Thanksgiving Celebrations

We started off Thanksgiving with the annual Race Against Hunger in downtown Visalia. Dad and Mom were planning to walk with all the grandkids, but at the last minute Micah decided to run with us. Jonah took the above picture right as the horn sounded to start the race! 

The runners after the race.

Later in the day, we all gathered at Dad and Mom's house for Thanksgiving dinner. I got to fold the napkins.

Jonah made a turducken! I was so impressed. It turned out beautifully.

Heather brought the green bean casserole.

I got to wear the new Thanksgiving apron that Gayle gave me.

We all spent the night and enjoyed playing the new Atari Flashback set. Friday morning we had waffles for breakfast. Then Heather and the kids did a Thanksgiving performance they had prepared. First, there was a poem, then Natalie, Micah, and Evan took turns playing the Doxology. At the end, all four of them played together and we sang along.

We headed up to Modesto and had Thanksgiving with everyone there on Saturday. I got to help set the table. I love how table turned out with the bougainvillea and greenery. I wasn't sure what I thought when Gayle brought them in because they aren't Thanksgiving colors, but it all came together and ended up looking festive and beautiful.

Dave brined and smoked the turkey. Wow, it looked and tasted great. We got to try turducken and a smoked turkey in the same year and both were delicious.

What better way to end a post than with some pictures of our adorable niece, Solace?

Cultures of Conversation

There a great post over on LessWrong on the subject of "wait" vs "interrupt" culture. The basic thesis is that the two are different cultures of communication, complete with different expectations of behavior, definitions of what is rude, etc. The two have different advantages and disadvantages, as well, and moving between the two cultures tends to be rocky. Here, for example, are some remarks concerning the benefits of a "wait" culture of conversation:

And when a lull in the conversation is treated as an opportunity to think about the last thing said, rather than an opportunity to jump in with the thing you were holding onto from 15 minutes ago because you couldn’t just interrupt and say it – then you also open yourself up to being genuinely surprised, to seeing the conversation go somewhere that no one in the room would have predicted, to introduce ideas that no one brought with them when they sat down at the table.

The post is short and worth the read, so check it out.

The concept that there are different "cultures" of conversation, complete with different expectations, definitions of politeness and rudeness, etc. seems a powerful one, and it has gotten me thinking about ways in which my own frustration and bewilderment in conversations might be understood as a function of divergent cultural norms.

My own approach to conversations could probably best be termed a dialogical culture of communication. Such an approach has a number of distinguishing features.

• It is subject-oriented. Conversations are about something, whether a concept, event, project, person, etc. This thing that they are about guides the structure of the conversation. The subject matter may be lofty (e.g., the nature of justice) or mundane (e.g., what time we will all meet for dinner), but it is the organizing focal point (or points, if there are multiple subjects) of the discussion.
• It is aimed at discovery. Conversations occur when interlocutors inquire after a subject matter under the presumption that there is possibly something to learn about it. I am often confident in my prior estimation of the subject-matter, but I am likewise hoping to enhance or replace that estimation with something better. We have all been in situations where an interlocutor believes his understanding of the subject matter to be perfect, and are well aware that no genuine conversation can happen in such cases.
• It achieves concrete community. One of the great benefits of conversations, besides learning about a subject matter, is building closer relationships to those people with whom one is conversing. The relationship that emerges from such conversations is defined by its concretion: it is not merely a social pleasantry, but an actual connection born of a shared experience in working toward a common end (namely, the understanding of some subject matter).
• It emphasizes the role of difference in discovery. The structure of discovery is that my world is broadened, changed, or otherwise enhanced by something that is different than what I already know. One of the reasons conversations are so powerful and exciting is that two (or more) people bring their own horizons of meaning, experience, and perspective together, sort through the inevitable discrepancies that result, and learn something. This is why you cannot have a conversation with yourself -- you can't say anything truly different. The tension between two divergent perspectives is the engine driving conversational progress.

