The title is kind of a stretch--was trying to think of a title relating to travel which started with a W, and this was the first thing I thought of. I believe that phrase is contained in the movie The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly which I think I saw once, but all I remember is a gallows sitting in the middle of a parched desert. Very surreal. And I might be totally making that up since I can't find confirmation anywhere. But I always think this phrase has something to do with It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, maybe because of the big W contained in that movie. But enough about W.
Had planned to talk about my upcoming trip, but first another movie digression. I watched Adam's Rib last night, and enjoyed it. I thought the couple's relationship and the problems they experienced were quite believable. Couple of time-period related things: At the beginning of the movie, when various female characters were applauding a woman's decision to shoot her unfaithful husband, I kept pausing the movie to tell Andy "See, women are very irrational and emotional, and believe that lashing out violently is an appropriate response." Also, it seems that hitting one's wife wasn't illegal in 1949. Icky.
Okay, back to the impending journey. There's really nothing to say about a trip that hasn't happened yet, is there, since by definition nothing has happened yet. So scratch that. Except one interesting thing I've noted is that people start asking you if you're packed yet way early. If I packed that long before time to go, I'd just have to unpack everything again so I can use it. So no, I'm not packed yet.
How many consecutive posts can I have with W as the initial letter?
Remember Amy? On Saturday, I got a call from Amy herself. It seems that her old phone number, now ours, had come out in some directory connected to a business she used to run. She wanted to know if we could give people trying to contact her her new phone number. A little weird, but I agreed, and wrote her number down on a small scrap of paper like I do with all addresses, phone numbers, and other such info, which soon disappear into some paper-scrap oblivion.
I sometimes learn interesting things from the Sunday Grand Rapids Press. This weekend, I learned that the John Birch Society is still in existence. I was previously familiar with this society only from Bob Dylan's eponymous Paranoid Blues. They think that Rush is too liberal, and they don't regard the Michigan Militia as militaristic (an unmilitaristic militia? Maybe it's just a bridge club with a colorful name?). The accompanying picture includes a sign reading "Get US out! of the United Nations." Andy and I have been driving past a sign like that on the way to Chicago for the last several years, but in the past year it's changed from a homemade one to a snazzy new one like the one in this picture--maybe the JBS is gaining influence?
Ever since I have become a wife, the issue of the proper role of Christian women has been intruding upon my consciousness in a new way. For single women, there doesn't seem to be much of an issue. Even if the idea of the submission of wives to husbands is still very much alive, the idea that fathers should have veto power over their adult daughters (Numbers 30: 3-5) seems to have died out.
The Bible actually has quite a bit to say about wives. Lots of Christian commentary on these passages makes the correct observation that our current "feminist" (I personally don't believe that the current formulation of "feminism" actually is) culture rejects the concept of different gender roles, much more a gender hierarchy, which seems to be implied in the Bible. But I think it's important to remember that previous eras had their own cultural assumptions that colored the way they interpreted these passages, and there's no reason to think those cultural prejudices are any more correct than ours. Following are some of my musings about the relevant passages, in no way intended to be authoritative, and no doubt influenced by my own culture background and personal biases.
Creation
Genesis 1:26-28: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [1] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
There are two versions of the story of the creation of man and woman in Genesis. In this one, "man" is created, both male and female. Both are made in God's image in one creative act, and here no differentiation seems to be made between them. The reason for creating male and female "men" seems to be explained by God's first statement to His creation--a blessing at least as much as a command--to be fruitful and multiply. They are to rule jointly over the earth, no hierarchy or even differentiation of roles is given here.
Genesis 2:18-24 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
In this account, the man was created first of dust, and placed in the garden of Eden, which he was commanded to cultivate and keep. But the man was alone, so God decided to make a "helper" for him. I was curious about this term "helper" so decided to check it out in Hebrew. This was about as helpful as it usually is--my lexicon informs me that the word is a noun meaning "help, succor." No exotic subtexts there. It doesn't seem to mean servant or anything of that nature, however. I haven't looked up all the occurrences of the word, but it can refer to help from God, i.e. Psalm 121: 2, so it can't be said to indicate subservience. However, man and woman do not stand on their own as independent entities, rather man was created first, but it was not good that he stand on his own, so woman was created as his help. Thus man and woman are interdependent: man needs the woman, and the woman was created out of his very flesh. Perhaps a hierarchy of sorts can be derived from this story, but not one involving domination and subservience.
