Lady in Pink

Chicken:

6 chicken tender strips, pounded flat

1 cup honey

1/4 cup soy

2 tsp minced garlic

1 tsp vegetable oil

red pepper flakes

cumin

onion powder

cayenne pepper

- mix honey through pepper and coat chicken in Ziploc bag, store in fridge to marinate for at least 30 minutes

Stuffing:

1 1/2 to 2 cups prepared, plain couscous

1 TB parmesan cheese

3 TB shredded Italian blend cheese

1 egg, beaten

Italian seasoning

salt

pepper

cumin

- mix all together in small bowl and set aside until chicken is ready

Sauce:

2 TB chicken broth

2 TB honey

2 tsp soy sauce

cayenne pepper

cumin

- mix all together and set aside

Preparation:

- preheat oven to 350 degrees

- in lightly buttered/greased casserole, spread a half-inch layer of plain couscous (I made an entire box of instant couscous and used some for stuffing and some for pan, with a little leftover)

- with one piece of chicken, lay flat, top with 1-2 TB of stuffing mixture and roll. repeat with all pieces and place them on top of couscous in casserole

- cover casserole with foil and place in heated oven and bake for 20 minutes

- remove cover and baste with half of reserved sauce

- return to oven for another 10 minutes and repeat basting with rest of sauce

- cook for another 5-10 minutes, or until chicken is cooked through

To me, it’s really obvious that children are crucial parts of our society (and all societies) and that since they can’t defend themselves or vote in favor of their interests, someone needs to do that for them.  This isn’t a new or revolutionary thought on my part in any way.  I started thinking about this today because I was looking into Stand for Children, a grassroots non-profit that has had success acting in the interest of children (particularly for education) in Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Oregon.  They’re jump starting a branch in Washington state, which is where I found them (idealist.org).  There are organizations like this of varying sizes, and one of the most prominent national groups is the Children’s Defense Fund, which has a really wonderful website and a massive amount of information available.  If you’re interested at all I’d really recommend it. 

Today I spent a while reading through the CDF Action Counsel’s ‘Congressional Scorecard’ for 2007, which is linked below.  As much as I had an idea of some of the idiotic decisions that are made, this scorecard really put things into basic terms to explain what was being presented in various bills, propositions, votes, etc. and how these issues affect children (they aren’t always directly labeled as children’s issues, but general things such as raising the minimum wage, for example, has obvious and drastic impacts on the quality of life for children and youth).  It also gives a "grade" for each state and representative (and each presidential candidate) and a breakdown of how each individual voted.

If I wasn’t sure of how I felt on the candidates before now, this definitely helped things along: Clinton-70% (the percentage is basically how much the individual voted in favor of children, according to the views of CDF); Obama-60%; McCain-10% (nice!).

Beyond these ’scores’, the stats for the votes on the individual issues were sometimes really shocking/disturbing:

The Senate and the House voted to extend health coverage to over 3 million uninsured children through SCHIP…awesome! BUT, the funds for this would have to come from an approximately 60¢ increase in the federal tax on cigarettes…yeah…Bush vetoed it.

Other issues don’t even get the chance to be vetoed…for the vote to Increase Funding for Education for Children with Disabilities, not one Republican voted in support of the issue in the Senate (and it was rejected overall 35-58 with 36 Dems and two Independents in favor).  Why? That’s not really stated in the document, but the funds for this increase would have come from taxing the richest Americans…hmm…

Ok, I get it. You ‘made’ your money and saved it and whatever…but these are children.  Children with disabilities no less.  Granted, I’m not the most politically-informed in all issues and I don’t really understand every consideration that goes into making these decisions.  I’m sure there are other specific things that you’ve got to keep in mind when voting.  But, how can you consistently (90% of the time, in McCain’s case) reject votes that benefit children? 

In many cases, rejecting these votes is extremely detrimental to the status of citizens in general, not just children.  But children don’t have a voice, they don’t have a way to stand up and say what they want and need.  Parents, teachers, any kind of authority figures are quick to say that children don’t know what’s best for them, that adults know better and are looking out for their best interests…are these the same adults that are voting for politicians that don’t want to raise minimum wage or vote for amendments that protect children from unsafe medications?  It’s a damn good thing that organizations like Stand for Children and the Children’s Defense Fund have people willing to work overtime for not enough pay, for no recognition, completely for the children. 

This is all very clearly tied to national issues and problems, and these votes that take place on the local, state and national levels reflect the definitions of democracy and community that are supported in America.  For me, the argument is not so ‘patriotic’ or tied just to the country…children are children everywhere.  Children have absolutely no part in the prejudices, grudges and battles of political leaders around the world.  Even more than  civilian casualties of war, youth casualties of global ignorance and apathy are truly tragedies of the innocent. The DREAM Act (which would support education for the children of immigrants and allow them citizenship if they completed high school and attend college or join the military) wasn’t even allowed to go to a vote.  When immigrant issues, tensions and fears keep children from any amount of education, I just think this is completely ridiculous.

