Sick to My Stomach

If you didn't know, the Senate passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930) on Thursday afternoon, by a vote of 65-34. Earlier in the week I did something I had never done before; I called one of my senators to urge him to vote against it. Usually I send an email but this issue seemed to be too urgent. He did vote against the bill, but here we are. It has passed.

Here's a succinct recap of the bill's negative implications from the New York Times:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Many Rights in U.S. Legal System Absent in New Bill
Congress OKs detainee bill, but it may end up in court
Legal residents' rights curbed in detainee bill

How can a Christian look at this bill and approve? Since when does our personal security rise above the basic human needs and rights of any other person anywhere in the world? How many people are going to languish, unnamed and unknown in unnamed and unknown prisons for years because of our need for "security?" THESE ARE PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU AND ME. I can't believe that we are selfish enough to say our human rights are more important than theirs and then pat ourselves on the back for making our streets safer. The Christian understands that it is better to allow one's environment to become more physically dangerous than to sin!

And yes, I know we have done this before, but under the guise of not recognizing the personhood of the fetus. There is no way to deny the personhood of these "suspected enemy combatants" whether they be terrorists or not. Does God gaze at the terrorist more harshly than the simple murderer, or the thief or the other serious sinners in the world? We, as sinners, should be the first to recognize that we cannot select which of us will be painted with the black brush. It is all or nothing. Human beings have natural unalienable rights; human beings do not have these rights.

Our only hope now is that the courts will rule the bill unconstitutional, because nothing else will stop it now. I don't know what else to write. Thinking about this makes me feel sick, depressed, angry, fearful of what comes next.

God help us. Mary, patroness of America, pray for our country.

Making Stock

My apologies for a long blogger absence, but we have been trying out a new bedtime routine which unfortunately means that I have to go to sleep when my toddler does, which greatly cuts back on the "me" time late at night. Part of me misses it, part of me likes feeling well rested in the morning.

So, on to making stock! Poultry first. This is a great way to double your money with poultry - eat the meat, save the scraps
to make stock (and you can easily make heavenly gravy with drippings, triple your money!). So, save any giblets, necks, cooked bones, extra meaty pieces, skin, fat, etc. (even extra gravy) from chicken, turkey, duck, whatever and throw it all in a gallon-size ziploc freezer bag. Freeze and keep adding as you get more. When the bag is so full you can't fit any more, you're ready to make stock. You'll get about a gallon of stock out of each full bag.

You'll need a large stockpot.

poultry pieces (pastured makes the best)
1 good size onion, cut into quarters
3-4 carrots, pared and cut into large pieces
3-4 celery ribs with leaves, cut into large pieces
3-4 cloves garlic, peeled and halved
2 tbsp vinegar
1 1/4 to 1 1/2 gallons water
slightly crushed peppercorns, optional
2-3 bay leaves
1 bunch parsley

Put the poultry pieces, onion, carrots, celery and garlic in the stockpot, add the water and vinegar and stir a little. Let it sit 1/2 hour. Then add peppercorns (you can crush them with the broad side of a knife. I put in a "small-well-of-the-palm" amount, maybe 20?) and bay leaves. Turn the fire up to medium and let it cook for an hour or two. Skim any foam off the top (this is important, the foam has a lot of impurities in it) - we use a slotted spoon to do it. Turn the fire down and cover most of the way. There should be a small gap for steam to get out. You don't want the mixture to boil now, but you want it to simmer so be sure there are some bubbles coming to the surface. Let it simmer for 12-24 hours - the longer it simmers the more flavorful it will be. Stir every few hours, but don't worry about it overnight. About an hour before you turn off the fire, add the parsley.

Turn off the heat and let the mix cool a little. Grab a slotted spoon and fish out the big pieces; discard. This is the most time-consuming part; it usually takes me 20 min per pot. Strain the liquid through a fine cheesecloth to get the small particles out. Put the strained stock in the fridge or garage if it's cold enough. You don't need to cover it because the fat will all rise to the top and form a solid seal. Let it cool in the fridge or garage for 24 hours. Then lift the fat or schmalz off and discard it (I tend to leave little to give it some extra richness). The stock may be gelatinous which is a good thing; gelatin aids digestion. (If you can find chicken feet for sale they add a lot of gelatin.) Ladle it into containers and freeze.

