Latest Posts

 

Molly Sez Header

I am launching another blog (not a replacement for this one, an additional blog.)  Molly Sez - Wit and wisdom from my puppy.


I talk to my dog all the time. A lot of her responses are hysterical. Others are profound. Some are both.


Updated every time there is something noteworthy.


I hope you will enjoy it!


If you grow zucchini, then around this time of year you’ve probably hit the zucchini tipping point. You’ve made zucchini pancakes, zucchini bread, zucchini with rosemary, zucchini this and zucchini that. You’ve put zucchini in soups, sandwiches, and everything else, with the possible exception of ice cream. You’ve also undoubtedly given zucchini to everyone you know, and now they politely demure when you offer them more. I had a box in front of my house for the Amazon delivery people to take zucchini when they came to my door, but, after a while it wasn’t getting taken anymore, so I stopped. Yesterday I harvested 17lbs, and I live alone. One zucchini plant is pretty much enough for two or more households, so, what do you do with the rest?


My quest for things to do with zucchini brought me to the idea of a zucchini terrine. I did the usual online searches, but a good many recipes on offer were more like casseroles or frittatas. Not bad, but not what I had in mind. So, I considered the options and made my own terrine mixing and matching the elements I liked. Fortunately, I had plenty of zucchini to experiment with, because the initial results were “OK”, but not great.


For that first try, I sliced zucchini about ¼” thick on a mandolin. I found sliced zucchini pretty for presentation, but the layers of slices tended to split apart, turning into a less attractive result on the plate. Moving on, I switched to grated zucchini which worked better. 

Zucchini is a mild flavor, so the terrine overall wasn’t compelling. I wanted more flavors and textures – hence, more vegetables – I chose carrots and mushrooms, largely because that is what I had. Also, I wanted some sourness, but I didn’t want lemon flavor, and I didn’t want to deal with possibly curdling the cream and egg, so I reached out to sumac, a spice from the middle east. Not only did it give me the sour element I wanted, but its red color added a meaty appearance to this vegetable dish. This color, combined with the umami and mouth feel of mushrooms, made the terrine more satisfying overall.

What follows is the recipe for the terrine that I have developed. However, it would be more accurate to say that it is a framework for creating such a terrine. At the end of the day, it is really just a vegetable terrine, which is a basic French cuisine construct that can be built from any vegetables you like, or whatever is fresh and available to you at the time. Further, a terrine is fundamentally a casserole cooked in a particular shape of dish in a bain Marie. This is really an example of what a zucchini terrine could be, not what it has to be. Use your imagination, and let us know what you’ve come up with.

Ingredients:
  • 2lbs Zucchini, shredded on a box grater
  • 1 Medium onion – medium dice
  • 4 Cloves garlic
  • 7oz Carrots, shredded
  • 10oz Button mushrooms, sliced
  • Optional, substitute other vegetables such as spinach, chard, etc.
  • 2-3 Tbs Finely minced basil and parsley, or whatever herbs you enjoy.
  • Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO)
  • 4 Eggs
  • ¼ Cup Cream
  • 2oz Parmesan (the real stuff – not from a jar! Yuck!)
  • 2 Tbs Sumac
  • ¼ tsp cayenne
  • Salt & Black pepper
  • Butter to coat inside of terrine
[Side note: I started out using white pepper because I didn’t want to see flecks in the custard of the terrine. But, I find that white pepper can impart a funky smell, which was out of place with the mild scent of zucchini, so I went to black pepper. It tastes and smells better, and the flecks really don’t show if ground finely.]

Method:

Preheat oven to 350F.

Shred the zucchini on a box grater. Put it in a colander with salt. Allow it to sit ½ hour or more to release moisture. Squeeze out excess by hand if necessary.

Separately, shred, slice, or chop other veggies. Keep separate if you want to create a terrine with layers. If using mushrooms, sauté in a couple tablespoons of water, not oil, until dry. This will par cook the mushrooms and cause them to release water without making them greasy (See the America’s Test Kitchen video, What’s Eating Dan – why you cant overcook mushrooms.) 

