Veggie Stew Recipe

To celebrate having a new stove and dishwasher, marking the first time we could cook at home for about 2 months, I made some stew. Some of my friends know of this stew. This time, especially after some persuading from others, I have decided to write down a recipe. So here it is. 


The measurements may be a little rough, but stew is pretty lenient. Also, it is worth noting that this is my super-easy "semi-home-made" version of this. When I'm feeling up to it, I'll cut up and otherwise prepare a whole bucket o' fresh veggies. However, this is almost as good at about 1/10th the effort.


1 14.5oz can of vegetable broth
1 14.5oz can of sweet corn
1 14.5oz can of peas
1 14.5oz can of sliced carrots
1 14.5oz can of garbanzo beans (chickpeas)
1/2 or 1 can of pinto beans
2 14.5oz cans of 'new/baby' potatoes
1 14.5oz can of diced tomatoes
1 large (30oz?) can of tomato sauce
1 cup frozen (or fresh) mukimame (shelled edamame)
1/2 cup uncooked 'minute' brown rice
1 cup frozen diced onion OR 1 medium white onion
1 tbsp diced garlic (2 large cloves)
1 tsp Mirin
1 dash of 'Italian seasoning'
2 tsp of chili powder
2 tsp or more of cayenne pepper, to taste
1 tsp or more ground black pepper, to taste


*Note: get the reduced salt or no salt canned vegetables whenever possible. Also to avoid: the cheapest can. It's never worth it. Get your green giant or del monte or whatever and enjoy it. You can spare the extra $1.50 total.

1. Heat a large stockpot on a med-high burner. Once it's warmed up, add about a tablespoon of whatever lubrication you prefer. All I had on hand at the time was seasoned wok oil, which worked great. Olive oil would work great too.
2. Add the onion, sauté until translucent. Add the garlic as the onions are just starting to turn. You don't want to burn the garlic. 
3. At around the same time as the garlic, add your mukimame. If you are using fresh or thawed, add them a little later. If you're confused about this whole mukimame/edamame thing: soybeans. Soybeans out of the shell. That's what I'm talking about.
4. You want the mukimame to get just a little bit of brown to some of them. This helps make them a little chewy later, which is delicious. The onions can be a little brown in places, but generally translucent.
5. Before anything starts to burn (or if it does), add the whole can of veggie broth and stir it up to get any goodies off the bottom of the pot. (Deglazing, sort of)
6. At this point, add the corn, peas, carrots, garbanzo beans, pinto beans, and potatoes. Make sure to drain each can first. Some bean juice is not just okay but good. For the potatoes, you'll need to cut out any eyes that escaped the machines and slice the potatoes into roughly bite-sized chunks before you add them. One benefit of using canned potatoes is that you can leave larger chunks and they will still cook through, as they are already par-cooked.
7. Add the spices and the Mirin. Stir thoroughly.
8. Bring to a low boil, then cover and reduce temperature to simmer. Simmer for 15-20 minutes, stirring occasionally. 
9. Add the rice. Stir. I used about 5 'small handfuls' of rice, so I'm estimating 1/2 to 1 cup, uncooked. Use 'minute' rice.
10. Add the diced tomatoes and tomato sauce. Stir thoroughly.
11. Bring back to a simmer. Cover and simmer for 50 minutes, stirring occasionally.
12. Enjoy!

Wildlife Photography

Wildlife and nature photography is something I'm interested in, in an amateur fashion. I got a zoom lens (75-300mm) recently and hadn't really used it yet. I started to take a walk in the park the other day and noticed the copious amounts of cool birds in the marsh, so I ran back home, grabbed my camera and gear, and went back.


Now, this was my first real use of my new lens, and I'm still learning the basics of photography to begin with. Also, most of my good pictures so far have been of .. flowers. Because they're pretty, and they don't move too much.


Birds are also pretty, but damn do they move around.


You know all those sayings about how mistakes are really lessons? I learned a lot of lessons. Took a lot of pictures. Only a few of them are good. But I learned a lot of lessons.


