Recipes–Pasta With Grilled Zucchini, Broccoli Puree, Pickled Beets With Mint

The only reason why I am posting these three different recipes together is because that was dinner tonight; and because they go very well together.

The trick to the zucchini pasta is to brown the zucchini, a technique that gives a nice, caramel flavor.  Zucchini any other way to me is very bland, but the little extra work it takes to prepare this dish is well worth it.

The puree of broccoli is very simple to make and is a nice alternative to steamed, grilled, or baked.  The nutmeg and parmesan cheese combined with the broccoli go perfectly together.

Pickled beets are nothing new, but adding fresh mint brings out the best in the vegetable.

Spaghetti with Zucchini

* 1/2 lb. spaghetti (just about any pasta is good with this dish except shells)

* 5 medium zucchini cut into 1” slices

* 1 Tbsp. garlic flakes

* 3 Tbsp. olive oil

* Salt, pepper to taste

* 1/2 cup parmesan cheese

- Put the sliced zucchini, garlic, oil, salt and pepper in a large mixing bowl and mix well

- Arrange the zucchini on a cookie sheet or other baking tray (I lay a piece of tin foil to save work cleaning)

- Bake at 450F for about 20 minutes, turning when the zucchini begin to brown

- Broil for 10 minutes until the zucchini are well browned

- Cook the spaghetti, drain, and plate

- Arrange the zucchini on top of the pasta, add the grated cheese, a drizzle of olive oil, and salt and pepper to taste.

Broccoli Puree

* 4-5 lg. broccoli crowns

* 1 tsp. grated fresh nutmeg

* 1/2 cup grated parmesan cheese

* 1 Tbsp. unsalted butter

* 1/4 cup whole milk

* 1/4 cup half-and-half

* Salt and pepper to taste

- Steam the broccoli until tender.  Remove and chop into pieces (for blender)

- Place the hot broccoli in the blender, add butter, cream, parmesan, salt and pepper

- Blend until pureed. Adjust to taste.  All the ingredients can be added.

- Serve

Pickled Beets with Fresh Mint

* 5 lg. fresh beets

* 5 lg. leaves of fresh mint, cut in half

* 2 Tbsp. red wine vinegar

* Salt

- Boil the beets in their skins until done (you should be able to push a fork through easily) about 45 minutes, depending on size

- Put mint and vinegar in a serving bowl

- Slice the beets and place them in the vinegar/mint, and toss.  Place in refrigerator and let sit for a day.

Is America Losing Its Moral Fiber? Google Big Data Suggests We Are

David Brooks has written an article in the New York Times (5.21.13) describing how the frequency of words describing social, moral, ethical, and civic attitudes have changed over time.  Based on this exhaustive Google big data search of over 5 million books in its database, we are using far more words which pertain to individualism than communalism, and fewer words which reflect more traditional values such as honor and courage.  His conclusion is that word frequency is a good indicator of changing societal values and that we are indeed becoming more self-centered, amoral, and less grounded in values than ever before.

I am not so sure.  First is the question of usage. He notes that the words “community,” “collective,” “tribe,” “share,” “united,” “band together” and “common good” are appearing far less frequently than in previous decades; but rather than suggest that the concepts are also disappearing, one might equally assume that a more modern usage or lingo has replaced them.  For example, the world ‘collective’ has singularly negative connotations, resonant of Soviet-era agriculture and social engineering.  ‘Tribe’ is a word that is always on the fringes of PC, and most modern-day historians and social critics have either removed it for its lack of precision, or replaced it with ethnicity.  ‘Band together’ is very old-fashioned, and while Shakespeare’s ‘band of brothers’ is often recalled, the idea of group solidarity is better expressed by ‘posse’, ‘crew’, or simply ‘brothers’.

A recent study cited by Brooks suggests that moral terms like “virtue,” “decency” and “conscience” have been used less and less frequency; as were words associated with moral excellence, like “honesty,” “patience” and “compassion”.  Again, I would argue that disuse may be more a factor of changing cultural expressions rather than a more fundamental change in attitudes. ‘Virtue’, for example, may have been replaced by ‘Do the right thing’ or ‘Man up’ or a thousand other expressions of respect; while ‘decency’ is too vague and general for the more precise demands of a very diverse, multicultural society.  I am not sure that ‘common decency’ would be understood today.  In the Victorian Age, when courtly values of decency – manners, politeness, respect for neighbors of a similar class – were understood, the term would definitely apply.  But has the concept of treating others decently disappeared?  I doubt it.  Although we might not like to descend from a Victorian moral throne to the inner-city, isn’t ‘disrespect’ an equally appropriate and apt word for the idea of treating people properly? A lack of Victorian decency and ‘dissing’ will both result in expulsion from the group.

The words “wisdom,” “ought,” “evil” can be also seen as archaic phrases.  I read about evil in Kierkegaard, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine, but infrequently in conversation.  I am fascinated by the concept of evil in Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Marlowe, and Machiavelli, but I do not expect to raise the issue at dinner parties.

More importantly than the words themselves, perhaps, is the context in which words have been used.  Shakespeare used the word ‘valor’ a lot and wrote about the principles that underlie it in many of his plays; but it is rare to see an unequivocally positive outcome.  Henry V was valorous, except for the fact that he led thousands of his men to death because of a tenuous political claim. Troilus and Hector debated honor and virtue, but the Trojan War went on endlessly because of the venality behind these ideas.  High principles were always promoted and debated in Greek and Roman times; and martyrdom (i.e. courage to face death for a just cause) was a common rallying cry for the murderous Crusades.

