Never Made Pesto? It’s Easy!

Generally my blogs have to do with questions of some importance, such as the Presidential election or the Iraq War or the environmental crisis.  But sometimes I just chill out and tell a funny story or give a recipe.  Today we have a recipe–pesto!

Most of my readers have probably already made pesto.  It’s cheap.  It’s tasty.  It’s easy.  But I had not, until yesterday.  I think I lacked confidence–surely I would find some way to screw it up, I felt.  I had no idea just how simple it is to make pesto.  So for those of you who have never tried, now is the season.  Here is your fool-proof recipe.  I got it from a friend who got it from a food writer named Marcella Hazen.

                                               PESTO

2 c. packed fresh basil

1/2 c. extra virgin olive oil (get the good stuff–all olive oils are not equal)

2 T. pine nuts

2 cloves garlic

1 t. salt

Mix all ingredients in a blender or food processor at high speed, then pour into a bowl.  Beat in 1/2 c. freshly grated parmesan cheese and 2 T. freshly grated romano.  Beat in 3 T. butter, at room temperature. 

Cook the pasta as directed and turn it out into a large bowl.  Pour the pasta sauce over the pasta and mix well.  I lined the large round bowl of pasta with fresh, ripe tomatoes cut into eights.  It makes a pretty picture, and the flavor contrasts are excellent.  Have some more freshly grated parmesan cheese handy so that guests can sprinkle it on their pasta.

I would suggest some kind of pasta that the sauce will easily cling to.  This is where I fell down on the job: my pasta was too large–after it was cooked, it looked like overgrown spaghetti, and the sauce did not hold to it well.  Even so, the polite field of nine guests said they loved it, and several came back for seconds.

What could be easier than this?  If you’ve never made pesto previously, hesitate no more! 

 

What Americans Don’t Want to Hear

Now with gasoline at $4.50 a gallon and rising, U.S. citizens are at last recognizing our pressing need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.  But the most commonly named solutions are questionable, for they will incur costs, both economic and environmental.

Energy is required for fertilizer and machinery to grow plants for ethanol–and dozens of countries are already suffering from food shortages as energy needs compete for arable land.  Coal is dangerous to mine and yields greenhouse gases galore.  Hydro-electric plants can store energy well–but how many more rivers can we dam?  Nuclear power is problematic because it will take 15-20 years to make new plants operable, and we still haven’t figured out what to do about the waste–nevermind the potential for new Chenobyls.  Wind and solar power are clean and renewable but dependent upon the vagaries of nature, and the energy is difficult to store.

The most cost effective solution by far is one that most Americans don’t want to hear: conservation.  This solution can be provided at a fraction of the cost of the others.  Conservation would mean driving less, using more fuel-efficient cars, providing more and better mass transit, more energy-efficient homes and offices and manufacturing processes.

When I was studying in Berkeley 20 years ago, a visitor from Kentucky and I passed by a dumpster on which some glaring graffiti read: “Recycle or Die!”  My friend said, “People out here are a little intense, aren’t they?”  The statement is not so radical today–it’s becoming mainstream.  Unless we can grasp the concept that “less is more,” we may find that our very survival will be at stake.   

 

Faith-based Initiatives

Two leaders whom I greatly admire–Barak Obama and Jim Wallis–have recently come out in support of “faith-based initiatives.”  Wallis’s position is a bit more understandable–he is an evangelical and the head of the Sojourners movement/magazine, though unlike some evangelicals Wallis has always put the central message of Jesus first: justice and compassion for the poor and disenfranchised of this world (not anti-abortion, anti-gay rights).  Obama’s positive view of the initiative is more of a surprise.  I can only conclude that he is . . . well, running for the Presidency of the United States and trying to garner support from the right.

These two men are wrong, as I see it, for three reasons.  First of all, addressing social problems is best done through comprehensive “big picture” planning, not piece-meal projects chosen by groups who will inevitably be prejudiced in their choices of who gets services.  Some projects are always “sexier” than others and therefore more readily funded.  For example, people will give money and volunteer time far more easily to destitute children than to men with chronic drug problems or to women who have been driven to prostitution.  Good church people, like all of us, are driven by emotion as much as by logic, and in following our hearts, we may not choose well, in terms of the greater good for the society.

