October 2008 Archives

I had trouble finding the recipe this year so, for the sake of my own ease of reference here's the white chili recipe I trot out when the weather gets colder.

Or at least when it should get colder.

1 lb. boneless skinless chicken breast, cut into 1/2 in. cubes
1 medium onion, chopped
1.5 teasp. garlic powder
1 tbs. veg. oil
2 cans (15.5 oz) great northern beans, rinsed and drained
1 can (14.5 oz) chicken broth
8 oz chopped green chilis
1 t. salt
1 t. ground cumin
1 t. dried oregano
1/2 t. pepper
1/4 t. cayenne pepper
1 cup sour cream
1/2 cup whipping cream

In a large saucepan, saute chicken, onion and garlic powder in oil until chicken is no longer pink. Add beans, broth, chilis & seasonings. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat & simmer, uncovered, for 30 minutes. Remove from the heat, add sour cream and whipping cream. Serve immediately to about six or seven people.

Borromean rings are a configuration of three rings arranged so that no two rings are interlocked but all three together are.

Let me put that another way. If you look at any two of the three rings, and were able to take the third ring out of the equation, the first two rings would have nothing linking them; nothing in common. But once that third ring is introduced, all three of the rings are basically inextricable.

I find the concept fascinating, especially as I (immediately) tried to find a parallel example within human relationships, especially considering this key fact: the circles (people) comprising a Borromean Ring cannot be perfect -- in order to actually work, they need to be imperfect -- they have to be, in a word "eccentric" to greater or lesser degrees.

Historically, people have used such rings to symbolize strength in unity (A and B would fly apart, were it not for C), and that's interesting... but equally interesting ¹ is the interpretation that A and B could fly apart, if it weren't for C.

I still can't quite get my head around a 'real' example. To a degree, it's easy: "Divorced Man A and Divorced Woman B would have no connection were it not for Shared Child C"; okay, yes, that works. Except that in order to be a true social Borromean Ring, the following would also have to be true: "Divorced Man A and Shared Child C would have no connection were it not for Divorced Woman B" and vice-versa.

I'm not saying such an example doesn't exist -- where, in a group of three people, any of the two would fly apart in the absence of the third -- I just can't seem to think of one.

Yet.

So Colin Powell is a "RINO" -- a "Republican In Name Only" -- according to the mouthpieces of America's political "Right", following his endorsement of Barack Obama for President.

Really? Okay, I can accept that. I can even accept that some folks want Powell out of the Grand Ol' Party. To those folks, I'd like to offer a deal.

We'll take Powell.

You can have Lieberman. Please. With my blessing.

((Here ends one of the rare political posts of the season.))

Just in case a little shame and sarcasm helps you get your butt back in front of the keyboard...

In last night's vice-presidential debate (potentially the most-watched VP debate in the history of television), Joe Biden spoke very succinctly and directly on the subject of gay marriage vs. legally-recognized civil unions.

IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

[snip of Palin's response]

IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Neither Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths...

Now, lots of folks are unhappy with his statement to varying degrees. Heck, I'm unhappy about it, but perhaps not precisely for the same reason -- I'm not unhappy with the stated Obama/Biden stance (because I want them to win); I'm unhappy that civil liberties in the US have progressed only to the point where - today - this stance is the best we can possibly hope to hear.

Let me explain.

In his interview with Couric, Joe Biden talked about about Roe v. Wade and said: [I paraphrase] "I think it is the best possible ruling we can currently have within the United States." He went on to break down the basics of the ruling-in-practice, trimester-by-trimester.

And he's right, I think. In a country as incredibly diverse - both socially and religiously - as the US, Roe v. Wade goes about as far out on the "Choice" limb as you can go before the branch breaks.

Similarly, I think his answer on whether Obama/Biden supports equal legal recognition for gay couples was (and this is a phrase Obama's former law students predicted would characterize his presidency) ruthlessly pragmatic. Do I wish for more and for better? ABSOLUTELY; it hurts my heart to know that some of my friends are not treated equally in this country.

However, if I am realistic (or 'pragmatic') about it, I readily recognize that the stance that Biden took in his answer is as progressive as a national candidate can be, today, in the U.S., and still have any hope of winning.

This is where we are. There is not one minority group in the US that enjoys 100% equality with white, anglo-saxon males. Not one. I've been standing right there and witnessed my brother-in-law discriminated against for the color of his skin; I've listened to people tell me that, in their opinion, his 'mixed' (their term) children were always going to have a hard life... and they thought it was a shame; that it would have been easier if those kids had not been born. It's sickening; moreso because this is an improvement over the past.

TRUE equality for all Americans is, historically, something that happens step by step in the U.S. The fight never really stops, and it's never really won.

But the steps do happen.

In (for instance) 1988, any Presidential candidate that gave the same answer as Biden would have been committing political suicide. But not last night.

Last night was a step.

It was small, and it was disappointing because some of us can SEE where we're trying to get to, and these smaller, careful steps are INFURIATING, but for me, Joe Biden's statement was heartening, because it is (in my opinion) absolutely as far out on the limb as you can go right now, without the branch breaking. Barack and Joe took a look at that important question and they chose the most progressive position possible, today.

Because that's what you do, when your ultimate goal is to get all the way to the very end of the branch -- you go out as far as you can possibly go.

Then you wait for the tree to grow.

Then you take another step.

That's how the fight goes.