I'm a little overdue on posting, which is no big surprise.. it always seems to happen, especially when things get busy. So at some point, I'll blog about Boston, about Redwood's wedding, about Drama since then, and about the Bay Swim. Not necessarily in that order.
This message will self destruct in five.. four.. three.. two...
Too tired to write much tonight -- Lawnmower and I are going to Boston this weekend. Life is insane. I hate research. Amazon sucks.
More on the last two tomorrow.
I always feel a little bit wierd blogging about a restaurant, since I don't know much.. but here we go. The last time Sideshow and I went out to dinner in the new development at Maple Lawn, we were pretty disappointed in our experience; however, as the other restaurant in the shopping center isn't affiliated with that one, there's no reason (except some odd pavlovian-type conditioning) to project a bad experience at one onto another. And a good thing, too, because dinner at Trapeze was really very pleasant.
Here's an article from Newsweek, titled How to Have a Healthy BBQ. It begins with common sense... undercooked food is bad, fruits and veggies are good, etc. Until the recommendations that totally ruin the point of a barbecue.How to Have a Healthy BBQ
A weekly look at the nutritional value, or lack thereof, of some of our favorite foods.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Noelle Chun
Newsweek
Updated: 4:17 p.m. ET May 25, 2007
May 25, 2007 - Before getting fired up over your Memorial Day barbecue, take a moment to contemplate the capacity of your grill. It might be stainless steel and heat tolerant, but it may also be a conduit for cancer, E. coli, salmonella and unhealthy doses of sodium. Bottom line: barbecue chicken may be great for holiday get-togethers, but it's only healthy if you properly prepare and cook the meat, eat in moderation and have some fruits and vegetables on the side.
Outdoor grilling has been an American mainstay since pre-Civil War days. Southerners were accustomed to slow-cooking pulled pork in a savory sauce of vinegar, ketchup, water, salt and pepper. But that traditional combination of sweet and salty may have a price. Recent research shows that cooking meat at high temperatures could increase your risk of cancer. One Mount Sinai School of Medicine study, released in February, showed that higher heat, lower humidity and longer cooking times increased the number of carcinogenic agents, called advanced glycation end products (AGEs). "We've proven it in animal and research labs, and in humans we have strong suggestions," says Jaime Uribarri, lead writer of the study and professor of medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. "But essentially it means avoid too much heat."
To be safe, saw off any charred pieces and wrap the grate in foil with holes, to minimize exposure to carcinogens. Use your kitchen to precook meat at lower temperatures and then finish the job on the grill. Limiting the fat content minimizes the plume of cancer-causing smoke, so peel off that chicken skin. "There are two main goals," says Colleen Doyle, registered dietitian and director of Nutrition and Physical Activity at the American Cancer Society. "One, you don't want to cook for a long time at high temperatures. Two, you want to avoid the exposure of meat to the smoke that comes back up."
WHY?! What is life without those delicious-grill-crunchy-bits?! The best part of Sideshow's home-made ribs is the way a crisp outside gives way to a succulent, slow-cooked, tangy, salty, spicy, melt-in-your-mouth bite of rib meat.On the other hand, undercooking chicken could put a serious damper on the party with salmonella or E. coli contamination, both of which can cause life-threatening sicknesses, diarrhea, vomiting, fever or abdominal pain. To strike the balance, buy a meat thermometer and be sure to cook whole poultry to 180 degrees Fahrenheit and chicken breasts to 170 degrees. Serve foods as soon as possible, and if you can't, keep the hot foods hotter than 140 degrees and the cool food colder than 40 degrees. "An easy tip is keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold," says Amy Jamieson-Petonic, registered dietitian and a American Dietetic Association spokesperson. "You want to avoid the temperature danger zone."