In my mind, the politics are secondary…these are children.  If a community can’t keep its children safe, protected and valued as one of the most (if not simply the most) important parts of its growth and persistence, what does that say about the rest of the values of the society? 

CDF Action Counsel: 2007 Congressional Scorecard

I love pasta shapes.  Most of them have fun names that come from their appearances, and adorable tiny things make me smile

Gemelli roughly means "twins" in Italian (think Gemini, the twins) and they are two little rods twisted together. Any short, hefty-ish pasta would work well.  I tend to avoid long noodles in casseroles, because it is difficult to mix sauce and pasta evenly.  I had milk, chicken, and random stuff around, so I got gemelli and made this tonight. It’s a beautiful PINK

Gemelli Blush Alfredo Bake

• 4 Tb. butter
• 4 Tb. flour
• 1/2 quart of milk
• salt & pepper
• grated parmesan cheese (I used one small bag)
• 1 cup chicken broth
• 1 can petite diced tomatoes
• 1 pound par-cooked gemelli pasta

1. melt butter over medium low heat
2. add flour and whisk together and let heat for a minute or two (this gets the raw flour taste out)
3. off of the heat, slowly add milk, whisking constantly to get rid of any clumps
4. return to heat and stir while it slowly thickens
5. salt and pepper liberally (this seasons the sauce, the pasta, the tomatoes, and anything else you add, so don’t be stingy)
6. add parmesan and stir until melted
7. off heat, add chicken broth, tomatoes (this is when it gets wonderfully pink!), and pasta (I also added one chicken breast, sliced, because I had it on hand…you could also use veggies, broccoli, whatever)
8. coat a casserole pan with cooking spray and pour in pasta mixture, making sure to spread everything evenly around the pan
9. cover with foil and cook at 350° for about 30 minutes
10. uncover and bake another 20 to 30 minutes (until pasta is cooked through)
11. top with mozzarella if desired and bake for 5 minutes until cheese is melted

I missed it yesterday because we were busy running around, having lunch with Saugata, and coming home to see Andrew, but yesterday, March 21st was SANTANA’S BIRTHDAY!!!

She is such a party puppy!!

Out of curiosity, we researched Freckles’s birthday…approximately October 13, 1994…She will be 14 this year!!! So old!!

Also, Happy Birthday to Dori, whose birthday is the same as Santana!!! Yay!!

I spent two years re-making leftovers for my roommate Veronica while I lived in KY.  She was super-wonderfully fussy and generally wouldn’t eat straight leftovers, so I learned to take whatever dinner we had and make it into something completely new (roast beef turned into mock-Philly steak & cheese; garlic chicken turned into stir fry or lo mein; smashed potatoes turned into amazingly creamy fried potato cakes for breakfast; etc.) 

Anyway, I had a ton of Chicken Tortilla Soup leftover….

I strained the liquid out of the solid parts of the soup (veggies and chicken basically) and put the liquid, a cup or so of shredded cheese, and a little bit of the chicken and veggies on low heat to melt the cheese and make it into a thickened sauce-type-of-thing.

The rest of the chicken and veggies got rolled up into four leftover, unbaked tortillas, lined up in a baking dish coated with cooking spray.

The melted, hot sauce went over the filled tortillas, just to cover, and then the whole thing got topped with a little more cheese.

Covered with foil, baked at 350 degrees for 30 minutes…uncovered and continued to bake for 10-20 minutes.

DELICIOUS.
Probably not technically enchiladas, but close enough for my tastes. 

I tried to find a recipe, got fed up with the intertubes, and made my own…

-1 large onion, frenched or sliced

-1 orange bell pepper

-1 hungarian yellow wax pepper (medium to hot…you can substitute whatever kind of peppers you want, depending on how much heat you want from them)

-1 Tb minced garlic

-chili powder, paprika, salt, thyme (all to taste)

• saute all of this in a little bit of olive oil until the onions have softened a bit

- 3 chicken breasts (about a pound)

- 1 large box of chicken stock

- 1 can diced tomatoes with green chiles

• add these three ingredients into the onion mixture and make sure the chicken is covered by liquid as much as possible
• cover and cook at a low simmer for half an hour or so…basically until the chicken is cooked through
• pull chicken breasts out of soup and tear/chop and return to soup

- 1 bag of fresh corn, cooked in the microwave according to the directions on the package (you could also use 1 can of corn)

- 1 bunch green onions/scallions thinly sliced

• add corn and green onions into soup and add chicken stock or water to get it to the soup-y consistency that you want
• re-cover and cook until heated through
• serve with tortilla strips (cut up flour tortillas, coated in cooking spray, and baked in 350 degree oven for 10-20 minutes), sour cream, and cheese…all of this helps to cut through the spice of the soup, so don’t be afraid to make it a little spicier if you plan to use cheese & sour cream.