Never add salt to this until you're working with it for a recipe. In fact if you boil the stock down some after straining it, it will become so concentrated that you may not have to add salt at all. This stuff is incredible when you're sick. Heat it up, pour in a mug, add a little salt if necessary and drink.

Boil, boil, toil and trouble!!


Heh heh, just wanted to freak you out a little.

Now beef stock. It follows the same general principles as poultry stock, with a few changes. Since most meats from the store don't come bone-in it's hard to get enough bones together from meals to make a full recipe of stock. But it's easy to request beef bones from your local butcher. They will likely be large and may need to be sawed down to fit your stockpot, or maybe your butcher will be nice and only give you bones of a manageable size. You'll also want to put in some meaty pieces with the bones. A "stew bone" or two works well; they usually have a good amount of meat. Fill your stockpot as high as you can (as long as the water will still cover the bones and there is room for the other ingredients). As with the chicken stock, you'll want to soak the bones in a vinegar/water mixture for about 1/2 hour to release the calcium. Then add ingredients as in the poultry recipe and follow its directions. The beef stock will likely foam a lot more than the chicken would; it also will not smell or taste quite as agreeable. When straining be sure to leave the last few cups of liquid unstrained and just discard them - there will be some "sludge" that settled to the bottom of the pot. The finished product is not something you're likely to want to drink on its own like the chicken stock, but it works great in recipes and it's much better for you than the MSG-laden beef base alternative.

Want To Get Angry? Really Angry?

I enjoy listening to the interviews on WILL Focus 580. This afternoon I noticed an archived interview from yesterday (9/20) with the Chaplain of Planned Parenthood. So I took a deep breath, tried to relax and maintain a calm, open demeanor. It didn't work. So I typed out the transcript of the first 20 minutes including some extra gems so that you can read it and come to your own conclusions. As for me, I had to resort to nervously eating Cheez-Its during the last 10 minutes, just to get me through. Still angry!

Jack Brighton for WILL: During this hour of the show, we are pleased to have with us the Rev. Ignacio Castuera, he is the National Chaplain for Planned Parenthood of America, he is visiting Central Illinois to give several talks in front of several groups, and the general topic that we will be discussing during this hour of the show is religion's role in human sexuality, and we'll see where that leads during the conversation and I'm sure we'll talk about his role with Planned Parenthood etc. [...]
Well, thanks so much for being here.

Ignacio Castuera: It's good to be here. I'm glad to see a copy of the book that I helped put together several years ago.

WILL: And I should have mentioned that. The book is entitled "Dreams on Fire: Embers of Hope From the Pulpits of Los Angeles after the Riots" and I also failed to mention your role as a pastor in that area. At the time, at St. John's United Methodist Church in the Wads [?] area of Los Angeles and currently in the Trinity United Methodist Church in Pomona, California.

C: That's right. Well, it's really great to be here and it helps correct misconceptions about religion and specifically Planned Parenthood family planning and measures like that. We have a very vocal minority that is trying to give religion a really bad name as far as I'm concerned, as an oppressive force in relationship to sexuality and to family planning. Protestantism in particular has been very supportive of family planning and Protestant leaders as well as Jewish rabbis were very helpful to Margaret Sanger as she started a movement that would strengthen the possibilities for women to be empowered. She understood very well that women with a lot of children just have very few other opportunities to do something in society and so if they were going to fulfill themselves, they had to go beyond just being mothers. Not that being a mother is a negative thing or a trivial matter, it is absolutely essential of course, but children do grow up and then what do these former mothers or still mothers but not mothering anymore, what do they do? And she understood that. And that's why she tried to help women by educating them and also by letting them know that there were means through which they could space the birth of the children as well as limit the number of children they would have. And so she reached out to Jewish and Protestant pastors so that we could help to balance the power, because she was primarily at that time against Roman Catholics who do not believe - or some of whom, many of whom at the official level do not believe in family planning. Although at the practical level we know the majority of Catholics do use some method of birth control so the churches themselves, and even those churches that appear to have some restrictive role, are not successful in reaching their own members and convincing them not to use birth control. So I am here primarily and I go around the country trying to help people understand that there are many nuances that they need to make themselves aware of in relation of how religion and sexuality in general, how religion and family planning relate to each other and how people of faith and Planned Parenthood have been partners for a long, long time, and not the enemies that they appear at this time.

