Elizabeth Moon's Blog, page 42
April 14, 2011
From Twitter 04-13-2011
07:14:42: RT @NatureNews: RT @Ananyo: fascinating stuff as always from @scholarlykitchn: When Bad Science Persists on the Internet http://goo.gl/ ...
07:15:25: RT @robinmckinley: My man. Unfortunately. RT @JSCarroll
"My schedule for today lists a six-hour self-accusatory depression." Philip K. Dick
08:39:40: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Everyone Has An Ideology http://nyti.ms/eYPAHy
10:24:50: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow http://nyti.ms/hv83qd
10:47:32: RT @tobiasbuckell: Jim Hines gets it perfect, re: Eisler vs Hocking & etc here: http://bit.ly/fw9H7E
22:39:09: RT @NYTimeskrugman: CBPP Weighs In http://nyti.ms/i8DsFp
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 13, 2011
Mowing Larger Lawns
That's a joke, really. 50 acres of a small prairie restoration project is not a lawn. But--lawn or not--if left to its own devices, it won't turn into its much earlier prairie self, either. It soon becomes a mix of invasive woody species, invasive non-native grasses and forbs, native grasses and forbs, and a major fire hazard right next to a construction yard--a potent source of sparks and fuel. One of the major tools for prairie restoration and maintenance, fire, is not available because of the houses and the construction yard and the increasingly drought-prone climate. Prescribed fires too often get loose and become uncontrolled wildfires...and neighbors (and local volunteer fire departments) are not thrilled. Getting a permit for a prescribed fire when there's an area wide burn-ban (something we now have for many months a year) is difficult to impossible, and burning without one is illegal and arouses ire as well as fire.
Hence, mowing. Mowing is not the same management tool, and does not have exactly the same results, but it does accomplish some of the goals of a prescribed burn: reducing the risk of wildfire is the big one, but there are others. Fire returns minerals in the burnt vegetation to the soil; the decay of mowed vegetation does the same thing, though slower (hence, no post-fire burst of fertility.) Fire enables the germination of some seeds; mowing does not. OTOH, too hot a fire (fueled by, for instance, the burning of live Ashe juniper) can sterilize the soil--not a good thing, and mowing doesn't do that, either. In our experience (admittedly, only about a decade) carefully timed mowing results in the return of native grass species and most (not all) native forb species, while controlling many invasive non-natives. Just as fire has different effects at different times of the year, so too does mowing
Mowing acreage for management is different from mowing lawns (whatever size) for appearance. Achieving the billiard-table look--flat and smooth and uniform--is not the goal at all. Cutting height is chosen (by season, by slope, by plant type) to assist the desired species and deter the unwanted. Desired species include ground-nesting birds (whose habitat is left uncut in the spring until after nesting season) and migrating raptors, whose late fall-through-spring depredations on grassland rodents help with the management of that population.
Mowing larger areas of grass requires larger equipment than a little lawn tractor. Besides the acreage, there's the mowing height thing. Some areas need to be mowed to four inches, others to six or even eight. Where we're restoring tallgrass, it's important not to scalp the crowns of the big bunchgrasses (Indiangrass, eastern gama, switchgrass, big bluestem, little bluestem.) They can be mowed only when dormant, in winter. Nor do we want to mow cactus (prickly pear responds to mowing with great enthusiasm, generating new cactus plants from nearly every fragment. Mashing them with a tractor tire doesn't kill them either.) New baby cacti--the kind we dig out and dispose of in a heap in one place) are hard to see in taller grass and forbs, but if you can cut just above them, they can be removed more easily. Some areas were not mowed for years because we were killing off a non-native introduced "improved pasture grass"...that responds to mowing by spreading, but left on its own will "thatch" itself to death. It looks ugly as sin right now, but native grasses and forbs are pushing up through the thatch. (And the thatch retards erosion in heavy rainfall, breaking the force of the big rain events before they reach the soil itself.)
So there's the tractor...a small, by modern farm standards, John Deere named Bombadil...and PTO, its three-point hitch, and its mower deck attached thereto, six feet of rapidly rotating blade that can shred just about anything, including woody invasives up to an inch or so thick. Including body parts, if anyone is so stupid as to reach under the mower deck while it's on or slowing down. It's easy to drive, if you follow some basic safety rules....it steers well, it has brakes and clutch, and behind you is the loud (very loud, which is why you should wear earplug) mower deck, leaving a six foot swathe of whatever you were cutting. I enjoy the tractor...up to a point. That point is determined by the tractor's effect on my back, something I don't really notice until I try to get off the tractor. Stay on it too long, and I am barely able to clamber down, holding onto anything I can grab, and I walk funny for the next several hours. "Too long" is becoming shorter as I get older.
