I went to lunch with the family last weekend as my brother and sister were preparing to go out of town this week. It was one last chance to catch up on things before being in different cities for a few days. Sounds a little crazy, I know, but I don’t care because I got to see my niece for a few hours. She even went all thug at one point and threw her glass bottle to the ground, shattering it and spraying apple juice everywhere. She’s hardcore…straight from the hood! Anyway, we went to a country style eatery near my brother’s place and I got me some chicken fried steak (it is the Sunday special after all). It comes with mashed potatoes and realized once again my love affair with them. Sure I have had mashed potatoes off and on over the past months, but there’s something about having mashed potatoes and chicken fried anything that just rekindles your love. Must be the gravy…thus I thought I would elaborate on my love of mashed potatoes today.
Are ya’ll ready? Ready to get your mash on long? Ready to get your mash on strong? How great is it that a bunch of rock-hard brown things yanked from the dirt can turn into a creamy smooth-n-salty canvas of deliciousness right in the middle of our plates? I’m talking salty lumps, I’m talking tasty bumps, I’m talking mashed potatoes, people. Mashed potatoes require a certain artistry to make, especially from scratch. Sure, the instant mashed potato flakes don’t measure up to the real thing, but if prepared properly, they are more than serviceable. My family has a long tradition of making mashed potatoes properly from scratch, however. You have to know what to use and what not to use. If the potatoes are cooked just right, then you don’t need to cheat by adding sour cream or any other binding agent to them before mashed. All you need is a little salt and pepper, milk, and butter (unsalted real butter is best). Some people like their mashed taters with skins…I say to each their own. I can say that sometimes skins add a little flavor and sometimes they make the whole thing taste like dirt.
Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty here. The true loveliness of mashed potatoes comes from the fact that they are moldable. Their like Play-Doh that you can eat and it doesn’t have the taste of Play-Doh (for all you weirdoes out there who actually ate Play-Doh as a kid…weirdoes). Mashed potatoes are one of the few foods who achieve that rare 10 out of 10 on sculpt-ability. This comes in handy when eating your mashed potatoes with gravy. I don’t know where the heavenly combination of mashed potatoes and gravy came from, but it is truly glorious. There are many ways you can form your taters to handle the gravy properly:
- Lakes and ponds. The classic. Nobody’s bending burgers into teapots or folding pancakes into salad plates, but we’ve got no problems curving sloppy potatoes into gravy swimming pools in no time flat.
- Broken dams. Need some gravy on that turkey? No problem! Just slice a gully in the side of Lake Gravy and watch the salty brown goodness lay a flash flood on that bird.
- Retaining walls. Sorry? What’s that? Unruly cranberry sauce is threatening to contaminate your casserole? No problem! Just smear some mashed potato paste across your plate like mortar and keep all the flavors where they belong.
- Buried volcano. When you got the gravy pond sitting pretty on your plate it’s sometimes fun letting it soak in and then quickly flipping the entire structure onto itself, completely submerging the gravy under a thin sheen of potato. Now you’ve got a starchy chest full of treasure.
And because mashed potatoes offer so much potential it’s not uncommon to see other creations like green-bean porcupines or lumpy Pyramids of Giza in the middle of a mashed potato plate. I am not advocating playing with your food, not in the least. I was raised a southern gentleman by a good Catholic couple from up north (a contradiction, I know), but that means you sit up, keep your elbows off the table, and don’t play with your food (while anyone is looking). I have to admit, I am stung by the creativity bug when I’ve got a smooth pile of mashed potatoes on my plate. I try to find ways to eat them so as to form a story. Like the army is surrounding the potato village and their cannons are breaking down the potato walls slowly, bit by bit. There is really no limit to the possibilities so just remember to dig for the moment, sculpt for the memories, and build for your life.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Babaganoush Sports Beat
Just in case the fact the Rangers lost two of three games to Oakland last weekend made any of you a little anxious that this AL West race might become more nerve-wracking than you might prefer, let’s step away from the race for a moment. I’m not saying there is cause for concern about our upcoming push for the playoffs, but it is never too early to start thinking or game planning for next season. Besides, do you want to be the one hit wonder team who crushed the competition one year and fizzled the next? Yeah, me neither. So let’s just tap the brakes on playoff talk and walk this way…
Slowly. Carefully. There ya go.
Now, let’s talk about something we’re more used to talking about at this time of year. Mainly, that would be next year. While CEO Chuck Greenberg said the club would pursue free agent pitcher Cliff Lee for a long-term deal after 2010, the question is whether investing in him long-term would pay the biggest benefit. Cliff Lee can pitch. And he’s not tanking it. But the question is this: If the Rangers can afford to make one major free-agent acquisition, where are the dollars best spent? There are definitely various other spots around the field where you could at least consider a major investment or at least some well calculated moves. I’ll go around the horn and point out some opportunities that the team shouldn’t pass up if it is at all possible to address them.
