Motley Moose – Archive

The origins of cooking are lost in the mists of time. What little we know comes from interpretations of the clues left by our earlier ancestors. Cooking in any form could not have existed before mankind discovered how to control fire. Deliberate use of heat to alter raw foods must have followed shortly thereafter.

What cannot be disputed is that humans have been passing down recipes since the earliest cooks developed tested ways to produce tasty meals. Cooking methods and recipes would have been passed orally from generation to generation for tens of thousands of years before humans discovered writing.

Once writing was discovered, cookbooks would seem like a natural use of the new technology. The earliest known recipes come from Mesopotamia in 1700 BCE. This is where things remained until the 20th Century and the invention of television. The new medium allowed people to learn from others without actually being in their presence. This was a big step forward in the learning process. It has reached its culmination with the creation of the Food Network, which has been a boon to serious cooks.

Progress didn’t stop there. Today we have harnessed all of the communications mediums in service to the culinary arts – writing, audio and video. And now, writing, photography, and video have been merged on the Internet. What a great time to be a foodie.

The reason I have included the little history lesson is because today’s recipe comes to you via a merger of television and Internet. I had purchased some chicken thighs and breasts with bone-in and skins and decided I wanted to make Chicken Cacciatore. Since I hadn’t made Cacciatore in a long time and didn’t have a written recipe, I decided to look for one on www.foodnetwork.com. I came across this recipe by Giada de Laurentis and decided to try it. There is no doubt, this is a definite keeper.

I made very few adjustments to the following recipe. I didn’t have fresh basil, so I used dry. There are some family members that aren’t fond of tomatoes, so I only used about 1 cup of diced tomatoes and then added some tomato sauce instead. I thought about adding a tablespoon or so of tomato paste, but decided not to this time. After eating it, I don’t think it is necessary. The sauce was excellent. I served it with mostaccioli and green beans. Nice additions would be garlic bread, salad, cheese, and olives. I also covered everything with shredded parmesan cheese.

This is a very easy dish to make. There is a video you can watch if you have any doubts about your level of ability.

Ingredients

• 4 chicken thighs
  

• 2 chicken breasts with skin and backbone, halved crosswise
  

• 2 teaspoons salt, plus more to taste
  

• 1 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper, plus more to taste
  

• 1/2 cup all purpose flour, for dredging
  

• 3 tablespoons olive oil
  

• 1 large red bell pepper, chopped
  

• 1 onion, chopped
  

• 3 garlic cloves, finely chopped
  

• 3/4 cup dry white wine
  

• 1 ( 28-ounce) can diced tomatoes with juice
  

• 3/4 cup reduced-sodium chicken broth
  

• 3 tablespoons drained capers
  

• 1 1/2 teaspoons dried oregano leaves
  

• 1/4 cup coarsely chopped fresh basil leaves (or 1 ½ teaspoons dried)
  

Directions

Sprinkle the chicken pieces with 1 teaspoon of each salt and pepper. Dredge the chicken pieces in the flour to coat lightly.

In a large heavy saute pan, heat the oil over a medium-high flame. Add the chicken pieces to the pan and saute just until brown, about 5 minutes per side. If all the chicken does not fit in the pan, saute it in 2 batches. Transfer the chicken to a plate and set aside. Add the bell pepper, onion and garlic to the same pan and saute over medium heat until the onion is tender, about 5 minutes. Season with salt and pepper. Add the wine and simmer until reduced by half, about 3 minutes. Add the tomatoes with their juice, broth, capers and oregano. Return the chicken pieces to the pan and turn them to coat in the sauce. Bring the sauce to a simmer. Continue simmering over medium-low heat until the chicken is just cooked through, about 30 minutes for the breast pieces, and 20 minutes for the thighs.

Using tongs, transfer the chicken to a platter. If necessary, boil the sauce until it thickens slightly, about 3 minutes. Spoon off any excess fat from atop the sauce. Spoon the sauce over the chicken, then sprinkle with the basil and serve.

[UPDATE] Made this for dinner a couple of days ago. This is a great meal for the cooler weather we’ve been having lately. It’s also a way for our new members to get to know a little about me.

—————————————————————-

Television food shows, beginning with Julia Child, changed the American food scene dramatically. The popularity of the Food Network and the celebrity status of famous chefs has changed the view of American cooking from provincial to world-class.

That change is great for food enthusiasts, like me. However, no matter how often I find myself experimenting with complicated and exotic meals, I always find myself returning to the tried-and-true meals of my predecessors. Comfort food is where it is at, as far as I’m concerned.

With that thought in mind, here is my latest offering – old-fashioned Chicken and Dumplings.

Today’s weather was bearable, for February in Michigan. The temperature was around 27°F and the air was calm when Al and I headed out for our walk. Our neighbor, Beau, who you met in an earlier diary, must have been craning his neck to see us as soon as possible. He practically sprinted out of his house before we even reached his driveway. Something was obviously up.