I think that the dire predictions of an erosion of community are ill-founded.  America is a dynamic, ever-changing country, and the configurations of community also change.  Although it is easy to pick on the electronic neighborhoods of Facebook and Twitter, these are, for better or worse communities; and if one did a search for ‘friend’, ‘chat room’, ‘group’, a not very surprising social bonding would be discovered.  New immigrant groups have very strong communities; and our country is becoming more and more ethnically diverse.  Koreans and Ethiopians, among others, have done well because of strong community ties.  We are still a churchgoing nation, and each of the many churches I have visited in the South are mini-communities with as much focus and integrity as any secular grouping.

Without a doubt, we have become more focused on individual enterprise as a nation; but this too is subject to the ebbs and flows of history. The individualism of the Google words is but an expression of the turning of the socio-political wheel.  We are casting off older versions of a liberal, statist, and government-ordered community and forming a new body politic with new dynamics and unusual potential.

So, I agree with Brooks that the word search does provide interesting insights into the way language is used; but I think it is too much to conclude a correlation between words and cultural shifts.

Male Power–Denying Women’s Desire For Children

There is an advertising campaign in Great Britain called Get Britain Fertile which has added fuel to the gender wars.  The campaign was designed innocently enough, for the sponsor - First Response, a pregnancy test company – simply wanted to promote their product by appealing to women in their 20’s and early 30s who, in reproductive terms, should be a receptive market,   According to research sponsored by the company, young women in their most fertile period (20s and early 30s) want to have children, but do not because “they haven’t found the right man”.  Anecdotal evidence provided by many female commentators, however, indicates that this response is merely a thinly-veiled expression of their frustration at men who refuse to have children at all.  In other words, men have a power over women that would make a feminist cringe.

Men, of course, have known this for a long time.  They have been back on their heels since the dawn of time because they can never really know who their children are.  They have always felt that Nature dealt them a bad hand, and they have had to spend time, energy, and otherwise useful resources in assuring paternity.  Shakespeare was obsessed with cuckoldry, and in Othello, The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline, and Troilus and Cressida he describes the madness that jealousy can provoke. Strindberg’s The Father is all about a man driven to madness by his manipulative wife who insinuates that he is not the father of their children.   All the kings in Shakespeare’s Histories are concerned with paternity, for succession, inheritance, and lineage are entirely dependent on it.  Their wives and the wives of royal pretenders fought like she-bears to promote their children and to exploit any weakness in the royal family tree.  Peasants were just as concerned about wifely fidelity, for they were not about to work their fingers to the bone for a bastard child, let alone pass on their meager holdings to him.

Men today still resort to female genital mutilation, infibulation (sewing the vagina shut), or simply locking women in when they leave the house in an attempt to assure fidelity and paternity.  Less authoritarian men are not immune and are always on guard for the casual but telling glance, the hand placed lightly on a shoulder, the overly fond remark, the unexplained gaps in routine.  It is exhausting. 

In the old days, children were necessary, so the vigilance was worth it.  Sons and daughters of peasants labored in the fields, tended the goats, carried the water; and the male offspring of the nobility assured the integrity and protection of their vast holdings.  Nowadays, children are more of a drain than anything.  A family certainly pays out thousands more than they get in return. Dutiful children who look after their aged parents are as scarce as hens’ teeth.

The sense of lineage is residual, not of any real, practical value.  We are happy when our children are successful, especially when they follow the path we have charted out for them; but other than a few pictures on the mantelpiece and some overblown stories about Harvard, children are a bad deal.

So it is quite logical that men choose not to be burdened with children; and now, in an ironic twist of fate, it is the women who want them not they.  The same Nature that gave women power over men when children were valuable, has given them a maternal urge to have children at a time when men could care less.

Here is where the concept of sunken costs of Economics 101 comes in.  A woman gets happily married to the man of her dreams.  They gambol and frolic in their 20s, both happily childless and able to enjoy life to the fullest.  Then the woman hits 30, and the biological clock starts ticking – not loudly, but definitely perceptibly.  By the time she is in her late 30s and her husband still refuses to have children, she has an economic choice to make. “I have invested so much in this marriage (sunken costs) that it pays to wait a few more years before jettisoning my husband”.  On the other hand, she opines, if I go solo now, finding a new mate will be difficult, and finding one who wants children almost impossible.

Men are gleeful at this situation and are happy that Fortune’s wheel has finally turned in their favor.  If their older wives leave them to find fertility, no problem.  They can always troll for younger, less demanding brides.  Nature has been generous in yet another way.  Men retain their physical allure far longer than women and have always been able to capture the attention of women many years their junior; and, in a still more interesting twist of Nature, men can reproduce well into their 80s…just in case they have a change of heart on the children thing.

Women have responded to this crisis by having children well into their 40s.  The NHS in Britain has revealed that births to women over 40 have risen by 15 percent in the last five years.  The NHS does not say with whom these women are having their babies, especially since their men have refused them for twenty years, so either they have finally convinced their mates (unlikely), have married a younger man (even more unlikely), or have opted for single motherhood (sperm bank donors since casual sex at 40 is iffy).

Those older women in their 40s who have had babies in the last five years are probably now realizing what a mistake they have made.  Although 40 is by no means old these days, it sure feels old when you are changing diapers all day, chasing a two-year old around, endlessly pushing playground swings, dealing with intemperate, volcanic tantrums not to mention the loss of yoga, bar time, and long walks on the beach.  Even worse, older mothers quickly find that their offspring are just hitting their teenage years when they are pushing 60.  Most parents barely survive the adolescence of their children, let alone those who should be thinking of retirement.

So, men are having their day. Having given a good comeuppance to feminism and gleeful at the turn of the screw, men are finally having their day.  After years of women this, women that, it is their turn to gloat.