This, of course, is only an ideal description; any actual conversation may more or less approximate these features. On the basis of this description, though, it is possible to articulate the reasons I find certain conversational practices confusing.

• Idle chatter. I can become rather frustrated when a conversation is happening that does not seem to be about anything at all. I often feel as though such discourses are dead, in the sense that there is no possibility of something really "happening" in them. In terms of dialogical conversation, it seems they have no capacity for discovery (and, as a correlate, little capacity for building community).
• Avoiding difference. Often, I am involved in a conversation in which I try to communicate some of my thoughts about its subject matter, but my interlocutor responds with silence, acquiescence, or a change in topic. They neither ask questions about my views nor advance their own (which presumably both agree with and diverge from mine). In such circumstances, I often feel bewildered. My first two reactions are usually to be offended -- am I not worth having a conversation with, or my views so juvenile that they cannot even be criticized? -- and to worry that I have caused offense -- did I tread upon delicately held opinions, or come across as uncaring? In terms of dialogical conversation, avoiding the task of identifying and calibrating the differences of horizon between interlocutors is equivalent to pressing the "kill switch" on the engine, abandoning the discussion and leaving the other participant(s) wondering what went wrong.
• Merely "stating your opinion." When differences emerge in conversations concerning some subject matter, some people have an impulse not to ignore the difference completely but to simply mark it and end the conversation. When I was teaching college freshmen, for example, they would often simply say, "well, I think X," "oh, I think Y," and then pretend as though the discussion was completed. From the perspective of dialogical conversation, this is downright maddening -- you have just gotten to the good part! It is like "eating dinner" by choosing what to cook, finding the recipe, getting out all the ingredients, and then saying, "okay, this is chicken, that is garlic, that is salt, that is a stove, and they are all different; time to put everything away and go to bed." Stating one's opinion is only worthwhile because it can then be changed through contact with other opinions as you work out a more accurate view of the subject matter at hand.
• Presumption of perfection (or hopelessness regarding growth). There have been a number of times that I have began discussing topics of relative importance and people have commented, typically early in the conversation, "Well, you have your opinion and I have mine, and neither of us is going to change." I still find myself a bit shocked when this happens. Why would we not change our minds, unless we are convinced that they are either (a) so perfect that improvement is impossible or (b) so damaged and incapable that improvement is likewise impossible? In terms of dialogical conversation, one hopes and expects to change one's mind -- one of the primary goals of having a conversation is to come to a more accurate understanding of the subject matter.

There are many other examples that could be given, of course, of ways in which certain conversational actions seem frustrating or bewildering from within this cultural context, but this will serve to illustrate the point.

The next step would be to think about different conversational cultures and identify (a) some of the ways in which these practices that make little or no sense within a dialogical culture might make perfect sense from the perspective of a different conversational culture and (b) some of the ways in which dialogically-oriented practices might be senseless and frustrating from within the context of other approaches.

What are some of the other "cultures of communication" that you have experienced or encountered?

The Sign of the Cross, Part 2

The Creed does not merely recount a list of the essential doctrines of the faith. Rather, it structures all of the tenets of the faith according to the two central mysteries of Christianity. In the first place, the Creed is organized according to the Trinitarian formula: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty [...] I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ [...] I believe in the Holy Spirit." In the second place, the Creed is structured according to a division of halves, with the confession of the Incarnation occupying the central point. In a profoundly meaningful gesture, Catholics, who affirm the creed together at every Mass, kneel or bow in reverence as they affirm of Christ that "He came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man." The Creed thus articulates above all the two greatest mysteries and distinctive marks of the Christian faith: the Trinity and the Incarnation.

The sign of the cross is a perfect summation of these two central mysteries of the Christian faith, and in that sense contains the creeds of the faith in their entirety. By invoking the name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," the sign of the cross confesses a trinitarian faith; by tracing the image of a cross, the sign confesses an incarnational faith.