I’ve known Beau for a few months now, ever since he moved here from Mississippi. I know him well enough to recognize when he’s wearing a smug grin. It didn’t take long to find out what had put it there.

It’s the middle of February. Spring still seems far away. Politics is in its usual effed up condition. The economy is still in the doldrums. Life sucks. Except when you have a cat in your lap. Here are a few pet pics to cheer you up.

It’s not often that I post a diary that consists almost entirely of something someone else wrote, but in this case I think it is excusable. John Cole of BalloonJuice.com fame posted a diary today that reminded me of why I like his writing so much. It should become required reading for anyone interested in how our political system works. If you have a few minutes to spare you should read the whole post instead of only reading the few bits I’ve posted here.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2…

James Joyner reacts to the news that 1 in 8 Americans is on food stamps with surprise (a surprise I share) and has the following to say:

I’m of mixed minds on all this. We should help the working poor – and their children – get enough to eat. Ditto those too disabled to work and provide for themselves. De-stigmatizing aid to such people – and even reaching out to make sure they know help’s available – makes sense.

But, rather clearly, we’ve taken this to absurd levels, creating a self-licking ice cream cone in which the program’s main focus is on expanding the program. Do we really need to be providing food stamps to able-bodied college graduates who are Americorps volunteers? Or, indeed, if we think Americorps is so valuable, why not provide a stipend so its “volunteers” can afford to feed themselves rather than treating them as indigents?

Hey! We agree! We should help those who can not feed themselves otherwise, and if we value Americorps volunteers, we should afford them a stipend and not make them have to use a program designed to be a stopgap measure.

But here is the thing- we can’t do anything about it. I’m sure the House could pass a bill containing a small stipend for Americorps volunteers- in fact, I bet it would get a good bit of support. It might even be very popular with the entire country, as well as being good policy! Likewise, I bet almost all the Democrats and even some Republicans in the Senate would be in favor of passing that bill.

Except the bill would never pass, and I’m surprised James does not recognize that he is operating in a fantasy world. Once the bill hit the Senate, the fun would begin. Even though in the past there were probably numbers of Republicans who supported Americorps, the large majority of them would just flat out say no.

First off, we all know who loves Americorp- the Clenis. From there, it is all downhill. Breitbart would seize upon the bill, and claim that the anonymous stipend is just President Obama seeking to pay off his campaign volunteers- just like the KHMER ROUGE, POL POT, STALIN, AND DUVALIER! They would find some innocuous aspect of Americorps and turn it into something that is no doubt worse than Hitler. Like, for example- Americorps VISTA.

The subservient GOP drones in the blogs would pick up everything Breitbart has said. Instapundit and Reason magazine would wake from their glibertarian slumber to denounce this “vast, wasteful expansion of government.”

Malkin would start printing the addresses of Americorps volunteers, and would have her internet sleuths post a facebook picture of an Americorps worker drunk four years ago while in college. By this time, the noise machine is in full swing, and Rush, Glenn Beck, Hannity, the Heritage Foundation, the rest of the Koch funded “think tanks,” Fox News, the NY Post and the Washington Examiner, the NR, and the Weekly Standard and the other wingnut welfare publications would all embark on another disinformation campaign.

At around this point, the Democratic firing squad starts. The usual suspects would start blaming this on Rahm, and screaming “Why isn’t Obama using his bully pulpit more” and “Bush would have gotten his bill!” Folks like me would start yelling at the usual suspects, instead of the Republicans and the noise machine which is to blame for this mess.

And then, quietly, the bill that James and I and the majority of the House, Senate, and American people all agree would be a good thing, slowly and without any dignity dies. The beltway pundits, feeling no shame for their part in amplifying the bullshit from the noise machine, would then begin 100,000 horse race pieces discussing how this is bad for Obama and good for Republicans, and what role this will play in the 2010 elections.

Most frustrating of all, when you point this all out to reasonable conservatives like James Joyner, that Republican obstinacy is keeping legislation that even they in the past have supported from passing, they’ll just dismiss you and say the Republicans are just playing hardball politics.

And that sick feeling you have in your stomache [sic] right now? That just means you know I am right.

Go read the whole thing. I guarantee you’ll like it.

Please feel free to use the text below to let your representatives know your opinion on this issue. Select and copy the text below then click here to send a message to your congressional representative and senators.

As a constituent, I urge you to support the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy of our Armed Forces. As Americans, we have long been supporters of equal rights and equal access under the law. As Americans, we have long been supporters of personal responsibility and the rights of individuals to live their personal lives without the intrusion of the State.

