Exotic Foods (3): Buddha's Hand

Not your Grandma's citrus. Strange to look at, challenging to use.

If you have ever watched the current opening sequence of Iron Chef America, you have probably seen a chef grating a strange looking object, a yellow thing with a narrow base and yellow fingerlike projections. It turns out that the strange-looking critter is a Buddha's Hand fruit.

According to one food blogger, the Buddha's Hand is "a lemon that's all rind" Another article calls it "a fragrant curiosity." Apparently, in Asia people hang it up and use it as an air freshener. In fact, it is given as a house-warming gift.

As far as cooking is concerned, it is mainly used as a flavoring. For example, I found a great illustrated recipe for using it to flavor vodka. You can do it yourself, or buy a buddha's hand vodka, such as that made by Hangar One distillery in California. Similarly, you can use the fruit to make the italian liqueur limoncello. Other people use it to flavor tea. Not surprisingly, you can also use it to flavor ice cream.

There is also a recipe that involves slicing the fingers thinly on a mandolin, blanching them, then cooking them in a sugar syrup. Obviously, this won't work with fruits that basically don't have anything inside, that is, are all rind and no pulp. You can also make candied fruit (or more accurately, fruit rind) with it. As far as I can tell, you can use Buddha's hand citron in place of lemon zest in practically anything. "All rind, no juice" seems to be the prevailing rule of thumb as far as using it as concerned.

Most people who write about it say that the intense, floral aroma is its greatest characteristic. So you can cook with it, or you can use it instead of Glade. Enjoy!

When Saying You're Sorry Isn't Enough

Former British resident Binyam Mohammad deplanes in London after being released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the U.S. is a nation of cowards for not facing up to racism in America. I dare say he's right, but for the time being, my conscience is too occupied with the apparently innocent victims who are gradually being released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

How do you say to these people, "I'm really sorry for what was done to you in our name"? And what good does that do anyway? How do you give restitution to them for 6 or 7 years stolen from their lives? How do you make up for the torture many of them were subjected to? Apology is where it starts, I suppose, but surely more is needed. No doubt, someone will offer the victims money, and they should think twice about refusing it. Although totally inadequate, monetary compensation may be useful when it comes to putting their lives back together. But it can't end there.

In South Africa, after the end of apartheid, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established to help damaged people, both victims and perpetrators, heal and get on with their lives. I think we should do the same thing with the released detainees from Guantanamo Bay and any other secret prisons that we ran after 9/11. Of course, it would help to have counterparts of Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu to make things work. It's hard for me to imagine who they would be. Can you think of anyone in the USA with the moral authority to oversee a Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Jimmy Carter, perhaps? But he would be condemned by many as partisan.

And then, you have to wonder if those responsible for the crimes and abuses would hear what was being said to them and recognize their deeds for what they are. If Binyam Mohammad could sit face to face with former President George W. Bush and tell him how he was treated as a result of Bush's policies, I actually think Bush would hear and be ashamed. But people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales? I don't think so. But at a minimum, they should have to sit in a room and be confronted by their accusers, and I don't mean a courtroom, because it's too easy to manage what will be said there. No, I mean a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where people can point a finger and say, "You destroyed my life. Why did you do it?"

The sooner the better.

Academic Freedom: Easy Cases Make Lousy Law

Stanley Fish is at it again in The New York Times, telling the rest of us what academic freedom ought to mean (not much, I think). Leaving aside the fact that Stanley Fish is a big shot who doesn't need to worry about academic freedom, his latest opinion piece starts with what seems to be an absurd example. Apparently, one Denis Rancourt, soon to be late of the University of Ottawa, is in the midst of a dismissal proceeding because he gave the students in his physics course A grades on the first day of class (because he doesn't believe in that students should be graded) and used the course as a platform for airing his views on political activism instead of teaching physics. Well, duh! Yeah, people are likely to get fired for doing that, but is that what academic freedom is about for most university faculty? If so, fire everybody and rebuild the university from the ground up.