Thus, the sign of the cross is a "creed in miniature," an intensified expression of that whole faith which we affirm as Christians.

The Objectivity of Value

It is trendy in some religious circles to bemoan what is termed "relativism" or "subjectivism" in values, meaning the notion that values depend principally upon individual human opinions. Values such as good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsity, etc. possess an independence from the processes of individual estimation.

One of the areas most overlooked by such critiques, however, is the area of commodity values. The very same people who decry the relativity of values in other areas seem to make an exception for commodities. The value of a commodity, we are told, is simply a matter of what people are willing to exchange for it. If someone is willing to pay $20 for a chair, then the chair is worth $20 (assuming they were not hoodwinked in some way, of course). Similarly, the labor that is sold as a commodity to employers by their employees has whatever value is freely agreed upon. Assuming there is no compulsion, the value of any commodity is entirely relative to the free opinions of those involved in its exchange. "Subjective value theory" is, in this sense, the poster child for relativism in values.

A rejection of this type of relativism, on the other hand, would insist that value is an objective feature of the commodity. The value of a chair has to do with the the value of the materials and labor that produced it. The value of labor has to do with the amount of producing it can do with certain materials in a given amount of time. If a person given $5 worth of materials can make a $20 chair an hour, her labor has a value of $15/hr. If her boss, after selling the chair for $20, turns around and pays her $10/hr, that leaves $5/hr that she gave to the boss in work but for which she was not paid in return. This is why "profit" has famously been defined as unpaid wages. She gives more value in labor than she receives in wages, and such exploitation is a basic feature of the capitalist mode of production. To understand the situation in this way, however, requires that we view value as being grounded in the objectivity of the real conditions under which it occurs.

The worry of popular evangelicals is not precisely that rendering value subjective will lead to greater immorality. Rather, the worry is that it makes it difficult or impossible to realize or know when something evil is happening. The subjectivization of value hides the objective features of what is occurring. In the same way, the subjectivization of value in economics obscures and occludes the objective features of exploitation under which laborers suffer.

Not Pate de Fruits

I attempted to make Pate de Fruits for recipe number twenty-seven, using this recipe. However, I think the recipe was actually for something more like fruit leather. When I spread it out on my pan it was really thin, so I pushed it to one side to make it a little thicker. I thought it set okay, but when I went to cut it the next day (way longer than the two hour set time the recipe calls for) it was a gooey mess. We managed to get a piece to try and it was super sweet, like eating sugar with a tiny hint for fruit taste. So, I threw the rest away and Joshua found some other recipes that look like they are much more like what we had in mind. We are planning to try one of those another time.

Beef Stew in a Pumpkin

I made Beef Stew in a Pumpkin for our twenty-sixth recipe. It was pretty fun to have beef stew served from a pumpkin. The stew tasted good too; it had a strong earthy flavor. I was disappointed by how everything except the carrots and beef turned to mush. Maybe I cut my potatoes too small. Otherwise, I was pleased with the results.

German Apple Cake

Gayle and I made recipe twenty-five for dessert last night, German Apple Cake. We got the recipe out of a super cool book that has recipes for every week of the year based on what is in season and available at farmer's markets around where the author lives. As you might imagine, I spent a good amount of time looking through the book when we weren't baking the cake.

German Apple Cake

2 cups flour

1 t baking soda

1/2 t salt

2 t cinnamon

3 large eggs, beaten

1 1/2 cups sugar

1/2 cup oil

1 t vanilla

3/4 cup walnuts, chopped

5 cups apples, peeled and cored, finely sliced

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Sift together flour, baking soda, salt, and cinnamon in a mixing pan; set aside. Combine eggs, sugar, oil, and vanilla in a large mixing bowl. Beat on low speed until well blended. Add dry ingredients, mixing until well blended. Fold in walnuts and apples. Spoon into buttered 9x13 pan. Bake 45 to 50 minutes. Insert a toothpick to be sure apples are cooked. Serve with ice cream and/or whipping cream.