This story of creation provides its own interpretation of this event, but but it has nothing to do with a gender hierarchy or either man or woman being dominant over the other. The interpretation is that because woman was taken out of man, when a man and woman marry they leave their families and become a new family, of the same flesh in a more profound way even than they are the flesh and blood of the people that bore them.
The first mention of a real gender hierarchy does not come from the creation story, but as part of God's judgement on Adam and Eve for their sin:
Genesis 16: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
I haven't done my Hebrew Bible homework on this judgement, but it seems that the interpretation of this verse is somewhat questionable. My Ryrie Study Bible says that the phrase "your desire" "may mean that the wife would have a deep attraction to her husband, perhaps to compensate for the sorrow of childbirth. Or this may mean that her desire would be to rule her husband." The word "rule" is a pretty common one meaning, not surprisingly, "rule, have dominion, reign."
It never occurred to me until recently that this talk of the man "ruling" over his wife occurs as part of a curse, not as part of the original creation. I am in no way qualified to comment on what this means, but this is my interpretation. The first creation account implies an equality between men and women, both were created as "mankind" in God's image, both rulers over creation. The second account, however, indicates that men and women are different, they have different and complementary roles and need each other, but neither seems to be have an authoritarian role over the other. This makes me question the idea that it was God's plan from the beginning that the man be the authority over the wife while the woman's role was to serve him; although men and women are differentiated and the man has temporal precedence.
Regarding the account of Adam and Eve's first sin, I believe that in the misogynistic Middle Ages this story allowed theologians to blame the fall of humankind on women. But a class I took on Genesis once at an Evangelical Free church offered a slightly different interpretation: while Eve was responsible for her actions, Adam is responsible for his inaction. The account doesn't say that Adam was somewhere else during Eve's conversation with the serpent, or that Eve called him over to the tree later. Rather, Adam may have been listening on the entire time and not intervening, and hence is responsible for his own disobedience and for not helping Eve out. Of course that's just one interpretation.
Proverbs 31: 10-31
10 [3] A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 "Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all."
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
This sounds like a description of a working wife and mother to me. True, it is her husband and not she herself who acts as an elder at the gate. The husband's and wife's roles aren't identical, but the woman described here is intelligent, an entrepreneur, a skilled worker, in charge of a staff, provides for her family, she works hard, and is charitable. Oddly, though she has children (v. 28), she doesn't seem to cut back on her other activities in order to spend all her time with them or "relax" until they get home, yet her work doesn't take the place of raising her children, who "call her blessed." Her husband has confidence in her, and due to her hard work for the family her husband is respected.
I think that the verses I've discussed so far make it clear that a husband and wife are not two independent entities, sharing a living space while pursuing their own careers without regard to how they impact each other or the family. However, I think that the wife's role as a "helper" can mean different things. I like being the primary homemaker, because I like making the home comfortable for me and Andy, and I don't believe homemaking is an unimportant and low-status job. I think feminists have done women a disservice by agreeing with the world that what has been traditionally "women's work" is less valuable than "men's work, " when it seems clear to me that homemaking is the most important job anyone can have.
However, being a homemaker doesn't preclude working outside the home. It is my pet theory that women probably won't achieve what we think of as "equality" with men in the workplace, because so many women choose to slow down their careers in order to take care of children or the home. I really don't see this as a bad thing, if it's chosen by the woman herself. In the lives of individual women this might mean she won't advance as far in her career as she would otherwise, or it might simply slow down her advancement or not affect it at all. But it appears to me from this passage that it is also allowable for women to pursue "careers," to supplement the family income, and so forth.
Ephesians 5:22-33: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Here is the infamous statement of Paul with all the talk about submitting and so forth. I don't think that in the light of this passage, one can responsibly ignore the male-female hierarchy.
