http://youtube.com/watch?v=lY0l35iha0c
The things you find online.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
School
Me: Pauly, what do you think you'd like to learn about?
Pauly: Well, I know but I'm not going to tell you.
Pauly: Well, I know but I'm not going to tell you.
Cream of Lentil Soup
Here's the Cream of Lentil Soup recipe. I'll type what the actual recipe says, then describe what I actually do.
16 oz dried lentils
1 onion, chopped
1 clove garlic, minced I use about six times as much
1-3 carrots, chopped
1 bunch celery, chopped I usually use one third or half of a bunch
3 cups water you will really need more than this
1 cup heavy cream
salt and pepper, to taste
Directions:
Soak the lentils overnight in six cups of water. In the morning, drain the lentils and put them in the crockpot with the onion, garlic and celery. Add the 3 cups of water to the crockpot. Cook on low for 8-10 hours; the lentils will be soft and mushy. Turn off the crockpot and stir in the cream. Stir in salt and pepper.
I don't think you really have to soak the lentils, and I'm not sure why it calls to. I've done it both ways (soaked and unsoaked) and it turns out fine. Regardless of whether you soak or not three cups of water is not enough. I think this has to be a misprint in the cookbook, you really need closer to five cups of water. Six is a bit too much, IMO. If I don't have eight hours, I usually cook it on high in the crockpot until it is done then turn it down to low. If you cook it on the stovetop, it should take about an hour or so. You can leave out the cream, and it is still good (but not as good). I always add the salt and pepper before the end of cooking.
16 oz dried lentils
1 onion, chopped
1 clove garlic, minced I use about six times as much
1-3 carrots, chopped
1 bunch celery, chopped I usually use one third or half of a bunch
3 cups water you will really need more than this
1 cup heavy cream
salt and pepper, to taste
Directions:
Soak the lentils overnight in six cups of water. In the morning, drain the lentils and put them in the crockpot with the onion, garlic and celery. Add the 3 cups of water to the crockpot. Cook on low for 8-10 hours; the lentils will be soft and mushy. Turn off the crockpot and stir in the cream. Stir in salt and pepper.
I don't think you really have to soak the lentils, and I'm not sure why it calls to. I've done it both ways (soaked and unsoaked) and it turns out fine. Regardless of whether you soak or not three cups of water is not enough. I think this has to be a misprint in the cookbook, you really need closer to five cups of water. Six is a bit too much, IMO. If I don't have eight hours, I usually cook it on high in the crockpot until it is done then turn it down to low. If you cook it on the stovetop, it should take about an hour or so. You can leave out the cream, and it is still good (but not as good). I always add the salt and pepper before the end of cooking.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Curtains!
Bob has been working on a surprise present for me for a couple weeks now, and finally finished it Friday night. He's been working on it at his parents' house, and I truly had no idea what it was. When I opened the box this morning I was shocked to find curtains!!! He had never even used a sewing machine before this, but the curtains are absolutely beautiful. I'll post a picture as soon as someone with a camera comes over here to take one.
Beyond the beautiful curtains, Bob washed the windows when he put them up! My front room looks so much better.
Beyond the beautiful curtains, Bob washed the windows when he put them up! My front room looks so much better.
Well, he recognizes the song. . .
After we sang "Angels We Have Heard on High" at Church this morning, Pauly said (loudly!) to Grandma, "The Wiggles sing that song in Yule Be Wiggling!" I noticed that he was actually singing the song, complete with the hand motions that the "angel" children used in the Wiggles video.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Friday, December 01, 2006
The "Pill" for Men: They Won't Take It
You've probably heard/seen/read the news reports about a potential contraceptive pill for men to take. This pill is still theoretical -- there have been no human trials, and I get the feeling that the developers are fishing for funding with this news report. The proposed pill will need to be taken within a certain time frame (I believe 2-5 hours) before sexual intercourse, and it will work by preventing ejaculation while still allowing orgasm. It will have no hormones in it.
Men have weighed in on this, as also can be read on various news pages, and the consensus seems to be "I won't take it." I read an interesting article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475925p-400192c.html that quoted some urologists as well as your average man.
Some things I found interesting:
"'This Pill sounds way too scary,' says Matt, a 25-year-old entertainment executive. 'I can't imagine anyone I know taking it. I know I wouldn't.'"