Second, churches are notoriously reluctant to deal with core issues of justice, preferring instead to do works of charity, which address the symptoms, but not the causes of suffering.  As Bishop Romero once said, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.  When I ask why there are so many poor, they say I am a Communist.”  Churches are made of mostly pretty comfortable middle-class people, people who want to “help the poor” but who don’t want to take a hard look at their own privilege or to suggest that we might change the tax system in order to be more generous to those in need.  (Black churches would be an exception to this rule–and look at the firestorm around the remarks of Obama’s black minister.)  When churches fight for systemic change, people–especially people of wealth in those churches–are likely to become nervous, and then angry.  “The church should stick to spiritual issues!” they will say.  As if you can separate your spirit from your pocketbook.

And third, when people do charitable deeds through their church, many of these people believe they have “done their part” in fixing social problems and therefore are not interested in addressing these problems in any comprehensive fashion through government action.  The truth is that these church programs are the proverbial drop in the bucket, and some would say, act as mere band-aids for the gaping wounds of the society, covering up what we don’t want to see and making us church folks feel good about ourselves.  We are “Lady Bountiful,” giving of our excess, but not really willing to share our bounty, all the time congratulating ourselves on our goodness and generosity. 

Obama, your background is community organizing.  You should know better.  Let’s hope you do. 

 

Being Aware of Privilege

Most white people I know do not consider themselves to be racist.  That’s an ugly word that brings up images of people yelling the n-word at little black girls trying to desegregate Southern schools, or hooded Ku Klux Klan members burning crosses on lawns. 

But there is something else which divides people more subtly, someting of which most of us middle-class white people are not so aware–and that is privilege.  What do I mean by privilege?  I mean that we take for granted advantages that others do not have and in fact may be far removed from their experience.  We may even assume that we all start out on some kind of equal footing, and that we, in fact, have been successful because of our  splendid judgment and hard work. 

This reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon that I saw years ago.  Two men are talking in a fancy corp office, and the one says to the other, “And what do you owe your success to?”  And the other says, “I’d say being at the right place at the right time–and being born to the right parents and going to the right schools and having plenty of money.”

We assume certain things, don’t we, most of us?  And those assumptions have to do with class, mainly.  We assume that we will never go hungry.  We assume that we will wear shoes that fit–indeed, shoes that are fashionable.  We assume that if we get in a fix financially, someone will be there to help us out. We assume that we will go to college and get some kind of professional job or other at some point. We assume that if we are not served properly in a place of business, it is our right to speak with the manager and ask for redress.  And on and on.  What we may not be aware of is that huge numbers of people–at least 20-25 percent of the population–never make such assumptions.  Would not, could not.

One summer I went to breakfast with my son Madison in our home state of Kentucky–we went to “Cracker Barrel,” where he had waited tables during the summers of his college years.  The waitress asked me, “Would you like orange juice?” and I asked, “Is it fresh squeezed?” She answered, “No,” and I said I would pass.  When she left our table, Madison chided me: “You’re so elitist!” he said.  “Don’t you know what kind of restaurant this is?  This is the people’s restaurant–of course they don’t have fresh squeezed orange juice!  Look at the prices.  All kinds of people come here to eat, but a lot of the food is cheap enough for poor people.  Fresh squeezed orange juice–I’m so embarrassed!”  Well, leave it to your children to keep you humble.

It’s not that privileged people need to feel guilty that we’re privileged–guilt rarely is healthful or productive.  But we do need to be aware.  Everyone does not see the world through our eyes.  Everyone does not go through the world with the assumption that their needs will be met, and that they in fact deserve to have their needs met.  And what I think I need as a middle-class person may be very different from the needs of someone who wonders how she’s going to put food on the table for her children that very evening. 

With increased awareness, we become kinder, more generous, less judgmental: spiritual gifts which come as we open our eyes to the experience of others, and awaken to differences that divide.