However, I've often thought that in one way this arrangement only makes sense when one considers biology. Women are the ones who bear children, and considering the hard work required to survive in most societies, pregnancy would severely hinder a woman's ability to fend for herself. Biology also dictates that the mother be the primary caretake for the new baby, in a lot of socieites for a couple of years. Since, also in most societies, women spend a lot of their lives pregnant and taking care of small children, it seems like a pretty reasonable arrangement that the father take on the role of breadwinner. This would necessarily put him out in the super-domestic realm more than the woman. The Bible doesn't entirely ban women from public roles--see Deborah, Esther, Lydia, Phoebe (a servant? a deaconess? the Greek is too much for me)--but these simple biological facts would necessarily limit womens' public role; and to some extent still do.
Looking again at the verse above, wives are to submit themselves to their husbands as to the Lord, or as the church does to Christ. But how does the church submist itself to Christ? We submit ourselves absolutely and freely to the Lord's will, but though we are the Lord's servants, He doesn't treat us as slaves--he treats us as brothers and sisters. His will for us is better than our own will for ourselves, because he knows us better than we know ourselves, his goal for us is that we become better than we become by ourselves. Hence, shouldn't submission to husbands mean that our husbands encourage us to grow in God's will, in whatever God has planned for us--whether that's being a stay-at-home mom, or in a career, or whatever? That's different from just saying okay to whatever we want to do, because it involves keeping us accountable to God's will, making sure we don't overdo things and get exhausted, and keeping the needs of the marriage and family in mind--but it also doesn't require that wives be simply a household servant.
I believe that a good husband is liable to know his wife better than she knows herself. I know that though Andy and I have been married for less than a year, he already knows when I'm overworking or blowing something out of proportion, and I know he's right even when I don't want to admit it. Of course, husbands aren't Christ, hence aren't infallible, and I don't think Paul meant this analogy to be taken completely literally. I said before I got married that what this verse meant for me is that in the event of a disagreement, I wanted to be able to trust my husband's judgement and accept it over mine if need be; though I knew that Andy would always trust my judgement too and take my point of view into account--which plays into the "husband" side of this passage.
When I got married, I gave up some possibilities in my life in favor of others; just like when I became a Christian I gave up some possibilities for something far better. Because I married the person I believe God wanted me to marry, I believe that the possibilities I chose will be better than the ones I gave up. Yes, I gave up some autonomy (you don't have to be a Christian to realize that getting married means turning over some of the power over your life to someone else), but I believe that what Andy and I come up with together will be better than what I could have achieved by myself.
We are back from vacation. It was fun. We drove across the I-states (Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa), and visited the Amana Colonies and Platte River State Park where we got married last year. We also ate a lot of food. More below.
We decided we'd had enough of doing the entire 13 hour drive to Nebraska in one day, and broke up our journey at the Amana Colonies in central Iowa. Amana was originally settled by some weird cultists--I mean some members of a religious sect called the Inspirationists--who immigrated from Germany. The church selected the tract of land in Iowa, and seven villages were settled in which they practiced a "communal" farming way of life. The communal way of life was dissolved in 1932, but the original buildings, the descendants of the settlers, and the Amana church are still there. Now it's a tourist destination with cute B&Bs, shops selling hand crafts, and restaurants where they serve you lots and LOTS of very heavy German food.
The main village with the shops is Amana. We stayed in "Middle Amana" which is very small and very, very quiet, at B&Bs in some of the original Amana buildings. We checked out some of the shops, looked at some very expensive handmade baskets, contemplated buying some of the locally made wine until we realized we don't like wine, and visited the Amana heritage museum. And, we ate a lot of food. The second day we were there, we visited the Ox Yoke Inn, where Andy had a plateful of sausage and I had a combination plate of sauerbraten and Jager Schnitzel. Meals come with a lot of little bowls of more food--cottage cheese, cole slaw, corn, potatoes & gravy, and the inevitable sauerkraut. It was very yummy and enough food for six people. We also shared a piece of peanut butter and chocolate cream pie. That was two days ago and I still feel full.