Lessons Learned: Day 1

• It's true that a zoom lens is hard to keep steady for your picture. A tripod, however, is not an option. I learned this over and over again when things happened and I couldn't get my camera around in time. Folding up some of the legs to make it a monopod was great, I wish I had been doing that from the beginning.
• A zoom lens has a really narrow focus field. And so, you should always take at least 3 pictures of a great subject, and adjust the focus a little each time (a little too near, what you think is right, and a little too far). That way you increase your chances of one being right.
  
• It's fairly easy to get close to geese (although they slowly swim away from you), but it's really hard to get close to this guy:
  
  
  
• I learned how to recognize (via the sounds they are making) that a group of geese is about to take off from the water. This is crucial if you want to be ready to take a picture of them taking off.
  
• I also learned to recognize the call of a sandhill crane. This happened when three of them flew literally ten feet above my head and I was not ready for them. Perfect shot missed.
  
• It pays to hide. Perhaps I need to invest in some more camouflaged, or at least earth-toned, clothing.
  
• Try not to get fuzzy vegetation in the foreground. You may be zoomed all the way to 300, but you still need to know what's right in front of you. You can only crop out so much.
  
• Ultimately, I'll need an even bigger zoom lens.
  
• A zoom lens is not for taking landscapes with. You cannot get a big enough focal plane.

See all my pictures from day one here.

Lessons Learned: Day 2

So, having learned many things (and more than I listed) on the first day, I returned again this morning in better light and better conditions.

• Go on a weekday morning. Nobody else is in the park to scare the animals, the lighting is better, and most of the birds are busy eating, so they don't care as much if you're there.
  
• Stalk slowly. Basically, you are playing a game of red-light-green-light. If they look away, feel free to run to a new spot, quietly. You will be rewarded:
  
  
  
• Walk softly. I was clomping my way along to the next spot I was going to take photos from when I saw three turtles slip into the water after I startled them. I could have had some great photographs of them if I had been walking more quietly and paying more attention to my surroundings.
  
• When sneaking up on an animal, don't keep yourself below the brush line and then suddenly appear right next to it. I got close, but if anyone was in the park this morning and wondered why about a hundred birds suddenly took off from the shoreline and went out to the middle of the lake: that was my fault.
  
• Sandhill cranes really don't want to be photographed.
  
• I need a bird identification book. And some binoculars.

Pictures from day two.

I had a lot of fun, and I'm going to keep trying. I'll probably need to pick up some more supplies and check out some books from the library for pointers. If I get some really good shots, or learn some really good lessons, I'll let you know here.

The Car Saga

Chapter 1: The tale of how the Corolla came to be


So, about 2 years ago I bought my first car. It was during the super gas price days, when it regularly hit $4 a gallon, so finding an economy car was very difficult. I ended up with my swank 1999 Toyota Corolla, which was exactly what I was looking for, so I overlooked some of the minor concerns we had with it. (It has paint issues, it shook on the highway, dent in the hood, looks like it was treated unkindly.) Bought it for about $4500, after we talked them down a grand. The day after I bought the car and happily drove it back to Madison, the check engine light came on. The dealership was good enough to take it back, check it out, and fix whatever it was for free, as I had literally just bought it. It turned out to be a faulty sensor, no big deal. I should have taken it as an omen, though.

Aggressive Self-Defense: The Morality of Killing in War

The following was originally written in an ethics class in 2007, and I have made some minor edits. Enjoy.


War is an oft-discussed topic in America right now. People discuss how many deaths there have been on each side, and how the objectives are progressing (or how they are not), and various other details that interest the citizens of a nation at war—for everyone has a vested interest while their country is at war. Of course, another hot topic for debate is the justification for the current war in Iraq. Various politicians, journalists, and celebrities have weighed in on the political, social, and moral justifications for the war. But one debate about war has been simmering for a long time and lies at the heart of past and present anti-war movements: can war be justified at all? Justification for war can come from many angles, but one must eventually examine the core issue—that of the justness of killing in war. A lot of debate has gone into who it is permissible to kill: combatants, non-combatants, guilty persons, innocent bystanders; and there have been many arguments on just how to define those groups of people. Most of all, people have long debated by what principles killing for god or country can be justified morally. None of these justifications, however, provide a satisfactory moral case for just killing in war, and as such, they are not sufficient to justify war itself.