WILL: We talk about religion and human sexuality and family planning and reproduction. Obviously there are a lot of different religions with a lot of different viewpoints.

C: Exactly, exactly. And that is why I like to talk about spirituality or religion rather than specifically Christianity or Judaism. I'm glad you pointed out that religions have various points of views, one that informs me at least in terms of a more enlightened understanding of sexuality is Hinduism for instance, where one of the religious practices very much relates to sexuality and that's condaleeneoga [sp?]? It's not something that is outside of the sphere of religion in Hinduism; it is part and parcel of what it means to be a practicing Hindu. And also I think they have a much healthier view towards sexuality and they talk about their chakras and the base chakra is the one that is located in that part of the body where our sexual organs are located also. And that is the base chakra. And then from there they look at the rest of the body. But they do not ignore the sexual organs and they do not simply call them reproductive organs, they are also sexual organs which then helps us see that it is not just for reproduction here. And then you move to other religions which are unfortunately, because of some historical reason, began repressing sexuality and what might have been valuable at a certain time because of other religious practices that included sexuality was not respectful of human beings, that included temple prostitution for instance that Christians then of course began to pronounce themselves against and then eventually it appears as THE teaching, the repression of the body and of sexuality, that's THE teaching for the centuries and it is just not the case. I think we need to look at all the body of literature of the Christian and Jewish faith to discover the fact that there are all kinds of interesting and powerful (from my perspective) texts that deal with human sexuality.

WILL: Yeah, I think some of the biblical scholars have gone back and others scripturists as well have gone back to original sources, [they] would argue that other interpretation would be made. A lot of the things that seemed to be strict, women in particular and their role in society.

C: Absolutely. Yeah I believe, firmly, that any religion that does not strengthen the role of women, that does not support equality for women is a religion that needs to be opposed. And fortunately the majority of the major religions of the world support women. A colleague of mine, a very good friend, a Jesuit who teaches at Marquette University (he's no longer a priest but he's a Jesuit forever in many ways) Dan McGuire, wrote a wonderful book called "Sacred Choices" and he points out that in 10 of the world's primary religions there are these wonderful statements about supporting a woman's right to choose. And that's what we really need to emphasize, that extreme groups may select just a little portion and then elevate that to ultimacy, and say "women therefore have to be restrained and constrained and controlled" while in fact, if we start out with the idea that we are created in God's image, then not only males are created in God's image but women are created in God's image and they need to have the same capacity for fulfillment and possibility for fulfillment that men have.

WILL: It seems that we are, at least in the Christian tradition... I'm thinking of the reaction to the DaVinci Code for example. So many people feel so threatened by the idea in the DaVinci Code - which I thought was an O.K. novel, I mean it was kind of entertaining. My own reaction as one person, I didn't think it was earth-shaking - it was a novel, folks. It's fiction. But the reaction was amazing because churches discussed it and we had a lot of people arguing about it, you know, this almost blasphemous idea. And maybe I shouldn't say what the idea is in case you haven't read the book yet, but you get what I'm saying.

