Saturday, August 30, 2003
COUSCOUS, ANYONE?
That's pronounced “koos-koos”, or did you already know that?
I did not.
That is one of the cook-book mysteries which has haunted me for years and I finally got round to “google-izing” it last week... (I wonder how long it will take for that term to edge itself into our wonderful, expandable English language!)
As I suspected, it proved to be a pasta with varied uses in cookery of the Mid-Eastern and African countries.
The dictionaries give two definitions. The prime one, I found, is not exactly helpful in that it tells me couscous is a substance which comes from grinding “semalina”. Very helpful. What, pray tell, is sem-a-lina”? Definition two usually enlarges on that idea and spells out that semolina is the bran portion of a wheat grain left when flour is extracted. We might call it “bran”, I suppose, but if we are going to all the trouble of finding out that the proper ways of saying it are, I'd like to go right on pretending if I had know what that all along the way. One example of semalina flour currently available on the general western market is “Cream of Wheat,” but not in the one-minute, hurry up version. It makes an acceptable couscous.
The chefs who make couscous are said to whip up a real batch of it when they are in the mood because a primary way of using it is as a dried form as an additive. It can be used in a wide variety of dishes. Couscous (I have heard people call it “conscious” - like the guilt factor in our psyche , but I think they are confusing it with another such preparation from the cook-lore books of the Appalachian mountains here in America.)... whatever you end up calling it is worth making.
It is, basically, what you get you when you boil semalina in water. Others, I find, add “flesh”...meat juices as well as vegetables and spices. As it cooks down it is rolled back and forth in the pan until it forms pellets. Eastern cooks then use these pasta pellets - usually after the beads have been dried - to form a bed or pasta pad in the pan upon which other foods are steamed or cooked. Since the exact nature of couscous remains somewhat vague it is the sort of ingredient you have to learn to play “by palate” so to speak. It is widely used by vegetarians, but many couscous makers like to keep a chunk of lamb, or other meat, in the steam area while the pasta is being cooked and rolled down. Some actually add bits of meat and spices.
There seems to be no set limitations as to what constitutes a proper topping for couscous. What goes in top varies from country to country depending on what is most frequently available. Regular pasta toppings would be proper, I suppose and when no such tripping are to be found, couscous can be eaten as a hot cereal or porridge is often the case in more primitive areas . Now that I know what it is, I'm going to investigate the possibilities of this type of pasta.
I find I have always been wary of eating things I can't pronounce.
A.L.M. August 29, 2003 [c513wds]
Friday, August 29, 2003
THINGS WE DON'T DO
Very few days go by without us being reminded that we should have done certain things which we have left undone.
All of us are guilty, too without exception.
Let me tally up a few of them as examples of how lax we can become, and so easily, too.
Do you get enough rest, for instance? Do you sleep erratically? Can it be that your irregular hours do you notifiable physical harm? I have found, by experience, that if one keeps regular hours - getting up and retiring at more or less the same times each morning and evening, life proceeds smoother and without undo complications. I am not a harsh, demanding stickler for such rules because a change of pace can also bring some special benefits as well, if properly compensated for by a nap now and then or just a period if "quiet time" time during the active day.
We need to stay within a certain, pre-set framework insofar as foods , medications and routines of work and play are concerned. I know there are now certain physical acts which I can no longer perform, so I've got to temper my ways of doing so that I do not violate any of the warning signs which tell me - quite plainly, as a rule - when I am "overdoing it" or "showing off". Ego does play a role in much of this, too, in case you think my use of the term "showing off" too harsh or too playful. We learn it individually. I have come to know I can't do the outdoor gardening work I used to get done as routine. I see other older men continuing to do such chores, but not for long. One had to learn things the hard way and we do not all have the luxury of time in which to use trial-and-error methods. I know they are watching me, too. Every now and then we spot each other "showing off" by doing physical things we know, full well, are either forbidden or questionable.