Preparing for tractor work in the field includes the earplugs, a cloth to tie over nose and mouth, bandit style, because of the dust, dark glasses, the big straw hat, a long-sleeved denim shirt (not just sun protection, but protection against the thorny stuff I'll be mowing near and under), gloves, sturdy shoes with nonskid soles (dust and shredded bits of grass get all over the steps up...sliding while descending is not a good idea. If I know I'm going to be out awhile, I take water along.
If you have a rectangular field, there are known ways to mow it more efficiently. If you have an irregular field, you can be inventive. I tend to define rectangular patches and mow them by the efficient pattern, except when dealing with water courses or (in some cases) the old worn-down terracing. Then I tackle the irregular bits between the regular bits.
But in addition to the mowing itself, there are other considerations. Fire, again. Mowing dry tall grass on a very hot day can cause a wildfire...the grass is perfect tinder, and it takes only enough heat (as from the tractor engine itself) or a spark (as from the blade hitting a flint rock, of which we have many) or an upturned shard of glass that focuses sun on dry grass to start the fire. Mowing green grass is never as risky--but any mowing is riskier as the temperature climbs and humidity drops. Wind adds to the fire danger. So the safest time to mow the dead dry stuff is on a cool, still, damp morning. The most dangerous is a hot day with a brisk breeze. This places a premium on getting that dry stuff down early--in the year and in the day. In the past six months, our area is over 10 inches down from normal rainfall...the half inch we got a couple of days ago is already gone from the dry vegetation and the top inch of soil.
In addition, for the past two years most of our rain has fallen in one week, in September. This produces a surge of late season vegetation--mostly forbs--on ground far too wet to work (12 inches in one rainstorm...) Field conditions--temperature, yes, but also how wet the ground is (and where) determines when you can mow. All days are not the same. All times of day are not the same. All places on the place are not the same. The east grass, in particular, has a seepy slope that can't have the big tractor on it if it's wet. (Getting the big tractor--big to us--stuck out in the field is not a good thing...) Across the whole of the place, the soil depth ranges from four feet of gluey black clay to solid rock--sometimes within 20 feet of each other. I need to know that--know where the seeps are, where the drainage is, what the footing is--everywhere, to be sure that I won't bog the rig down. (We've stuck the little lawn tractor once or twice. Not the big rig.) These limitations create the temptation to work too long at one time (too long for my back) and are the reason I'm not on the tractor today, yesterday having produced the "old geezer hobbling around" back situation. But...acres have been mowed, though acres remain to be mowed. Cactus was isolated for digging out and picking up. The red-tailed hawk (yesterday's hawk) approved the removal of cover from grassland rodents. So will the foxes.
So tomorrow, weather permitting, I'll be back on the tractor (taking the ibuprofen first, this time) to mow some more on this "lawn" of ours. Compared to when we bought it, it's got a lot more native grass, and more species of native grass, and areas that were barren are now vegetated with native plants.
Hence, mowing. Mowing is not the same management tool, and does not have exactly the same results, but it does accomplish some of the goals of a prescribed burn: reducing the risk of wildfire is the big one, but there are others. Fire returns minerals in the burnt vegetation to the soil; the decay of mowed vegetation does the same thing, though slower (hence, no post-fire burst of fertility.) Fire enables the germination of some seeds; mowing does not. OTOH, too hot a fire (fueled by, for instance, the burning of live Ashe juniper) can sterilize the soil--not a good thing, and mowing doesn't do that, either. In our experience (admittedly, only about a decade) carefully timed mowing results in the return of native grass species and most (not all) native forb species, while controlling many invasive non-natives. Just as fire has different effects at different times of the year, so too does mowing
Mowing acreage for management is different from mowing lawns (whatever size) for appearance. Achieving the billiard-table look--flat and smooth and uniform--is not the goal at all. Cutting height is chosen (by season, by slope, by plant type) to assist the desired species and deter the unwanted. Desired species include ground-nesting birds (whose habitat is left uncut in the spring until after nesting season) and migrating raptors, whose late fall-through-spring depredations on grassland rodents help with the management of that population.
