Cocktail Meatballs in Tomato-Saffron Sauce

Description:
This is from the Best International Recipe Book from the author's of Cook's Illustrated. Nathan found the cookbook at the library and selected this dish to make with the nutritionist that he was meeting with.

The dish was so good that even though I don't usually eat meat, I ate a full serving of this.

If I had it to do over, I would probably try a veg version of meatballs and cut the meat version of the meatballs in half. And I'd make twice as much of the sauce and picada.

Ingredients:
Meatballs
2 slices high-quality white sandwhich bread, torn into small pieces
1/2 cup whole milk
8 ounces (85 percent lean) ground beef
8 ounces ground pork
1/2 ounces Manchego or Parmesan cheese, grated (about 1/4 cup)
2 tablespoons minced fresh parsley leaves
1 large egg yolk
1 medium garlic clove, minced or pressed through a garlic press (about 1 teaspoon)
3/4 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon ground black pepper
2 tablespoons olive oil

Sauce
1 small onion, minced
1 small tomato, cored, seeded, and chopped medium
1 cup low-sodium chicken broth
1/2 cup dry white wine
2 bay leaves

Picada
1 tablespoon minced fresh parsley leaves
1 tablespoon finely chopped almonds
2 medium garlic cloves,

Directions:
1. For the meatballs: In a large bowl, mash the bread and milk together to form a smooth paste. Add the ground meats, Manchego, parsley, egg yolk, garlic, salt and pepper to the mashed bread and mix until uniform. Shape the mixture into 1/2-inch-round meatballs (1 teaspoon per meatball; you should have 35 to 40 meatballs).

2. Heat the oil in a 12-inch nonstick skillet over medium-high heat until shimmering. Add half of the meatballs and brown on all sides, about 10 minutes, reducing the heat if the oil begins to smoke. Transfer the meatballs to a paper towel-lined plate and repeat with the reamining meatballs. Discard all but 1 tablespoon of the oil left in the skillet.

3. For the sauce: Add the onion to the oil left in the skillet and cook over medium heat, scraping up any browned bits, until very soft and lightly browned, 6 to 9 minutes. Stir in the tomato and cook for 1 minute. Stir in the broth, wine, and bay leaves, then carefuly return the meatballs to the skillet. Cover and simmer until the meatballs are just cooked through, 5 to 10 minutes.

4. For the picada: While the meatballs cook, mash together the parsley, almonds, garlic, saffron, paprika, 1/8 teaspoon salt, and a pinch pepper. When the meatballs are cooked, remove and discard the bay leaves. Stir the picada into the sauce and season with salt and pepper to taste. Transfer the meatballs and sauce to a serving dish and serve immediately.

Peacemaking Women Retreat - 2011

Last weekend Lois and I spent the weekend near Pinecliffe, Colorado in a beautiful house with wonderful women. We had great food, great fellowship, and a whole lot of laughter. This is a 4 minute video full of beautiful scenery, the gals at the retreat, and a summary of our weekend.

Shrimp and Grits

Description:
Shayne made this for us the first night of our gals' retreat and it was delicious. I made it for my fam for dinner tonight (using polenta instead of grits, but it's all the same thing, right? They're just labeled differently). The kids thought it was weird, but Rob and I enjoyed it. Naomi suggested that I include black beans next time, which sounds intriguing.

Shayne didn't give us her recipe, but I found one online that I used.

Ingredients:
4 cups water
Salt and pepper
1 cup stone-ground grits
3 tablespoons butter
2 cups shredded sharp cheddar cheese
1 pound shrimp, peeled and deveined
6 slices bacon, chopped
4 teaspoons lemon juice
2 tablespoons chopped parsley
1 cup thinly sliced scallions
1 large clove garlic, minced (or one large squirt of tube garlic)

Directions:
Bring water to a boil. Add salt and pepper. Add grits and cook until water is absorbed, about 20 to 25 minutes. Remove from heat and stir in butter and cheese.

Rinse shrimp and pat dry. Fry the bacon in a large skillet until browned; drain well. In grease, add shrimp. Cook until shrimp turn pink. Add lemon juice, chopped bacon, parsley, scallions and garlic. Saute for 3 minutes.

Spoon grits into a serving bowl. Add shrimp mixture and mix well. Serve immediately.

Extravert or Introvert: E-I (Deemer)

Simple and straight-forward description of extraversion vs. introversion by Roger Deemer:

Extraverts build energy by interacting with the world around them. They also spend time thinking privately, but tend to lose energy in too much reflective isolation. To restore their vigor, they need to become active with the world around them again.

Introverts are energized by reflection in the private, inner world of their thoughts and ideas. They may interact with the world around them quite competently, but over time it will drain their energy. They need to withdraw mentally and rejuvenate in their private world.