Yet there is another aspect of it all, as well. Often we see older people slacking off on on mental activities at this special time when they should be increasing that sort of thing while eliminating physical work. The tendency toward become what is now called a "couch potato" is a hallmark of our times with many people - far too many - with TV as the main (but not to only) area of concern. It is a mistake to cut down on one's reading, for instance. It is, perhaps, an error to turn to technology in the form of computerized equipment which intimidates us even more so than it does the younger people who are now compelled to make use of it daily. Use your computer as an "adjunct to"; as an "extension of" living'; as "condiment" rather than "entre" and as a "dessert" rather than the "main course" of your intellectual meal.
A.L.M. August 28, 2003 [c475wds]
Thursday, August 28, 2003
TO HEAR ONCE MORE...
I can attest to the fact from personal experience, one does not have to be an Englishman to find assurance in the b-o-o-ing of “Big Ben.”
There are certain things of special value to each of us regardless of where we live, but nothing overlaps national bounds as does the venerable old clock and the well-named bell in the tower of the Houses of Parliament in London.
There is a certain charm in seeing pictures of the Eiffel Tower and think of Paris, the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen harbor, the colorful splendor of St. Sophia's at Agra, the canals and bridges of ancient Venice or the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco or the impressive arch at St. Louis. There many more special monuments, of course, in various parts of the world but few compare to the universal tone of Big Ben's song. There is a sound of confident courage for many people around the world who have heard the sound of Big Ben and gained strength from having done so it times of peril.
Even before World War II started, when Hitler was on the rampage in Europe and people where being crushed by tyranny in Soviet Russia, the sound of Big Ben Ben prefacing the News from London was a memorable radio signature which inspired and encouraged thousands of people of many nations. The very sound, ponderous and proud, was a hallmark of Truth for all who faced the loss of personal freedom. Seldom has such a sound meant so much to so many people of such diverse backgrounds and cultures.
In those days when we turned short wave radio dials to seek out the latest news, when we came to that sound of Big Ben ringing forth over the Thames we often said to ourselves and others: ”Now, we will hear the Truth!” Most of the broadcast news was suspect in those days - but and dried propaganda in its various, insidious forms, but one felt instinctively, that the new from London under the strong pulse of that tremendous thirteen-ton-plus bell would be honest and forthright. We respected the news from London, even though we realized it could not be complete - curbed and clipped as it had to be by censorship demands of wartime.
No doubt, much it all sounds inadequate to many of us today Our communications systems have advanced and improved it so many ways since the days of Hitler, Stalin, Il Duce and others of like debasement. Ours is, even if all of us cannot accept the idea, a much better world than the one we knew in those years. I still find myself thinking of the good qualities of the life we worked to keep alive and secure during the years of war and the hectic years leading up to the conflict and with its aftermath as well.
If I had to name a sound symbol of security for those years, I would nominate “Big Ben.”
A.L.M. August 26, 2003 [c513wds]
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
I HATE THAT!
How and why does one person come to "hate" another, a thing, or a deed?
If we can define the term "hate", it may be that - in good Socratic-Platonic fashion - we may be able to prepare ourselves to actually do something about the condition.
That is, of course, if we sincerely wish to do so.
It would seem that almost everyone want to do so, but the concept of hatred is deeply imbued in the human psyche, it seems, and it may take some
"doing" to eradicate it. One element of hatred is, perhaps, to be found in the fact that so many who experience it seem to actually glory in doing so and do not wish to give it up.
We often use the term rather lightly. We commonly find ourselves saying : "I hate the color purple", or a place, a gadget or, sometimes specific people. We say "we don't really mean it " the way it might sound to others, but deep down we do feel that urge, I'm sure even if in a disguised form.
By saying we "dislike" a place, idea or person, I feel, we some times exaggerate it by using the actual word "hate" instead of a more temperate substitute. It is only a small step to a lower level.
Usually, when you stop to think about it for just a few moments, we take that mode of attack - saying we "hate" something - out of Fear. We tend to protect our selves by attaching a label to others who may, in time, do us harm - or, at least, do us no favors. Hate is set up as a barrier or barricade with potential encounters in mind.
If we are ignorant of the qualities involved in making such judgments; if we do not understand the intent and purpose of others we tend to set them apart as unworthy individuals on whom we had best keep an alert eye at all times. The element of fear dictates that we defend ourselves by setting up a wall and we do so by invoking the concept that a place, a person or certain things must be excluded from our area. We say we "hate" it, and screen it away from our immediate presence as much as possible. In reality, we may “fear” such a presence.