Mowing larger areas of grass requires larger equipment than a little lawn tractor. Besides the acreage, there's the mowing height thing. Some areas need to be mowed to four inches, others to six or even eight. Where we're restoring tallgrass, it's important not to scalp the crowns of the big bunchgrasses (Indiangrass, eastern gama, switchgrass, big bluestem, little bluestem.) They can be mowed only when dormant, in winter. Nor do we want to mow cactus (prickly pear responds to mowing with great enthusiasm, generating new cactus plants from nearly every fragment. Mashing them with a tractor tire doesn't kill them either.) New baby cacti--the kind we dig out and dispose of in a heap in one place) are hard to see in taller grass and forbs, but if you can cut just above them, they can be removed more easily. Some areas were not mowed for years because we were killing off a non-native introduced "improved pasture grass"...that responds to mowing by spreading, but left on its own will "thatch" itself to death. It looks ugly as sin right now, but native grasses and forbs are pushing up through the thatch. (And the thatch retards erosion in heavy rainfall, breaking the force of the big rain events before they reach the soil itself.)
So there's the tractor...a small, by modern farm standards, John Deere named Bombadil...and PTO, its three-point hitch, and its mower deck attached thereto, six feet of rapidly rotating blade that can shred just about anything, including woody invasives up to an inch or so thick. Including body parts, if anyone is so stupid as to reach under the mower deck while it's on or slowing down. It's easy to drive, if you follow some basic safety rules....it steers well, it has brakes and clutch, and behind you is the loud (very loud, which is why you should wear earplug) mower deck, leaving a six foot swathe of whatever you were cutting. I enjoy the tractor...up to a point. That point is determined by the tractor's effect on my back, something I don't really notice until I try to get off the tractor. Stay on it too long, and I am barely able to clamber down, holding onto anything I can grab, and I walk funny for the next several hours. "Too long" is becoming shorter as I get older.
Preparing for tractor work in the field includes the earplugs, a cloth to tie over nose and mouth, bandit style, because of the dust, dark glasses, the big straw hat, a long-sleeved denim shirt (not just sun protection, but protection against the thorny stuff I'll be mowing near and under), gloves, sturdy shoes with nonskid soles (dust and shredded bits of grass get all over the steps up...sliding while descending is not a good idea. If I know I'm going to be out awhile, I take water along.
If you have a rectangular field, there are known ways to mow it more efficiently. If you have an irregular field, you can be inventive. I tend to define rectangular patches and mow them by the efficient pattern, except when dealing with water courses or (in some cases) the old worn-down terracing. Then I tackle the irregular bits between the regular bits.
But in addition to the mowing itself, there are other considerations. Fire, again. Mowing dry tall grass on a very hot day can cause a wildfire...the grass is perfect tinder, and it takes only enough heat (as from the tractor engine itself) or a spark (as from the blade hitting a flint rock, of which we have many) or an upturned shard of glass that focuses sun on dry grass to start the fire. Mowing green grass is never as risky--but any mowing is riskier as the temperature climbs and humidity drops. Wind adds to the fire danger. So the safest time to mow the dead dry stuff is on a cool, still, damp morning. The most dangerous is a hot day with a brisk breeze. This places a premium on getting that dry stuff down early--in the year and in the day. In the past six months, our area is over 10 inches down from normal rainfall...the half inch we got a couple of days ago is already gone from the dry vegetation and the top inch of soil.
In addition, for the past two years most of our rain has fallen in one week, in September. This produces a surge of late season vegetation--mostly forbs--on ground far too wet to work (12 inches in one rainstorm...) Field conditions--temperature, yes, but also how wet the ground is (and where) determines when you can mow. All days are not the same. All times of day are not the same. All places on the place are not the same. The east grass, in particular, has a seepy slope that can't have the big tractor on it if it's wet. (Getting the big tractor--big to us--stuck out in the field is not a good thing...) Across the whole of the place, the soil depth ranges from four feet of gluey black clay to solid rock--sometimes within 20 feet of each other. I need to know that--know where the seeps are, where the drainage is, what the footing is--everywhere, to be sure that I won't bog the rig down. (We've stuck the little lawn tractor once or twice. Not the big rig.) These limitations create the temptation to work too long at one time (too long for my back) and are the reason I'm not on the tractor today, yesterday having produced the "old geezer hobbling around" back situation. But...acres have been mowed, though acres remain to be mowed. Cactus was isolated for digging out and picking up. The red-tailed hawk (yesterday's hawk) approved the removal of cover from grassland rodents. So will the foxes.