I think it is important in research universities that faculty be protected from being fired when they do research and teach about controversial subjects. I think faculty in all colleges and universities should be protected from being fired because they cover what may be sensitive or unpopular topics as part of their courses. But I don't think that college faculty should be able to write or say anything they please, whether it is connected to their academic subject or not, whether it is uttered in a classroom or a scholarly journal or not, and be protected by academic freedom. If you are teaching economics, you should be able to be critical of the economic policies of whoever is in power without fear of being fired. If you are teaching a course in which the subject is relevant to the course material, you should be able to discuss abortion, global warming, evolution, assisted suicide, or whatever it is without being canned because a student, administrator, parent, or third party finds the subject unpleasant or distasteful. If you are teaching a course about community activism, getting students engaged in community activism should not be grounds for being fired. But if you are teaching basic physics, for example, that's what you should teach, and you should keep your discussion focused on the syllabus and not go running all around Robin Hood's barn talking about whatever interests you or makes you angry at that moment.

I think the hardest thing about giving some form and limits to academic freedom is that there is no consensus about what a university education consists of and what the goals of such an education are. There is little agreement about what the content of individual courses should be. And what standards exist are often established by academic professional associations that have their own agendas. Even so, one should probably be able to arrive at some basic notion of what the content of "Introduction to Biology" is and agree that calling Rush Limbaugh a fascist pig in class is not relevant and not protected by academic freedom.

At least, so I think. Academic freedom should not be the absolute protection from the consequences of the real world that some academics would like it to be, but I do think some protection of specifically academic speech, in class and in publications, is needed. Students don't benefit from having their instructor complain about his divorce when they are supposed to be studying "Paradise Lost" (haha, that's a joke), and they also don't benefit from not having their ideas about religion, politics, social order, ethics, race, or whatever challenged when it is relevant to the subject being taught. Many of the students I teach have religion-based problems with the idea of assisted suicide. I don't think I should be fired for teaching about something that disturbs a student's comfort level if it is part of the course.

However, if I am teaching a course in criminal law and go off on a rant about why Israel's settlement policies in the West Bank are impeding peace in the Middle East, should that be protected? I don't think so. But unless Big Brother is going to monitor everything one says and does in the classroom, how will anyone know? And if a student "informs" on a faculty member for straying from the subject of the course, how is one to protect oneself? I don't know that either. Life is certainly less stressful when one can shelter under an absolute cloak of academic freedom. But how far can academic freedom and autonomy go? Beats me.

What is a Green Job?

This offshore windfarm is in Denmark, but it could easily be in Lake Ontario. How green can you get?

Every time I turn on the TV, some politician (often President Obama) is talking about creating green jobs. What is a green job? I mean, sometimes it is a no-brainer: Someone whose work is creating non-polluting, renewable energy is doing a green job. Yes? Okay, but even if that's accurate, what other green jobs are there? And what other green jobs could there be?

During the election campaign, Mr. Obama painted a very rosy picture of green employment: "Jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars; jobs that will help us end our dependence on oil from Middle East dictators." California (which is presently staggering under the burden of something exceeding $45 billion of debt) is supposed to be the green capital of the United States. They have very high emissions standards for cars, for example, to reduce pollution. So, it seems like building low-emissions cars that reduce pollution would involve green jobs. By that logic, building energy efficient appliances and energy efficient houses must involve green jobs, too. And building hybrid cars that use less gasoline must be a green occupation. Does any of this make sense?

The thing is, you can get into difficulties in defining green activities pretty quickly. Suppose I hire someone to put more insulation into my house so I will use less energy? That sounds green to me. But if the person or persons who do this work drive gas-guzzling trucks and use materials that are bad for the environment, the job just got a lot less green. Right? So, is it a light green job?

Building or extending mass transit systems is obviously green in one way, but how much pollution does the construction activity itself entail? Centro, the bus company that services our region, operates both hybrid-diesel and compressed natural gas vehicles. That's good, although at this point a good many of their buses do not yet use a green technology. The more of these vehicles they buy, the less pollution they create, the less non-renewable fuel they use, and, I assume, the more they contribute to the creation of green jobs.

