|
|
|
November 28th, 2009
05:39 pm - Recipe: White chocolate apricot almond bars
White chocolate apricot almond bars
2 cups plus 2 tablespoons flour
1 tsp baking soda
13 tbsp unsalted butter (one stick plus a little more than half of a second)
3/4 cup brown sugar, packed
1 cup white sugar
2 eggs
1 tbsp vanilla
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 cup dried apricots, chopped
1 cup white chocolate chips or chunks
1/2 cup (more or less) crushed almonds (if you use salted almonds, omit the salt in the recipe)
Preheat oven to 325. Stir the flour and baking soda together and set aside. Cream the butter and sugar together, then add the eggs, vanilla and salt (if needed). Add the flour mixture incrementally, mixing after each addition. When flour is fully incorporated, add the apricots, white chocolate chips, and almonds, mixing after each addition.
Spread evenly into a lightly greased 9x13 pan. Bake for 35 minutes and then check. Cooking time will depend on the pan. These are very rich, so they're best cut into small squares.
(You can also do them as drop cookies.)
|
November 26th, 2009
12:07 pm - Recipe: sweet onion jam
Sweet Onion Jam
6 slices good bacon
3 large sweet onions
2 tbsp butter
1/2 tsp salt
3 tbsp port (tawny, not ruby)
2 tbsp brown sugar (more to taste, if necessary)
Cut up the bacon into half inch pieces. Thinly slice the onions. Put the bacon in a large heavy-bottomed skillet with the butter and cook until some of the fat renders. Add the onions, sprinkle with salt, and cook over medium low heat until caramelized. (Approximately 40 minutes.) When the onions are done, add the brown sugar and stir. Add the port and reduce a little.
You can eat this with just about anything: as a chutney with cheese and crackers, as a spread on flat bread, as a condiment for turkey, whatever you like. It's even tasty with a spoon.
|
October 23rd, 2009
12:21 pm - Minor questions
Riddle me this: why are Dear Margo and Dear Prudence answering the exact same letter?
|
October 11th, 2009
09:16 am - Aclaire playing on the couch
Just parental pride at its finest. Damn, she's so cute.
|
September 28th, 2009
08:24 pm - Plum/peach/nectarine/blueberry cake
The Cake
1 and 1/4 c. flour
2 tbsp. sugar
1 tsp. baking powder
scant 1/4 tsp. salt
3 tbsp. unsalted butter
1 egg plus 1 tsp vanilla and then enough milk to make 1/2 c.
2-4 cups sliced fruit (You can use just about anything: peaches, plums, nectarines, pears, apples. I don't recommend blackberries or raspberries because they fall apart a little too easily, but blueberries work. However, you can use fruit that's otherwise a bit past its ideal eating time.)
The Topping
3 tbsp. melted butter
1/2 c. brown sugar
1/3 c. rolled oats
1/2 tsp. cinnamon (optional)
Preheat oven to 425.
Mix the dry ingredients together. Cut in the butter. Add the wet ingredients and mix until just combined. Dough will be tacky. Spread into a greased 8x8 pan or muffin tins.* Press the fruit in tightly across the cake. The fruit will shrink as it cooks, so use lots.
Stir the topping ingredients together and spread over the top of the cake. Bake for 25 to 30 minutes. Serve with vanilla ice cream.
*If you use muffin tins, use deep ones. The dough should only just cover the bottom of the muffin well, otherwise they'll rise too much.
|
August 30th, 2009
10:35 pm - Sweet balsamic dressing
Recipe time!
1/2 cup olive oil
1/4 cup balsamic vinegar
1 Tbsp. honey
2 Tbsp. brown sugar
1 Tbsp. minced caramelized onion
Dead easy: throw everything together and whisk. Yummy stuff.
|
07:42 am - How many calories are in a bag of microwave popcorn?
Genuinely serious question: how many calories are in a bag of microwave popcorn? A box of microwave popcorn gives two different calorie counts: one for the unpopped kernels and one for the popped corn, with calories per serving listed for each. According to the box, there are 160 calories in 2 tablespoons of unpopped kernels (which yields approximately 4 cups of popcorn) and 30 calories in a cup of popcorn.
First problem: 30 x 4 is not 160.
Second problem: The total number of servings per bag is 2.5. 2.5 servings of unpopped kernels would mean there's 500 calories in a bag and the expected yield would be 10 cups of popcorn. 2.5 servings of popped corn would mean there's only 75 calories in a bag. I have no way of measuring the total amount of unpopped kernels, but I can measure the total amount of popped corn, and that's approximately 8 to 10 cups (depending on the bag), which would be 240 to 300 calories. So the stated amount of kernels results in the expected amount of popped corn, that much is clear.
I think we can safely rule out 75 calories as the correct answer, but just popping the corn can't result in the number of calories being halved. Also, there's not enough leftover unpopped corn at the end to make up the difference.