So tomorrow, weather permitting, I'll be back on the tractor (taking the ibuprofen first, this time) to mow some more on this "lawn" of ours. Compared to when we bought it, it's got a lot more native grass, and more species of native grass, and areas that were barren are now vegetated with native plants.
From Twitter 04-12-2011
16:58:16: RT @robinmckinley: LOL! YES!! RT @AdviceToWriters Being a writer is like having homework every night for the rest of your life. LAWREN ...
17:00:21: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Ryan's Five-Point Plan http://nyti.ms/ekJebp
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 11, 2011
From Twitter 04-10-2011
15:20:18: RT @donnabrazile: Bottom line: Democrats must up their game, play a little offense and not allow one narrow slice of the electorate to f ...
15:49:13: Learned long-tail casting on today. Will I remember it tomorrow? #knitting
15:49:38: RT @NYTimeskrugman: A Word From Those Who http://nyti.ms/eCTotb
16:02:51: Targeting gender stereotypes: how children's toys are marketed on TV: http://tinyurl.com/6gc56lq
17:18:32: Taxes signed, sealed, ready to certified-mail tomorrow. Faceplant now.
22:52:51: RT @KateElliottSFF: Part of "being a writer" is learning to live through the bits when you just feel so discouraged. You just have to pu ...
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 10, 2011
From Twitter 04-09-2011
09:35:20: Having now bought yarn online, I'm worried that when it comes I won't like it. (Variegated, three different color combos.) #knitting
10:11:26: Today's dinner guests have turned into "late lunch" guests instead...and ham wasn't in oven yet (is now!) Rush-rush-rush!!
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 9, 2011
From Twitter 04-08-2011
09:45:36: Opened window. Scorpion had gotten in under screen, and of course ran toward indoors, not out under screen. Missed whack. Now scorp inside
09:46:30: Not a fan of scorpions inside. Writers like me have piles of paper, books, magazines all over. Scorps love laminar habitat.
09:47:27: RT @clairecmc: Since 1976 NO federal dollars can be used for abortion.They want to shut down govt over cancer screenings & family plann ...
11:12:23: RT @thinkprogress: Planned Parenthood Facts: 4M STD tests, 1M screenings for cervical cancer, 830K breast exams every year. No federal $ ...
12:23:47: I think when Congress shuts down the gov't, their lights, phones, AC, etc. should all shut down too. INcluding their salaries, of course.
13:47:39: RT @KSmithSF: War on Planned Parenthood is war on women's health http://t.co/zBQz7zh
15:04:26: RT @joshtpm: Republican insistence that defunding birth control will reduce number of abortions is killing my confidence in supply side ...
16:01:34: Really hate offers of "Only X for first Y months" and then don't tell you what the cost will be AFTER that. NYTimes, pay attention!
16:02:44: GOP Congress: Dim bulbs want to turn the lights off...apparently think they'll shine brighter in the dark.
16:55:24: HOT. Humid. Windy. And I didn't find the tissue in the sheets before laundering, so even blowing around on a clothesline, still there.
22:41:08: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Reform, Real and Fake http://nyti.ms/gLaJmZ
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 8, 2011
The Right Questions: Part Five
How does social conservatism--and specifically what many of us are calling the war on women--impact the national debt? Republicans came into office trumpeting about the national debt, and are still doing that...but in the process they have clamped down on women, by (for instance) attacking Planned Parenthood, trying to eliminate legal abortion, and coming up with the (ridiculous) notion that making birth control hard to get will reduce the number of abortions women want. But really...does birth control make the national debt higher? How? Do women who have lots of babies make the national debt lower? How?
The contrary could be (not claiming it is) true: women who are not having children they don't want are more able to enter the workforce. They aren't burdened with caring for multiple children, trying to get time off to take the kids to the doctor, etc. They're probably earning more money....and thus they're paying more taxes (whether married or not, a woman with few or no children is likely to earn more than a woman with many.) Paying more taxes leads to more federal income, and thus (potentially at least) lowers national debt. You would think fiscal conservatives would want more people working, and more people paying taxes, at least until the national debt is where they think it should be.