Catcher: Remember a year ago, when this position looked like it was stocked for years to come? Not so anymore. The Rangers had to rush to get Matt Treanor as a backup during spring, got more than they ever expected and then still felt the need to get Bengie Molina to front the position. Molina went into Monday hitting .212 as a Ranger. Anybody interested in bringing him back? Or giving the job to Treanor, who will be 35 and who has never been a starter? Or Taylor Teagarden? It’s a problem position. The Rangers will need to pursue a catcher this winter. There just aren’t many guys – if any – out there who would be worthy of a long-term deal and big bucks. The Rangers will sign or trade for another catcher this winter, but it won’t be for prime dollars. It will fall under the heading of “affordable.”
First base: Remember, like six months ago, when the position looked like it was stocked for years to come? Not so anymore. Justin Smoak was traded in the Cliff Lee deal. Chris Davis appears to have three strikes against him after three demotions in two seasons. Mitch Moreland has done a solid job since his promotion, but didn’t Davis do the same thing with more pop for half a year in 2008? Are the Rangers content to go with Moreland, considered the lowest of the three first base prospects in the system a year ago or might they want to pursue somebody like Adrian Gonzalez, a Gold Glove caliber defender and disciplined hitter? Could they bring themselves to doing that after letting him go as a throw-in five years ago?
Third base: There is public sentiment that Michael Young’s defense is regressing. I’d say his defense has been disappointing this season. Think even Young will eventually acknowledge that and pledge to do all he can to improve his range for 2011. But despite the defensive shortcomings, which extend only to range (not hands or arm strength), Young remains one of the better overall options at third. If, however, Boston’s Adrian Beltre were to test free agency, you’d have one guy who might be a better defensive fit and an equal offensive threat. It would allow the Rangers to potentially step away from Vladimir Guerrero, make Young the regular DH, but also play him at three infield spots regularly to keep Beltre and Ian Kinsler healthy and Elvis Andrus fresh. It might be intriguing, but there also might be too many moving pieces to make it all work.
Outfield : It’s rumored that Carl Crawford will end up with the New York Yankees after this season. Just as it’s rumored Cliff Lee will end up there. The Rangers have spent the whole year flip-flopping between a pair of left-handed bats in the outfield. David Murphy can produce runs and plays solid all-around defense; Julio Borbon can run and gets to everything in the outfield. Crawford does what both Murphy and Borbon do, only better. How would an outfield of Crawford in left, Josh Hamilton in center and Nelson Cruz in right, look? Expensive. That’s how it would look. But it would also look air tight on defense and multi-dimensional on offense.
So that said, where do you go? You stick with pursuing Lee and putting him atop the rotation (which I see as less and less of a need if the post All-Star CJ Wilson is going to stick around for a few years), or do you decide to take draft picks for him, let the Yankees take all the financial risk and try to address another spot on the roster?
Slowly. Carefully. There ya go.
Now, let’s talk about something we’re more used to talking about at this time of year. Mainly, that would be next year. While CEO Chuck Greenberg said the club would pursue free agent pitcher Cliff Lee for a long-term deal after 2010, the question is whether investing in him long-term would pay the biggest benefit. Cliff Lee can pitch. And he’s not tanking it. But the question is this: If the Rangers can afford to make one major free-agent acquisition, where are the dollars best spent? There are definitely various other spots around the field where you could at least consider a major investment or at least some well calculated moves. I’ll go around the horn and point out some opportunities that the team shouldn’t pass up if it is at all possible to address them.
Catcher: Remember a year ago, when this position looked like it was stocked for years to come? Not so anymore. The Rangers had to rush to get Matt Treanor as a backup during spring, got more than they ever expected and then still felt the need to get Bengie Molina to front the position. Molina went into Monday hitting .212 as a Ranger. Anybody interested in bringing him back? Or giving the job to Treanor, who will be 35 and who has never been a starter? Or Taylor Teagarden? It’s a problem position. The Rangers will need to pursue a catcher this winter. There just aren’t many guys – if any – out there who would be worthy of a long-term deal and big bucks. The Rangers will sign or trade for another catcher this winter, but it won’t be for prime dollars. It will fall under the heading of “affordable.”
First base: Remember, like six months ago, when the position looked like it was stocked for years to come? Not so anymore. Justin Smoak was traded in the Cliff Lee deal. Chris Davis appears to have three strikes against him after three demotions in two seasons. Mitch Moreland has done a solid job since his promotion, but didn’t Davis do the same thing with more pop for half a year in 2008? Are the Rangers content to go with Moreland, considered the lowest of the three first base prospects in the system a year ago or might they want to pursue somebody like Adrian Gonzalez, a Gold Glove caliber defender and disciplined hitter? Could they bring themselves to doing that after letting him go as a throw-in five years ago?