C: [laughs] Well I think we ought to mention that, because I think it's absolutely essential, to suggest that Jesus engaged in sexual activity. That's really the bottom line for the reason for the opposition, to say "oh, what blasphemy." What does it really say if you think it's blasphemous to imagine that Jesus might have had sexual relationships with a woman? There have been other more blasphemous suggestions in other parts of the world that didn't make it into a book but made it into a film, and that is the suggestion that Jesus is a sexual being but his sexuality was homosexual. I mean that happened in other parts of the world, right? I can see why people might get a little bent out of shape about that, but what does it say to women if you think that the fact that Christ might have had sexual relationships with a woman is a blasphemy? It says, "women are horrible, they shouldn't be touched, the Son of God would not touch a woman, would not be intimate with a woman." I think that's ridiculous. And one of the things that was very interesting in reaction to the DaVinci Code was an interview that ABC did with a professor at Notre Dame of all places, a Catholic priest, and she asked "what do you think about the possibility that Jesus might have been married?" And he said "we cannot prove it and we cannot disprove it. It wouldn't surprise me and it wouldn't hurt my faith." But then he went on to say, and I think the most important thing I think he went on to say is "but how different would the history of the Church have been if he had had a sexual relationship with a woman." [laughs] I think that's really the key. By the way I really liked The Davinci Code - if people haven't read it, go out and get it. I couldn't put it down. It's a mystery and like you said, it's a novel, and I liked it! Yeah! And it doesn't mean that everything that was suggested there is true. But what has happened now as more and more people keep on digging, is that a lot of the suggestions that are made throughout the book, not specifically the suggestion that Jesus might have been married or might have had sexual relations, but other kinds of things like the history of religion, are verified by good scholarship. So that to me anything that can send people back to read the Bible and to read history, acquaint themselves with the wonderfully nuanced history of religions - that's good! So I thank good God for The Davinci Code, both the book and the movie. [...]

WILL: Let me ask you a question that is one of these broad (maybe dumb-guy) questions, where did we get this idea, especially in the Christian tradition (I come from the Christian tradition, so I'm more familiar with that) and other traditions may see this differently, but there does seem to be the idea within the Christian tradition that sex is not something we talk about. It's a very private thing even though it has very public implications.

C: Very good question. I believe that what happened is what I began hinting at the beginning, that Christianity originated in the beginning of religious cults that included temple prostitution and also encouraged other kinds of sexual activities. And so, the first thing we must remember about the origins of Christianity is that the early Christians did not expect the world to last very long. That's almost axiomatic when you look at the work of the Apostle Paul, he expected Jesus to return during his own lifetime. So he really didn't worry too much about teaching anything about sexual purity or impurity forever, but only for his own particular time. And chances are he was conflicted about his own sexuality and he thought that we shouldn't even worry about sexuality, let's just prepare ourselves for the return of the Lord. Interestingly enough, nineteen centuries later the Shakers did the same thing. Now the Shakers at least were smart enough or consistent enough to say "since the Lord is coming we're not going to have sex" and they disappeared. [laughs] Which, you know, they solved every problem right there, right? But what happened is indeed the Lord did not return and in fact a lot of the literature in the New Testament begins to correct that impression that the Lord is going to return very soon and to make sure people understand that Paul wasn't that wrong, that God has a different sense of time than humans have and all of these other kinds of things. And then what began appearing as a temporary kind of thing begins to be seen as an eternal kind of thing. And then you have Augustine, who... talk about someone who was conflicted about his own sexuality. First he was an absolutely depraved guy, I mean anything that moves kind of a guy almost. His poor mother Monica praying for him to be converted and all that; he was with the Manicheans for a long time and then comes into Christianity. And then he has spent all of his libido, and then he wants to impose on everybody else the rules that he's imposing on himself... And I think the ball keeps on rolling and it snowballs and gets bigger and bigger and then of course we get into the institutionalization of the Church which then has clergy and eventually celibate clergy. The requirement for celibacy was not there from the very beginning, it's something that creeps in later on in history. And so all of that begins to say "sex is dirty." Essentially the message of Christianity has been, you can distill it as a friend of mine says, "sex is dirty, save it for someone you love." [laughs] Wow! That's what we're really saying. But you look at the scriptures and you look at the beginning of our documents and we have this wonderful Song of Solomon, for instance. Praising the human body and praising the human sexuality. So wherever it started... and of course then it was connected with original sin and other kinds of things which, it isn't. I mean when you really look at the text carefully, it is just not there.