I'm not much of a cake person, but this was quite tasty. It was warm, moist, and appley and was great with vanilla bean ice cream.

We also made kiwi jam today. It was probably the easiest batch of jam I have ever made, we just cut the kiwis in half and scooped out and mashed the fruit. But then we started canning it. I filled one of the jars too full and while Gayle was wiping off the jam on the outside of the jar, it ended up on the floor. Hot sticky jam went everywhere. Thankfully, the jar didn't break and neither of us got burned by hot jam, but it was quite the mess. While I finished filling the jars, Gayle cleaned up the spilled jam. Even after wiping the floor multiple times, we are still finding sticky spots. Oh dear. We were laughing so hard that Joshua came to look in the window from outside and make sure we were alright. We ended up with eight half pints; I love how pretty the kiwi jam looks in the jars.

The Sign of the Cross, Part 1

The sign of the cross is both a gesture and a formula. The gesture forms the image of a cross; the formula is "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

"In the name of" has three senses. In the first sense, it is an invocation of the power of the one whose name is called. To command someone to halt "in the name of the king" means that the power of the king requires the halting. Similarly, when we make the sign of the cross, we declare that what is carried out under this sign occurs by the power of the Trinity. We can speak of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" at great length without thereby even believing they exist, but we cannot invoke their power without belief. The sign of the cross involves a commitment to the being and power of the Holy Trinity.

In the second sense, "in the name of" is a participation in the authority of the one whose power is invoked. Not just anyone can command a halting "in the name of the king," but only one who has the authority to enforce the edict. When we make the sign of the cross, we claim that what is carried out under this sign occurs under the direction and by the authority of the Trinity, in whose name we speak or act and whose works we claim to be able to accomplish.

In the third sense, "in the name of" is an ordering to the one whose authority is declared. The one who commands another to halt "in the name of the king" acts for the sake of the king and the king's rule. We participate in the authority of the Trinity not only by acting as executor of that authority but also by ordering what is subsumed under the sign of the cross -- including ourselves -- according to the economy of the divine Trinity.

Thus, the formula of the sign of the cross, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," speaks of the the power of the Trinity to make it so, a participation in the authority of that power, and a consecration to the one for whose sake it is so. To put it in other words:

For from Him,
and through Him,
and to Him,
are all things.
To Him be the glory forever.

Equality

One can only imagine how depressing it must be for a child to hear a teacher admonish a class of students, "any of you could grow up to be the President of the United States." One could picture the obvious response: "if everyone among this rabble can be President, count me out -- I would not want to soil my hands with it."

Penance

A blogger I follow recently made a pithy observation about penance, and I would like to expand upon it.

In many aspects of the Christian life, truth in doctrine and holiness in conduct involves a balanced path between two opposite errors. To assume that one will be saved, for example, is the sin of presumption, but to assume that one will not be saved is the sin of despair; an authentic Christian hope for salvation, grounded in the character of God and the work of Christ, steers a middle path between the two. Likewise, humility finds the truth that resides between the falsity of self-aggrandizement and self-rejection. Examples could be multiplied.

Our relationship to the Christian practice of penance follows the same structure, it seems. When I would receive confession and absolution at my previous church, I was often bothered by the penances I would be assigned, usually a handful of prayers. I wanted a penance that was more difficult, more taxing. I felt like the penance did not match the sins I had confessed. Here is how Leah puts it:

"Unfortunately, my kneejerk reaction is usually, “That’s it?!?” When a priest assigns me only a few prayer, or a spot of silent meditation, I feel like I’m getting away with something. Surely he could come up with something a bit more burdensome or unpleasant, so I feel like I’m holding up my end of the bargain? But, of course, I am getting away with something. That’s what grace is."

This approach to penance wants to earn grace, to be good enough, and so falls into error.