We stayed at a cabin at Platte River State Park over the weekend. On Friday I drove into town to see Mom & Dad and pack up the rest of the wedding presents, including at least a couple that we haven't sent thank-yous for, and one which doesn't seem to have a name attached. Whoever sent us the pretty blue glass vase--thank you! It's beautiful!
Then we went to see my friend Jen (Jen, you should get a blog so I can link to you) and her new house, which is very cool. She had her wedding bouquet freeze-dried and has it displayed on the wall, which was probably a better idea than my plan of taking it with us on our honeymoon and throwing it away a few days later when it started to rot. We all went back to Platte and between the five of us managed to grill some burgers (so far as I know, none of us have fallen ill of food poisoning as a result), and had a fine time looking at Jen's and our wedding pictures.
Over the weekend we hiked around most of the park, went to see the fish at Schramm aquarium, where we also fed some fish, viewed an Interesting Geological Feature, and I relived my childhood. We went to the Strategic Air & Space museum, extended our grilling repertoire with some steaks (it was a very carnivorous sort of time), experienced thunderstorms, and patronized a restaurant with a very unusual theme (warning: this link is not suitable for the weak of stomach or those sensitive to pure wrongness). What is most disturbing about the latter is that this is pretty much the only restaurant for miles around.
All in all, it was a very enjoyable vacation, but it's good to be back home, where the sun is shining and no unusual food items are lurking in the kitchen.
What did the Buddhist Monk say to the hot dog vendor?
"Make me one with everything."
I think Buddhists are vegeterians actually, no offense intended. One could probably make up similar jokes about various denominations, similar to the Light Bulb series...I'll have to think about that.
Andy and I were musing this weekend that even though we make moderate attempts to keep up with the news--I check CNN at least once a day and spend a couple of hours with the Sunday Grand Rapids Press (and a fine publication it is)--we really have no clue what is going on in the world.
For example, the news out of Iraq has been extremely depressing, and demoralizing, lately. Here is what is going on in Iraq, according to the news:
(1) Soldiers are being killed.
(2) Americans are torturing prisoners.
I'm not complaining that this reflects media bias or anything like that. These are clearly important news stories, and I would agree that the second is the most important story coming out of Iraq at this time. These people need to be investigated and punished, and we need to do what it takes to make sure this stops and never happens again.
My complaint is that I want to know what's going on over there. These are two things that are happening in Iraq. Is anything else going on? Are the soldiers who are not getting killed or torturing people sitting around on their butts all day? What are the Iraqi people doing (besides the ones shooting at soldiers)? Whatever happened to this turning over of power to the Iraqi people thing--that seems like a pretty big story.
For that matter, whatever happened to North Korea's nuclear program? No idea. What's going on in Afghanistan (besides the occasional killing of an American soldier by "militants")? The world is a pretty big place, and I'm pretty sure there's stuff going on outside of the Middle East. I'd be interested in hearing about some of it.
Here's the main headlines on CNN when I checked it today:
(1) Pentagon briefing Bush.
(2) Investigation of 1955 slaying of black teen reopened.
(3) Kobe Bryant to enter formal plea. (This again? It seemed to me that The Media was hoping for a Simpson-like media circus about this case, and failed to drum up the public interest. Are they having another try? Can't we allow the alleged victim some dignity and let the justice system do its work?)
(4) Mother of Osmond family dies.
(5) Alaskans begin burying winter's dead. (Please don't ask me to believe that this is the 5th most important thing going on in the world today).
(6) Comic and actor Alan King dead at 76.
(7) "Van Helsing" is monster at box office.
57% of the top headlines are entertainment-related. I know they want to put a variety of stuff of interest up there, but honestly, I don't check the news to read about the deaths or crimes of entertainers, or movie reviews. For that stuff, I can read Entertainment Weekly, which continues to be mysteriously delivered to our apartment despite the fact we've never paid anyone for it.