[Other snippets with jaw-dropping qualities]

[...] I think that we should have sex education in the churches, and I invite the religious right to also speak about sexuality in their own pulpits and in their own churches, teach their own kids their values and then Planned Parenthood will take care of their strays. Because I know most people stray from the teachings of their own religion.

[...] The United States and Europe, when a child is born in any of those countries, that child is going to impact the environment far more than 10 children that are born in the 3rd world. That's not to say the 3rd world should be having 10 children.

[...] [Abortion] doesn't destroy a person. Certainly if it happens within the first 3 months. If you read a book like Dombrowski's [sp?] who's a Roman Catholic, teaches at a Jesuit university, "A Brief Liberal Catholic Defense of Abortion" you will see that within Catholic teachings there are strong differentiations between a fetus in the early stages and a fetus at the time of what is called "awakening." I would have a difficult time, obviously, if I were a woman myself, thank God I don't have to face that, so that why I leave the agency in the hands of moral human beings.

[...] The religious right's real target is contraception. It's not just abortion. And then one really unmasks the real issue. The real issue is that the religious right is afraid of strong women. And women who can control their own sexuality and their own reproductivity are strong women, and they are deadly afraid of them.

The Pope and His Speech

I've been amazed from the beginning how the news reports have taken quotes out of context when it comes to Benedict XVI's speech on Sept. 12. So I'm furnishing the links to help you sort out what is fact and what is fiction.

The speech.

The apology.

It seems to me that the two quotes which have so enraged the Muslim world were part of the introduction of the Pope's speech and had little to do with his message. The words are quoted from a 14th century emperor. In his apology, B XVI clarifies that he does not agree with the emperor's opinion. His apology seems to be sadness at the reactions rather than a retraction of the quotes.

Today I saw this:

"The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

I'll be saying some extra prayers tonight...

Some Good News on Sudan

At least for Illinois residents... Today as I was pondering which actions I plan to take to try and help Sudan, I came across the Sudan Divestment Task Force webpage. Because there is not much leverage left for the international community to pressure Sudan's government, some people came up with the idea of removing money invested in the stocks of companies which help support the government, but don't support the people. From the website:

"Targeted divestment is the removal of invested money from companies that are directly or indirectly helping the Sudanese government perpetuate genocide. Since the ultimate intent of Sudan divestment is to protect the victims of genocide, it is important to tailor divestment to have maximal impact on the government of Sudan's behavior and minimal harm to innocent Sudanese (and to the financial health of institutional investments in the US). Divestment should therefore be targeted to those companies that provide revenue (or arms) to the government, impart minimal benefit to the country's underprivileged, and have expressed no significant corporate governance policy regarding the Darfur situation (so-called targeted divestment). Such targeted divestment implicitly excludes companies involved in agriculture, production and distribution of consumer goods, or engaged solely in the provision of goods and services intended to relieve human suffering or to promote welfare, health, religious and spiritual activities, and education."

So here is the good news. Illinois is one of only 4 states in the nation to have passed any divestment bill. Our bill (passed in 2005) essentially divests the entire Illinois pension system out of these targeted companies! Wow! You can see the text of the bill here. Halfway down the page is the underlined section which is particularly relevant.

The other good news is that the student government of the University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign, has passed a resolution for divestment and is preparing a formal proposal this semester. Now this makes me proud to be an alumnus as there are only 42 universities in the country with formal divestment campaigns. I plan on emailing the contact person for this campaign and asking what I can do to help. I will post any updates as I have them.

A Moment of Silence for Sudan

Sunday was "Global Day for Darfur," if you didn't know. In a couple weeks all African Union troops will pull out of Sudan and no UN "blue helmets" will take their place. Sudan's government has refused to let the UN troops into its borders, regardless of circumstance. The people will be unprotected and aid may not last for long under insecure conditions. 250,000 people have died between 2001 and today and the militias show no sign of weakening or stopping.