When I receive confession and absolution at my current church, on the other hand, I am frequently bothered by the fact that there is no penance assigned. In fact, no one seems to even talk about the importance of penance. We are like the nine lepers whom Jesus cleansed but who simply run off on our merry way.

Thus, we must avoid twin errors. On the one hand, we should resist the danger of engaging in excessive penance, as though we were compensating or making satisfaction for our sins. This is a sin against grace, because it denies our need for it. On the other hand, we should resist the danger of avoiding penance and pretending as though we do not need it. This is also a sin against grace, for it makes of it something cheap.

Authentic Christianity cuts between these two poles, offering penance for our sins in response to the cleansing grace of Christ as a way of submitting to God and expressing thankfulness for the gift of grace. As Luke puts it,

"And one of them, when he saw that he was made clean, went back, with a loud voice glorifying God. And he fell on his face before his feet, giving thanks: and this was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering, said, Were not ten made clean? and where are the nine? There is no one found to return and give glory to God, but this stranger. And he said to him: Arise, go thy way; for thy faith hath made thee whole."

And again, in the words of Christ,

"What man of you that hath an hundred sheep: and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert, and go after that which was lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing: And coming home, call together his friends and neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost? I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance."

Mint Brownie Dessert

Joshua and I made Sunday night dinner this week and I thought it would be a perfect time to try the mint brownie dessert recipe I found in my Taste of Home magazine. This was recipe twenty-four.

Heavenly Mint Brownie Dessert

2 oz unsweetened chocolate, chopped

1/4 cup butter, cubed

2 eggs

1 cup sugar

1/8 t salt

1/2 cup plus 2 T flour

12 mint Andes candies, chopped

Filling

12 oz cream cheese, softened

6 T butter, softened

10 to 12 oz white baking chips

1 T shortening

1/2 t peppermint extract

3 to 4 drops green food coloring, optional

12 mint Andes candies, chopped

Ganache

9 oz semisweet chocolate, chopped

1 cup heavy whipping cream

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In a microwave, melt unsweetened chocolate and butter; stir until smooth. Cool slightly. In a large bowl, beat eggs, sugar, and salt. Stir in chocolate mixture. Gradually add flour, mixing well. Fold in mint candies. Spread into a greased 9-in springform pan. Bake 20-25 minutes or until a toothpick inserted in center comes out clean. Cool completely on a wire rack. For filling, in a bowl, beat cream cheese and butter until blended. In microwave, melt baking chips and shortening; stir until smooth. Cool slightly. Beat into cream cheese mixture. Add extract and, if desired, food coloring. Fold in mint candies. Spread over brownie layer. Refrigerate until firm, about 2 hours. For ganache, place chocolate in a small bowl. In a small saucepan, bring cream just to a boil. Pour over chocolate; stir with a whisk until smooth. Cool slightly. Spread ganache over filling. Refrigerate 30 minutes or until set. Remove rim from pan.

Okay, so obviously this recipe is a bit involved and requires coming back to it multiple times after a period of chilling, but the result is impressive. I tasted the filling when I put it on and thought it wasn't very minty, so I added 1/4 t of peppermint extract to the ganache as well. And I couldn't resist melting a little white chocolate to drizzle over the ganache layer to make it pretty on top. This dessert was so rich, and good. It was less minty than I was hoping though, even with my addition of peppermint extract to the ganache. The cream cheese kind of took over the flavor profile. I think it is fairly likely that I will make this again, but with some modifications.

Government Shutdown

In a recent article, John Tamny at Forbes argues that the Republicans should be proud of their ability to shut down the federal government:

It quite simply must be asked what the point of the Republican Party is if it’s not regularly shutting down the federal government? As the “responsible stewards of the people’s money,” shutdown should be a part of the GOP’s readily unsheathed arsenal of weapons meant to always be shrinking the size and scope of our economy-asphyxiating federal government.