Sweat onion and garlic in EVOO over low heat until softened. Add zucchini and cook till the water is cooked off. Add sumac and cayenne. Add pepper [we add it now so it will disappear into the veggies, as noted.] Allow to cool. Taste and adjust seasoning as needed.

Par cook carrots, or optional vegetables (you can use the same pan.) 

For gods sake, use real Parmesan

Whisk together the eggs, add cream and Parmesan plus salt and whatever chopped herbs you are using.

Butter a 32cm terrine (I use Le Cruset, sized in metric measurements.) Put in a layer of zucchini/onion mixture, then some custard, then veggies, then custard, etc., making layers as desired, till terrine is full (leaving some headroom.) Cover.

Cook in the oven in a bain Marie, approx. 1 hour, or until a knife or skewer poked into the center comes out clean. 

Uncover and allow your terrine to cool on a pastry rack. If you want to hurry this up, after it is partially cooled, you can put it in the fridge.

To unmold, run a pastry knife around the edge of the terrine to help release. Serve cold. It is lovely with sour cream on top.


Isolation from the COVID-19 pandemic has lead me to read a number of books I hadn't previously made time for. Recently, Giacomo Castelvetro's, The Fruit, Herbs, and Vegetables of Italy (originally published in 1614, translated by Gillian Riley in 1989, with a forward by Jane Grigson) came to the top of the stack.

What a fun book. Castelvetro was an upper-class Italian who traveled throughout Europe, then, after returning home, had to leave again to escape the inquisition. He ended up in England as something of a courtier.

There he wrote this book to explain to English nobility that they ate too much meat and were missing out on the joys of fruits and vegetables.

The book is part naturalist, horticulturalist, gastronomic, and nostalgic. Arranged by season, he describes the fruits, vegetables, and herbs that were grown and eaten in various parts of Italy (especially those near his home province.) No item is described comprehensively. For some he describes the taste and how much people enjoy it - often with supposed medicinal values. Other entries provide instruction on growing the ingredient. Many provide preparation techniques (not precisely recipes). Some items contain comparisons of different varieties. For many items, the message is pure homesickness, lamenting that the beloved item is not available to him in England.

It really is a delightful journey. It reads as though Castelvetro showed up in a presentation hall somewhere with a carousel of slides and just started talking. One really hears his voice as he brings up a new image and tells us about it. You can imagine him conversing with his patron, Lucy, Countess of Bedford, describing chestnuts, "Next we have sweet chestnuts, which are so beneficial to mankind, but which you do not have here... we roast [them] in a perforated dish over the fire and leave them for a while under hot ashes... when roses are in bloom our ladies take quantities of these dried chestnuts and mix them with rose petals in coffers and baskets, where the chestnuts soon become soft and very fragrant." (pg. 126) Then click, the slide carousel advances, and we move on to sorb-apples.

This book is not for everyone. But, if you like this type of history, it is a beautiful example, very readable and genuine.


As I sit here today, looking at a world rocked by the COVID-19 crisis and thinking about the vast sums of money needed to address it, I find myself wondering what it would’ve been like had we had even one trillion dollars to spend on something a few years ago.

What might the world be like now, if four or five years ago we had had $1 trillion to spend on the global climate change crisis? What would have happened if we had $1 trillion for the educational crisis in America? If a trillion dollars had been put towards ending America’s homelessness crisis, what could we have achieved? What about the hunger crisis? Could a trillion dollars have solved with that? America faces, and has faced for many years now, a crisis of structural inequality, income inequality, wealth inequality, and inequality of opportunities. I am betting that if $1 trillion had been used to solve America’s inequality crisis, we could probably have gone a long way towards addressing it. What about $1 trillion to help solve the healthcare crisis? A trillion dollars to build hospitals, buyout insurance companies, and solve any and all other problems associated with a single-payer health care system. Looking globally, America could’ve taken $1 trillion to completely eliminate the world’s refugee problems. Pick the disease or illness of your choice; now imagine $1 trillion focused on solving it. Malaria? Cancer? Infectious diseases? I don’t know, maybe $1 trillion could’ve bought solutions to all three.