Meg's Quick Take on the 4 Preferences of the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator

According to the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI) there are 4 main preferences that are common to people across the world irregardless of race, religion, or favorite means of consuming chocolate. These four preferences are amoral; they describe variations in behavior without any moral "right" or "wrong" attached to them. And though the system appears rather binary (You either have a preference for one or the other value.), that doesn't mean that the behavior of individuals is similarly binary. In other words, if you prefer one side of the preference, that doesn't mean that you won't occasionally operate in the exact opposite side on occasion. (In fact, when a person is operating in their inferior mode, they are behaving very opposite to their usual preferences.)

The following is a brief description of the four preferences found in the MBTI. This post is essentially an exercise in synthesizing data, so I'm writing off the top of my head based on various readings and discussions that I've engaged in. Feel free to add to, or dispute, what I have described here.

The 4 Preferences

Extravert vs. Introvert (E/I): This preference is also called the attitudes and refers to the flow of energy.

For the longest time I thought this preference was all about enjoying being with people or wanting to be on your own. But it really has more to do with interactions with the outside world (the world around us that we can see, touch, etc.) and interactions with the inner world (imagination, thought, dreams... all that stuff that goes on inside us). An extravert is someone who draws energy from interacting with the outside world. That might involve lots of interaction with people, but it could also involve spending time outdoors, traveling, going to concerts... anything that involves interaction with something outside of the body. An introvert is someone who expends energy when interacting outside the body. The introvert needs time alone spent in reflection and thought. Whereas the extravert gains energy by interacting with physical things, the introvert restores energy by interacting with mental things -- concepts and ideas. An introvert who spends too much time dealing with the physical world will probably end up feeling drained. An extravert who spends too much time alone or in the world of the mind will probably end up feeling depressed. 

Sensing vs. iNtuition (S/N): This preference is also called the perceiving functions and refers to the way information is consumed.

Have you ever had an experience where you and another person both saw the exact same event and yet you came away with completely different takes on what happened? You both experienced the same inputs, but somehow you both gathered very different information from the experience. In other words, your perceptions of the experience were different. The perceiving functions in the MBTI are all about how people gather and interpret information. Some people will look at a bunch of trees and see a forest. These people are intuitive, seeing the bigger picture based on a set (or subset) of data. Others will look at a bunch of trees and see a bunch of trees. These people are sensing, seeing the individual pieces of data as they are perceived by the senses. Intuitives tend to see patterns in data. From these patterns they are able to make predictions about the future. In general, intuitives are big picture people who often think to the future. Those with a sensing preference are often considered to be detail people. (Not that iNtuitives don't see details, but they're more likely to gloss over details, and once they get enough details to jump to an overarching view of the situation, or a metaphor or system that organizes the data, they'll leave the details and pursue the bigger picture that those details present.) In addition to being able to focus on the details, those with the sensing preference tend to appreciate anything that they can interact with using their five senses. How things look or taste or feel might be very important to them. The words sensing and intuitive can be a bit confusing, but I try to think of it this way. S's take in information through their senses. N's might take in some of that information, however their focus isn't on the things they sense, but upon what they can intuit from those things. 

Feeling vs. Thinking (F/T): This preference is also called the judging functions and refers to the way decisions are made.

The words used to describe this function can also be confusing. For the longest time I thought those that used thinking made decisions based on logic and those that used feeling made decisions based on how they felt about things. But that's only half right. A better way to look at feeling is to think of decision making in light of seeking a harmonious solution (even if it's not the most logical solution). For those that use feeling, decisions are made based on relationships with others. Those using thinking base their decisions on data and may give little or not regard to how it affects people. Because of this, T's are often thought of as cold or uncaring, when that might not at all be the case. Someone can use thinking in making a decision with every intention of doing the kind or loving thing, but that won't be their criterion in resolving their decision, the logic of the situation being more relevant in their mind. It's also important to note that T's may use logic to come to a conclusion, but it might very well be a loopy form of logic that wouldn't hold up in my old geometry teacher's class. In the same vein, F's might make a decision based on how it will affect other people, but it might not be a decision intended to bring harmony at all, but discord. T's and F's can both be remarkably brilliant or excruciatingly dimwitted. How you make your decisions doesn't determine how "smart" you are. T's often look down on F's because their decisions seem illogical (and may very well be illogical), but that doesn't mean that they're not still brilliant decisions that are just what the situation called for. And F's sometimes look down on T's because they seem so unfeeling and detached, but likewise, that can also be just the kind of decision that a situation called for. Both means of making a decisions have value. 

Perceiving vs. Judging (P/J): This preference doesn't have a name of its own as far as I know, but it has to do with a person's lifestyle and refers to the way a person relates to the outside world (or how they behave when they're extraverting).

