You will need:
- One supermarket rotisserie chicken
- Two stalks of celery, finely chopped
- Two hard-cooked eggs
- One cup mayo (homemade is best, but Hellman’s works in a pinch)
- One lemon (for juice)
- Dry poultry stuffing seasoning (I highly recommend this)
- Ground cayenne pepper (optional)
- Salt and fresh ground pepper
Here’s what you do:
- Separate the drumsticks and wings from the chicken, and set them to the side.
- Take the meat from the breasts and thighs, and set them aside, being careful to remove any bones.
- Remove most, but not all, of the skin from the breast and thigh meat. I’d say leave 1/4 of it, and set the other 3/4 aside.
- Coarsely chop the breast and thigh meat, and measure it into a large mixing bowl. You should wind up with about 3 cups of chopped chicken. If more or less, you’ll need to adjust the other ingredients accordingly.
- By now, you’ve probably worked up quite an appetite. Eat the drumsticks and wings. And if you’re that kind of guy (like I am), eat the skin that you set aside. (Yum! Artery-clogging goodness!) Rinse the bones from the wings and drumsticks, and package them up with the rest of the chicken carcass. Freeze that for making stock at a later date.
- Stir the chopped celery into the bowl with the chicken, along with 1 Tbsp of Poultry seasoning and eight or ten fresh grinds of black pepper.
- Squeeze the juice out of 1/2 of the lemon, and strain out any seeds. Stir the juice into the bowl.
- If you like a little bit of heat, now’s the time to add 1/8 to 1/4 tsp of ground cayenne pepper to the bowl, and stir to combine.
- Now, the “secret ingredient” comes in: Peel the two hard-cooked eggs, and cut them into halves. Salt and eat one of the halves, and finely chop the other three. Stir the chopped egg into the bowl.
- Stir in the mayo, starting with 1/2 cup, and then gradually adding a spoonful at a time until the chicken salad reaches the desired consistency (all a matter of taste — I like a lot of mayo, some people like it drier).
- When the desired consistency is reached, taste for seasoning, and adjust as needed. You’ll probably want to add a pinch or two of salt and a few more grinds of pepper, depending on what you like. You may also decide to add more poultry seasoning if you want a richer flavor.
- Refrigerate overnight to let the flavors meld, and then it’s Sammitch Time!
That’s really all there is to it. If you’re super lazy, you can drain canned chunk chicken and use that instead of the rotisserie stuff, but the salad will be saltier, drier, and not nearly as good.
Oh, and as a side note, I understand that some people like chopped almonds in their chicken salad. I don’t agree with this, but if that’s your thing, go for it. You’d probably want about 1/2 cup for the above recipe. However, there’s never a good reason to put grapes in chicken salad, so don’t do this! Ever!
Enjoy!
June 25th, 2007
|
Food & Cooking |
3 comments
[NB: This began as a comment on Kevin’s post, below. But my point is somewhat different, and the comment got too long, so I moved it up here. - KTK]
Attacks on Romney for being Mormon are out of line and should be condemned.
Why, exactly, is this, anyway?
If attacking someone for “being an X” (where “X” is “member of some certain religion”) is understood simply to mean saying that they hold certain beliefs (characteristic of X) and those beliefs should be condemned, why would it possibly not be legitimate to attack them in that way? What else could we judge a person on - especially in the political arena - but their beliefs and how they act on them? We certainly have no hesitation in making such attacks for all beliefs other than religious ones - but are somehow pulled up short as soon as those beliefs are called “religious”.
The strangest thing is that we have allowed the least-defensible beliefs to be elevated to the level of the most-off-limits to criticism - while simultaneously allowing holders of those beliefs to cite them, without being called on to defend them, as reasons for their adopting policies that are themselves indefensible.
Homophobia is a character flaw. Religious homophobia is not only a point of pride for many, but instantly becomes acceptable and off-limits to criticism as soon as the adjective is added to the insanity. That the embryo or early fetus has precisely the same moral interests as a full-grown, mentally competent adult is an absurd proposition on its face. Assert it as religious belief, and it sudenly becomes not merely worthy of respect, but irrefutable!
In any other context, we would demand reasons and explanations for what people do, and would subject the beliefs that guide their actions to the test of rationality and conformity to civilized values. Yet we have allowed ourselves to be prohibited from doing so any time the subject merely asserts that those beliefs are religious (or, “matters of faith”, as if that were somehow more exalted than sectarian dogma).
