HOW TO SING THE BLUES
UPDATE:
I've decided to remove the body of this post. It seems too many people were given the mistaken impression that I wrote it. I did not. It was originally posted over at Wicked Thoughts. I agree with those who have kindly posted links to me: It's hilarious. So if you want to read it, go over to Wicked Thoughts and give him both the credit AND the traffic.
HOW TO SING THE BLUES
UPDATE:
I've decided to remove the body of this post. It seems too many people were given the mistaken impression that I wrote it. I did not. It was originally posted over at Wicked Thoughts. I agree with those who have kindly posted links to me: It's hilarious. So if you want to read it, go over to Wicked Thoughts and give him both the credit AND the traffic.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Raise Your Voice While You Can
Thanks for the Memory to Jane at Armies of Liberation.
Originally posted to run until Midnight, March 14th, 2005
Yesterday I received an email from Jane asking me to sign this petition. Unfortunately, I was out of the office all day, so I didn't get a chance to respond until today. At the time she wrote me, she was aiming for 400 signatures. I'm happy to report that she's far surpassed that number.
Since I've taken up the call to arms with regards to McCain-Feingold's intrusions on our freedom of speech and the press, I feel it behooves me to be consistent and speak out on behalf of this Yemeni journalist. Please read his letter to Jane, then go sign this petition.
******************************************************
*************** UPDATE !!!!! ************************
******************************************************
3/23/05
I have received a wonderful e-mail from Jane at Armies of Liberation, linking me to some VERY good news!
WE DID IT!!!!!!
Al-Khaiwani has been freed!!!!!!
This is wonderful news, and a very good day for freedom. Thanks to any and all my readers who got involved, as well as my fellow Bloggers. See? You have a voice, and when you use it, YOU WILL BE HEARD!
LET FREEDOM RING!
Originally posted to run until Midnight, March 14th, 2005
Yesterday I received an email from Jane asking me to sign this petition. Unfortunately, I was out of the office all day, so I didn't get a chance to respond until today. At the time she wrote me, she was aiming for 400 signatures. I'm happy to report that she's far surpassed that number.
Since I've taken up the call to arms with regards to McCain-Feingold's intrusions on our freedom of speech and the press, I feel it behooves me to be consistent and speak out on behalf of this Yemeni journalist. Please read his letter to Jane, then go sign this petition.
******************************************************
*************** UPDATE !!!!! ************************
******************************************************
3/23/05
I have received a wonderful e-mail from Jane at Armies of Liberation, linking me to some VERY good news!
WE DID IT!!!!!!
Al-Khaiwani has been freed!!!!!!
This is wonderful news, and a very good day for freedom. Thanks to any and all my readers who got involved, as well as my fellow Bloggers. See? You have a voice, and when you use it, YOU WILL BE HEARD!
LET FREEDOM RING!
Friday, March 18, 2005
What Movie Am I?
Thanks for the Memory to Gullyborg at Resistance is Futile!
Apparently, I'm:
I can think of worse things to be called.
Apparently, I'm:
I can think of worse things to be called.
Take Your Filthy Paws Off My Blog, You Damned Dirty Apes!
Thanks for the Memory (and the title inspiration) to Gullyborg at Resistance is Futile!
There is now a petition you can sign to register your opposition to the attack on irst Amendment freedoms posed by the McCain-Feingold Act. Right or Left, you'll be in good company: Kos and Malkin, The Heritage Foundation and the Kerry Campaign. Go sign it.
Blog Free or Die.
There is now a petition you can sign to register your opposition to the attack on irst Amendment freedoms posed by the McCain-Feingold Act. Right or Left, you'll be in good company: Kos and Malkin, The Heritage Foundation and the Kerry Campaign. Go sign it.
Blog Free or Die.
The Beginning of the End
Well, today's the day. Today at 1:00 PM EST, by court order, Terry Schiavo's feeding tube will be removed, and she will begin to starve to death.
I'm not sure what I'm feeling about this right now: Sadness; anger; confusion; resignation... all these emotions and more come to mind, and I'm just an observer. I can only imagine what it must be like for those personally involved in the case.
I have to confess that since joining Blogs for Terri, my enthusiasm was waned for lobbying on behalf of her parents. Please don't get me wrong -- I still believe that active euthanasia is wrong. And if the claims made by Terri's parents are true, I still oppose the decision to remove the tube.