Over coming "hatred", then would seem to have something to do with doing away with the elements of fear which cause it to grow so readily and so rapidly. It is, so often, Fear based on ignorance, too, which gives us a clue as to how to go about correcting the condition.
To overcome fear we need to earnestly seek out the Truth through patient study and the acquisition of knowledge concerning the person, place or thing we have deemed to be an object of dislike which can become hate if not quelled. Knowledge can help replace distrust and suspicion with something a bit more positive.
A.L.M. August 26, 2003 [c490wds]
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
OLD DOMINION
How did Virginia come to be called "The Old Dominion?"
It came about because of our loyalty to our king. The designation has been attributed to remarks made by Charles II, but we must to back to the reign of James I who ruled over four dominions - Scotland, England, Ireland and France.
Virginia, at that time, had no official heraldic seal, since it was a colony. Nor, did the king recognize Virginia on his royal Coat of Arms. He did, on several occasions, refer to the colony of Virginia as being his "Fifth Dominion".
His reference became more official when, years later, a Coat of Arms was designed for Virginia. That seal ,in the later part of the 17th Century, had a Latin inscription along it's base which translates: "And Virginia makes the fifth." When England and Scotland were united in 1707 the motto was changed to call Virginia "the Fourth Dominion" rather than the fifth.
Then , to add to the complications, along came Oliver Cromwell - about 1645 to 1660 - when such talk about kings and royal domains were put on the back burner. They were set aside but not forgotten.
Many of the leading citizens of Virginia remained quietly loyal to the King, whom they called "The Prince Over the Waters".Charles II had been exiled to the continent during the Cromwellian era and he became well aware of the loyalty of Virginians.
When Cromwell's power came to an an end, a former Governor of Virginia, Sir William Berkeley was quick to send a Special Mission to France to proclaim Charles as King, even before he might be crowned as such in London. The young King Charles II was so pleased that he blessed his "Old Dominion" which had stood so firmly by him in his years of loss and crisis.
Many Shenandoah Valley of Virginia residents were hunted down, hounded and accused of aiding the British during the Revolutionary War. Such groups were found in each of the colonies . In Southwest Virginia even such pioneering stalwarts such as William Ingles were suspected of being Tories ready to hand over the lead mines near Fort Chiswell to the British. Lord Fairfax lived at his estate near Winchester and George Washington issued special orders that Fairfax must remain unharmed. Fairfax's lawyer, Gabriel Jones, one of the first attorneys in both Augusta and Frederick Counties since 1745, remained a professed Tory all through the war years. Many of those who loyalty to the King simply lived out their troubled lives during the years of conflict or went back to England or Nova Scotia. Eastern Virginia , having been longer under royal rule, must have had many Tories, but, they, having dealt with such problems before, were more adept a presenting a neutral front.
We tend to think that everyone was a dedicated rebel. The idea of kingship was not dead. Many citizens ,for instance, thought that President George Washington should have been titled "George, the First”.
Our form of "democracy" did not spring forth in full-bloom. Many individuals,and entire families, have had "to work at it" to become Americans.
A.L. M. April 25, 2003 [c590wds]
Monday, August 25, 2003
BRINK MAKERS?
We have been accused recently of practicing a type of brinkmanship diplomacy by which we are said to create fields of tension in an area so we can have a pretext for invasion and forced intervention in local affairs “to prevent disaster,”
That is quite charge to bring against any nation, yet I have heard citizens of this nations of ours who agree with that estimate of our foreign policies.
Do we deserve any such accusation? Do people in foreign lands, and their governments, see us in such a warped light?
This is given as a “reason: why we should not be -well, where we are. It seems to have a universal application which is the very quality which brings it under suspicion. The “one-size-fits-all” under mines the concept from the start.
No world area of conflict is that simple. They are, instead , often one of a kind situations which have long haunted the areas in which they become manifest. Long held rivalries well up and roil the placid waters of local politics, often to the determent of all concerned.
When such events “re-occur” in modern dress, we as the leading nation of the world, with our allies, forming the most powerful national bloc - are expected to do something about it.
