Question: What is that delicious ethiopian food I just ate tonight and how can I make it myself at home?
This answer comes from a brilliant recipe I found on another blog about vegan cooking for a cross between ethiopian fosolia and lebanese loubieh bi'zeit:
ingredients:
5 cups stringbeans, cut in half and ends removed
2 normal-large onions, diced
2 cloves garlic, diced
half a bag of baby carrots
16-oz can stewed tomatoes, crushed (squish in your fists)
olive oil
1 cup white wine sweetened with agave (to approximate tej, ethiopian honey wine - don't use anything too dry)
1-2 tsp salt
berbere to taste (2 tbsp or 3tbsp if you like it really hot)
cook your garlic and onions in oil over medium heat until the onions are translucent; then add your stringbeans. get them coated in oil and saute until they turn bright green, and add the rest of your ingredients (start out with a teaspoon of berbere, add more as you go). bring the mixture up to a boil, and basically, let it stew and reduce. if you boil off the liquid before the carrots and string beans are nice and soft, add extra wine or water; if it starts to burn, add a little more oil. it takes a LONG time to cook down, but requires pretty much no monitoring, so this is a good one to put on the stove right when you get home, and then read a book/play with your dog/do your dishes/drink the rest of that tej.
the mixture is done when the liquid is pretty much gone, the onions and tomatoes are undetectable in a sort of red sauce, the green beans are soft and way way smaller than they were, and the carrots can be cut with a spoon. it looks like nothing on earth, but tastes SO good, with a hint of caramel from the tomatoes, carrots, and agave. i recommend eating it with crusty bread.
July 21, 2009
the price for a year of life
I think that extending a life by one year is worth $________.
This is the question Peter Singer, professor of bioethics well known for his utilitarian views, wants us to add to the debate on health care reform. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times he argues that we should not shy away from incorporating a structured rationing of health care because we ALREADY ration health care - just not in a good way. He argues that our current form of rationalization is based on who (or whose employer) can afford to pay for insurance (or for good insurance) whereas the type of rationing he would like to see is in the form of deciding what treatments and procedures are or aren't worth the cost (and therefore should or should not be covered by insurance plans). While I am certainly not a strict utilitarian (I'm not sure there are any physicians or people studying to be physicians who really can be, but I'll save that argument for another post) and often do not agree with the extent to which Singer applies this philosophy, in this case I think he is absolutely right.
The current debate about health care reform, and really, any debate about health care reform, has to include 3 phases: 1) figure out how to get everyone covered and what that coverage will mean, 2) figure out how to pay for it, and 3) make it better.
The ideas circulating around congress assume the first part (that everyone should be covered) without changing too much from the current system in terms of how), which is what Singer questions in his op-ed; not that we should not cover everyone but to the extent to which we all need to be covered. Congress is mostly focusing on the 2nd part: of how to pay for a system that will include an additional 50 million people, many of whom were not insured because they were considered too ill to be insurable by companies providing insurance. This is critical because without figuring out how to pay for it, no plan can go into effect.
While the first two parts are fascinating and I will be writing more about perspectives in both - I'm most interested in the third part: how to make it better, because I think it could make both the first and second parts easier. Implementing a system that effectively creates positive changes in people's health will alter A) how we cover people and B) how much it costs us to do it. It affects the first because if you make health care more effective, there will be fewer people in the high risk category whose care the rest of us will have to supplement in our premiums. Better practices affects how much it costs because often the most effective medical procedures (e.g. regular check-ups and screenings, early treatment, asking questions, active listening) are the least costly.
An excellent example is the cost effectiveness of mamography, or breast cancer screening. In an article publishes in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2006...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The greatest threat to America’s fiscal health is not Social Security, though that’s a significant challenge. It’s not the investments that we’ve made to rescue our economy during this crisis. By a wide margin, the biggest threat to our nation’s balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care. It’s not even close.”