But recently, a Blogger I respect greatly raised some troubling points that I just can't ignore. Smallholder at Naked Villainy presents arguments with regards to Terri's medical state of which I was not aware. I would encourage those who, like me, have been on the other side of the issue, to read the entry and consider it. If they are true, I have to concede that I also would question the wisdom of continuing to keep her alive.
However, while he has given me pause to doubt, I do feel obliged to respond and raise a point or two for him to consider:
Smallholder begins his post with the comment "The intent was to highlight the point that those who want the government to intervene in the dying process are hardly acting conservatively - inasmuch that conservatives generally believe in individual free will and a minimum of government intrusion in our lives."
I agree, but this assumes that we're talking about an individual's own free will and choice. The argument being made in this case (right or wrong) is that dying WASN'T Terri's choice, and that the government SHOULD prevent someone else from imposing THEIR will on Terri. Whether this is actually the case or not is, of course, the crux of the entire saga.
Smallholder asserts that the overwhelming weight of medical evidence was on the side of Terri's husband, and that no valid contrary medical opinion was offered in court. On the other hand, I have also read that such evidence and opinions have been put forth but that the court, or rather the specific judge presiding, refused to entertain them. In either case, my sources (Smallholder and his opposites) are all third party at best, so I'm not sure what to think.
Here is what I now pray for: Wisdom and peace and healing. I pray that the truth, whichever story it may support, would be known. I pray that the officials and medical staff in Florida would have the wisdom and compassion to do the right thing -- whatever that may be. And one way or the other, whatever the outcome, I pray that God would heal those involved -- Terri's husband, her parents, all those involved, and especially, that He would heal Terri. I do believe in miracles, and I don't believe we can control their occurrence by either maintaining or removing a feeding tube.
One final thought. Last night as I watched the News, Geworge Stephanopoulos reported that, because Congress passed a law preventing removal of the tube, but passed two different versions and then adjourned, Terri's husband could proceed with the removal of the tube. There was, it seemed to me, a smirk on his face and a smug tone in his voice.
No matter which side of this case you're on, that doesn't seem to me to be the proper sentiment to convey right now.
I'm not sure what I'm feeling about this right now: Sadness; anger; confusion; resignation... all these emotions and more come to mind, and I'm just an observer. I can only imagine what it must be like for those personally involved in the case.
I have to confess that since joining Blogs for Terri, my enthusiasm was waned for lobbying on behalf of her parents. Please don't get me wrong -- I still believe that active euthanasia is wrong. And if the claims made by Terri's parents are true, I still oppose the decision to remove the tube.
But recently, a Blogger I respect greatly raised some troubling points that I just can't ignore. Smallholder at Naked Villainy presents arguments with regards to Terri's medical state of which I was not aware. I would encourage those who, like me, have been on the other side of the issue, to read the entry and consider it. If they are true, I have to concede that I also would question the wisdom of continuing to keep her alive.
However, while he has given me pause to doubt, I do feel obliged to respond and raise a point or two for him to consider:
Smallholder begins his post with the comment "The intent was to highlight the point that those who want the government to intervene in the dying process are hardly acting conservatively - inasmuch that conservatives generally believe in individual free will and a minimum of government intrusion in our lives."
I agree, but this assumes that we're talking about an individual's own free will and choice. The argument being made in this case (right or wrong) is that dying WASN'T Terri's choice, and that the government SHOULD prevent someone else from imposing THEIR will on Terri. Whether this is actually the case or not is, of course, the crux of the entire saga.
Smallholder asserts that the overwhelming weight of medical evidence was on the side of Terri's husband, and that no valid contrary medical opinion was offered in court. On the other hand, I have also read that such evidence and opinions have been put forth but that the court, or rather the specific judge presiding, refused to entertain them. In either case, my sources (Smallholder and his opposites) are all third party at best, so I'm not sure what to think.
Here is what I now pray for: Wisdom and peace and healing. I pray that the truth, whichever story it may support, would be known. I pray that the officials and medical staff in Florida would have the wisdom and compassion to do the right thing -- whatever that may be. And one way or the other, whatever the outcome, I pray that God would heal those involved -- Terri's husband, her parents, all those involved, and especially, that He would heal Terri. I do believe in miracles, and I don't believe we can control their occurrence by either maintaining or removing a feeding tube.
