Now I remember why I hate baking...

I'm re-watching Gilmore Girls season 1, enjoying winter break, and for some unbeknownst reason I decide it'd be a good idea to bake cookies. Yea, you heard me, bake cookies! I know what you're thinking, "But Jac, you never bake." That's right, I never bake. I cook, oh yes I cook, and I'm damn good at it, but baking and I have not had the best relationship. I don't think the word "precision" comes to mind when people think of me; and for good reason.

So why am I baking? I don't know. Blame it on the cold weather, the holiday cheer, or the all-around make-merry, deck-the-hall, all-be-jolly mood, of the past few days, but all of the sudden I thought, "You know what would be really good tonight? Homemade Snickerdoodles."

After discovering I had no Cream of Tartar (seriously, who comes up with this stuff anyway?!?), I forgo the Snickerdoodle idea and decide on Peanut Butter cookies. Excellent, I like peanut butter and I have peanut butter.

Well, despite my failures as a baker, my mom did teach me quite a bit about baking as a child and if there's one thing I know it's: get out all your ingredients before you start. So, there I am getting out all my ingredients, you know the flour waaaay up on the top of the pantry that hasn't been used in months. Well, I get it down only to discover the bag has little weevils in it (yuck!). This should've been a cue to stop, but no! I have a second bag of flour (yea! I was shocked too!). The second bag is weevil free so we're good to go.

I continue gathering ingredients only to discover my eggs had expired. In August. But I'm baking them though, heat kills germs right? Right?!?! Well to be sure I do some Googling and I find this nifty test to determine whether or not eggs are still good. You put them in a glass of water, if they sink they're good if they float they're bad. Well, my eggs, all six of them, didn't so much as get their heads wet in the water. So again, this should've been a cue to stop baking, but no sir, I'm not a quitter. I'm going to have cookies tonight come hell or high water!

So, back to the computer I go to do some more Googling. I discover I can use applesauce or vegetable oil with water as an egg substitute. Excellent, i have oil, olive oil that is. Hey, olives are vegetables aren't they? So still unsure in my decision I cast doubt aside and go with the olive oil. Phew, ingredients gathered.

Step 1, pour the sugar in the bowl. Yea, I screwed up step 1. How in the world can someone screw up step 1 you might ask? Well let me tell you. I apparently didn't dry the bowl well enough and it was damp, thus my sugar made nice little clumpy sugar balls the moment I poured it in. Seriously, every sign was pointing towards "Don't make cookies" but instead I dump out the damp sugar, rewash the bowl, re-dry the bowl extra thoroughly, and repeat step 1.

I manage to make it through the rest of the steps with relative ease. I pull out my 60 year old electric mixer (this required a step stool by the way), I turn it on all excited to make the dough aaaaand...nothing. The mixer does nothing. Not even a last ditch whirl for old time's sake. It's dead as dead can be. I try another outlet just to verify the death of the 60 year old green mixer, observe a moment of silence in its honor, and then, well ,and then all I can think is "Crap! How am I going to mix the cookies now?"

Sigh, are you exhausted yet? Yea, again, why did I not just quit. But no, I start mixing the dough by hand. Which, had I known I'd be mixing the dough by hand when I started I would've let the butter soften much more prior to putting in the bowl (mom why didn't you tell me the mixer qualifies as an ingredient?!), but alas, hindsight is 20/20. So I mix, and I mix, and I mix, and I count my blessings I'm ambidextrous, and I mix some more. All right, add the dry ingredients and we're good to go.

The cookies are in the oven, what can go wrong now? Well, a few minutes later a wonderful smell wafts into the study, mmmmm, garlic. Wait, garlic? Why do my cookies smell like garlic? I open the oven to discover there is garlic stuck to the bottom of my oven and oh-so-pleasantly roasting away. This would otherwise be a desired smell, were it not for the fact that I have peanut butter cookies in there! My entire apartment smells of garlic and there's nothing I can do but let the cookies bake.

Ten minutes later I pull the cookies out and surprisingly they look ok. Thinking a glass of cold milk might compensate for the lack of quality of the cookies I suddenly remember I poured chunky milk into my coffee this morning. Yea, apparently my milk was expired too (shut up, it's finals week!). No milk and garlicky cookies, yummmy.

As it turns out, they actually aren't that bad. They're a little thin (did I screw up the fork pressing thing too?), but amazingly they don't taste like garlic (that or the smell is so overwhelming I don't notice it anymore). I wouldn't exactly give these cookies away to anyone, but all things considered they aren't bad.

But from now on I stick to cooking, you know, things which don't require measuring cups, electric mixers, dry bowls, ingredients which you can't creatively substitute, or garlic-free ovens. Next time I get the itch to bake, somebody please stop me!

False Assumptions - a series

False assumptions:

1. Christians are brainwashed and therefore tend not to be logical or open-minded


2. Feminists can't be Christians (or religious at all for that matter)


3. Liberal Christians have somehow abandoned their faith or are backsliding

The above assumptions are increasingly personal to me as both the Christians in my life as well as the liberals often have completely misguided understandings about each other and therefore about me. For the most part, I avoid discussing politics with many of my Christian friends (most of whom are more moderate-conservative) and likewise, I avoid discussing religion with my liberal friends (most of whom, but certainly not all, are agnostic/non-religious). Then there's me - a progressive Christian who actually loves discussing both of these topics late into the night (and certainly after a few glasses of wine) with just about anyone willing to engage in a thoughtful conversation with me about either of these topics. Although, it is rare that I discuss the intersection of these two issues with very many people, there are certainly exceptions to this. And to those of you who have engaged in these late-night musings about the intersection of progressive politics and faith, you know who you are and I love you dearly for it!