For no conceivable reason, we have condemned huge swaths of public policy, political discourse, and private life to the exclusive hegemony of (aggressive, politically-motivated) non-rational sectarian activism, grounded on nothing more than self-justifying fervency - and we reinforce this suicide pact by the constant reminder to those who might be inclined to display any degree of logical rigor in that direction, that “we must not criticize people’s religion”. I suggest, instead, we should grant religion the respect of being taken seriously enough that we expect it to make sense, demand that it not offend against the rights and values of other members of the community, and reject it when it fails these tests.
There are reasons to be cautious about attacks on religious beliefs, of course. The history of religious persecution, and the religious wars still ongoing, point up the dangers of religious prejudice or religious animosity, as opposed to criticism of religion. But those dangers are precisely those of prejudice, persecution, and war of conquest - things we know are unacceptable for reasons having nothing to do with religion. We have rightly repudiated our history of religious prejudice, but in embracing tolerance have given religious believers carte blanche for their own prejudice and irrationality - to the point that, today, the religious right declares that it is victimized by not being allowed to persecute gays (among many, many other ordinary facts of civilized life)!
One might reasonably argue that religion, properly understood, belongs on the “private” side of the public/private distinction and is thus immune to criticism. This argument is an important one, and I would like to see it better appreciated. I would be glad to accept such a consensus. But that would also mean that religion could not be cited as justification for public policy, or even for support of policies congenial to one’s religion that were not supportable on other grounds. (The fact that you like Mozart does not justify you in demanding special privileges for Mozartians. The fact that you like Jesus does not justify you in demanding special privileges for Jesusians, still less reduced privileges for others.) If religious believers were willing to see their own religion as JFK did, as a personal matter which he would not allow to interfere with his political duties, they would have a claim to be entitled to practice their beliefs without criticism - but there would also be no reason for that criticism. It is because religious believers refuse to treat their own beliefs about religion - or anyone else’s - as private that they are subject to criticism for the content of those beliefs which they bring into the public sphere.
There is, finally, the “don’t rouse the bastids” argument - that holding people accountable for the content of their religious beliefs simply provokes them, often into violence, and that it’s better just to let things ride. I think recent history has taught us the emptiness of that forlorn hope.
So, I think I’m tired of constantly being told we can’t say anything about the reasons other people cite for distorting public policy and blunting the lives and freedoms of others. I want to hear rational reasons, grounded in fact, for laws and policies, and I want to see a firm consensus that any laws or policies not so grounded are invalid on their face. I want it said, and universally acknowledged, that most of the policies promoted by the religious right - from “abstinence only” to lack of birth control to mandated false information about abortion to phonics-only language instruction (how did that become a religious issue, anyway?) to embryo fetishism to creationism - are grounded on no rational analysis and no provable facts, and have been abject failures in practice; I want the obvious implication of that fact acted on and these idiotic policies vacated unless and until they can be defended on rational grounds in comparison with what we already know is true and does work. I want every Republican candidate to be required to cite explicit reasons, grounded in fact and logic, for their support (if it is such) of creationism, lack of choice on abortion, anti-environmentalism, airwaves censorship, and whatever other absurdities they’ve been pushing, and I want every one of them blackballed from the primaries if they can’t do so, plausibly, without notes, on the first try. I want Romney to explain exactly how his Mormonism influenced his (various) votes on abortion, stem cell research, and access to birth control, and, if his answer is anything other than “it’s totally irrelevant”, why exactly we should take seriously as a presidential candidate someone whose policy decisions are grounded in such absolute, sidesplittingly ludicrous inanity as the Book of Mormon. I want all the other Republican candidates (and Hillary, and maybe Obama and Edwards) to answer the same question about their policy decisions, on the same grounds. Then I want them all to answer the question “How will your religion influence your policy decisions in the future?”, and, if their answers are anything but “it’s totally irrelevant”, I want a big trapdoor to open under them and dump them in a pit for the duration of the campaign. Mostly, I want the things religious people say and expect others to believe to be subject to test, in the same way any other statement by any rational person is so.
Until now, that has clearly been too much to ask, because we have allowed ourselves to be bamboozled into accepting absurdity as wisdom, falsehood as truth, and faith as reason. But is it too much to expect from now on?