One final thought. Last night as I watched the News, Geworge Stephanopoulos reported that, because Congress passed a law preventing removal of the tube, but passed two different versions and then adjourned, Terri's husband could proceed with the removal of the tube. There was, it seemed to me, a smirk on his face and a smug tone in his voice.
No matter which side of this case you're on, that doesn't seem to me to be the proper sentiment to convey right now.
The Beginning of the End
Well, today's the day. Today at 1:00 PM EST, by court order, Terry Schiavo's feeding tube will be removed, and she will begin to starve to death.
I'm not sure what I'm feeling about this right now: Sadness; anger; confusion; resignation... all these emotions and more come to mind, and I'm just an observer. I can only imagine what it must be like for those personally involved in the case.
I have to confess that since joining Blogs for Terri, my enthusiasm was waned for lobbying on behalf of her parents. Please don't get me wrong -- I still believe that active euthanasia is wrong. And if the claims made by Terri's parents are true, I still oppose the decision to remove the tube.
But recently, a Blogger I respect greatly raised some troubling points that I just can't ignore. Smallholder at Naked Villainy presents arguments with regards to Terri's medical state of which I was not aware. I would encourage those who, like me, have been on the other side of the issue, to read the entry and consider it. If they are true, I have to concede that I also would question the wisdom of continuing to keep her alive.
However, while he has given me pause to doubt, I do feel obliged to respond and raise a point or two for him to consider:
Smallholder begins his post with the comment "The intent was to highlight the point that those who want the government to intervene in the dying process are hardly acting conservatively - inasmuch that conservatives generally believe in individual free will and a minimum of government intrusion in our lives."
I agree, but this assumes that we're talking about an individual's own free will and choice. The argument being made in this case (right or wrong) is that dying WASN'T Terri's choice, and that the government SHOULD prevent someone else from imposing THEIR will on Terri. Whether this is actually the case or not is, of course, the crux of the entire saga.
Smallholder asserts that the overwhelming weight of medical evidence was on the side of Terri's husband, and that no valid contrary medical opinion was offered in court. On the other hand, I have also read that such evidence and opinions have been put forth but that the court, or rather the specific judge presiding, refused to entertain them. In either case, my sources (Smallholder and his opposites) are all third party at best, so I'm not sure what to think.
Here is what I now pray for: Wisdom and peace and healing. I pray that the truth, whichever story it may support, would be known. I pray that the officials and medical staff in Florida would have the wisdom and compassion to do the right thing -- whatever that may be. And one way or the other, whatever the outcome, I pray that God would heal those involved -- Terri's husband, her parents, all those involved, and especially, that He would heal Terri. I do believe in miracles, and I don't believe we can control their occurrence by either maintaining or removing a feeding tube.
One final thought. Last night as I watched the News, Geworge Stephanopoulos reported that, because Congress passed a law preventing removal of the tube, but passed two different versions and then adjourned, Terri's husband could proceed with the removal of the tube. There was, it seemed to me, a smirk on his face and a smug tone in his voice.
No matter which side of this case you're on, that doesn't seem to me to be the proper sentiment to convey right now.
I'm not sure what I'm feeling about this right now: Sadness; anger; confusion; resignation... all these emotions and more come to mind, and I'm just an observer. I can only imagine what it must be like for those personally involved in the case.
I have to confess that since joining Blogs for Terri, my enthusiasm was waned for lobbying on behalf of her parents. Please don't get me wrong -- I still believe that active euthanasia is wrong. And if the claims made by Terri's parents are true, I still oppose the decision to remove the tube.
But recently, a Blogger I respect greatly raised some troubling points that I just can't ignore. Smallholder at Naked Villainy presents arguments with regards to Terri's medical state of which I was not aware. I would encourage those who, like me, have been on the other side of the issue, to read the entry and consider it. If they are true, I have to concede that I also would question the wisdom of continuing to keep her alive.
However, while he has given me pause to doubt, I do feel obliged to respond and raise a point or two for him to consider:
Smallholder begins his post with the comment "The intent was to highlight the point that those who want the government to intervene in the dying process are hardly acting conservatively - inasmuch that conservatives generally believe in individual free will and a minimum of government intrusion in our lives."