The war on women seeks to control women--specifically to make it likely that they will bear children, and unlikely that they can avoid it or limit the number. It treats women as less than human...unable to make their own decisions about their own bodies and reproduction. When a pregnant woman in Iowa tripped and fell on the stairs after an argument with her husband, and went to the hospital to see if her fetus was all right, she was reported to the police and arrested on suspicion of feticide. (I would have been questioning the husband: did he push her down the stairs? My mother was pushed down stairs when pregnant with me--not by my father, but by his mother.) When a woman in Arizona was in danger of dying if she continued a nonviable pregnancy, the Catholic bishop there insisted that they both should have died rather than she live via an abortion...even though that would have left her other children without a mother. That's treating women as less than human--of less worth than a nonviable fetus. When the GOP attacks birth control, including abortion, they are not merely attacking women's health....they are attacking women's right to education, employment, and economic advancement.
A woman who bears a child is expected to parent that child until it is grown, no matter what state of health that child is in. That's a minimum of 18 years, on top of the months of pregnancy, that society expects that woman to make that child her primary concern. Anyone who thinks that does not impact a woman's chance at higher education, at employment, at economic advancement is simply ignorant: pregnancy and childcare imposes extra labor at every stage along the way and makes it harder for a woman to do the work necessary for a college degree and a good-paying job. In a nation that supposedly values personal choice, and then holds the individual responsible for that choice...should not having a child be a matter of choice, not chance? And should not society do what it can to make that choice easier, and not harder?
The social conservatives spend a lot of bandwidth and air time and so on proclaiming how precious every life is....as long as it's in some woman's womb. The unborn are precious...and the unborn cost them no money. You can deny services (from nutritional support to prenatal care to job training) to the pregnant woman while telling yourself that she's an adult and should be "responsible"...and ignore the effect on that fetus. Actual out-of-the-womb citizens--from newborns on up--cost money to bring to a healthy, productive adulthood...and that's money the social conservatives are unwilling to spend. In state after state, for instance, programs to provide medical care to poor children are not meeting the need because...they aren't funded. Schools are poorly funded, preschools even worse.
I find this hypocritical. If the social conservatives were truly "pro-life" rather than "anti-woman" they would be eager to make the best possible environment for all--adults and children, male and female--and they would recognize that such organizations as Planned Parenthood (which provides far more than birth control) have been, and are still, and will be until a decent health care system is in place, a necessary part of providing women with both health care and choices. They would be willing to spend on improving the lot of the poor, including the absurd and obscene 25% of US children who live below the poverty line...they would support excellent schools for all, decent housing for all, jobs for all, medical care for all, instead of focusing their narrow vision on the months of pregnancy.
But back to the questions to ask. Why attack birth control and women's health when the declared real problem is the national debt? How exactly is birth control supposed to be contributing to the national debt? How exactly is forcing women to bear children they don't want going to lower the national debt? How is it going to create jobs? (Especially since the things children need, that might create jobs--like schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds--are also on the conservative hit list.) Birth control is a lot cheaper than pregnancy and 18 years of child-rearing. What has controlling women--making them less able to contribute economically, forcing them into economic dependency--got to do with reducing the national debt? Or creating jobs? .
Here's a site that lays out the Republican policy more clearly than others I'd seen. Notice that the tax cuts are all for the high income brackets...nothing for those already in dire need through job loss. There is no plan for creating jobs...that's supposed to happen magically....though if it were going to work it would have worked other times.
Does this make sense? I sure don't think so.
The contrary could be (not claiming it is) true: women who are not having children they don't want are more able to enter the workforce. They aren't burdened with caring for multiple children, trying to get time off to take the kids to the doctor, etc. They're probably earning more money....and thus they're paying more taxes (whether married or not, a woman with few or no children is likely to earn more than a woman with many.) Paying more taxes leads to more federal income, and thus (potentially at least) lowers national debt. You would think fiscal conservatives would want more people working, and more people paying taxes, at least until the national debt is where they think it should be.
The war on women seeks to control women--specifically to make it likely that they will bear children, and unlikely that they can avoid it or limit the number. It treats women as less than human...unable to make their own decisions about their own bodies and reproduction. When a pregnant woman in Iowa tripped and fell on the stairs after an argument with her husband, and went to the hospital to see if her fetus was all right, she was reported to the police and arrested on suspicion of feticide. (I would have been questioning the husband: did he push her down the stairs? My mother was pushed down stairs when pregnant with me--not by my father, but by his mother.) When a woman in Arizona was in danger of dying if she continued a nonviable pregnancy, the Catholic bishop there insisted that they both should have died rather than she live via an abortion...even though that would have left her other children without a mother. That's treating women as less than human--of less worth than a nonviable fetus. When the GOP attacks birth control, including abortion, they are not merely attacking women's health....they are attacking women's right to education, employment, and economic advancement.