-President Barack Obama
This is the question Peter Singer, professor of bioethics well known for his utilitarian views, wants us to add to the debate on health care reform. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times he argues that we should not shy away from incorporating a structured rationing of health care because we ALREADY ration health care - just not in a good way. He argues that our current form of rationalization is based on who (or whose employer) can afford to pay for insurance (or for good insurance) whereas the type of rationing he would like to see is in the form of deciding what treatments and procedures are or aren't worth the cost (and therefore should or should not be covered by insurance plans). While I am certainly not a strict utilitarian (I'm not sure there are any physicians or people studying to be physicians who really can be, but I'll save that argument for another post) and often do not agree with the extent to which Singer applies this philosophy, in this case I think he is absolutely right.
The current debate about health care reform, and really, any debate about health care reform, has to include 3 phases: 1) figure out how to get everyone covered and what that coverage will mean, 2) figure out how to pay for it, and 3) make it better.
The ideas circulating around congress assume the first part (that everyone should be covered) without changing too much from the current system in terms of how), which is what Singer questions in his op-ed; not that we should not cover everyone but to the extent to which we all need to be covered. Congress is mostly focusing on the 2nd part: of how to pay for a system that will include an additional 50 million people, many of whom were not insured because they were considered too ill to be insurable by companies providing insurance. This is critical because without figuring out how to pay for it, no plan can go into effect.
While the first two parts are fascinating and I will be writing more about perspectives in both - I'm most interested in the third part: how to make it better, because I think it could make both the first and second parts easier. Implementing a system that effectively creates positive changes in people's health will alter A) how we cover people and B) how much it costs us to do it. It affects the first because if you make health care more effective, there will be fewer people in the high risk category whose care the rest of us will have to supplement in our premiums. Better practices affects how much it costs because often the most effective medical procedures (e.g. regular check-ups and screenings, early treatment, asking questions, active listening) are the least costly.
An excellent example is the cost effectiveness of mamography, or breast cancer screening. In an article publishes in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2006...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The greatest threat to America’s fiscal health is not Social Security, though that’s a significant challenge. It’s not the investments that we’ve made to rescue our economy during this crisis. By a wide margin, the biggest threat to our nation’s balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care. It’s not even close.”
-President Barack Obama
July 20, 2009
metrosexual package
Question: What is the best description of a public figure you have heard or read lately?
this brilliant answer was sent from a friend: (I love it)
From Mark Leibovich's Times Magazine article on the gubernatorial race in California, a fantastic quote about Gavin Newsom:
"There is indeed about Newsom something of that quintessential California type, the overgrown and hyperactive child. Immensely gifted but flawed, he is a jumble of self-regard, self-confidence and self-immolation — potential greatness and a potential train wreck in the same metrosexual package."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/magazine/05California-t.html
this brilliant answer was sent from a friend: (I love it)
From Mark Leibovich's Times Magazine article on the gubernatorial race in California, a fantastic quote about Gavin Newsom:
"There is indeed about Newsom something of that quintessential California type, the overgrown and hyperactive child. Immensely gifted but flawed, he is a jumble of self-regard, self-confidence and self-immolation — potential greatness and a potential train wreck in the same metrosexual package."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
May 20, 2009
Loosening the moorings of the soul
Question: How do we adjust our lives in a world that requires us to be in so many more places?
Answer inspired by a novel by Salman Rushdie, called the Enchantress of Florence:
"In a small wooden box concealed behind a sliding panel...[he] kept a collection of beloved 'objects of virtue', beautiful little pieces without which a man who traveled constantly might lose his bearings, for too much travel....too much strangeness and novelty, could loosen the moorings of the soul"
-Salman Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence
The quote made me think of how any travel, especially international travel, wears on your soul after a while. Perhaps you need more "objects of virtue" to remind you of everything that keeps you grounded. I just started this book (The Enchantress of Florence) last night and am already disliking Rushdie and loving his writing; it's strange to try to separate the two. I wonder how often we do this with people: separate the acts from the person or the intentions from the acts - and where that takes the discussion of right and wrong/good and bad.