I want to draw attention to a particular problem with this line of reasoning: "shutting down the the federal government" is a misnomer. That is, a "shutdown" does not have the effect of weakening the federal government as a whole. It is Congress, the branch of the federal government that maintains some semblance of being accountable to the interests of the people, that is weakened and delegitimized in the wake of a shutdown. In fact, those branches of the federal government most inimical to freedom -- the bloated executive branch, the disgustingly enormous military, and the growing apparatuses of the security state -- are least weakened, and in that sense relatively strengthened, in the aftermath of a "shutdown."

Whatever other effects it may have (and to the extent that it has any effects at all), the "government shutdown" ultimately strangles the process of governance only in those areas where there is some measure of a democratic process. In this sense, what is "shut down" is governance that involves those who are governed, and what is strengthened is governance that involves only the governors.

Scripture as Sole Authority

In some Christian circles, there has arisen a notion, variously expressed, that the Scriptures are the only final and true authority for Christian faith and practice. This is communicated in the following quotations from three very different areas of Protestant theology (emphasis added).

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (Westminster Confession)

"Do you accept the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as the word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct?" (Affirmation required of new members in the Evangelical Covenant Church)

"We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone." (Lutheran Book of Concord)

Christianity has always affirmed that the Scriptures are indeed authoritative. What is novel in such statements is the idea that they are the only ultimate authority or rule, in the sense that all other authorities are subordinate or derivative.

There are two common objections to this idea which are extremely simple but nevertheless forceful and which I will briefly recount.

First, the doctrine is self-defeating. If all controversies, opinions, doctrines, etc. are to be judged according to the rule of Scripture, then the doctrine that Scripture is the only perfect rule must also be judged according to the rule of Scripture. However, Scripture nowhere teaches itself to be the only perfect rule and standard (and indeed teaches to the contrary, although this fact is not required for the objection to work). Therefore, given the contents of Scripture, the doctrine entails its own falsity.

Second, the doctrine assumes an authoritative canon. If all controversies, opinions, doctrines, etc. are to be judged according to the rule of Scripture, then the various controversies and doctrines concerning what counts as "Scripture" in the first place must also be judged according to the rule of Scripture. However, this is impossible, for it is not possible to decide upon what should compose a whole by appeal to the whole already composed. Therefore, Scripture is unable to determine the canon of Scripture. (Furthermore, Scripture nowhere communicates what writings and what portions of those writings should be considered Scripture, although this is again not required for the objection to work.) But if Scripture is unable to determine the canon of Scripture, then either (a) it must be determined by some other authority, in which case the doctrine of Scripture as final authority is false, because it depends upon a more fundamental authority, or (b) it is not determined by any authority, in which case the doctrine of Scripture as final authority is false, because there is no authoritative referent for the term "Scripture."

I take both objections to be powerful, but they only show that the doctrine is wrong, not why it is wrong. What is more important, then, is to understand the role of Scripture in the life of the Church.

We value the Scriptures because we are Christians, not the other way around. This is true analytically, it is true with respect to normal Christian autobiography, and it is true with respect to Church history. The Scriptures do not create a faith tradition; they assume it and exist to improve it. Christ did not give us Scriptures when he became incarnate; rather, Christ gave us a Church. Paul, writing his epistles, had the aim of assisting this Church, not supplanting its authority. When the Scriptures were being compiled, they were measured for authoritativeness against the faith and practice of the Church, and this is still the benchmark by which they should be understood and interpreted. As Paul tells us clearly in his letter to Timothy, the "pillar and foundation of truth" is the Church.

The Scriptures are a tremendous gift from God; they are indeed authoritative, inspired by God, and able to equip us for good faith, doctrine, and conduct. The Scriptures communicate the Word of God. The mistake in claiming for them sole authority does not lie in overvaluing the Scriptures, for to do so would be almost impossible. Rather, the mistake lies in undervaluing the rest of God's revelation to humanity. The Scriptures do not exhaust the Word of God, and they must take their place alongside all that God says and does.