Such awaited action is usually thought of in terms of favoritism, money, concessions, military equipment, technological assistance and, only rarely, in any form of arbitration or guidance.
We have a curious puritanic ethic in our nation which is either non-existence or rarely used in other countries. We tend to be willing to try to help others manage affair which have gotten out of hand. In doing so, we become involved, which often leads to misunderstandings and, at times, to those frictions which can lead to conflict. We have learned the hard way in several that such simplistic treatment of problems, however simple, honest and straight forward work they may be, seldom work as planned.
Photographs of starving, emaciated children virtually covered with teeming clouds of flies and patches of vermin, can sway the heart, mind and pocketbook of millions of Americans, but - at he same time - leave other nationalities untouched.. It is possible that you did not even notice that this year's annual starvation time in Ethiopia went by almost unnoticed due to our preoccupation with the needs of people in the mid-east and other areas.
Our work is very often mis-read and thus, misunderstood. Gifts are seen as bribes; aid as arms and ammo entirely, human rights as undertaking revolutionary activities, and loans are seen as links in a chain of entrapment we are said to be planning under the guise of compassionate assistance.
We do create social unrest when we move in to help. We treat rather than cure. We suggest rather than demand. We urge rather than order. The whole concept often strikes the recipients as being far too good to be true and we are hurt - even angered - when it backfires on us occasionally.
No, we are not brink makers. Most of the time, we don't even see such potential threats as being hazardous.
A.L.M. August 24, 2003 [c526wds]
Sunday, August 24, 2003
LOW LEVELS
I am constantly being amazed by the appalling ignorance so many people - full-fledged, native-born citizens - display concerning the history of our relatively young nation and its varied cultural heritage. I am even more disturbed when I see and hear a newcomer hold forth on the subject with an amazing degree of assurance.
We have been remiss in our history studies and continue to be so.
I do not limit my criticism to our young people, either. Thanks largely to our diverse communication systems, our youth have done very well in acquiring a basic knowledge - if faulty, at times, view of our nation - how it began, we all came from, how we go here and what we have done since we arrived. It is not only our educational systems which seem to be at fault, either. Do you think your local church instructs young members concerning church history, how we differ in interpretations of major and minor beliefs? Or, are we forever seeking new ways of “dumbing down” such instructions - both temporal and theological - to avoid causing any waves of controversy or of making those we already have, and insist on retaining, more obvious.
There is a marked deficiency among just about all age levels, both sexes, and among those of all religious groups. It remains to be seem how this is going to influence our future, but the chance of it making the years ahead better slight.
I have not objections to Walt Disney's fine work in animated films, or with those highly successful Golden Books which have been such a pleasure to millions of children but when those who product such materials find they are marketing mainly to adult users we had best take pause for some second thoughts.
If your sole, or preferred, source of information for the facts which make up the story of “Pocahontas” is that set forth, however so well, by Disney, you do not have a definitive knowledge of the Indian maiden who played a role in our early history. The animate film strays far, far from facts as well as common sense, for that matter, and while it is entertaining and serves a worthy purpose with young children, it is not intended to be the criteria on which adults are to judge the affect a teen-aged Indian girl may have had on and somewhat aging John Smith and the colonists of struggling Jamestown in Virginia of 1607.
Our television shows rarely give a true view of historical incidents. Of necessity, they must be hyped a bit here and there with those elements which draw the average small screen fan's attention.
The big screens of today - I suppose we have best call them the multi-screens of today - seldom do history well. They, too, must bow to conventions which afford them a livelihood and there is nothing wrong with that, either. Again, the blame - if that is what we are seeking - seems to be more personal. We cannot continue to be critical of the media other, at the same time, expect it to be an effortless entre for us into all that is learned, proper, dignified and worthwhile. That has never been the main media function.
The latest culprit is, of course, the computer and the associated Internet. The jury is still out - 'way out – on that one and it appears it may be sequestered for some time.
That seems to leave our educational systems as the whipping boy, doesn't it?
But, don't latch the corral gates too soon, however. Other horses remain to be broken.
Once more, “self” enters into the arena. In one way or another our educational systems are what we, ourselves, have made them or allowed them to become.
What will each of us do about it? A. L..M. August 23, 2003 [c645wds]
|