As the people I love travel everywhere from Seoul and Panama to the Arizona desert and the inner city of Baltimore, I think of how "objects of virtue" have been sacred since the beginning of time - reminders of people and places we have been (and might return). And perhaps this "loosening of the moorings", as Rushdie so beautifully puts it, can be a good thing if the end result is that it creates space for new thoughts to pour in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The king was not content with being. He was striving to become"
-Salman Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence
Answer inspired by a novel by Salman Rushdie, called the Enchantress of Florence:
"In a small wooden box concealed behind a sliding panel...[he] kept a collection of beloved 'objects of virtue', beautiful little pieces without which a man who traveled constantly might lose his bearings, for too much travel....too much strangeness and novelty, could loosen the moorings of the soul"
-Salman Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence
The quote made me think of how any travel, especially international travel, wears on your soul after a while. Perhaps you need more "objects of virtue" to remind you of everything that keeps you grounded. I just started this book (The Enchantress of Florence) last night and am already disliking Rushdie and loving his writing; it's strange to try to separate the two. I wonder how often we do this with people: separate the acts from the person or the intentions from the acts - and where that takes the discussion of right and wrong/good and bad.
As the people I love travel everywhere from Seoul and Panama to the Arizona desert and the inner city of Baltimore, I think of how "objects of virtue" have been sacred since the beginning of time - reminders of people and places we have been (and might return). And perhaps this "loosening of the moorings", as Rushdie so beautifully puts it, can be a good thing if the end result is that it creates space for new thoughts to pour in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The king was not content with being. He was striving to become"
-Salman Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence
April 30, 2009
Nourishment
It is we who nourish the soul of the world and the world we live in will either be better or worse depending whether we become better or worse.
-Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist
-Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist
a wonderful, gracious moving target
A solid request for a reprise along with some hope that I'll soon have a few more perspectives as my life moves in one big shift, I restart the blogging with a post for which I should really credit my mother.
Question: How does one most accurately predict the choices that will make one happy?
The answer is complicated:
My generation is apparently the least stable generation yet - not only because of the recent dip in the economy but because the relative ease of the economy we grew up in. It has meant that we can live more places (more apartments, more roommates), have more jobs (more work styles, more coworkers), try more things (yogalates, marathon-ing), and meet more people than ever before.
But what it also means is that there's a huge market for coping with transitions. People are very unprepared and anxious about change and it's hardwired into us to be worried about the future; scientists say that it's the distinguishing characteristic of humans versus everything else, this focus on the future. And we are terrible at predicting it - not only what will happen, but more importantly, how we'll feel about it, what we'll do about it, how capable we will be of handling it, and how much it will alter the course of our life. A good friend gave me Dan Gilbert's book, Stumbling on Happiness a few months ago to give me a new perspective to cope with an upcoming transition and I have to say this: I didn't finish it.
This was not because it wasn't a wonderfully informative, quirky, at times downright entertaining book (it totally was), but because his message that we will never ever be able to predict what makes us happy very well eventually starts to seem so obvious that it made me want to try to rework my thinking in order to disprove it.
What I came up with is that perhaps the more productive question is: How does one stop trying to predict what will make one happy?
Step 1: lose the idea that you are in control. apparently we put waaaayyy too much emphasis on control as the key to happiness, especially when there is just so much we honestly have very little control over.
Step 2: listen to my mother. Or for those of you who do not have the great pleasure of talking to her almost daily as I do, read on. She works with children with disabilities and their families as they make all sorts of difficult transitions from different parts of development to different school settings. These kind of transitions require a whole team of support - or maybe that's true of all transitions. Some of her uber-sage advice includes keeping some sort of continuity with the stuff that makes you happy (exercise routines, eating styles, reading bad magazines in the grocery line), clarity (about why you're going through this transition at all), and community (keep your support networks fired and ready to go).