I’m a huge fan of maps. When I was driving between NY and KY at least four times a year, my atlas had four pages completely marked up, folded over, and half-falling out of the book (NY, KY, PA, OH).  I get anxious when I realize I’m lost, but then I LOVE finding my way back with the help of a good map.  I like to highlight the roads I’ve taken and time the trip along a new route against the original. 

Online, I’m the same…Google Maps, Live Maps, MapQuest, whatever…if I see an address, I’ll usually map it.  Then I end up playing around on the map for half an hour until I’m half a state away and switching between aerial, hybrid, road, 2D, 3D…whichever options they have. 

Anyway, the point is, I found this today (from the pretty great site These Today which gives you 5 sites daily, ranging from high to low brow) and it’s pretty wonderful and fun.  Strange Maps is a blog-type site of random maps (from star maps, to historical maps, music-related maps, food maps, it goes on and on).  This is surely going to be a complete distraction this weekend while I am supposed to be writing a paper. 

I think this site really explores what is so awesome about maps…you can use them to find your way, to locate where you are, the typical ideas of what goes along with reading a map…but you can also use them to organize some random facts, info, abstract ideas, etc. into a form that is more appealing and understandable by people (esp. students) who are visual learners.  This idea is pretty common, and you see it with nearly every teacher who presents graphs, typical statistical maps, and other visual tools along with their lessons.  However, I think that taking things you wouldn’t necessarily consider ‘facts’ or useful info in other senses (for example, the area codes where Luda claims to have ‘ladies’ waiting for him) and reshaping them involves a certain amount of interaction with the ‘facts’ that makes you think about things in a different way, raise questions that wouldn’t have been brought up otherwise, and maybe even find some new understanding of whatever info you are dealing with and the context in which that info exists.  Luda’s lady-friends’ area codes may seem irrelevant, unbelievably ridiculous and not worthy of a song (let alone a map), and looking at the ’stats’ on the map and the conclusions Stefanie Gray makes about them doesn’t reveal any giant life-altering insight, but it does show how organizing, considering and sharing this irrelevant info in a new shape can bring out questions of authorship, cultural belonging, popular reception of music based on personal connection to something within a song, the limited scope of celebrity connection to the worlds of their audience, and levels on which music can be appreciated beyond the initial response ("I’m a female and a feminist. I dislike the word ‘ho’. However, as a geography major, I find this song hilarious, and had to map it.")

Anyway, beyond Ludacris and the various area codes he enjoys visiting, maps are awesome, this blog is spectacular, and if you need me in the next few days, I will be exploring Strange Maps.

"Women are dingbats! Get it? Ha. Ha. Ha."

So, the Washington Post ran this essay by Charlotte Allen…most of the reactions I had are wonderfully put by Katha Pollitt in her response, so I won’t repeat them. There are also some interesting related links in there that include Allen’s responses to reader questions and things like that…

I consider myself to have a great sense of humor and to really support differing opinions and the creative expression of these opinions…but Allen’s piece doesn’t come off as funny at all to me, and while I couldn’t really vocalize why…Pollitt did a pretty decent job of it.  For me, the bottom line in terms of gender, race, sexuality–whatever kind of group you may be a part of–is that some stereotypes may seem confirmed by specific individuals but using this ‘proof’ as a reason to stand behind those stereotypes, make them crucial to your understanding of that group, and then make judgements and enforce restrictions based on that understanding is unfair, limiting and really dangerous…even if you are open-minded, accepting and completely positive in your personal interactions with people, the reinforcement and support of the stereotypes in this way just keeps them alive in society’s understanding and interaction with people.

In her response interview article thing, she says "I wouldn’t quite use the word "ironic," but yes, I meant to be funny but with a serious point–that women want to be taken seriously but quite often don’t act serious. Also, that women and men really are different." First, obviously we’re different…anyone who has ever interacted with someone of the opposite gender knows that…we don’t need her essay to tell us that.  Second, women want to be taken seriously, but don’t act serious?  Allen wanted to be taken seriously (with the serious point behind her essay), but did it in a way that she claims to be funny…the essay was taken seriously, but probably not in the way expected…

Yes, we don’t hear a lot of argument when men are made fun of in women’s magazines, web sites, etc., and there is a hint of hypocrisy in the extreme feminist outcry to anything negative geared towards women.  However, maybe the better solution is to attempt to gain a better understanding of both men and women (and their interaction) and try to get away from these demeaning jokes from either side.  "Well, we make fun of men all the time" is, in my mind, not a good enough excuse for Allen’s unfounded, blanket statements of stupidity.

You might not have any idea what any of this means, but it’s wonderful to listen to anyway Matthew did a great job of making them laugh and being smart. He doesn’t start until about 38 minutes in…Scott somebody goes first. He’s not as great. (PS. I might be biased)