Remember Rwanda. 800,000 dead. The world stood by and did nothing... I was 15. What did I know? I think about what I did on a typical day, a 15 year old kid with my superficial wants. I knew about the Holocaust. I knew what "genocide" meant. I didn't know how many there have been in this century, or that one was occurring at that moment. I've read what happened in 1994 when I was blissfully ignorant. It makes me sick to my stomach to think about it happening again... and again... This a critical time for Sudan and it may be the last chance for action. Call your elected official. Write an editorial to a newspaper. Inform friends and family. Say a prayer.

A blind eye to genocide
"A few years ago an American politician commented that if his phone had rung off the hook with his concerned voters asking him to do something about Rwanda he would have been forced to act."

Will anyone step in, help Sudan?
"After the Holocaust, the world said "never again." Never again will we stand by and watch while millions are slaughtered. After the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, the world said "never again." After the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the world said "never again." After the mass killings in Srebenica (in Bosnia) in 1995, the world said "never again." Probably in 2008 the world will say "never again" after the slow-motion genocide in Sudan is finally brought to its terrible completion."

Activists around the world focus on Darfur

Open to attack

The cost of Sudan

Genocide Watch

I cannot recommend enough: "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" by Samantha Power. It is not light reading, but it is eye-opening.

Getting Along With Less Meat

I promised I would write again about tips and tricks which have helped us to eat less meat per week than we normally have.

Tip #1: Grow a garden. I know, I know. A garden is extra work and it's so easy to buy whatever you need at the grocery store. But for us, a garden has really helped us to cut back on meat in the summer. Why? Well, I personally can't stand to see food wasted. It conjures up images of starving children in Africa whenever I have to throw out something that's sat long enough to go bad. The advantage of a garden is that once it starts producing there is a short window when the vegetables have to be eaten or they will spoil. So instead of focusing meals around meat, I find I have to focus them around tomatoes instead because I'm swamped with tomatoes. You'll also find it's also much less work to eat the veggies fresh in meals than to work with preserving them in cans or even the freezer.

Tip #2: Frequent your local farmer's market, especially when you're hungry. This will cause you to buy FAR more fruits and vegetables than you could possibly eat in a week and you'll be stuck with a dilemma much like Tip #1.

Tip #3: When you do use meat, use it in one-dish meals which encompass all food groups and make extra to freeze. This may seem like an odd tip, but consider the difference between 1/2 pound of steak in one piece, and 1/2 pound of hamburger in a casserole with 1/2 pound of pasta and 1/2 pound of vegetables and 1/2 pound of eggs/cheese. The second option is better because you stretch the meat to go much further in your meal, and you also get the vegetables in without consciously planning for them. I don't know about you, but (especially in the winter months) I just don't focus on vegetables as much as I should. If you make 3 times the casserole/soup you need at one time and freeze the rest, and do the same every time you make a new dish, your freezer will be stocked and then you'll be in a situation where you'll have to eat that older food to make room in the freezer. So I guess this tip is all about forcing yourself not to have a choice to eat that steak... Making extra also has the advantage of ready-made meals when you are in a pinch for time. If you're the kind of person who doesn't particularly like to cook, it helps you to cook less often.

Tip #4: If you're buying the same cuts of meat all the time, try to imagine how many animals went into producing the meat you use in a month. If you're always eating the same cut you're going through a lot of individual animals. Note: this does not apply as much to ground meats as it does to solid cuts. Try diversifying the cuts you buy and prepare. This will actually help prepare you for buying a whole or half animal because you'll know what to do with that cube steak as well as that roast.