If you glance back up at the S/N section, you'll notice that those were the perceiving functions. And if you glance at the F/T section, you'll notice that those were the judging functions. And now here we are looking at perceiving and judging. If you are a perceiving person, then when you extrovert (or when you relate to the outside world), you interact with your perceiving function (whether S or N). And if you are a judging person, then you relate to the outside world with your judging function (whether F or T). More on this in my next post on personality types. P's and J's tend to also have characteristics of their own, that I don't think are related to S/N or F/T. J's like closure. They feel a little uncomfortable when something is left hanging, unfinished or undecided. They're willing to forego additional information gathering in order to "just get this thing over with". P's, on the other hand, are much more willing to continue to gather information until they're quite sure they've gotten all the bases covered before they final settle down to make a decision. In fact, sometimes P's aren't comfortable making that final decision because they're not quite sure they've finished gathering information. Deadlines can help a P finally bring closure to a project. P's tend to be more spontaneous than J's who like everything scheduled or orderly. 

This is just a cursory overview of the 4 preferences in the MBTI. You may look at a preference and say, "Well, this part fits me, but I'm not like that other part at all." Not everyone uses one preference all of the time. My mom is a strong S, but when she cooks, her iNtuition shines. She strays from strictly following recipes in a way that would make most S's cringe. But most of the time, she uses Sensing, so that's considered her preference. It's also helpful to think of these traits in terms of yourself left to your own devices. At work, or when trapped in family dynamics, or in certain social functions, we may feel that we have to behave in a certain way because that's what's expected of us. And we might be very good at behaving that way, but being good at something doesn't make it a personality type preference. The behaviors you would naturally gravitate toward when on vacation or during free time are often a better yardstick to use when trying to figure where you fit in. 

And remember, these are amoral characteristics. None of this is about being right or wrong. When you figure out your personality type, it should be a wonderful means of self discovery and self affirmation. It's also a great way to see those niggling little things in others and realize that it's a result of their own personality type. Realizations like that help us to accept others more as they are and to stop trying to force them into a mold that fits us better than it does them. 

Functions and Attitudes in Type (another Personality Type sort of post)

I've been reading Naomi Quenk's book, Beside Ourselves. My original goal was to find out more about the inferior function, but having read most of my way through the book, I think I've finally gotten the hang of functions and attitudes in general. I don't feel particularly fluent in it, yet, but I think I could hold a reasonable conversation about it (if you give me time to stop and think here and there).

So I thought I'd take a stab at explaining it here. You know you've learned something when you're able to turn around and explain it coherently to another person. For anyone that's new to the Myers Briggs Personality Type, this might be foreign territory and it might help to read my post on the basics first. And if this is old hat for you, I'd love to have you tell me where I've got it wrong. 

Determining Your Dominant Function

I'm not sure who first came up with the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior function idea, but I think it was Carl Jung (who came up with a lot of the foundational ideas that the Myers Briggs Type Indicator is based off of). The basic premise is that there's one mode of operation that we're best at and that we use most often. (We're probably best at it precisely because we use it most often.) This is our dominant function. We tend to feel most comfortable and certain of ourselves when we our using our dominant function. There are times, however, when a different tactic is called for, and when that happens, we often revert to using our auxiliary function. The auxiliary can also be used to support the dominant function. (So rather than being an "instead of" mode of operating, it becomes more of an "I will approach the task using the auxiliary so that I can better user my dominant function with the results of my use of the auxiliary. ... Of course, we don't think out our actions in these terms, but it still describes the method that we often use to function, even if we don't realize that's what we're doing. Remember, the MBTI is a tool that was developed to describe how things already are, not to force us into some new means of interaction.) 

Once you've determined which of the 16 possible type combinations you fall under, you can figure out what your dominant function is by first looking at the last letter of your psychological type. Are you judging or perceiving? If you are judging, then look next at that third letter, which indicates the judging function that you prefer. Are you thinking of feeling? Likewise, if you are perceiving, then look at the perceiving functions, which are sensing and intuition. If you are an extravert (look at the first letter in your type) then your dominant function is the judging or perceiving function that you just came up with. And your dominant function is written as one of the following:

Se Ne Te Fe (the little "e" indicates the attitude of your dominant function)

If you are an introvert, then you have one more step. If you ended up with a judging function (T or F), then your dominant function is your perceiving function (either S or N). If you ended up with a perceiving function then your dominant function is your judging function. Your dominant function is written as one of the following:

Si Ni Ti Fi (the little "i" indicates the attitude of your dominant function)

Let me give two specific examples to help make sense of this. (It took me a couple of readings to wrap my head around this. I don't know why it seemed so complicated, but once I figured it out it seems pretty straight forward.) Let's start with an ENFP. Because this type is perceiving, then we want to look at the perceiving function (in this case N) to determine the dominant function. When this person is "in the world" (or extraverting) then this person's dominant function is intuition which is written as Ne (Intuitive with an extraverted attitude.) If we're looking at an introvert, however, there will be an extra step. I'll use myself as an example. I am an INTJ. Because I am judging (That doesn't mean I'm judgmental, though I am at times.) I want to first look to my judging function, which is thinking. But because I'm an introvert, my dominant function isn't what I do when I'm extraverting, but what I use when I'm introverting (which is where I prefer to be most often). So instead of having thinking as my dominant function, I look to my perceiving function, which is intuition. My dominant function is intuition with an introverted attitude, which is written as Ni. 