Gays and lesbians have long answered the call for this nation in our armed services. Their sacrifices have been often ignored, or minimized because of sexual orientation, and the whims of a fickle society that often chooses to ignore their vital service over a matter of interpretation of Scripture–and an interpretation that is not shared by all members of either the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faiths. This nation was founded upon the idea of religious freedom, and by allowing only a few voices to dominate the debate, and use that platform to deny our servicemen and servicewomen recognition of their sacrifice and duty, we allow those voices to refute that essential freedom.

Our freedoms exist not to protect popular speech or popular behaviors. Our freedoms exist to protect those who disagree. That is the essential nature of our freedoms, and I urge you support the free expression and the rights of all our citizens. It is not just the right thing to do for our citizens, it is the right thing for our party to stand for. We have allowed bigots and the small minded, who forget the lessons of the past, to dominate the debate, and I would welcome you to stand for our citizens and what our nation and Constitution represent.

The first thing I noticed this morning when I ended my one-week voluntary vacation from politics is that the world didn’t end this past week. In fact, it seems to be spinning around just as it has for billions of years. What a relief.

One week ago, the Left was in extreme disarray. With the loss of Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, health care reform seemed dead. The president seemed to be on the ropes. Many on the Left, led by the firebaggers and PUMA crowd, were ready to start calling for impeachment. One short year into President Obama’s administration and the Left seemed ready to throw in the towel. Oh, woe is me.

I don’t want to give the wrong impression here. The Left had plenty of reasons to lament. I was feeling pretty down myself. But that’s not why I decided to take a vacation from politics. I decided to take a vacation because I could sense that I had lost perspective.

The last two years have been quite a ride. The beginning of that two year period started in January, 2008. Super Tuesday was fast approaching. I was still a nominal Edwards supporter, although I had been leaning towards Obama for a while. I got on board after Super Tuesday. That’s when the real primary battles heated up. They stayed like that until Clinton conceded in June. Then we had to deal with the PUMA backlash. Time that should have been spent on kicking into general election mode was spent on repairing party unity. The Democrats were still dealing with bruised egos when Palin burst on the scene. Things got really nutty after that.

The Moose was born out of that perfect storm of politics. The first diaries were posted on motleymoose.com about two months before the election. We agonized over every drop in a poll. We clapped with glee when things went our way. And, we watched the flameout of the ex-Governor of Alaska. Fun times, indeed.

The opposing sides in the battle over gay rights have traditionally broken down along conservative and liberal lines. As in most battles of this sort, liberals argue from a position of equality and inclusion and conservatives argue from a position in defense of tradition. These positions have become so entrenched that simply knowing someone’s political orientation is enough to give you a person’s stance on this issue. That is why it is so refreshing encouraging to see a staunch conservative make the case for same-sex marriage.

No one would accuse Ted Olson of being a liberal. Olson served as Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration and was appointed Solicitor General under George W. Bush. He was present at the first meeting of the Federalist Society and served on the board of the conservative magazine The American Spectator. His most notable legal achievement may have been his victory in Bush v Gore in 2001 where he argued successfully in front of the Supreme Court in favor of George W. Bush. As Andrew Sullivan wrote, “Olson is different – a man of impeccable establishment conservative credentials…”

What makes Olson stand out from his fellow conservatives is his stance on same-sex marriage. He joined his opponent in the Bush v Gore case, David Boies, to mount a legal challenge to Proposition 8 in California. That lawsuit is ongoing and should result in a ruling soon.

The case he is bringing before the California Supreme Court would be enough to make Olson newsworthy. However, I find the argument he makes in a recent piece in Newsweek in support of equal rights even more compelling than his legal efforts.

In grade school, American children are taught the immortal words of Patrick Henry, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” What the children don’t learn about that speech is that what has come down to us wasn’t recorded until 40 years after Patrick Henry gave the speech and that it has been recreated by a writer from the memories of those who heard him speak that day. I can understand why teachers don’t want to confuse the issue, since what they are teaching is not his words, but the sentiment of his speech. “Give me liberty or give me death” is the quintessential American motto. Whether someone actually spoke those words is irrelevant.

Americans have laid down their lives in support of liberty ever since those days more than 200 years ago. They marched barefoot through the snow and left their blood on that snow in an effort to achieve full liberty. In the centuries that followed, they fought and died all over the world in defense of those liberties and to secure the liberties of others. Men like my uncle died in Europe fighting totalitarianism. I acted as a pallbearer for friends who died in Southeast Asia fighting for what they thought was the same cause. Even today, young American men and women are dying in foreign lands fighting for those same liberties. If any one thing defines us as a nation, it is the shared belief in the truth of this sentiment.

When I was a young boy, which is admittedly a long time ago, I was taught that Americans were brave defenders of liberty. We learned about the men who won the Revolutionary War. We learned about Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett at the Alamo. We learned about heroes from The Great War like Sergeant York and General John J. Pershing. We sat in rapt wonder as members of our parents generation told stories about storming the beach at Anzio and the beaches of Normandy and South Sea islands.