Organic farming must be a green activity. Would hazardous materials cleanup be a green occupation? But what do they do with the hazardous materials? Recycling seems like a green activity, but I have read that some of the paper, glass, and plastic that is collected ends up in landfills, not recycling plants. New York State is trying to pass a "bigger, better bottle bill," that would require people to pay a 5 cent deposit on cans and bottles of water and non-soda beverages. That seems like it must be a green activity, because it would expand recycling by encouraging people to collect and turn in those beverage containers that I see littering the streets all the time right now. As long as those containers don't end up in a landfill afterwards. Right?

My head is beginning to ache. I believe in cleaning up our environment and reducing greenhouse gases and reducing our carbon footprint and all of that stuff. I will pay taxes to support it, and I will learn to do things differently to encourage it. But somehow, I am sceptical about where all this green activity is going to come from and whether it is for real or just a scam. For example, did you know that Senator Edward Kennedy opposes the construction of a windfarm in Nantucket Sound five miles off Cape Cod? Yes, indeed he does, because it might spoil his view. Green is nice, but not in my backyard, pal!

Yes, green is good, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Are Government Spending Programs a Waste? Who Cares?

FDR's Works Progress Administration employed a lot of artists, so why not give a chunk of money to the National Endowment for the Arts?

While President Obama and all the members of Congress make themselves look foolish wrangling over the "stimulus package," and executives in the banking and financial industry keep giving their employees bonuses and riding around in corporate jets, and while Rush Limbaugh, the Loser-in-Chief, keeps braying that he hopes the Obama administration is a failure, you still can't help asking yourself whether most government spending programs are indeed a waste.

At least, I can't help asking myself that question, and my worries got a major boost this week as I listened to a presentation by a person who worked in a particular state educational program. I don't want to say anything bad about this person, so let's just say it was one of those situations where the state government had recognized that not enough students majored in certain important academic disciplines. The point of the program, as far as I can make out, is to get more people to study these subjects and give both emotional and material support to students who do. The problem is that not enough students have materialized to take advantage of the program. What does one do then? Well, one could re-assess the goal and decide it was bad. Or one could re-assess the program and decide it was faulty. If the goal is worthy but the program has flaws, one could work to fix those flaws so the program would work better. Right?

Not exactly, because there is another choice, a very common "Plan B" for government programs, which is to keep the program as it is and just reinterpret who it applies to, so you have enough people enrolled to keep the program going and spend the money allocated to it. And that is what the education program in question was obviously doing. This happens so often that it makes me want to tear my hair out, or at least tear somebody's hair out. Why is it that failing programs are not assessed and, if needed, corrected or eliminated?

I hope you don't expect me to have an answer to this question, other than to say that our government doesn't operate in a rational way. Maybe it's inertia-- once you set the old ball rolling, it continues to roll. In this example, it even rolls uphill. If I were in charge of it, something would have changed already, but I'm not sure anyone knows what happens to a lot of the taxpayer money that is spent by various governments every year.

I'm also not sure how to determine which spending is "good" spending and which isn't. If you are a Republican, any spending that doesn't benefit the rich or "the base" is bad spending. If you are a Democrat, nearly all spending is good spending, but spending on the so-called "liberal agenda" is the best spending. Honestly, I don't care if Congress gives the National Endowment for the Arts $50 million in the stimulus package. It probably won't be used any more wastefully than any other money that is included in the bill. But I really don't understand why one would cut out the $16 billion for K-12 school construction. Hey, we've got some of those "shovel-ready" school projects here in Oswego County, and we could use both the jobs and the schools. And even though the states are wasteful, they need that $40 billion that the Senate cut out of the stimulus package to help keep from going bankrupt. Yes, a lot of it will be wasted, but some of it will help, so keep it in.