I agree, but this assumes that we're talking about an individual's own free will and choice. The argument being made in this case (right or wrong) is that dying WASN'T Terri's choice, and that the government SHOULD prevent someone else from imposing THEIR will on Terri. Whether this is actually the case or not is, of course, the crux of the entire saga.
Smallholder asserts that the overwhelming weight of medical evidence was on the side of Terri's husband, and that no valid contrary medical opinion was offered in court. On the other hand, I have also read that such evidence and opinions have been put forth but that the court, or rather the specific judge presiding, refused to entertain them. In either case, my sources (Smallholder and his opposites) are all third party at best, so I'm not sure what to think.
Here is what I now pray for: Wisdom and peace and healing. I pray that the truth, whichever story it may support, would be known. I pray that the officials and medical staff in Florida would have the wisdom and compassion to do the right thing -- whatever that may be. And one way or the other, whatever the outcome, I pray that God would heal those involved -- Terri's husband, her parents, all those involved, and especially, that He would heal Terri. I do believe in miracles, and I don't believe we can control their occurrence by either maintaining or removing a feeding tube.
One final thought. Last night as I watched the News, Geworge Stephanopoulos reported that, because Congress passed a law preventing removal of the tube, but passed two different versions and then adjourned, Terri's husband could proceed with the removal of the tube. There was, it seemed to me, a smirk on his face and a smug tone in his voice.
No matter which side of this case you're on, that doesn't seem to me to be the proper sentiment to convey right now.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Familiarity Breeds Contempt
...Especially with regards to after hours medical facilities.
Today it's the Peace Health (go figure that's what Eugene's biggest medical provider is called) Pediatrics Evening Clinic. The Lad has been fussy, colicky, and runny all day, and so instead of quaffing a Guinness for St. Pat's, I'll be sitting in a sterile room.
God, I love this kid. Need further proof?
Today it's the Peace Health (go figure that's what Eugene's biggest medical provider is called) Pediatrics Evening Clinic. The Lad has been fussy, colicky, and runny all day, and so instead of quaffing a Guinness for St. Pat's, I'll be sitting in a sterile room.
God, I love this kid. Need further proof?
Slainte!
To all my fellow Bloggers and readers of Irish extraction, a Happy Saint Patrick's Day, and one of my favorite Irish blessings:
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you're dead!
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you're dead!
LadBlogging
So neither I nor The Feared Redhead slept well last night, thanks to a series of alarms from The Lad's apnea monitor. in all cases, he was breathing the whole time. On the one hand, I'm ready to chuck the thing out the window, on the other, I'm afraid that the day after the monitor is DC'ed, he'll stop breathing for real and we'll wake up to find him dead.
I knew I was giving up sleep, spontaneity, and disposable income when I signed up for parenthood, but must they take my sanity too? Those Fates are bitches!
I knew I was giving up sleep, spontaneity, and disposable income when I signed up for parenthood, but must they take my sanity too? Those Fates are bitches!
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
In Like a Lamb, Out Like a Lion????
As you may well know, my beloved home state is famous, among other things, for rain (Astoria Oregon gets twice the annual average rainfall of Seattle). Well, this winter's been a bit different. All during late February and early March, the weather has been unseasonably pleasant -- I'm talking sunny days in the 60's and 70's. And while a bit of that is nice, it was starting to concern me, and still does -- we're probably facing a drought this summer. Furthermore, I actually enjoy rainy weather in winter -- it's bracing, refreshing, cleansing, and lends perspective to summer's sun.
But today, when I left the house, it was chilly enough to warrant a jacket. At work, as the day wore on it was even chilly inside -- a fact I attributed to the A/C being abused. But no.... a while ago, I turned from my desk to the window to see that the sky was dark, and the glass streaked with water. It's raining.
Now THAT'S the Oregon I know and love. Welcome back, you beautiful, stormy wench!
But today, when I left the house, it was chilly enough to warrant a jacket. At work, as the day wore on it was even chilly inside -- a fact I attributed to the A/C being abused. But no.... a while ago, I turned from my desk to the window to see that the sky was dark, and the glass streaked with water. It's raining.
Now THAT'S the Oregon I know and love. Welcome back, you beautiful, stormy wench!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)