Four or five years ago we “did not have” $1 trillion to spend on any of these crises. But crises they were, and crises they continue to be. [Note: Yes, I understand that the government neither has nor doesn’t have any given amount of money. We are not on the gold standard – we don’t have to get more gold in order to print more money. Budgetary deficits of the federal government are not the same thing as household borrowing. The federal government doesn't need to get money from somewhere, it just creates it out of thin air (really!) The act of printing money, or not printing money, effects the money supply. That, plus the velocity of money, impacts inflation or deflation. Four or five years ago the government could have printed a trillion dollars to use on anything it (we) wanted. The decision whether or not to create money was dictated by monetary policy, not by the need to address specific issues.]

The pandemic crisis has been a body slam to America and the world. Yes, America had to spend several trillion dollars keeping the economy together, with trillions more yet to come. We had to provide safety nets for people losing their jobs, facing the loss of a home, and so forth, as well as businesses going under and the resultant collapse of the economy. The pandemic had to be dealt with right now, period. It couldn’t wait. The trillions had to be spent, and they had to be spent right now. But why did we have to wait for a crisis that hits us in the face to spend money on serious problems? 

Meanwhile, all the crises listed above, and more, are slowly destroying our lives. These crises slowly impoverish hungry people, homeless people, people who cannot get an education, and people who are held back in life due to our crisis of structural inequality. Healthcare in this country is a crisis. But clearly we’re not going to fix it until people are lying dead in the streets for want of medical care. Most of the world has known for ages that climate change is a crisis. Yet Americans are barely waking up to the ways that climate change is ruining our way of life and actively killing people, now, not some time in the dim future. How obvious must it be that climate change is a crisis that has to be addressed right now, before people in America are willing to spend the trillions of dollars needed to address it, just as we are spending trillions to manage the effects of COVID-19.

These slow crises lack immediacy, so they are ignored. But they cant be ignored by the people they are killing. If we can spend trillions on our response to the COVID pandemic, then we can spend serious money tackling our other crises too.


Here's my problem living with sheltering in place.

[Yes, I know that I am writing this from my place of extraordinarily privileged. I should be, and I am, deeply grateful that I have a bicycle, a car, leisure time, and health. That I have enough disposable income to be able enjoy the recreational opportunities of Alameda, California, should they be available. I have the luxury of riding a bicycle for recreation and exercise, not because it is my sole means of transportation, nor because it is necessary for my work. I am deeply grateful for these privileges that I enjoy. But still, after months of relative solitude, this is how shelter-in-place is affecting me.]

The other day I went to Alameda (California) to ride my bike. I drove there alone. Even if I had gone with someone, we would have taken separate cars so as not to be in an enclosed space together. I rode alone. Even if I had ridden with someone, cycling is mostly a solo experience much of the time anyway, and I wouldn't have wanted either of us huffing and puffing on each other if we were communicating.

Under normal circumstances I might have brought a book, perhaps to sit in a cafe afterwards, people watching and having a latte. But no. I suppose I could have sat at an outdoor table, if one were available, and watched people go by, wearing masks, making no contact. Or, I could have sat on the beach - alone, making no contact - except of course that the beach in Alameda is usually windy, and yesterday unusually high winds are expected. Though I saw that there were plenty of people on the beach, for me that is no fun. I suppose I could have picked up some groceries or mailed some letters - woo hoo!

So, I went to Alameda, rode, and then came home.

Alone.

And that is my problem with shelter-in-place.

I woke up this morning really, really, truly anxious about the arrival of winter. What is going to happen to people during a winter with a raging COVID-19 epidemic? 

What happens to restaurants that are barely holding on right now, when weather makes outdoor dining basically impossible? What happens to all sorts of shops, grocery stores, etc., that expect lines of people to stand outside and wait before coming in one at a time? It’s one thing to keep people lined up on the sidewalk in good weather – in the middle of a winter storm is quite another. And let us not forget the lines outside of unemployment offices.