Of course, you have already seen where my twisted logic is taking me. Yes, government spending programs tend to be wasteful, and yes, once they come into being they never seem to be fixed or eliminated, no matter how flawed they are. Yes, indeed. But guess what? The members of Congress may expect applause for proposing to forgo their next scheduled pay raise, but it won't help anybody, and nobody is going to applaud. Just get off the dime and spend the goddamn money already, and let's cross our fingers and hope that some of it does some good.

Tarnished Icons: The Ups and Downs of the Wheaties Box

Everybody out of the pool! Michael Phelps takes a miss on Wheaties box immortality in 2009. This picture was on a box in 2004.

Wheaties is a breakfast cereal consisting of wheat and bran flakes that turn into wallpaper paste when milk is poured on them. They are manufactured by General Mills, the successor to the Washburn Crosby Company, which first marketed the cereal in 1924 under the name of Washburn's Gold Medal Whole Wheat Flakes. The cereal was a health food item that ended up a commercial success and, in some people's opinion, goes a long way toward proving that nothing that is good for you tastes good. Not long afterward, the cereal became known as Wheaties (the name was chosen by means of a contest). Wheaties started sponsoring baseball games on the radio in 1933. The association with sports earned the cereal its famous description as "the breakfast of champions," and a year later came the first depiction of a real-life athlete on the box. This was preceded by the picture of Jack Armstrong, a character in a popular radio serial.

Swimmer Michael Phelps, who won 8 gold medals at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, is not going to have his picture on a Wheaties box this year. You see, Michael, who was feeling a little stressed because of the weight of celebrity, was recently photographed smoking marijuana at a party. Michael Phelps is indeed a celebrity, and he is also 22 years old. He has been training as a swimmer since the age of 7, and despite all his media exposure, he appears to be very immature. He won't be the first famous athlete to miss adorning a box of Wheaties, of course. In fact, most athletes never have that honor, if that's what it is. Athletes who get their pictures on the Wheaties box are supposed to be role models, and a pot-smoking Michael Phelps doesn't fit the bill. (He has already been on a Wheaties box, however, in 2004, but he hadn't been caught smoking pot then.) If you want to be on a Wheaties box, don't be openly gay, don't be political, don't do drugs, don't gamble on sports. Or at least don't be caught doing it until it's too late. Would Mickey Mantle have been on a Wheaties box if it had been known how much he drank?

To get the facts straight, the first athlete whose image appeared on the front of a box of Wheaties cereal was baseball great Lou Gehrig. This happened in 1934. Since then, dozens of athletes have graced the Wheaties box, including Joe DiMaggio, Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron, Chris Evert, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Pete Sampras, and Tiger Woods. In fact, so many great athletes have had the honor that you can't even list the most important ones. How about Babe Ruth, Arnold Palmer, Willie Mays, Jack Dempsey, Don Budge, Joe Montana, and Johnny Unitas? The entire Boston Red Sox baseball team got a Wheaties box in 2004 for finally winning a World Series. David Cone and David Wells each pitched a perfect game and got a Wheaties box. Some athletes have a moment of Olympic glory and end up on a Wheaties box, like Johnny Weismuller, Bruce Jenner, Mark Spitz, and Mary Lou Retton. Ken Griffey, Jr. has been pictured more than half a dozen times. Why?

Some athletes who have been enshrined, such as Lance Armstrong, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds, have later had their images tarnished, and some form of drugging, whether professional or recreational has been involved. And then there is Pete Rose, who was banished from baseball for betting on games, or Magic Johnson, who ended up HIV-positive as a result of his hundreds (thousands) of sexual adventures. And there are athletes who did get a box, and it seems that somebody forgot about the role model thing, such as heavily tattooed, cross-dressing basketball bad boy Dennis Rodman or the incredibly highly-paid Mr. Choke-in-the-Playoffs, otherwise known as Alex Rodgriguez.