I used to want to be a reporter, and still believe that it is the main responsibility of the media to report the information that the citizens of a free country need to know in order to keep that country free. This is an election year, and I feel more than ever that I'm expected to make a decision almost entirely on hype instead of information. The candidates make diametrically opposed claims about what they've done or plan to do, and where can I go to find out who is telling the truth? Definitely not the news.
I had to go to Chicago on Wednesday to meet with the advisor and do some other U of C stuff. Hyde Park was at its least bleak with the spring flowers and cheery students holding classes outside--the grass was still brown and it was kinda cold, but they were determined, I guess.
A few changes have taken place in the old neighborhood since my time. A Starbucks has gone in where a dry cleaner used to be. A Borders bookstore has gone in where a park used to be on 53rd street across from the Metra station. Hopefully this will bring new life to that "borderline" area, which was controversially granted tax breaks a few years ago, much to the dismay of many who wanted to see it well and truly blighted before the government intervened.
Jacobs Brothers Bagels, where I used to purchase Rocky Road flavored coffee and toasted blueberry bagels with lowfat cream cheese; as well as the site of a few Hyde Park experiences, has closed. It looked like a couple of other businesses might have been closed also, though I couldn't tell for sure because I was busy dodging maniac drivers (see below). One of these was ArtWerk, an art shop, which is too bad. 53rd St. isn't particularly scenic and looking at the art was a nice enhancement to my walk to church.
The Meridian Movie Theater closed a year or two before I moved away. It's still closed. How does a movie theater, the only one within a 45-minute travel radius of a densely-populated university neighborhood like Hyde Park manage to run itself into the ground? Living in Hyde Park was a little like living in a small town--you had to travel a couple of hours to get to stores, movie theaters, etc.--only with more crime.
I even had a genuine Hyde Park Experience while I was there. I was stopped at a stoplight getting ready to turn left onto 53rd. I had the left turn light, but two people appeared to be about to walk in front of my car, so I stayed stopped. This drove the driver behind me into a frenzy of frantic horn-honking. When I was sure that my turning left would not end the innocent lives of two human beings, I turned left onto 53rd, a narrow road with one lane in either direction, cars parked on either side of the road; and obscured by much double parking, stop signs, and people strolling casually into the street. I proceeded down the street, but not fast enough for the guy behind me, who decided to pass me. By driving into a lane with oncoming traffic. Traffic oncoming directly at him. Which fortunately slowed down to avoid a collision.
The trip turned out to be rather unnecessary, but I did get the books I needed to finish my Egyptian Cthulhu adventures. Here's hoping my profs never find out the uses to which I am putting my education.
I have been on a domestic kick lately. I started looking for jobs, but who is going to hire me when I'm leaving for seven weeks in less than a month; and I gave up trying to study because I won't have time to keep it up while I'm gone and will have forgotten everything by the time I get back. So, I've been lazing around and doing long-neglected household chores. Between Andy and me, we've gotten most of the stuff that's been "stored" on the floor or tossed haphazardly into closets or the computer room put away, so it's looking unprecedentedly tidy in here.
I've also started knitting again. My total knitting output since learning to knit in college has been two scarves, and I'm now about a third of the way into another one. If that goes well, I might try a sweater next.
In keeping with my domesticated mood, some rambling about cooking and a few recipes follow.
I have no intention of ever writing a cookbook, but if I did, I would call it "The Sort of Cheap, Sort of Quick, Sort of Healthy Cookbook." My cooking is the product of triangulation between these three points. Our budget doesn't run to the exotic, they-don't-sell-it-at-Meijer-we're-gonna-make-you-hunt-for-it-as-well-as-pay-through-the-nose ingredients that most Healthy cookbooks call for. (I once read a column about healthy cooking on a budget. The columnist offered one recipe: toss cooked pasta with canned beans and frozen vegetables. Well, I would definitely lose weight on that diet since I lose my appetite just thinking about it.)