June 25th, 2007
|
General, Politics, Church & State, Religion, Culture, Privacy, Education, News & Current Events |
one comment
UPDATE: Lookie here! I got the Qoute of the Day! 
Television has always gotten a lot of credit (or, depending on your perspective, blame) when it comes to helping to drive change in the culture. Most often, this comes in the form of sitcoms. When the issue is race, we often think of All in the Family or The Jeffersons. When it’s gender equality, we think of shows like Mary Tyler Moore or Murphy Brown. And when it’s homosexuality, we think of shows like Ellen and Will & Grace. Even though the moves away from bigotry were already in progress, the shows still did a lot to impact public opinion, and expedite those advances, just by the nature of how widely they were viewed.
But in all of those cases, the message was very deliberate. That is, the shows were trying to make a point to address the social issues in question. While such shows, and such methods, continue to be effective, and in many cases earn rightly-deserved praise, there are unsung heroes in this ongoing fight for equality, especially but not exclusively for same-sex couples, and they live on basic cable. More specifically, they live on channels like HGTV, DIY, and Fine Living; to a lesser extent, they live on channels like Food Network and The Travel Channel. I see it on shows like House Hunters and Landscaper’s Challenge and What You Get For The Money. And from where I sit, they’re doing an even more effective job than the sitcoms I’ve listed.
Why do I say this? Because where the sitcoms are dealing with fictional characters in contrived situations, the shows on the basic cable networks are showing real people in real scenarios. More importantly, they’re showing them not in extraordinary circumstances, but in every day circumstances. And even more importantly than that, whether they’re dealing with single (especially female) parents, mixed race couples, unmarried couples, or same-sex couples, they simply ignore those scenarios and the social baggage that comes with them, and present a show about the issue in question, whether that’s landscaping or home improvement or travel or cooking or whatever. In other words, the same-sex or mixed-race couple is treated no differently than any other.
Presented in this context, you’ll see a same-sex couple taking bids to improve their home, but the fact that they’re a same-sex couple isn’t even mentioned. You’ll see a single mom working to make her home work better for her needs, and there may only be a passing mention that she’s a single mom. You’ll see an unwed couple taking landscaping bids. The list goes on and on. They’re presented as homeowners like any other, because for all intents and purposes, they are homeowners like any other. And that’s what’s so uniquely powerful about this sort of television. It acutely underscores the fact that these people are just people, like you or me or anyone else, and that although their circumstances or preferences may be different from yours or mine, they’re still just ordinary people.
One of the most powerful drivers of equality on any issue is the recognition that others are more like us than unlike us. These shows and these networks are presenting a myriad of people in exactly that way, and this, to me, does a tremendous amount of good in advancing those goals.
June 25th, 2007
|
Politics, Culture |
28 comments
Mitt Romney is complaining that too many of his GOP opponents are attacking him based on his religion:
Mitt Romney said Saturday that criticism of his Mormon religion by rival GOP presidential campaigns is happening too frequently.
“Clearly, any derogatory comments about anyone’s faith — those comments are troubling. The fact they keep on coming up is even more troubling,” Romney said during a fundraising trip in the home state of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Normally I would be on Romney’s side here, but Romney has made his faith a center point of his campaign. He has pandered shamelessly to the religious right on a host of issues, going to often ridiculous extremes to explain why his flip flops aren’t, actually, flip flops. More, his faith is one of the center point of his campaign. He wants people to vote for him because, in large part, he is a “man of faith.” That appeal rests on two pillars — tribalism and policy — and as such its perfectly acceptable to take issue with the actual meaning of that appeal.
Part of the reason for emphasis his faith is to convince GOP primary voters — specifically those voters who are members of the religious right and similar groups — that he is one of them. Tribalism is a powerful force in human history and relationships and the modern GOP has used that force very effectively. So effectively, ion fact, that it is close to impossible for a GOP candidate to survive the primary without the support of the religious right. Romney knows this, and knows that tribalism can be an effective way to reach a large portion of that voting base. Unfortunately for Romney, a good portion of that voting block doesn’t consider Mormons real Christians. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for other candidates to say, in effect, “no, whatever game he talks, he is not actually a member of our tribe.” It isn’t the prettiest of politics, but it is a fact of life and such attacks are made legitimate by Romney’s own actions. He is either trying to pass as a member of a tribe he is not or convince that tribe to enlarge its definition of who qualifies for membership. If Romney didn’t want to be attacked based on religious tribalism, he should not have made such a strong effort to con/convince the religious right tribe that he belongs to them.