What happens when travel to pleasant, warm places is difficult, or even banned due to travel restrictions? What happens when you can’t have a socially distanced visit outside in the yard with family, friends, or neighbors, because it’s raining, cold, snowing, or whatever flavor of "shitty" your climate brings in winter? We will all be even more isolated.

I don’t know what brought skiing to mind (I can’t ski any more due to health issues), but I wonder if ski areas can survive with socially distanced skiing. One person per lift? Lift lines with people 6' apart? Lift lines that snake for a mile, not just an annoyingly long 50'? Not that skiing is so terribly important to the world, but having the ski industry wiped out kills a whole domino of support industries and jobs.

More importantly, what businesses haven’t I thought of that can’t survive a socially distanced fall/winter/spring, and the businesses that rely on those businesses, and the people that rely on the jobs they provide?

What is it like to wear a mask when its freezing cold and your breath condenses on it?

What the fuck is this winter going to be like?

[PS: Yes, I am aware that the examples of dining out, travel, and skiing are largely the concerns of the wealthy. I am just as concerned, or more so, about the emotional and financial impact on those less fortunate. These are just my personal thoughts on how COVID may affect me. Furthermore, while "trickle-down" economics doesn’t work, the web effects of wiping out any given industry impacts us all.]
Kero, Co-Pilot, October 2004

When I drive with Molly, she pretty much stays in the back. If we’re headed to the dog park, sometimes she gets so excited that she will try to climb into the front seat, but that’s pretty much it.

Kero used to stick her head over the seat back for me to pet her at red lights. She liked to lick my ears, which were at just the right height while I was seated in the car. She’d go crazy licking the ears of passengers. Anyone in the passenger seat got a serious mopping. She loved everyone, and showed her affection with generous kisses. I used to say that she would “French” on the first date.

My dad hated that. While we were driving, Kero would lean over and try to lick his ears. He’d bat her away like a mosquito, exclaiming, “fuyh!”

Kero died 5 years ago today. My dad passed about 2.5 years ago.

I have Molly to keep me company, but COVID isolation is getting very heavy.

The passenger seat feels very empty.


Some years ago, a girlfriend introduced me to tomato sandwiches. When she told me we were having them for lunch, I thought she was crazy. It turns out she was anything but. Tomato sandwiches are simplicity itself, and deliciousness itself. 

There is no recipe for a tomato sandwich. To look at one is to know the recipe. I like mine as simple as can be; two slices of really good bread (I like a slightly sweeter bread); mayonnaise on one or both pieces; a thick slice of a beefsteak tomato fresh from the garden or farm-stand, salt and pepper. But you can use whatever bread you like - toasted or untoasted. Mayonnaise or not is up to you - or substitute something else, or leave  off dressing altogether, relying on the tomato to provide moistness. One slice of a giant beefsteak or big-boy tomato, or multiple slices of smaller tomatoes, or even a pile of thin tomato slices. The only thing that is important is that each element must be excellent – being such a simple, pared down collection, each must shine on its own. 

Here I am using a bread sweetened (and colored) with honey and caramel coloring, with gray salt.

As I have come to understand, tomato sandwiches really aren’t madness. Cucumber sandwiches are just the same – slices of a savory fruit on bread. [From a botanist’s perspective, both tomatoes and cucumbers are fruits.] Watercress sandwiches live in the same flavor-space. Arguably bruschetta is at its most basic a simple bread, garlic, and olive oil affair. I am told that after a long night of drinking, nothing pleases some in Asia more than rice with soy sauce and sesame oil – possibly with sliced scallions if one is feeling wild. I have no doubt that around the world there is a simple, savory something enjoyed in each and every culture. 

So, go nuts. Have a tomato sandwich. Then tell me who’s crazy.

The kind we grow here: 'Boxcar Willie'


Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the case of Trump v. Pennsylvania. The court decided in favor of Trump, concluding that employers have broad religious and moral exemptions from the mandate that health insurance provided to their workers include coverage for birth control. Soon the court, minus Justice Ginsberg, may rule on other aspects of ACA potentially dooming that legislation.