The Auxiliary Function

The auxiliary function is easy to figure out. If your dominant function is judging (T or F) then your auxiliary function is perceiving (S or N) and vice versa. And if the attitude of your dominant function is extraverted, then your auxiliary is introverted (and vice versa.) So if you are an ENFP and your dominant function is Ne, then your auxiliary function is Fi. If you are an INTJ and your dominant function is Ni, then your auxiliary function is Ti. 

Tertiary Function

The tertiary function is one that you only fall back upon if your dominant and auxiliary aren't working for you. Because you don't use it as often, you're not as good at it. So, for example, if your tertiary function involves intuition, then you'll use intuition, but you won't use it nearly as well as someone who has that as a dominant function. Quenk gives some great examples of strong and weak uses of various functions. I'll just give one quick example here so you get a better sense of what I'm talking about. A dominant thinking person might be very good at giving impersonal criticism. A tertiary (or even more so, an inferior) thinking person will more likely give excessive criticism. 

To figure out your tertiary function, take a gander at your auxiliary function and select it's oppose. So if your auxiliary is Si or Se, your tertiary will be N. (There's apparently debate about whether tertiary functions have attitudes. I don't get any of that bit yet so I'll just shake my head a bit here and move on.) If your auxiliary is Fi or Fe, then your tertiary function is T.

Inferior Function

Here's the part that I had been most interested in when starting Quenk's book.  I had been reading Lynne Baab's book, Personality Type in Congregations, and she mentioned the inferior function somewhere in there. I probably wouldn't have thought much of it, but there was a description that jumped out at me. It was similar to the one I gave above of someone who is strong as a thinker verses someone who is using that function but isn't very skilled at it. But it described my son and much of his recent behavior. I had just the week before been thinking to myself, "Nathan has behaving so differently lately. It's like I don't know my own son. I never would have expected him to think this way or act this way. It's unlike the kid that I've known for over a decade now. Is it just because he's a teen?" Then I saw the description in Baab's book and kathunk, it all slid into place. Nathan has been under a lot of stress lately (not just from friends and school, but because of health issues as well) and he's been reverting to his inferior function, which is exactly the opposite of his usual behavior. 

To determine your inferior function, look at your dominant function and reverse it. So if your dominant function is Ni, then your inferior function is Se. If your dominant is Ti, then your inferior is Fe. And because this is not just something we don't use often, but that is even the exact opposite of what we are really good at, we tend to do it very poorly. In a situation where a person is dominant extraverted feeling (Fe) they will often have a sensitivity to the welfare of others. But if someone has Fe as their inferior function, they will likely have a hypersensitivity to relationships when they are under severe stress. 

We use our four functions in various settings. Oftentimes, if we try to use our dominant function and that doesn't seem to get us anywhere, we'll revert to our auxiliary function and on down the line until we finally use our inferior function as a sort of "last resort" measure. We might also learn to use our other functions to serve our dominant function. (I don't really fully understand this bit yet. I've got the main idea, but how it plays out is still fuzzy in my mind.) We might not attend to details as much in our dominant function which is thinking or feeling, but if our judging function needs some supporting evidence, then we might use our auxiliary or tertiary function to help gather the details that our dominant function needs to work well. 

As we grow older, we often naturally begin to explore our inferior function more. So someone who has grown up being very logical may explore their feeling side more. (This is something that has come up several times in the books on personality type and spirituality that I've read. We may have grown up feeling much more comfortable in one type of worship over any other type. But as we reach middle age we might check out a congregation with a very different worship style. This exploration often helps us to feel closer to God as we stretch and grow in what was before a very uncomfortable area.) I suspect this is why we have a stereotype that when people hit middle age they begin behaving strangely. What's happening is that people start exploring their inferior function, but since they haven't used it much in their first 3 or 4 decades, they're not really so good at it. So they come across as being bumbling fools hitting a middle aged crisis. That's not all bad. It can be a chance for a person to find new interests and skills that will help them to grow in areas that they'd previously avoided. 

I have about a quarter of Quenk's book left to read. I still feel very uncertain of what each function actually looks like when it's being acted upon. I get that Se means somehow interacting with details in the outer world, but how does that play out? I've picked up a few ideas (an Se will be more open to exploring new tastes or sights or textures) but if you throw a function at me, it would take me awhile to sort out how that looks. (What does it look like to be an Si? You tend to be more interested in stuff inside yourself, but what? Not tastes or sights. Ideas? Thoughts? Facts?) I'd love a list of examples of how each function plays out. That's probably something that I'll explore next. 