If you cook the bird right to 180/170 on the grill, it'll be as dry as desert. I hated home-cooked poultry for many years, for this reason.Nutritionally, chicken is a healthier choice over richer barbecue favorites, like ribs. Low in saturated fat, the poultry provides lean protein and an excellent source of zinc and vitamin B12. Go for the boneless, skinless chicken breast when possible, and eat fattier portions—such as wings—in moderation. "Yes, even I have had chicken wings before," says Jamieson-Petonic. "But I only have a couple and I have a salad with it."
And if you think meat is the condiment for the sauce, instead of the other way around, it is important to realize that many barbecue toppings are often devoid of any nutrition and packed with simple carbohydrates and salt. If you are concerned about breaking the recommended daily value of 2,400 milligrams of sodium a day, turn to light seasonings and herbs, such as lemon, lime and garlic. Jamieson-Petonic also suggests using garlic power and onion power instead of the salt forms.
Don't skimp on the veggies and fruits either. One study from the University of Carolina in Columbia observed that postmenopausal women who ate the most grilled, barbecued or smoked red meat over their lifetime increased their risk of breast cancer by 47 percent. Meat lovers who neglected their veggies increased their risk by 74 percent. "There is a lot of evidence that eating at least five servings of fruits and vegetables reduces the cancer risk," Doyle says. "Let vegetables and fruits and grains that make up most of your plate. Make meat the side dish."
Just for this... I think I'll be grilling soon.
Does the title of this post give you reason to pause?
There are very few magazines I subscribe too, because for the most part I don't have time to read them. Something that I found interesting enough to pay for eventually becomes stressful, because issues pile up high enough to make me feel as if I'm wasting my money. So in an effort to read them, I put them in the one place where people generally have little choice but to sit down and sit still, just for a moment: the porcelain palace. The readable ones, anway. (Yeah, you heard me, Every Day With Rachael Ray...)
I thought of this practice in new light when I moved back home a few weeks ago, and realized my parents' magazines go in much the same place, a magazine rack within reach of the toilet. Yet another example (these seem to be accumulating) of how as I grow older I'm becoming more like them? Hmm. More on that later.
Anyway, I was perusing the magazine rack (what?!) at my parents' house the other day when one magazine caught my eye: an issue of a rag called DiversityInc Magazine. Now, I have no idea why they'd have this one, other than it might have been a trial subscription. Though they can certainly appreciate diversity, neither of them owns a business. What I noticed, however, was the headline. Apparently, the issue in question ranked a number of businesses/organizations based on 'diversity' and found the shocking conclusion that the worst company for diversity was.... (drumroll)
The US Senate.
Hm.
Considering this is an elected body of officials, chosen by the people, what is this supposed to tell us? Are we to be chided for our selection of rich white men for government? Are race, class, gender, or ethnicity supposed to be a determining factor for our votes? (Nope, Pennsylvania already elected the black guy, maybe we can go for a latino woman with a bum hip and a learning disability...) On the flip side, are race, class, gender, ethnicity, or disability legitimate portions of a resume? To what point does a politician have to experience life through the eyes of his or her constituents to faithfully represent their interests? And how can they do that without alienating all the other groups? One might as well split up the community, be it neighborhood, city, state, or country, into similar groups, and then have representatives for each one.
I think a survey like that.. and the fact that 'diversity-minded' (what the hell does that even mean? I'm not sure, and I worked in resident life at a liberal public university for two years. Diversity was my favorite D word.) literature would chide our selection of representatives, tells us a lot about the system, and about who we are as voters ourselves. The analysis of Barak Obama's chances for a presidential nomination are a good example. I can't quote the sources (too lazy to go back and find them), but I know I've read analysts several times who suggested he was 'too black' to get the 'white vote,' or 'not black enough' to get the 'black vote'. One author hosted on The Colbert Report was emphatic that he was not black, but that he was an American of African descent, which was an entirely different thing.
I wonder if, in our push to balance the ideologies of equality and of an appreciation for the individual/diversity, we're really missing the whole point, getting too caught up in the package and not the person within it.