Tip #5: Going along with Tip #4... Try using more unconventional parts of the animal, especially in stock. This is especially relevant if you decide to buy your meat locally and order half an animal. Are you sure you can't use the bones, the heart, liver, kidneys, tongue, jowls, even the feet? These are all things that we have learned how to use. Are you throwing away the bag of giblets when you buy a whole chicken? Why? Even if you don't eat the giblets you could at least add them to a batch of chicken stock and release their nutrients into the water. This is another way to stretch the purchase of an animal. The plus is that most of the organ meats are exceptionally rich in vitamins, fatty acids and minerals - much richer than meat which comes from muscle. You'll also find that they are quite cheap because demand for them is low. And nothing can beat real homemade chicken stock when you're sick.

Next time: Recipes!

Asset Forfeiture

Do you know what this is? It's the power of the government to seize property which has been implicated in a crime without compensating the owner. It does not matter if the owner is guilty of a crime and in most cases the owners are never charged and prosecuted. In these cases the property in question is treated as a person (i.e. U.S. Government vs one Ford tractor) in determining whether it remains seized or returned to the owner. The burden of proof (that the property was not implicated in a crime) is on the owner, not on the government. The government does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was implicated in the crime.

So, for example, you could have a winter home in Florida which ends up being broken into and used as a meth lab while you're absent during the summer. The local police, upon finding the lab, have the right to confiscate the property and its contents without giving you a dime, regardless of the fact that you had no knowledge of the crime and and are innocent. The property itself is treated as a person (in the way that a company is treated as a person) and is in effect charged with the crime. You yourself are never charged. You are required to pay your own legal fees in any appeal, without access to any of the funds/assets you would have kept in that house or the proceeds of the sale of that house. Once the property is officially seized the US Marshals Service auctions it off to pay for more law enforcement, thus giving an incentive for more seizures. You have to keep making any payments on the mortgage of the house while the case is pending, which can take years - otherwise your credit score will be ruined.

Or say the property seized costs much less, like a $500 gun. Not many people will pay the thousands in court fees for property worth much less so it remains with the law enforcement, uncontested, then auctioned.

Want to learn more?
Forfeiture Endangers Human Rights
Seizure Fever: The War on Property Rights
Most recently: Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
Drug war Scotches property rights

Takes After Mommy

When I was a kid, I knew I had reached my limit of books at the library when I physically could not carry any more. My parents would drop me off for an hour and I'd waddle back out to the car looking much like Ds here. My arms would be aching under all the weight! Once we were home I was off to my room to lie on the bed reading for the rest of the day.... never had the willpower to put a good book down for long. Sometimes it was a field guide to butterflies, or a horror novel, or a choose-your-own-adventure (which I still love, deep down), or Dick Tracy strips, or a manual on how to raise livestock, or a book on origami, or a collection of political cartoons.

Ds is such a little bookworm; it's so fun to see him get excited about reading. He'll recite his favorite sections of books like "Horton Hatches the Egg" several times a day, out of the blue. It's one of those things I keep thinking I should get recorded but we don't have the resources to do that here. Maybe someday...

When he's not reciting, he spends a lot of his time listening to music and singing - I think I have a heavy influence! Much of our day is spent along the lines of "sing a song?' "which song?" "turn on radio?" There's nothing quite like a 2-yo's a capella "Give me the beat boys and free my soul, I wanna get lost in your rock and roll and drift away..." He also sings "Salve Regina" quite well but he needs a little bit of help remembering what comes next, and his Latin is not very polished. In fact, it sounds more like gibberish than Latin, but it's still adorable. He really gets into it at the end, "ohhhhHH clemens, OOOHHHH PEEE-AAA" - makes me grin every time. But what's really exciting is that Ds generally stays on pitch and I am really looking forward to fostering his natural musical talent. He also does very well with rhythm; most times I clap out the beat of a song he knows, he will correctly guess the song before I'm through. We've looked at simple sheet music and I sing the melody while pointing to the music notes in rhythm. He is fascinated by this, especially if it is a song he knows. He also really enjoys when I play a song on his toy xylophone and we sing along together. It's just a simple octave xylophone, but at Christmas Ds is going to get a quality toy piano with 2 octaves and functional black keys. Very exciting for Mommy!