But that is not what I want to talk about. Every time questions are raised related to health insurance provided by corporations, I am reminded of something my dad used to say. He was very conservative and voted the straight republican ticket for most of his life. [He voted Republican up until tRump. He couldn’t bring himself to vote for a man he called an “unqualified moron”, regardless of party loyalty.] He owned a small specialty chemical business. Over the years he had anywhere from 3 employees (in the earliest days), to 50 or 60 at the company’s peak.

Every time the issue of health insurance came up, American business would vigorously declare that the government should stay out of it. My father would shake his head and growl, “What, are they nuts?” He would say things like, “I am in the chemical business. I am not in the insurance business. I don’t know health insurance, and I don’t want to have to provide it to my employees.” He would ask, “Why do these companies want to deal with this mishegas? They make cars, or sell shoes, or fly airplanes. That’s what they should do!” He would go on, “Every year I have to read through all these fucking insurance riders and choose the best insurance for my people. What if I make a mistake? I lie awake at night worrying about what would happen if I chose a bad insurance plan and an employee suffers.” [He really was a good employer in spite of his gruffness and conservative nature.] “If the government wants to take over health insurance, I say ‘Please! Please do!’ What makes these companies want to deal with this nonsense. Let the government take it over! Please.”

Of course, it was a rhetorical question. He knew why, and I do too. The vast majority of America’s major corporations are run by arch conservatives who want the government to tax as little as possible, and provide as few services as possible. They also want their employees to be stuck in their jobs due to the need for insurance. Furthermore, large corporations can carry the cost of human resources departments that handle getting, maintaining, and managing healthcare policies. It’s no skin off the back of the people at the top to have their businesses providing healthcare insurance to their employees.

But life would be so much easier for everyone if we just had universal healthcare. Corporations that aren’t in the healthcare industry could focus on their core competency, whatever that might be. For companies with religious or moral objections to certain healthcare options, the issue becomes moot. Also, companies can stop playing stupid games such as making sure that everyone is part-time, or a consultant, etc. to avoid having to provide benefits (of which insurance is far and away the most expensive.) Meanwhile, companies use health insurance as a way to handcuff their employees to their jobs. But, I have to ask, do they really want employees that are only there because of the health insurance benefit? I’ve got to believe that someone clocking in every day solely for the health care is unlikely to be a company’s dedicated performer! Let them go, taking their government provided health insurance with them, and bring in someone else who is truly invested in the work. Then the employee, now freed from the need for employer sponsored healthcare, can find another job that better suits their needs, aptitudes, and desires. Everyone wins - the worker, the employers on both side of the move, and the economy. Everyone.

Oh, and another benefit of a single-payer system: all Americans can get the healthcare they need without going bankrupt. Not having your company situated in a country filled with the sick, dying, and bankrupt, has got to be worth something. And the net cost for American businesses will be almost nothing. If business stopped objecting and just let the government take over providing health care in this country, they could relieve themselves of all the overhead of providing it themselves. Sure, their taxes would probably go up, but, that tax burden would be spread across all taxpayers. I am hard pressed to believe that the portion contributed by corporate taxes would be greater than the cost employers already bear providing private health insurance. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

So, please, can we stop litigating who pays for what, when, and how, and just give the human beings that live in American healthcare already? Geesh.


The attack on the United States Postal Service:

This has been bugging me for a couple weeks now, and since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently brought it up, allow me to vent about this a bit.

The United States Postal Service (USPS) is a service provided by the U.S. government to the people of the United States. Long distance communication is so important that it was authorized in the Constitution itself. If telegraph, phone, or the internet had existed at the founding of America, no doubt the framers would have enshrined them in the Constitution as well.

[Aside: In his book The Invention of Yesterday: A 50,000-Year History of Human Culture, Conflict, and Connection, Tamim Ansary repeatedly emphasizes communication as the fundamental limiter on the size of states, countries, and empires. You can only control as far as you can efficiently communicate.]


Who decided that the USPS should be self-funding?

Even though it is a U.S. government agency, currently the USPS receives no funding from taxpayers. The USPS is required to fund itself entirely through the sale of postage stamps and other service charges and fees. I have heard that there are other agencies that are self-funded, but, I honestly have no idea which. I have not managed to find information about any of them. This may not actually be correct (if you know, please put it in the comments.)