Similarly, Romney’s placing his faith at the center of his campaign opens him up to questions about what, exactly, does that mean. When a political candidates says, essentially, that his faith guides his decisions, then people are entitled to know what his faith instucts its members to do. And those instructions are just as open to discussion, debate, attack, and rejection as any other set of policy positions or guiding principles. Again, if Romney did not want the tenets of his faith to be campaign fodder then he should be careful to not give the impression that his faith will guide his decisions.
This is obviously a tricky issue. The line between legitimate debate and bigoted attacks is very fine, and very easy to cross with the blunt instrument that is our current media. Attacks on Romney for being Mormon are out of line and should be condemned. But Romney has brought his faith to the forefront of his campaign. It is perfectly acceptable — indeed, it is almost an obligations– for his opponents to question what, exactly, that means. If Romney does not like it, then he either needs to convince GOP primary voters that they like what it means or he should change his tactics. But complaining that other campaigns are taking his faith and its requirements as seriously as he says he does is just whining.
June 25th, 2007
|
Politics, Church & State |
32 comments
Two interesting bit today. First, Obama directly challenges the morally crippled version of Christianity that the Religious Right pushes:
Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right-wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.
“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a 30-minute speech before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.
“Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us,” the Illinois senator said.
“At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,” according to an advance copy of his speech.
“There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich,” Obama said. “I don’t know what Bible they’re reading, but it doesn’t jibe with my version.”
This needs to be said over and over again. The version of Christianity that the religious right pushes, with its reflexive Republicanism, its support for supply-side voodoo economicts, its contempt for society and democracy as agents of the common good, and its un-Biblical and out-sized obsession with homosexuality is one that many, many of do not recognize form our Sunday sermons and religious educations. The usual talking heads will claim that this speech is an attack on all religion, or that Obama is somehow out of touch with mainstream Americans. That is nonsense. Fortunately, the American people recognize it as such:
In the United States, the Bush era has summoned up — arguably for the first time in this country’s history — a mass secularism that looks to Europe and sees a model for America to follow. […]
America’s secular turn actually began in the 1990s, though it wasn’t until 2002 that two Berkeley sociologists first noticed it. In a paper in the American Sociological Review, Michael Hout and Claude S. Fischer announced the startling fact that the percentage of Americans who said they had “no religious preference” had doubled in less than 10 years, rising from 7 percent to 14 percent of the population.
This unexpected spike wasn’t the result of growing atheism, Hout and Fischer argued; rather, more Americans were distancing themselves from organized religion as “a symbolic statement” against the religious right. If the association of religiosity with political conservatism continued to gain strength, the sociologists suggested, “then liberals’ alienation from organized religion [might] become, as it has in many other nations, institutionalized.”
The text is from a Ross Dohout article in the Atlantic and is quoted by Josh Marshall.
Many people in this country look at the religious Right and see not the mainstream values they were raised with, but rather a monomaniacal obsession with a handful of issues that simply do not resonate with the religious teachings of their youth. People see the religious right trying to force all children to say the religious right’s version of a prayer, regardless of their own beliefs. They see the religious right attempt to use the power of the federal government to interfere in the most difficult and private of matters. They see an organization more concerned with who people have sex with than with how to help starving children. And they are turning from that crippled version of religion in droves. Ironically, the establishment press and the GOP have done such a good job in pretending that the religious right is religion that a rapidly expanding number of people are turning their back on all organized religion. God, as the platypus should attest, apparently has a sense of humor.
Obama is trying to speak for those religious people who derive value form their religion but are uncomfortable with the narrow and often radically un-Biblical obsessions of the religious right. It will not play well with the establishment press. Religion, to the Broders and Russerts of the world always speaks from the right side of the aisle and only speaks about a narrow subset — the least radical subset, it must be mentioned — of the Bible. Obama, on the other hand, knows about the entire Bible and knows that he is not alone in that knowledge. Maybe, just maybe, in six months when Obama is doing quite well among the religious in this country, the Borders and the Russerts will begin to question their assumptions about what the term “religious” means in a country like the United States.
Probably not, though. I suspect that shaking the Heathers of the national press loose from their biases and reflexes is a taller order than even the loaves and the fishes.
June 25th, 2007
|
General, Church & State, Religion, Media |
5 comments