Granola Bars

I made Granola Bars today, recipe twenty-three. These really were easy, I mixed them up while dinner was in the oven and then baked them while we ate. For my trail mix, I used sliced almonds, cashews, peanuts, craisins, wheat germ, and flax seeds. I also used semi sweet chocolate chips instead of milk chocolate and added a teaspoon of vanilla. I was happy with how these turned out. Not surprisingly, they are way less sweet and salty than store bought granola bars, and they have a nice chewy texture and good flavor. I'm looking forward to trying this again and changing things a bit to find something we really like before writing the recipe down. Maybe I'll add peanut butter...

Mussels with Micah

 For Micah's birthday this year, we took him out to dinner to eat mussels, something all three of us greatly enjoy. Joshua made arrangements beforehand with a local restaurant and we went the day after Micah's birthday. It was a great meal. First they brought us bread, then we had our steamed mussels and clams, which were delicious and liked by all, then we had a bacon, pepperoni, and sausage pizza, and we finished it all off with a brownie sundae. All the food was good, the atmosphere was pleasant, and we had fun drawing on the tablecloth (which was paper, they provided crayons). 

It was around 6:30pm when we finished dinner and we were having such a good time that we decided to go to Petco and look at the animals. They had lots of cool fish in particular. It was a great evening. I think Micah had a good time and I know I did. It's always so fun to get to hang out with the kids one at a time (and all together of course, it's just more unusual to get one alone). Micah is now a big seven year-old. By the way, this picture is the biggest smile he can make because he is so excited about mussels.

Crispy Potato Puffs

We had these cute little puffs with our dinner last night, pretty tasty. This is another potato recipe I got from Taste of Home and was our twenty-second recipe for this quarter. One of the nice things about this recipe was that you can freeze them, so I made a batch this weekend and then just pulled out and baked the ones we wanted for dinner.




Crispy Potato Puffs

4 lbs cubed peeled potatoes (about 11 cups)
1/2 cup 2% milk
1/4 cup butter, cubed
1 1/2 t salt
1/2 cup shredded cheddar cheese
1 1/2 cups crushed cornflakes
6 T sesame seeds, toasted

Place potatoes in a large saucepan; add water to cover. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat; simmer 10-15 minutes or until tender. Drain; return to pan. Mash potatoes, gradually adding milk, butter, and salt; stir in cheese. Transfer to a large bowl; refrigerate, covered, 2 hours or until firm. In a shallow dish, combine cornflakes and sesame seeds. Shape potato mixture into 1 1/2 inch balls; roll in cornflake mixture. Place on baking sheets; cover and freeze until firm. Transfer to resealable plastic freezer bags. Freeze up to 3 months. To serve, preheat oven to 400 degrees. Place frozen potato puffs on greased baking sheets. Bake 15-20 minutes or until golden brown and heated.


I used bread crumbs and didn't toast my sesame seeds, but that seemed to be fine. These were tasty and fun, but the real benefit I saw to having them instead of mashed potatoes is the convenience of being able to pull them out of the freezer on a week night and have an easy side.

Cranapplesauce

This past weekend I tried a new recipe out during my quest to process all the apples, Cranapplesauce, this was recipe twenty-one. It looks so pretty in the jars and tastes delicious.

Apples, Apples Everywhere

Not only did I come home from the apple picking and cider pressing day with two gallons of delicious cider, but I also got five bags of fresh apples. That is a lot of apples, which I was thrilled about, but it took a bit of time to work through all of them.

These apples became some lovely fall decor while they waited for their turn (needless to say, we saved them for last). I finally finished working through the apples yesterday, whew! Here's what we ended up making:

Pumpkin apple muffins, sliced apples portioned for apple pie, sauteed apples with a few meals, five and a half cups of cranapplesauce, and lots of applesauce. We had 16.5 pints of applesauce, very tasty and with minimal sugar. 