Why doesn't Jack Nicklaus have a Wheaties box of his own (there is a special edition box with a picture of Nicklaus and Tiger Woods)? I have no idea. Did you know that the real Mr. October, Reggie Jackson, never had his picture on a Wheaties box? Neither did football great Jim Brown. Too controversial? I wouldn't be surprised. And neither did basketball's Charles Barkley. It may have been the gambling and the barfights. John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, both legendary tennis players, never made it to Wheaties fame. Was it something they said, perhaps? Wheaties paid tribute to Esther Williams, Ted Williams, and Bernie Williams, but what about Venus Williams and Serena Williams? Nope. Of course, you can guess why there is no Billie Jean King box, or Martina Navratilova or Greg Louganis.

The best way to get on a Wheaties box is to play baseball or football. Basketball does pretty well. Tennis and soccer are not so good. There are very few hockey players, but Wayne Gretzky made it. Many Olympic champions have been on Wheaties boxes, starting with pole vaulter Bob Richards in 1952. Dale Earnhardt from Nascar got a box, and so did A.J. Foyt, but football and baseball are best, even if you are forgotten soon afterward. Do you remember Johnny Allen or Beau Bell? How about Zeke Bonura or Tommy Bridges? Surely you remember Gabby Hartnett? No? All baseball players, all on a Wheaties box.

Maybe General Mills should forget about putting athletes on the Wheaties box and try honoring some real role models, like Jimmy Carter or Desmond Tutu. Or Mother Teresa, perhaps? It wouldn't hurt. Or how about Bill Clinton? Oops! Disqualified.

Individual Interest vs. Public Interest: Playing by the Rules

"Only little people pay taxes," Leona Helmsley said once upon a time. Has anything changed since then? No!

I hate politics. To me, politics is about taking care of your own interests (or those of your particular group) at the expense of the public interest. In my view, political behavior and self-interested behavior are the same thing. Whether it is the Republicans in the House of Representatives voting unanimously against the recent economic stimulus legislation so that the Democrats will have to take all the blame for it if it fails or the several nominees to top jobs in the Obama administration who have had to admit (after being caught) that they had not paid their full share of taxes, politicians are greedy, self-serving SOBs.

So are the bankers and the others in the financial industry who accepted taxpayer-supported bailouts and then distributed the money to their executives as bonuses. After all, those guys did such a great job, didn't they? And then there are the auto industry executives who ran their companies into the ground, the financial advisors like Bernie Madoff who bilked investors out of billions of dollars, and the oil companies who love to rip off consumers, etc. When I think of it, I wonder why I bother to complain so loudly about politicians.

Of course, we won't even talk about the news media, which try to keep the nation in a constant state of turmoil to satisy the 24/7 news cycle and rejoice (as unobstrusively as they can manage) when they have a disaster to report on. And if they don't have a real disaster to talk about, they always seem to be able to invent one: "Does the Obama family use enough dental floss? Are they at risk of periodontal disease? Should we be worried about this? We'll have more on this emerging story in the next half-hour."

And while we're at it, I am angry with all the greedy people in this country who just couldn't buy enough, spend enough, and borrow enough to keep up with their neighbors and are now alternately whining about how much they're suffering and patting themselves on the back for every small step they take toward acting the way financially responsible people have done all along.

On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for the people who sell space bags and self-storage units. They have been fulfilling a genuine need to provide storage options for people with too much stuff, and now they are probably going broke. In fact, companies that rent self-storage units to the public have all sorts of difficulties, ranging from finding units filled with fertilizer (stinky!) to others filled with illegal drugs. But it can get worse. One woman found a mummified baby in a self-storage unit, and others have contained cremation urns with the ashes of someone's dear departed. And then there are the people who try to live in their self-storage units. What's so strange about that? Self storage. Get it?

Okay, let's be serious. It seems to be human nature to not want to live by the rules that "regular" people live by, and it seems to be an equally human trait to deplore other people's greed and lack of responsibility. Who didn't wince when Leona Helmsley allegedly drew a distinction between herself and the "little people," who had to live by the rules and pay their taxes? But isn't that what people like Timothy Geithner, Nancy Killefer, and Tom Daschle must think, too? (Maybe we just won't mention Bill Richardson and his corruption investigation.) And Geithner got away with it! Those financial guys can get away with anything!