Minty CousCous Salad

Description:
I found this recipe on Epicurious, but I've made a few modifications based on how it came out last night.

Ingredients:
6 oz. (ish) dry Israeli (large pearl) couscous
2 cups boiling water
1 bouillon cube
1 cup chopped red bell pepper (I used green, but red, yellow or orange would give you a brighter looking salad.)
1/2 cup pitted Kalamata olives or other brine-cured black olives, halved
1 cup chopped fresh mint
3 tablespoons olive oil
1 tablespoon vinegar (I used a citrus vinegar from Trader Joes. White wine vinegar might work well also.)
1 clove finely chopped garlic or 1/2 teaspoon premashed garlic
1/2 cup crumbled feta cheese (about 2 1/2 ounces)
1/4 cup finely chopped red onion
salt and pepper to taste

Directions:
In a 2-quart (ish) saucepan, sauté couscous in 1 tablespoon olive oil over medium heat until couscous is lightly browned (about 5 minutes). (I used Casbah Toasted CousCous. These directions on how to cook the couscous are from them.)

Add one bouillon cube (I used a salted vegetable bouillon but chicken might work well also.) and the boiling water to the couscous and bring to a boil. Reduce heat to medium-low and cover. Simmer for 12 minutes or until liquid is absorbed.

Transfer couscous to bowl; fluff with fork and cool slightly.
Stir chopped bell pepper, olives, and mint into couscous. Mix together 2 tablespoons remaining olive oil, 1 tablespoon vinegar, and garlic and pour over mixture. Fold in feta cheese. Season with salt and pepper.

Don't make the couscous in advance. It just clumps together.

Fruit Bars

Description:
I love fruit bars. If I make these and they need a little extra bit of sweet, I drizzle agave nectar over them.

WholeFoods makes a carmel version of this same thing that includes chocolate chips. Someday I hope to try making that as well. Until then, I settle for fruit bars which are still über yummy.

Ingredients:
1 cup brown sugar
2 cup flour
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 cup rolled oats
1 cup unsalted butter; cut into 1/2-inch pieces, softened to cool room temperature
2 cups fresh or frozen fruit
3/4 cup jam or preserves or conserve (something that will match or compliment your fruit)

Directions:
Mix brown sugar, flour, soda, salt and oats. Cut in butter until crumbly.

Simmer fruit and jam until fruit is soft and the jam is mixed in well with the fruit.

Press half of oatmeal mixture into bottom of 9x13 pan. Pour fruit mixture on top and cover that with the remaining oatmeal mixture. Bake about 30 or 40 minutes in a 350° oven until slightly browned and bubbly.

Nellie and Mary - First Cousins

The woman on the left in this picture is my granny - my dad's dad's mom. Her name was Nellie Kulchesky Woskowich (nee Kulchesky Khust). She came over from Ukraine when she was a teenager because she was "tired of taking care of the horses."

The other woman in the picture is her first cousin. My dad's notes on the back of the picture are a little cryptic, but I think this is Mary Baranetcka, mother of Josephene. (The spellings of the names are by my dad and I'm not sure if they're accurate or he just didn't know how to spell Josephine. I'm sure Baranetcka could be transliterated a number of ways.) 

Unicorn Country and San Antonio

At about half the size you're expecting.

We were delighted to see that we were in Unicorn Country as we drove through New Braunfels. We snapped a few photos as proof that we had been there. We didn't get to see any actual, live unicorns, though. They were probably all up in Austin for SXSW.

In San Antonio we stayed at the Drury Hotel, which was right on the River Walk. I think it was built in the early 1920s. We walked around downtown a fair bit and I really enjoyed the architecture. It was quite varied and I particularly liked the little regional flairs that were worked in here and there.

We visited the art school thinking that it was an art college that we should keep in mind if the girls decided to do art school some day. But it turns out they have classes, but aren't an accredited college. They're seeking accreditation in the next few years, though, so we'll have to keep our radar up.

Of the three main towns we visited while in Texas (Corpus Christi, Austin and San Antonio) I definitely liked San Antonio the best. There might be hope for Austin, but it was hard to get much of a sense of it when SXSW was going on.

Scottish Oatmeal Scones

Description:
This recipe is from Mary Gubser's book, Quick Breads, Soups & Stews which I found in the Detroit library ages and ages ago. Some of my favorite muffin recipes are from this book, but there's also a few excellent scone recipes that I kept from the book as well. This is one of them.

Ingredients:
1 1/2 cups flour (I use whole wheat flour.)
1/2 cup rolled oats
1 teaspoon baking soda
2 teaspoons cream of tartar
6 tablespoons butter
1/2 cup raisins or currants
1/2 cup milk

Directions:
Combine the flour, oats, baking soda and cream of tartar in a shallow mixing bowl. Cut in the butter until the mixture is crumbly. Add the raisins/currants, mix well and stir in the milk until the dough is gathered into a ball. I then form these into circles with my hand, and at Nathan's direction, have started pushing a depression into the middle of each scone to help hold in the butter and jam that he'll be slathering on top.