Cranberry Coffee Cake

Our twentieth recipe was Cranberry Coffee Cake. This is not a completely new recipe to me because it is my mom's coffee cake recipe and I'm sure I've made it at some point in my life, although I don't remember doing so and didn't have the recipe in my box. But, I tweaked it a bit and added cranberries. Here is the recipe as I made it today.

Cranberry Coffee Cake

1 1/2 cups flour

3/4 cup sugar

2 t baking powder

1/2 t salt

1/4 cup oil

1 egg

1/2 cup milk

1 cup cranberries, chopped

Crumb Topping

1/4 cup brown sugar

1 T flour

1 t cinnamon

1/8 t cloves

1/8 t nutmeg

1 T melted butter

1/2 cup chopped nuts

1/4 cup oatmeal

Sift together flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt in a large bowl. Combine oil, egg, and milk; mix with dry ingredients. Fold in chopped cranberries. Pour into a greased 9 in cake pan. Combine brown sugar, flour, cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, butter, chopped nuts, and oatmeal for crumb topping; sprinkle on top of cake batter. Bake at 375 for 17-25 minutes.

I had to bake mine for longer than 25 minutes; it was probably closer to 30-35. I don't know if that was because I added cranberries or what, but just a warning that it might take longer to bake, which could make you late to your niece's soccer game. That said, this was delicious. I thought the cranberries added a fun seasonal touch.

Changing One's Mind, Part 2

To improve our beliefs, we must necessarily change our beliefs.

For someone who wants to better themselves -- grow, strengthen, become more, excel -- then the task is to learn how to change one's mind. It is a sad sort of hopelessness that is satisfied with the way one already thinks and believes.

Principle #1: Being convinced that a belief is true is worthless if you cannot be convinced that it is false.
Principle #2: The measure of the worth of a belief is not in what it predicts but in what it prohibits.

If I believe that I am the fastest runner in the world, I can become convinced of this by timing myself running a one hundred meter dash. I ready myself in the starting blocks, wait for the starting shot, and run to the finish line. I then look at the timer, read the time, and compare it to the current world record. If the timer reads "9.57," then I may celebrate having the fastest human body in the world.

But this is only the case on the following condition: that if I look at the timer and it reads something greater than "9.57," I cannot celebrate having the fastest human body in the world. Imagine that my "compare the time to the current world record" algorithm is screwed up, so that no matter what digits are displayed on the timer, my mind concludes, "that is faster than the current world record, so I am the fastest human in the world." In this case, my belief is not sensitive to reality -- there is nothing about reality that stipulates the belief. Although it pretends to be a belief about the way things are, there is no feature of reality to which it is actually related.

In fact, there is no way evidence could ever justify this belief, either. If the timer does say "9.57," you cannot point to that as evidence for believing yourself the fastest human, because you would still believe it whether the timer said "9.57," "0.957," or "95.7." A belief has to be sensitive to evidence in order for the evidence to help justify it. That's the first principle: if there is no way to think otherwise than that you are the fastest human in the world -- no pace at which you could run a race, no time that could appear on the timer -- it is worthless to think that you are.

The second principle expresses a similar idea. If I believe in the guilt of a woman accused witchcraft, the key question is not what behaviors my belief would predict. If she acts fearful, that confirms she is a witch, for fearful behavior is to be expected of someone who is guilty. If she acts confident and unafraid, well, she is obviously a witch, for witches are known to be proud and arrogant. Unfortunately, this is what we tend to do. When presented with some new information, we ask, "is it possible to make it compatible with my belief?" If the answer is "yes," then I take it to demonstrate the accuracy and robustness of the my belief.

Instead, the power of a belief rests in what it predicts will not happen. If the woman is a witch, what would you expect not to see? What does the belief she is a witch prohibit? If the answer is "nothing," then your belief is again not a belief about reality -- it does not say, "reality is a certain way, namely, this way"; rather, says nothing more than, "reality is any way." It is a belief without content.