Step 3: know that you have no idea. I talked with a coworker today who advised me that we always over account for factors that end up not mattering at all, and we completely forget how huge the mysterious unknowns end up being in the grand scheme of our future. This is somewhat Dan Gilbert's premise (though neither my coworker or Dan Gilbert explain how to actually do this) and emphasizes the stumbling part.
I have three roommates right now, two of whom are gorgeous, 6 feet plus, athletic, brilliant, very very gay men. When we take the subway together, we play a game we call "is my future husband on this train?" - the idea behind which is a) it's so much fun to blatantly check people out on the train alongside two much more obvious men and b) you never know when or where or how your life will intersect with people, places, ideas that stir your soul and excite your mind and send you soaring in an entirely new direction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Our desire to control is so powerful, and the feeling of being in control so rewarding, that people often act as though they can control the uncontrollable..."
-Dan Gilbert, Stumbling Upon Happiness.
Question: How does one most accurately predict the choices that will make one happy?
The answer is complicated:
My generation is apparently the least stable generation yet - not only because of the recent dip in the economy but because the relative ease of the economy we grew up in. It has meant that we can live more places (more apartments, more roommates), have more jobs (more work styles, more coworkers), try more things (yogalates, marathon-ing), and meet more people than ever before.
But what it also means is that there's a huge market for coping with transitions. People are very unprepared and anxious about change and it's hardwired into us to be worried about the future; scientists say that it's the distinguishing characteristic of humans versus everything else, this focus on the future. And we are terrible at predicting it - not only what will happen, but more importantly, how we'll feel about it, what we'll do about it, how capable we will be of handling it, and how much it will alter the course of our life. A good friend gave me Dan Gilbert's book, Stumbling on Happiness a few months ago to give me a new perspective to cope with an upcoming transition and I have to say this: I didn't finish it.
This was not because it wasn't a wonderfully informative, quirky, at times downright entertaining book (it totally was), but because his message that we will never ever be able to predict what makes us happy very well eventually starts to seem so obvious that it made me want to try to rework my thinking in order to disprove it.
What I came up with is that perhaps the more productive question is: How does one stop trying to predict what will make one happy?
Step 1: lose the idea that you are in control. apparently we put waaaayyy too much emphasis on control as the key to happiness, especially when there is just so much we honestly have very little control over.
Step 2: listen to my mother. Or for those of you who do not have the great pleasure of talking to her almost daily as I do, read on. She works with children with disabilities and their families as they make all sorts of difficult transitions from different parts of development to different school settings. These kind of transitions require a whole team of support - or maybe that's true of all transitions. Some of her uber-sage advice includes keeping some sort of continuity with the stuff that makes you happy (exercise routines, eating styles, reading bad magazines in the grocery line), clarity (about why you're going through this transition at all), and community (keep your support networks fired and ready to go).
Step 3: know that you have no idea. I talked with a coworker today who advised me that we always over account for factors that end up not mattering at all, and we completely forget how huge the mysterious unknowns end up being in the grand scheme of our future. This is somewhat Dan Gilbert's premise (though neither my coworker or Dan Gilbert explain how to actually do this) and emphasizes the stumbling part.
I have three roommates right now, two of whom are gorgeous, 6 feet plus, athletic, brilliant, very very gay men. When we take the subway together, we play a game we call "is my future husband on this train?" - the idea behind which is a) it's so much fun to blatantly check people out on the train alongside two much more obvious men and b) you never know when or where or how your life will intersect with people, places, ideas that stir your soul and excite your mind and send you soaring in an entirely new direction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Our desire to control is so powerful, and the feeling of being in control so rewarding, that people often act as though they can control the uncontrollable..."
-Dan Gilbert, Stumbling Upon Happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)