Third base: There is public sentiment that Michael Young’s defense is regressing. I’d say his defense has been disappointing this season. Think even Young will eventually acknowledge that and pledge to do all he can to improve his range for 2011. But despite the defensive shortcomings, which extend only to range (not hands or arm strength), Young remains one of the better overall options at third. If, however, Boston’s Adrian Beltre were to test free agency, you’d have one guy who might be a better defensive fit and an equal offensive threat. It would allow the Rangers to potentially step away from Vladimir Guerrero, make Young the regular DH, but also play him at three infield spots regularly to keep Beltre and Ian Kinsler healthy and Elvis Andrus fresh. It might be intriguing, but there also might be too many moving pieces to make it all work.
Outfield : It’s rumored that Carl Crawford will end up with the New York Yankees after this season. Just as it’s rumored Cliff Lee will end up there. The Rangers have spent the whole year flip-flopping between a pair of left-handed bats in the outfield. David Murphy can produce runs and plays solid all-around defense; Julio Borbon can run and gets to everything in the outfield. Crawford does what both Murphy and Borbon do, only better. How would an outfield of Crawford in left, Josh Hamilton in center and Nelson Cruz in right, look? Expensive. That’s how it would look. But it would also look air tight on defense and multi-dimensional on offense.
So that said, where do you go? You stick with pursuing Lee and putting him atop the rotation (which I see as less and less of a need if the post All-Star CJ Wilson is going to stick around for a few years), or do you decide to take draft picks for him, let the Yankees take all the financial risk and try to address another spot on the roster?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Biblical Quandary: James, the brother of Jesus
Television shows and books refer to St. James as the brother of Jesus. In the Apostles’ Creed we say, “I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord…” If St. James is Jesus’ brother, would James not also be God’s son? Were Mary and Joseph the parents of James?
“James, the brother of the Lord” has puzzled people for centuries. The New Testament refers to three men named James:
- James, brother of John the Apostle, himself an apostle and a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21, etc.), is called James the Greater. He was martyred by King Herod Agrippa I about 41 A.D. (Acts 12:2) and is venerated in Santiago de Compostela (Spain).
- James, son of Alphaeus, also an apostle (Matthew 10:3, etc.), is known as James the Lesser. He was clubbed to death and is often confused with “James, the brother of the Lord.”
- The third James is the brother of Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas of Nazareth (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3). Jesus appeared to this James after the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7). With Peter, he led the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13-21), is mentioned by St. Paul (Galatians 2:12) and was stoned to death in 62 A.D. on the high priest’s orders.
The third James is the presumed author of the New Testament’s Letter of James. He may have been Jesus’ cousin; other members of his family headed the Church in Jerusalem until that city was destroyed in 70 A.D.
For us, the term “brother” means a male relative sharing identical parents with the person who calls him “brother.” The term, however, in some societies can include other male relatives, even cousins. Jesus uses “brother” in an even wider sense in Mark 3:35 (“For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother”), Matthew 25:40, Luke 22:32 and John 20:17.
The Catholic Church maintains that Mary had only one child, Jesus, who was not biologically the son of Joseph (Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:34-35). Already in the second century, the Protoevangelium of James described these “brothers of Jesus” as children of Joseph by a previous marriage. St. Jerome (d. 420) considered them cousins of Jesus. There is no scriptural evidence that Joseph was a single parent before marrying Mary.
“James, the brother of the Lord” has puzzled people for centuries. The New Testament refers to three men named James:
- James, brother of John the Apostle, himself an apostle and a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21, etc.), is called James the Greater. He was martyred by King Herod Agrippa I about 41 A.D. (Acts 12:2) and is venerated in Santiago de Compostela (Spain).
- James, son of Alphaeus, also an apostle (Matthew 10:3, etc.), is known as James the Lesser. He was clubbed to death and is often confused with “James, the brother of the Lord.”
- The third James is the brother of Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas of Nazareth (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3). Jesus appeared to this James after the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7). With Peter, he led the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13-21), is mentioned by St. Paul (Galatians 2:12) and was stoned to death in 62 A.D. on the high priest’s orders.
The third James is the presumed author of the New Testament’s Letter of James. He may have been Jesus’ cousin; other members of his family headed the Church in Jerusalem until that city was destroyed in 70 A.D.
For us, the term “brother” means a male relative sharing identical parents with the person who calls him “brother.” The term, however, in some societies can include other male relatives, even cousins. Jesus uses “brother” in an even wider sense in Mark 3:35 (“For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother”), Matthew 25:40, Luke 22:32 and John 20:17.
The Catholic Church maintains that Mary had only one child, Jesus, who was not biologically the son of Joseph (Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:34-35). Already in the second century, the Protoevangelium of James described these “brothers of Jesus” as children of Joseph by a previous marriage. St. Jerome (d. 420) considered them cousins of Jesus. There is no scriptural evidence that Joseph was a single parent before marrying Mary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