So, help me out internet. What am I missing? Why would you measure servings of popcorn in unpopped kernels, which no one eats? How many calories are actually in a bag of microwave popcorn?
|
June 7th, 2009
May 22nd, 2009
02:13 pm - Derek Walcott, art, and sexual harassment
I've been meaning to write this post for several days now, and since it's the long weekend, I thought I'd finally finish it.
Derek Walcott, a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature and widely regarded as one of the world's greatest living poets, failed to be elected as the Oxford professor of poetry* last week. The honor went instead to Ruth Padel, the first woman to hold the post and a direct descendant of Charles Darwin. Walcott withdrew from the running prior to the election after a "dossier" of sexual harassment claims against him was sent anonymously to between 50 and 200 Oxford academics (depending on whose reporting you believe). The allegations of misconduct date back to 1982.
Full disclosure: I met Walcott when I was in high school at a writing conference hosted by a local university. It was distinctly uncomfortable being around him (even if only briefly), and female students were warned not to be alone with him. One of his faculty hosts was particularly irritated with Walcott for asking that an attractive female graduate student be appointed to escort him around campus rather than the male student who had been tasked to do so. No one seemed to deny the fact that he was creepy and lecherous. Indeed, it seemed to be something of an open secret, so these particular allegations don't seem surprising to me.
The 1982 incident involved a Harvard student: "The student alleged that while discussing her work with Walcott after class, he asked her to "imagine me making love to you. What would I do? ... Would you make love with me if I asked you?" After rejecting his approaches, she was then given a C grade in his class." Harvard reprimanded Walcott for his conduct, for which he seemed wholly unrepentant: "he said that his teaching style was "deliberately personal and intense", and that he had "sensed no reluctance [in the student] to pursue the topic of sexual relationships"."
Walcott was also involved in sexual harassment litigation in 1996 for allegedly inappropriately touching another writer, Nicole Kelby. The case was settled out of court.
The defense of Walcott has been curious, to say the very least. He never denied any of the allegations raised against him and in some cases attempted to justify them (as with the Harvard incident). The defenses raised by his supporters are a mix of "But it happened so long ago!", "Other great poets have been leches and we don't judge them on it,", "Walcott wouldn't actually be supervising students, so it's okay,", and "He's old! We need to give him the chance to lecture before he dies,", and "Well, you can't really find a male poet of his generation who didn't sexually harass women." (This is to say nothing of those who allege that Padel is behind the whole thing and did it to sabotage a better qualified opponent.)
The most breath-taking defense is actually from Kelby, who rationalizes Walcott's inappropriate sexual behavior as integral to the creation of his art. (She also opens her piece by saying that she sued to find out if he was sexually harassing her, which is a peculiar reason to initiate litigation if I've ever heard one. "Writers, by nature, have reckless hearts. Poetry is a passionate art...It is his way to be sexual, to push the envelope of both decorum and good taste. . . Derek Walcott is not an evil man. Like any man he is flawed. But like any great man he is retrospect and understands that his flaws are universal. And from them he creates art.”
I have many responses to this, most of them absurdly hyperbolic, but that's largely because I cannot wrap my head around the idea that one must commit a civilly and/or criminally actionable offense in order to write good poetry. Nor can I really agree that being a sexual harasser is a universal flaw.
The key here, I think, is to notice that none of these defenses actually argue that Walcott didn't commit sexual harassment. Instead, these are efforts to either minimize his misconduct (so far in the past! no one is blameless and he writes great poetry!) or argue that giving him this post won't give him an opportunity to behave badly (just lectures! no teaching!).
The circumstances regarding the dissemination of the information are strange, but they do come from a previously published work. The lawsuit is public record. Therefore, it seems hard to argue that this is a smear campaign or a cruel work of character assassination. Walcott is wholly responsible for his character, and if it's true, then the only one committing the character assassination is Walcott himself. And his defenders really aren't helping...
*The Oxford professor of poetry is elected by Oxford alumni and faculty. The post is a professional honor, but it is not a professorship. Those elected serve five-year terms, receive a very modest stipend (approximately $7500 annually), and deliver three annual lectures. Previous holders of the post include Seamus Heaney, W.H. Auden, and Matthew Arnold.)
|
April 10th, 2009
11:18 am - Memo to Observe and Report: satire requires intelligence*
I think I can safely say that I will never, ever, ever go see Observe and Report. (Trailer and commentary here.)
I am actually nauseated from watching the trailer. The rape scene described in the review is even depicted in the trailer, and apparently the whole scene is meant to be really funny. As in the funniest part of the film. Regrettably, the writers have no idea what a black joke about rape might be. Or how to depict it in such a way that it's clear that the rapist is scum. (Example of a black joke about rape that has potential to work: "I was raped by a doctor, which is so bittersweet for a Jewish girl." - Sarah Silverman)
Black comedy can be extremely funny. So can satire. And send ups of cop flicks. But as far as I can tell, this movie is none of those things, because to accomplish them some semblance of intelligence is required, not just a script where every third word is motherfucker.
*Title stolen from the Toronto Sun's review.
|
|
|