Pot Pie (with Chicken or Seitan)

Description:
Naomi has decided that she really loves Coopersmith's pot pie. I saw this recipe in the Denver Post (1/12/11) and decided to give it a go, with a few modifications of my own.

When I make this, I double the recipe. So what follows is the amount I make. Feel free to scale it back down if you'd prefer. Since Rob, Nathan and Naomi eat meat, I make a larger chicken version. The rest goes into a slightly smaller vegetarian version.

Ingredients:
3/4 c. butter
3/4 c. flour
4 cups broth (chicken or vegetable) or 2 cups broth and 2 cups leftover from boiling potatoes and carrots
2 cups heavy cream
ground pepper
salt
3 chicken breasts + 1 package seitan
1 medium to large onion, chopped into little pieces
1 bag of frozen peas
2 or 3 carrots, chopped into 1/2 inch thick rounds
2 or 3 stalks of celery chopped to the same approximate size as the carrots
3 or 4 potatoes with skin
1 package phyllo dough

Directions:
Essentially the meat and veggies all get precooked. I toss the chicken in a pan in the oven until it's baked through. I boil the potatoes and carrots until they're soft. And I sauté the onions and celery until the onions are translucent. I also make the sauce. Melt the butter in a medium sized sauce pan. Stir in the flour and cook for about 2 minutes. Slowly add the broth, cream, pepper and salt to taste. Cook for 5 minutes or until thickened and smooth.

Then preheat the oven to 350º Fahrenheit. While the oven is warming up, I melt a little butter into the bottom of the two casserole pans that I'm going to use for the pot pies. (I make one with meat and one without.) I lay several (maybe 10?) layers of phyllo dough on the bottom of the pan. (I know this isn't typical for a pot pie. But we liked it this way.) Then I toss in the chicken, cut into bite sized pieces -- or the seitan, likewise cut into bite sized pieces. I add the veggies and then I pour the sauce over the whole lot. I finish the pie off with the rest of the phyllo dough. I don't bother adding any butter between layers. There's enough sauce to kill a small hamster and a lot of it will soak right into the dough.

Bake for 25 minutes.

The Digital Story of the Nativity

... or Nativity 2.0

Chickens Changing Lives in Tanzania

One Last Christmas...

This is a real tear jerker. Here's the description from Matthew West's YouTube page:

---

This is the video my new Christmas song - "One Last Christmas." This song is inspired by the true story of the Locke family and their son Dax.

At just thirteen months old, little Dax was diagnosed with a rare form of Leukemia. He was given two bone marrow transplants as a part of emergency treatment; one from each of his parents. The doctors then told his parents that Dax would most likely not make it to see Christmas.

This song is about the love of a family, and the coming together of an entire community to make sure that this little boy could have one last Christmas. His dad, determined that his son would see Christmas, put up the decorations early. The neighborhood caught on, and did the same. The whole town soon followed suit. A website was built telling his story. Soon, pictures were sent from all over the world of Christmas decorations that had been put up in his honor.

Dax did lose his battle with Leukemia, but not before he got to see one last Christmas. Today, this little boy's legacy lives on, and his parents are making sure it does. They were so touched by the care they received from St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, that they now have a desire to raise enough money to run the entire hospital for one day in honor of their son, Dax. The total cost to run St. Jude's for one day is $1.6 million dollars. Already, they have raised a quarter of a million dollars.

This Christmas, it is on my heart to join forces with the Locke family, and help them in their cause. I would like to encourage you to join us in raising money that will go to an amazing cause in St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital that cares for so many children each year.

To donate now to St. Jude's in memory of Dax please visit:
http://tiny.cc/m1mdo

To read more of Dax's story visit:
http://www.daxlocke.com/
or
http://www.matthewwest.com

Together, we can reach this goal -- and fund St. Jude's for an entire day in Dax Locke's memory!

-Matthew West

Eggnog Cupcakes

Description:
Nathan heard that the bakery down town had eggnog cupcakes and he really wanted one, but none of us were up for trekking down there to pick one up. So I just made some instead.

We're out of eggnog, so I made a mini-portion of an eggnog recipe that I found online, then mixed that into an eggnog cupcake recipe that I also found online. Since I knew I was going to be cooking the eggnog, I didn't mind that it was a raw egg version. What I've written below is my mash-up of the above recipes.