Why is this? The post office is so important that every nation on earth has one. It is so important that it is authorized in our Constitution. It is so important that historians reference it in their analyses of world events.

We don’t require the armed forces to be self-supporting. The CIA and FBI don’t have to charge for their services to do their jobs. Some stretches of highway are toll roads, but most federal, state, and local roads are built and maintained by government agencies, with no usage fees imposed, and their operation is neither required nor expected to be revenue-neutral. The same is true for the FDA, EPA, USDA, DHS, Department of the Treasury, HUD, and on and on. All these other agencies provide services to the people of the United States, while the cost of running them is covered primarily or entirely by taxes. The USPS is no less important a service and should not be hobbled by an unfair set of funding rules.


Reliable delivery everywhere:

The USPS is a rather extraordinary service in many ways. Notably, letters sent within the United States have the same cost regardless of where it originates or where it is going. If I send a letter from my house to my next-door neighbor’s house, it (currently) costs 55 cents. If someone in the remotest part of Hawaii sends a letter to a destination in the remotest part of Alaska, it costs 55 cents. The USPS is committed to this and has been since the implementation of the Rural Free Delivery act. [In case you ever wondered about the title of the old TV series, “Mayberry R.F.D”, the “R.F.D” part refers to Rural Free Delivery, presumably suggesting the remoteness of the town of Mayberry.] Needless to say, the letter going from me to my neighbor costs far less to carry than the fee I pay, while the letter from remote HI to remote AK could cost vastly more to deliver than the price of the stamp that gets it there.

In fact, because the USPS goes anywhere and everywhere, FedEx and UPS often use the post office for the “final mile” on their package delivery. This service is of immense value to our citizens.


What services should government agencies provide?

Here’s another thing. The basis for Postmaster General DeJoy’s claim about decommissioning mail sorting machines is to increase capacity for packages. But there are private companies that carry packages quite well. UPS and FedEx deliver innumerable packages across the country and around the world, Amazon has created a wing of its business to handle dispatching their vast number of shipments, and there are common carriers for large heavy shipments as well as other kinds of specialty couriers.

Other than filling the gaps of shipping where these companies refuse to go (or charge onerous fees to do so), why should the USPS deliver packages at all? DeJoy says that the changes being made to USPS are needed to stay competitive. What? Why should it be competitive? The government is not supposed to compete with private enterprise! The government supplies services that private enterprise is unable to provide, or in what economists call “natural monopolies” - where it makes sense for the operation to be centrally managed.

The United States government could compete in manufacturing computers, providing haircuts, building cars, or creating new snack foods. But it doesn’t and it shouldn’t. The Government should provide the unprofitable but vital service of carrying mail, but the marketplace has shown that privately run companies can handle mainstream package delivery just fine, thank you very much.

Yes, there are areas where government and private enterprise supply the same product or service. Though most roads are built by the public sector, some are private. Government provides schools, from kindergarten through graduate school, and so do private for-profit and non-profit corporations. Governments provide tap water, but people can buy bottled water if they wish. No doubt there are many other such examples. But in none of these cases is the government providing a service in order to compete with private enterprise. Why should we even talk about the USPS being competitive in shipping packages. Maybe we want to assure that package delivery services are available at a reasonable cost to all citizens. To do so, being cost efficient makes sense. But, we can also provide this service to the populace by subsidizing it with tax revenue, or USPS can get out of the package business, and the government can regulate package delivery companies to assure fair pricing.


Final thoughts: 

We should all recognize that the United States Postal Service is a service. The government of the USA provides other services such as consulates in foreign countries, the Coast Guard, investigating and incarcerating federal criminals, and assuring the safety and quality of our food and drugs. Carrying mail is no less important. The USPS provides a valuable service to our people that need not be profitable. Imagining that the USPS should be competitive with private enterprise is ridiculous. The suggestion that the post office's vital task of carrying letters should be torn apart to allow it to compete in delivery of packages is even more so.