I have chosen two articles with differing views on the morality of killing in war (though they both think it is morally permissible, the justifications and lines drawn are distinct). The first is Robert K. Fullinwider's War and Innocence¹ and the second is Lawrence A. Alexander's Self-Defense and the Killing of Noncombatants², which is a direct reply to Fullinwider. First I will examine Fullinwider's somewhat simpler argument before diving into Alexander's response, which is a more complex model based on Fullinwider's original. After that, I will give my own reasons for which killing should be (and can be) avoided in general.

First, we must set up the thought experiment on which Fullinwider, Alexander, and I are working. This stars the ubiquitous Smith and Jones, and the basic example is the following:

Jones is walking down a street. Smith steps from behind the corner of a nearby building and begins to fire a gun at Jones, with the appearance of deliberate intent to kill Jones. Surrounded by buildings, Jones is afforded no means of escape. Jones, who is carrying a gun himself, shoots at Smith and kills him.³

Rare Earth Hypothesis vs. Reason

As you probably have gleaned from the title of this post, I disagree with the Rare Earth hypothesis-- that is, the theory that the spectacular coincidences and conditions that led to complex (not even necessarily intelligent) life on this planet is so statistically remote that it is extremely unlikely that any other planet in the universe has evolved complex life. The term (and hypothesis) comes from a book by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.

Now, I have not read this book, and therefore I am not fully versed in their arguments. I plan to read the book and make a more detailed argument, but I wanted to lay down my base hypothesis first. Also, Wikipedia does an ok job at summarizing their argument.

So, before we get to their equation, let's look over some data:

• It is estimated that there are 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.
• It is estimated that there are about 100 billion (10¹¹) galaxies in the universe.
• Galaxies tend to contain between ten million (10⁷) and one trillion (10¹²) stars.

Now let's crunch those numbers. With simple math, we can conclude that the average galaxy has 10^9.5 stars. So, to calculate the total number of stars in the universe we need 10¹¹ * 10^9.5, which gives us, with rounding, 10²⁰ stars. (That's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.) That's a lot. If each star was the size of a tennis ball, stacked up they could reach the moon from the earth (avg. distance) almost 17.5 million times.

Now let's make some guesses. In the famous Drake Equation, it is estimated that half of all stars will have planets. So that gives us a more manageable number of 10¹⁰ stars with planets. For the sake of argument, let's say that our solar system is fairly typical, and maybe the average number of planets in a solar system is around 6. I think I am being generous to the Rare Earth-ists here, as a solar system could easily have tens of planets, not to mention life-supporting moons. That gives us 6 * 10¹⁰ planets in the universe. Disregarding the Drake estimate of 2 planets per star supporting life, let's say that, I don't know, 1/8 of planets support complex life.

So, we have finally arrived: 60,000,000,000 planets could support life. Sixty billion seems to be far from the estimate of 1. If my estimates have an error of 99.9%, there would still be 7,492,500,000 planets supporting complex life. Of course, some of that may have died off already, and most (statistically) we would never be able to find. (If you read the numbers above, and you're good with visualization, you should already have realized the size of the haystack in which we are searching for a proverbial, uh, 60 billion needles.)

As I have said, I will in fact be making a more detailed argument later. However, I assert that the vast immensity of the universe makes the Rare Earth theory extremely unlikely, statistically. And I haven't even broached the subject of carbon-based vs. non-carbon-based life or the general assumptions of what a 'life-supporting planet' requires.

QED.

Barack Obama Deserves the Peace Prize

I, like many others, was a little surprised by the news that Barack Obama was named the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Many people's reaction has been, "But what has he done?"

I will tell you, in the form of the press release from the Nobel Prize Committee:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

So, in the words of the committee itself, they awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Obama for making substantial gains in the diplomatic process, giving people hope, and beginning work towards various peaceful goals, including nuclear disarmament.