Ingredients:
Eggnog
1 oz rum
1 oz bourbon whiskey (I used Irish whiskey because that's what I had on hand.)
1 beaten egg
3 oz sugar (It should have been 1 oz. sugar, but it came out of the sugar jar faster than I was counting on.)
pinch salt
2 oz whipping cream
2 oz whole milk

Cupcake
1 c (2 sticks) butter, at room temperature
1 1/3 c + 3 T sugar
2 t rum
1/8 t vanilla
1 1/3 t baking powder
2/3 t salt
2 c flour
2/3 c eggnog
5 egg whites

Directions:
Mix together all of the ingredients for the eggnog. Set aside.

Preheat oven to 350 F. Prepare 48 mini cupcake tins or 18 regular.

In a mixing bowl cream the butter & 1 1/3 cups of sugar together until light & fluffy. Beat in the rum & vanilla. Add the baking powder, salt & 2/3 cup flour, beat until combined. Beat in 1/3 cup eggnog. Then beat in another 2/3 cup flour, followed by the rest of the eggnog & then the rest of the flour.

In another bowl beat the egg whites until foamy. Add in the remaining 3 tablespoons of sugar. (I left this part out since I'd already overdone the sugar in the eggnog.) Beat on high speed until stiff peaks form. Gently fold 1/3 of the egg whites into the batter until completely combined then fold in the remaining egg whites.

Divide the batter between the cupcake tins, filling each one 2/3 full. Bake 15 minutes for mini cupcakes or 22 for regular. A toothpick inserted into the center should come out clean.

The original cupcake recipe came with a buttercream icing recipe as well, but I didn't notice that until after I'd already done a drizzling icing of my own: powdered sugar, half and half and a splash of rum.

We suspect Nathan might be allergic to nutmeg, so we held off on that and added it individually.

With the leftover 5 yolks, I made egg custard with a dash of nutmeg on top.

Emotions require too much bandwidth for this T

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.

                                                                  -- snagged from Wikipedia

In the Meyers-Briggs Personality terminology, Thinking and Feeling are two different ways that people make decisions. (Sensing and Intuition are how people take in data. Thinking and Feeling are how they act upon the data they've taken in.) But I think there's another aspect to this whole T/F thing that I've never heard talked about anywhere (except in Meirav's recent post, which I think was in part a response to something I'd said in another one of her posts, which I can't find now).

It seems to me that there's an energy or "bandwidth" component to this as well. I've often heard Introversion vs. Extraversion explained in terms of energy. If new people or places energize you, then you're likely an Extravert. If you're drained when you're with people and energized when you have time alone or with a few close friends, then you're likely an Introvert. But what if you're hanging out with someone that you're very comfortable with and who you like to be with, but you can't handle too much time with them if they're emoting a great deal? I don't think it's just a "T's don't like emotions" sort of thing. I think there's something deeper. 

I know that when I'm confronted with a great deal of emotion, especially negative or depressing emotion, I just get to the point where I want to hide away in a closet and be alone. It's the same reaction I have to being forced to hang out with a jillion strangers, only it's actually more profound. The crowd of strangers makes me feel very uncomfortable and awkward and out of place and I want to hide away mostly so that I can feel normal again. But the outpouring of emotions, even from someone I'm close to, can make me feel weary, and even somewhat trampled and injured. It's then that I want to hide away in order to heal. 

Overwhelming positive emotions can be a bit... ewey, too. People tend to be a lot less effusive when they're happy (either that or I just don't hang out around places where people are over-the-top happy -- like San Francisco has been over the past couple of weeks), so I think that's the main reason I deal with it better. But I still feel sorta slimed, sometimes. It's like someone is taking something that's intimately theirs and shoveling it on top of me. It doesn't make me feel really good. 

Having said all this, you probably think I hate emotions - period. But I don't think that's true. There are times when emotion is beautiful or deep or touching or bonding or able to express something in a way words simply don't. I can appreciate that. I understand that. I get it. Emotions have value. But too much emotion quickly undoes all the good and leaves me wanting to crawl into bed with a good (but not too emotional) book and block the world out. That feeling of overwhelming weariness hits me and I just can't handle the emotional stuff any more. I get lethargic and apathetic and want to give it up for the day. 

... Then someone tosses a good metaphor my way, or an interesting idea, or a logic puzzle, and suddenly I have the energy of a kitten after a nap who has just found a ball of yarn. Suddenly I'm awake and invigorated and my mind starts moving at the speed of light. 

I'm still not certain that this is strictly a T/F distinction. I'm surprised that I can't find anything about this online. (Anyone have a good link for me?) I'm curious to hear what your thoughts/experiences are. 

There's also the flip side - my emotions and how I express them. (I found the cat picture while googling for images on emotions and couldn't resist including it. I think T's are often read as being emotionless, even though from the inside looking out, we feel that we have quite a range of well expressed emotion.) Expressing emotion can be just as draining for me as responding to someone else's emotions. I'd much prefer to express my emotions in private. In public, if someone talks to me about hard and emotional issues (like how Nathan's doing) I spend half my brain power wondering what kind of emotive expression they're expecting from me and how I'm supposed to manage that. Will they think I'm cold and uncaring if I just nod and agree that things are hard? Do I have to get moist eyes or even shed a tear? Should my voice quiver? Will they hold it against me if I just give my "I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do right now" grimace? 