Even though theoretically Healthy Cooking costs less because you buy less meat and junk food, in fact while dried beans and rice are pretty cheap, if you want to vary that menu the next cheapest items are probably hamburger, pasta, and potatoes, none of which are extremely good for you. And vegetables really aren't very cheap, especially outside of Michigan's two-day growing season. Healthy Cooking, in addition to yucky ingredients (such as sun-dried tomatoes and tofu), and ingredients that don't sound like real things (quinoa, tomatillos, oat groats), frequently calls for ingredients that are worth approximately as much, by weight, as gold bricks (boneless skinless chicken breasts, grouper). So there you go. It's a pickle.
Then there is the Quick Cooking angle. I usually don't like to spend much more time making something than it takes to eat it, it makes me feel like I'm wasting my life. Unfortunately, Healthy Cooking tends to take quite a bit of time (all that chopping of vegetables) and so does Cheap Cooking (which eschews convenience foods, like flour that you don't grind yourself).
So, I try to find a happy medium, food that won't bankrupt us, won't force me to stay out of the job market forever because I spend all my time making dinner, and won't kill us right away. Here are some recipes that I like which more or less meet the preceding criteria.
Bean & Rice Burritos
I'm not sure this one qualifies as a recipe since very little actual cooking is involved.
Ingredients:
One can refried beans (Or, one can kidney or black beans, rinsed and drained)
One cup brown rice, prepared according to package (This takes like an hour, which is against the Quick principle, but can be made the day before)
Salsa (About a 16 oz. jar or equivalent, to taste)
Tortillas (I look for the no-trans-fat kind, although without either lard or vegetable shortening, I'm not sure what's holding the things together. I can only assume it's some sort of witchcraft, but I think I'm okay as long as I don't have any Evangelicals over to dinner. Ha ha, poor joke).
Cheese, if you have some around.
Mix the beans with the cooked rice. Mix in the salsa, heat mixture. Heat tortillas with a bit of cheese in microwave for 10 seconds or so. Wrap the bean/rice stuff in the tortillas burrito-wise and put them in the microwave for another few seconds.
Crock-pot barbecue chicken
Ingredients
Chicken pieces (3 to 4 pounds)
1 (18 ounce) bottle barbecue sauce
3/4 cup regular cola
Place chicken in a slow cooker. Combine barbecue sauce and cola; pour over all. Cover and cook on low for 8-10 hours or until chicken juices run clear.
Also works for ribs. It doesn't seem to really need the cola, but adding an extra ingredient makes me feel more like I'm actually cooking.
Tuna or Chicken and Noodles (without cream of mushroom soup)
People laugh when they see me using the Better Homes and Gardens New Junior Cookbook that I got for Christmas when I was a child, but it's one of my favorite cookbooks and I use it all the time. This recipe comes from its recipe for Chicken Pot Pies, which leaves out the pasta and bakes in the oven with refrigerator biscuits on top as the crust. That's good too.
Ingredients:
2.5 cups milk (skim doesn't thicken, but 1% or more works)
2 cubes chicken boullion (or 1 tablespoon granules)
1/3 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 tsp ground sage (if you like it)
dash pepper (if you want)
Vegetables (mixed or whatever is around: 1 16 oz. can, drained; an equivalent amount of heated-up frozen; or fresh cooked)
2 cans tuna (the normal small size, drained) or an equivalent amount of canned or leftover cooked chicken
Cooked pasta (a reasonable amount, say 1.5-2 cups)
First, you have to heat the milk with the flour, boullion, and sage until it thickens. The BHGNJCB says this should take 6-8 minutes, but it actually takes much longer and nearly always scorches to the bottom of the pan. Here is a method which helps prevent this:
Whisk flour into milk until no lumps remain. Add boullion and sage. Put in microwave for 30 seconds or so--just until the milk is about room temperature. Heat over medium heat on stove top, stirring slowly and constantly, scraping the bottom and using the whisk if flour lumps appear; until the mixture bubbles. Keep stirring over heat until thickened.
Stir in chicken or tuna, pasta, and vegetables. Done.
Barbecued lima beans
This is adapted from a more baked-beanslike recipe, and is another one that violates the Quick principle. Doesn't take much effort, just time--can you tell I haven't had a job outside the apartment for a while?