Let me step away from achievements, for a moment, to answer another fast criticism of this award. Many have pointed out that the nominations for this prize were due to be postmarked by Feb. 1st, 2009, exactly 12 days after the President took office. So, people have concluded (erroneously) that Mr. Obama received this award before taking virtually any steps as President of the United States. I would like to point out to the world that a nomination is only a nomination. Obviously, someone had high hopes for what Mr. Obama could accomplish in this year, and yes, maybe they submitted the nomination for political reasons. However, I assert that the Nobel Prize Committee is not peopled by idiots or fanboys. I have extremely high respect for their organization, and I hope that you do too.

The Nobel Peace Prize, from the will of Mr. Nobel himself, is to be given to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The Prize committee, in making its decision, was looking into the last 8 months of the presidency, and not the first 12 days. There were very many nominations for this prize, in fact the most nominations ever. I assert that if they believed that Mr. Obama had not made progress promoting "fraternity between nations" etc. they would have picked one of the other 204 nominees. The list is secret for the next 50 years, but I think we can trust there were some good names on it.

So, has President Obama signed a large peace accord, as President Wilson did before winning the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize? No. Did he help to negotiate peace between two major countries at war, as President Roosevelt did to win the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize? No. I believe, however, that he has made great strides in promoting "fraternity between nations," at the least.

In very short order, President Obama changed the foreign policy of the United States from strong-arm unilateralism to broad-based diplomacy. He immediately appointed important envoys and began new peace talks, including being the first President to open meaningful peace talks with Iran, which, although rocky and far from over, have dramatically improved the relationship between our countries. He made steps to bring our country back under the codes of conduct laid out in the Geneva Convention. He restarted nuclear disarmament talks with Russia, this time, unlike his predecessors, negotiating for a stronger reduction. He paid our debt to and reopened meaningful interaction with the United Nations. And he told the world that not only would we not take unilateral actions, but that we also require the aid of other countries in order to move forward towards peace and disarmament.

Perhaps, in this great century, the people need a flashy achievement. The 2009 Physics Prize, essentially awarded for the invention of fiber optic communication, is pretty cool, as well as immediately tangible. Peace, however, is rarely flashy. Peace is shaped through long negotiation, nurtured by building trusting relationships with sovereign nations, and enacted through policy change.

I do not deny the unbelievable work of people who, every day, all over the world, are working in immediately tangible ways to improve life and promote peace. Yes, these people are extremely deserving of praise. When you look at the wording and the purpose of this particular recognition, however, you find a description of the 'big picture.' Without belittling the work of so many, this particular prize exists for a different reason.

The Nobel Prize Committee, and the Nobel Prizes themselves, exist to encourage and inspire as much as they exist to reward notable achievements. Countless times they have been awarded for progress, and progress surely has been made.

Mr. Obama said this morning that he did not feel he deserved the prize. Mr. President, I must respectfully disagree. Your contribution to the global peace process is already irrefutable, brought forth largely from a willingness to talk and to listen, and to treat other nations with their due respect. You have brought hope to not only the millions in your country, but to billions around the world. We see you as a leader who one day may bring to this Earth a new era, and we hope. Where once we saw immovable obstacles, you have changed the international political dynamic to be a place where diplomacy and cooperation can work.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, and others whose voices may not be heard this day, I thank you for all you have done already, and I look forward to watching you change the world.

Damn Small Linux... still foiling my install

Here's a picture of my Xybernaut MA-V previously posted about, currently hooked up to a desktop monitor. I am still trying to find a compatible HMD, but I have a lot of setup to do before I'm ready for it anyway. You can see the wrist-size keyboard there, though, which is pretty sweet.

Currently, I am attempting to install Damn Small Linux, which is giving me some trouble. The OS is designed to run on a LiveCD or USB thumb drive, etc. so getting it to reside on my hard drive is proving difficult, despite DSL having at least three separate ways to do just that. Despite having the USB external CD drive listed as my first boot device, the computer has problems booting into DSL, without which I cannot work on partitioning my hard drive for Linux, or perform the install itself. For some reason, when I ran cfdisk the first time, and thought that I had successfully partitioned the drive, I rebooted the computer to find myself back in Windows. Now, when I try to boot back into the DSL LiveCD, it isn't letting me.

For now, as I am on vacation, this project is sitting still, but when I get back to it next week, and hopefully finally get DSL running on the hard drive, I can really get started and I will definitely keep you all up to date.