What I find particularly hard is the divergence between the need of some people to emote and my inability allow them to emote without feeling pulverized by it all in the end. I do it. I know my dear friends, and daughters, need time to emote and they want to do it with me because we're close. It's really a privilege and I realize that. It's a good thing. And yet it's hard. Why does it work that way? How can I make it less painful on my end? How can I still be a good listener/emotion-receiver for them? What's the trick? Any ideas?

Extraversion vs. Introversion

I just found the following on a Wikipedia page, of all places. It's one of the best descriptions I've seen delineating the differences between Extraversion and Introversion.

---

People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion expend energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts include the following:

Extraverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.

Extraverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.

Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.

Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with the outer world (this could be people, things, activities, etc), while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone (or with very close friends).

Sesame-Garlic Mochi topped with Raw Cashew Butter: Yum!

Gluten free, dairy free, yeast free, no added sugars and Oh So yummy! We've been eating Grainaissance Mochi for years now (that and Edensoy were my two main purchases back when I shopped at the Detroit Food Co-op), but the Artisana Raw Organic Cashew Butter is a brand new find. When I brought it home Rob looked at the label and said, "Oh. It's raw." like I might as well just chuck it straight into the trash. But when I slathered some on top of a warm, gooey piece of sesame-garlic mochi he became completely silent. He finally admitted that it was utterly delicious and he was embarrassed to have been so wrong about it. lol!

Strengths / Weaknesses a la Marcus Buckingham

I've been aware of the Myers-Briggs personality type system, as well as several other personality typing systems (DISC, Enneagrams, etc.), since high school. I've studied them off and on and I tend to find the MBTi system the most helpful. But one thing that I've always struggled with is helping other people figure out what they are. I'll observe them over time and determine that they're such and such only to suggest as much to them, they take an online test to verify, and it comes out Completely Different than what I had suggested. But when someone who rarely speaks in public, consorts only with a small group of close friends, and who only gets really animated when talking about a subject he feels really strongly about takes the test and tells me he's an E, I start to wonder how the test could have pegged him so poorly.

What I've tried to encourage people to do is to ignore what they think people expect of them, or what behaviors they might have to display at work, and focus on what comes naturally to them when they're on vacation or over the weekend. Theoretically that should help them get test results that are a little closer to their natural personality type rather than the personality that's expected of them at work or in other settings and that they feel they need to live up to. 

But Marcus Buckingham, a speaker that I heard just last week (more on that here), has given me a new way to encourage people to determine their own personality types (or as Buckingham describes it, their strengths and weaknesses). He says that after an activity (it doesn't matter if it was in a group or alone, planned or spontaneous) we should evaluate the activity (or even the various parts of the activity) by determining whether we loved it or loathed it. If we loved it, then there's very likely something about that activity that played to our strengths. If we loathed it, then we were probably called upon to perform in a way that draws from our weaknesses. 

The example he gave is that he recently attended a party with a lot of very famous people in attendance. Theoretically it should have been a great event that he would have enjoyed. But he loathed it. So he took that piece of information and tried to dial down to what exactly he loathed about it and found that he loathes mingling with people. (The description that he gave of how he felt while mingling described an introvert quite well.) On the other hand, he recently had to interview a woman that was a housekeeper at a hotel. The interview lasted about 30-45 minutes and by the end he realized that he had loved the experience. So he examined that reaction and determined that he really enjoys getting to know people on a deeper level. 

Buckingham pointed out that just because you're good at something doesn't mean it's one of your strengths. You can be very good at something and still feel utterly drained by it at the end. Your ability to do the task well is therefore probably more a function of training and experience than innate ability or desire. According to his definition of a strength, what is important is not what we're good at so much as what energizes us. He gave an acronym that described this: SIGN

Success: When we're done, do we feel successful?

Instinct: What are we instinctively drawn to? 

Growth: How do you feel when you're doing it? Is there a flow? Do you feel that you've grown?

Need: Does it feel like you've filled a need?

Obviously, what you're weak in will most likely leave you feeling unsuccessful, or you may not feel drawn to it at all - even if you have to do the job for some reason, or you'll feel stilted, or like the entire thing could have proceeded just fine without your input or help. 

Buckingham also made a great suggestion for how to make the best of a situation that you usually find draining. He explained that though he hates mingling, he loves interviewing people. So instead of going to a party and mingling with 10 or 20 people, he'll find a person, interview them for awhile, find another person, interview them, find a third person and interview them. At that point he's had enough of talking with people and he heads for home. So when you're caught in a situation that plays to your weaknesses, find a way to insert your strengths into the picture.