Ingredients:
1 pound dried lima beans (you could probably use a more conventional type of bean)
6 cups water
1 cup chopped onions (or more, according to taste)
1 tsp salt
1/4 cup ketchup
3/4 cup barbecue sauce (I used KC Masterpiece)
Rinse and sort beans. Then:
Either: Soak beans in cold water overnight in covered pot;
Or: put beans in large saucepan, add water to cover by 2 inches, bring to a boil and boil for 2 minutes. Remove from heat, cover and let stand 1 hour.
Or: (haven't tried with this recipe) Mix beans, 5 cups water (boiled); cook in crockpot on high for 3-4 hours, then low for 7 hours.
Drain and rinse beans, discarding water. Return beans to the saucepan, add 6 cups water, onion, and salt, mix well. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat, cover and summer for 1.5 to 1.75 hours, or until beans are tender.
Drain and discard liquid. Stir in the brown sugar, ketchup, and barbecue sauce. Transfer to an ungreased 2-quart baking dish. Cover and bake at 350 degrees for 30 minutes. Uncover and bake 30 minutes longer or until bubbly.
One Potato Soup
I know I said earlier that potatos aren't good for you; but some say they are and some say they aren't. The bottom line is that I like potatoes and will continue eating them no matter which side prevails.
There are as many potato soup recipes as people who have made potato soup. This is one.
Ingredients:
4 potatoes, peeled and quartered
1 small carrot, finely chopped
1/2 stalk celery, finely chopped
1 small onion, minced
1 1/2 cups chicken (or vegetable) broth
1 teaspoon salt
2 1/2 cups milk
3 tablespoons butter, melted
3 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1 tablespoon dried parsley
Dash or two of ground black pepper
In a large saucepan, bring potatoes, carrots, celery, onion, broth and salt to a boil. Reduce heat; cover and simmer until potatoes are just tender. Do not rinse: mash mixture slightly. Stir in milk.
In a small mixing bowl, blend butter, flour, parsley, and pepper; stir into potato mixture. Cook and stir over medium heat until thickened and bubbly.
The original recipe from which this is derived (in other words, which I more or less copied) adds 1 cup shredded Swiss cheese at this point and stirs until melted, then lets the soup stand for 5 minutes before serving. It's good that way too, though less Cheap and Healthy.
Somewhat healthy corn muffins
I adapted this recipe by using yogurt instead of sour cream. To my surprise, it worked.
1/2 cup all-purpose flour (I might try using part whole-wheat flour next time)
1/2 cup cornmeal
3 tablespoons sugar
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp salt
1 egg
1 6-oz or 8-oz cup plain yogurt
Combine the flour, cornmeal, sugar, baking soda, and salt. In another bowl beat egg and yogurt until smooth. Stir into dry ingredients until moistened. Fill greased muffin cups two-thirds full. Bake at 400 degrees for 15-18 minutes (according to the original recipe, but I used a mini-muffin tin and started checking after 8 minutes) or until a toothpick comes out clean. Coll for 5 minutes in pan, then remove from a pan to a wire rack.
Cookies aren't supposed to be good for you
but I tried making them a little healthier, and the result wasn't entirely like eating lightly sweetened cardboard. This is adapted from the BHG cook book.
3/4 cup baking butter with canola (haven't tried this with this recipe yet, but have used with other things and it worked fine).
1/2 cup peanut butter
1 cup granulated sugar
1/2 cup packed brown sugar
1tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
2 eggs
1 tsp vanilla
1/2 cup whole wheat flour
3/4 cup all-purpose flour
2 cups rolled oats
1 cup semisweet chocolate pieces (optional)
Beat butter and peanut butter with an electric mixer on medium speed about 30 seconds or til combined. Add sugars, baking powder, and baking soda. Beat till combined. Beat in eggs and vanilla till combined. Bean in flour; stir by hand when the mixture becomes too stiff for the mixer. Stir in the rolled oats and chocolat chips.
Drop dough by approximate teaspoonsful about 2 inches apart on an ungreased cookie sheet. Bake at 375 degrees about 10 minutes or until edges are lightly browned. Cool on wire rack.