"'I don't think a lot of men are going to take this,' Dr. Harry Fisch, a urologist at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia in Washington Heights, says bluntly. 'I wouldn't do anything with it. Nice try.'"
"'How would it not affect your sperm count in the next three or four days?' frets Matt. 'If you took it for a week or month, how would it keep you from being sterile for a year?'"
The concerns are likely more than valid -- when you mess with the normal workings of the body, there are going to be unexpected consequences. I just find it interesting that men, and their doctors, are not willing to take the risk of the potential side effects, while women are. Doubtless the inequality derives at least somewhat from the fact that it is the woman who gets pregnant, gives birth, and is generally left with the child if dad doesn't want to be involved.
The "combined" (estrogen and progestin) oral contraceptive pill, for instance, has been classified by the World Heath Organization as carcinogenic to humans. WHO still insists that generall the benefits of the pill outbalance the risks, for most women. Besides increasing the risks of certain cancers, the pill has been shown to "raise the risk of strokes, heart attacks and potentially-fatal blood clots." (Note, my WSwhateverwhatever editor isn't working, so I'll list a whole bunch of links at the end of this post).
I find it ironic that the guy Matt, above, is concerned about a year's worth of sterility, when Depo-Provera, for instance, can reduce your chances of pregnancy and cause trouble with conceiving for 12-18 months after the last injection. The contraceptive pill has been shown to reduce the chances of conceiving for some months after stopping its use. These aren't really unexpected side effects -- the body cannot heal immediately, but they're not often mentioned as something to be aware of. These side effects all seem to be acceptable risks for women, but not for men.
The whole thing makes me think of this (phony) Breakthrough in Male Contraception that I first read about in Taking Charge of Your Fertility: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q1/umbrelly.html
http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/vigil/fertilityDisorders3.html#conclusion
http://in.news.yahoo.com/061127/139/69r44.html
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/family_planning/cocs_hrt.html
Men have weighed in on this, as also can be read on various news pages, and the consensus seems to be "I won't take it." I read an interesting article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475925p-400192c.html that quoted some urologists as well as your average man.
Some things I found interesting:
"'This Pill sounds way too scary,' says Matt, a 25-year-old entertainment executive. 'I can't imagine anyone I know taking it. I know I wouldn't.'"
"'I don't think a lot of men are going to take this,' Dr. Harry Fisch, a urologist at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia in Washington Heights, says bluntly. 'I wouldn't do anything with it. Nice try.'"
"'How would it not affect your sperm count in the next three or four days?' frets Matt. 'If you took it for a week or month, how would it keep you from being sterile for a year?'"
The concerns are likely more than valid -- when you mess with the normal workings of the body, there are going to be unexpected consequences. I just find it interesting that men, and their doctors, are not willing to take the risk of the potential side effects, while women are. Doubtless the inequality derives at least somewhat from the fact that it is the woman who gets pregnant, gives birth, and is generally left with the child if dad doesn't want to be involved.
The "combined" (estrogen and progestin) oral contraceptive pill, for instance, has been classified by the World Heath Organization as carcinogenic to humans. WHO still insists that generall the benefits of the pill outbalance the risks, for most women. Besides increasing the risks of certain cancers, the pill has been shown to "raise the risk of strokes, heart attacks and potentially-fatal blood clots." (Note, my WSwhateverwhatever editor isn't working, so I'll list a whole bunch of links at the end of this post).
I find it ironic that the guy Matt, above, is concerned about a year's worth of sterility, when Depo-Provera, for instance, can reduce your chances of pregnancy and cause trouble with conceiving for 12-18 months after the last injection. The contraceptive pill has been shown to reduce the chances of conceiving for some months after stopping its use. These aren't really unexpected side effects -- the body cannot heal immediately, but they're not often mentioned as something to be aware of. These side effects all seem to be acceptable risks for women, but not for men.
The whole thing makes me think of this (phony) Breakthrough in Male Contraception that I first read about in Taking Charge of Your Fertility: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q1/umbrelly.html
http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/vigil/fertilityDisorders3.html#conclusion
http://in.news.yahoo.com/061127/139/69r44.html
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/family_planning/cocs_hrt.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