A woman who bears a child is expected to parent that child until it is grown, no matter what state of health that child is in. That's a minimum of 18 years, on top of the months of pregnancy, that society expects that woman to make that child her primary concern. Anyone who thinks that does not impact a woman's chance at higher education, at employment, at economic advancement is simply ignorant: pregnancy and childcare imposes extra labor at every stage along the way and makes it harder for a woman to do the work necessary for a college degree and a good-paying job. In a nation that supposedly values personal choice, and then holds the individual responsible for that choice...should not having a child be a matter of choice, not chance? And should not society do what it can to make that choice easier, and not harder?
The social conservatives spend a lot of bandwidth and air time and so on proclaiming how precious every life is....as long as it's in some woman's womb. The unborn are precious...and the unborn cost them no money. You can deny services (from nutritional support to prenatal care to job training) to the pregnant woman while telling yourself that she's an adult and should be "responsible"...and ignore the effect on that fetus. Actual out-of-the-womb citizens--from newborns on up--cost money to bring to a healthy, productive adulthood...and that's money the social conservatives are unwilling to spend. In state after state, for instance, programs to provide medical care to poor children are not meeting the need because...they aren't funded. Schools are poorly funded, preschools even worse.
I find this hypocritical. If the social conservatives were truly "pro-life" rather than "anti-woman" they would be eager to make the best possible environment for all--adults and children, male and female--and they would recognize that such organizations as Planned Parenthood (which provides far more than birth control) have been, and are still, and will be until a decent health care system is in place, a necessary part of providing women with both health care and choices. They would be willing to spend on improving the lot of the poor, including the absurd and obscene 25% of US children who live below the poverty line...they would support excellent schools for all, decent housing for all, jobs for all, medical care for all, instead of focusing their narrow vision on the months of pregnancy.
But back to the questions to ask. Why attack birth control and women's health when the declared real problem is the national debt? How exactly is birth control supposed to be contributing to the national debt? How exactly is forcing women to bear children they don't want going to lower the national debt? How is it going to create jobs? (Especially since the things children need, that might create jobs--like schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds--are also on the conservative hit list.) Birth control is a lot cheaper than pregnancy and 18 years of child-rearing. What has controlling women--making them less able to contribute economically, forcing them into economic dependency--got to do with reducing the national debt? Or creating jobs? .
Here's a site that lays out the Republican policy more clearly than others I'd seen. Notice that the tax cuts are all for the high income brackets...nothing for those already in dire need through job loss. There is no plan for creating jobs...that's supposed to happen magically....though if it were going to work it would have worked other times.
Does this make sense? I sure don't think so.
From Twitter 04-07-2011
14:57:02: Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) followed me again while I was on the tractor mowing and it scored an afternoon snack. Beautiful bird.
18:00:27: Why to avoid cactus while mowing field: Cactus faces shredder/mowers with enthusiasm: "More pieces! More plants!"
18:01:38: The faster you try to mow, the more the tractor bounces, and the more your neck and arms will feel what it took to keep it on the track.
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 6, 2011
From Twitter 04-05-2011
08:54:21: RT @KSmithSF: RT @Ferragus: The Heart of Dog by Doranna Durgin http://t.co/wMjMgiH via @amazon Great book! Good cause, please help sprea ...
09:45:46: RT @JodyLynnNye: Miracle of life… http://t.co/Gy84jwT from Catalogliving.net These postings from 'Gary and Elaine' are hilarious. Tks, BY.
09:48:48: It's impossible for me to write with music I've sung (e.g. St. John Passion) in my head. Time for something else on boom box. #writing.
11:04:56: RT @ezraklein: One of the main fiscal choices Ryan's budget makes is that it refuses to raises taxes on the rich but it takes health car ...
11:05:05: RT @ezraklein: I don't blame Obama for being unable to change Washington. But I blame him for ceasing to try. http://wapo.st/eiXUBp
11:05:13: RT @BacklisteBooks: RT @dorannadurgin: Award-Winning authors; 16 stories: THE HEART OF DOG--and help for a sick dog. http://ow.ly/4tBUc
11:10:43: RT @NancyPelosi: #GOP Path to Poverty budget eliminates guaranteed benefits for seniors under Medicare http://is.gd/LEmuZp #GOPvalues
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 5, 2011
The Consuming Passion: Cooking
When you look in the freezer and find that a package of meat has a torn corner, there's only one thing to do--pull it out and start it on its way to the table. That happened to me yesterday, with a package of beef short ribs. This beef, like all our beef is ranch-raised, range-fed, which means it's lean, full-flavored, and firm in texture. Until the past year, I'd never been that good at cooking beef ribs, but a recipe in a Williams-Sonoma catalog gave me the right cooking technique for these ribs. Unfortunately, I couldn't find that catalog (I should cut the recipes out, I know, but I don't.) I did remember where to start, though. Given the time of day of the discovery, and the other things going on, these ribs weren't done for supper last night, and the recipe turned into Overnight Beef Ribs, which we had for lunch today.
1 28 oz can of Ro-Tel diced tomatoes & green chilis
1 onion (strong) coarse-diced or sliced
bay leaves (2-3, depending on size)
2-3 cloves garlic
coarse-ground black pepper
red wine (merlot and pinot noir both do well with this)
[next day] 2 carrots, sliced into thinnish rounds.
Large (large enough to lay pieces of short ribs flat for browning) heavy cooking pot with tight cover. Enameled cast-iron is perfect; I used a 5 `1/2 quart Le Creuset round pot.
Brown short rib pieces on all sides in oil or bacon fat in the cooking pot. Add the Ro-Tel, the onion, bay leaves, garlic, pepper and 1-2 cups of red wine. Cover, and place in pre-heated 300F degree oven for several hours. At that point, check that all the meat pieces are covered or nearly covered by sauce. Add a little wine, beef stock or broth, or water to reach that point if they're not, but don't add more than needed. Cover again, reduce oven to 200F and replace in oven. Now let it alone for 6 hours or so. Check: bones should be releasing from meat, any connective tissue should be soft, meat should be fork-tender. Bring to stovetop, put on low burner, and add carrots. Simmer until carrots are tender.
The rib meat will be falling apart, still flavorful; the sauce will be rich. Serve with a dipping bread (sourdough's good for this) and a fresh green salad. (If you have hungry teenagers, you can also add potatoes as a side dish. But ours has grown up and moved out, home only on weekends.)
If you started this in the morning, it would be ready by supper, probably. But if you've found your torn package of ribs in mid-afternoon or later, it works very well slow-cooked overnight, as I did it, and then it's ready for lunch.
1 28 oz can of Ro-Tel diced tomatoes & green chilis
1 onion (strong) coarse-diced or sliced
bay leaves (2-3, depending on size)
2-3 cloves garlic
coarse-ground black pepper
red wine (merlot and pinot noir both do well with this)
[next day] 2 carrots, sliced into thinnish rounds.
Large (large enough to lay pieces of short ribs flat for browning) heavy cooking pot with tight cover. Enameled cast-iron is perfect; I used a 5 `1/2 quart Le Creuset round pot.
Brown short rib pieces on all sides in oil or bacon fat in the cooking pot. Add the Ro-Tel, the onion, bay leaves, garlic, pepper and 1-2 cups of red wine. Cover, and place in pre-heated 300F degree oven for several hours. At that point, check that all the meat pieces are covered or nearly covered by sauce. Add a little wine, beef stock or broth, or water to reach that point if they're not, but don't add more than needed. Cover again, reduce oven to 200F and replace in oven. Now let it alone for 6 hours or so. Check: bones should be releasing from meat, any connective tissue should be soft, meat should be fork-tender. Bring to stovetop, put on low burner, and add carrots. Simmer until carrots are tender.
The rib meat will be falling apart, still flavorful; the sauce will be rich. Serve with a dipping bread (sourdough's good for this) and a fresh green salad. (If you have hungry teenagers, you can also add potatoes as a side dish. But ours has grown up and moved out, home only on weekends.)
If you started this in the morning, it would be ready by supper, probably. But if you've found your torn package of ribs in mid-afternoon or later, it works very well slow-cooked overnight, as I did it, and then it's ready for lunch.
Elizabeth Moon's Blog
- Elizabeth Moon's profile
- 2621 followers
Elizabeth Moon isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