I've been playing around with these ideas for a long time now but I've been reluctant to openly talk much about them. In part because I fear I won't clearly articulate what it is I'm trying to say, but also because I fear what I have to say will be taken out of context and further perpetuate misunderstandings. And finally, I have no desire to piss off the liberals or the Christians or the liberal Christians in my life - I love you all! But I've become increasingly frustrated by misunderstandings from both sides and feel there are issues I should explicitly address. First, I should say that in part my frustration stems from the fact that neither side - Christians or liberals - actually want to have these conversations with me (or each other!); they'd rather make assumptions about my beliefs (and each other) and these assumptions are usually manifested in rather snarky remarks towards me (or each other). It should be evident to anyone who knows me that I will willingly discuss, explain, or debate either of these topics if you merely ask. I'm not however, going to shove my religion or my politics down your throats. But I do ask in return that you don't make assumptions about my beliefs or the seemingly mutual exclusivity of my faith and my politics.

With this explanation and pseudo-disclaimer out of the way, I'd like to tackle the three false assumptions presented at the beginning of this post one by one.

1. Christians are brainwashed and therefore tend not to be logical or open-minded.

I have to say that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I attribute much of my critical-thinking skills to religion and my religious education. The Bible is a confusing, hard to dissect, open to interpretation, historically and culturally contextual, translated text. While I do believe it is the Holy Word of God, I also recognize it is open to multiple interpretations, as do the majority of Christians (there are obviously exceptions, but they are just that - the exceptions). Thus, I spent my entire childhood in a church and a Christian private school in which I was taught skills and given tools to help make sense of the Bible. I was taught to question intent, consider historical context, examine multiple interpretations, go back to the original Hebrew, Latin, and Greek to more fully understand translations, to consider geography and history in order to interpret cultural meanings and significance, to analyze and understand who the author of passages was and where they were in their lives when writing texts, etc. etc. etc.

As you can imagine, there were times that such a study of the Bible led to doubts and anxieties about my faith, but it is because of these doubts and anxieties that my faith is strong. My faith is not blindly accepted or built upon brainwashing - but quite the opposite. My faith is built upon a lifetime of questioning, doubt, experiences, and understandings that have led me to believe what I believe today. Do I have all the answers? Of course not. Are there issues I still don't know exactly how to make sense of? Absolutely. But do I doubt the foundation of my faith or Jesus? Most definitely not.

If you go back and look at the non-extensive list of skills I acquired via Bible studies and a Christian education, it should be rather obvious that these are many of the exact same skills I employ daily as a scholar. I must question causality, historical context, cultural indicators and effects, translations, multiple interpretations, numerous theories explaining the same phenomenon, etc. etc. etc. I would go so far as to say I am a good researcher and scholar not in spite of my religious upbringing but because of my religious upbringing. I acquired so many of my critical thinking skills and research approaches vis-à-vis Christianity and a religious education (at home, in school, in church, in Bible studies).

Now obviously not all Christians are critical or open-minded, but neither are all liberals, feminists, conservatives, Muslims, vegetarians, fill in the blank. Close-mindedness comes from a lack of understanding of one's own beliefs as well as a lack of understanding of someone else's perspectives. When we feel our own beliefs are threatened we often respond by shutting down dialog; unfortunately this happens far too often. However, I hope I've made it at least a little bit more clear that it is very possible and even likely, that Christians can be logical and open-minded about their faith and the world. We are taught a plethora of critical thinking and investigative skills, however, not everyone chooses to apply these skills to a context outside of Christianity. This is not the fault of Christianity, but rather the individual, and it is certainly not unique to Christianity, but is applicable to all people.

There's obviously so much I could say on the topic, but I'd rather be somewhat brief so as not to bore you. I'll tackle the next two assumptions in separate posts (I'm not a fan of super long entries).

Facebook is the new blog

In the past couple of weeks I've had a surprising number of people thank me for the various articles I've been posting on Facebook over the past few months. This has really caught me off guard. For the most part, none of these people typically leave comments on my Facebook nor are they people I generally discuss sports, gender, or politics with (the primary topics of my Facebook postings). So I guess it just surprised me that they were reading what I posted and I definitely wasn't expecting any of these people to say anything to me about what I post on Facebook. In fact, a few of these people are people with whom I rarely have any contact at all and whom I never actually see in person.

This actually ties in quite nicely with the research interviews I did this summer about weak ties, Facebook, and exposure to ideological difference, but this was something a bit different. Having given it some thought, I've realized that in a lot of ways Facebook and Twitter have replaced the function of my blog. As I've said before, I used to be an avid blogger, blogging three or four times a week; clearly this is no longer the case. While there are several reasons for this change, I think Facebook has got to be a contributing factor. I still blog when I have something important to say, but I have shifted my focus away from expressing my own opinions and tend to be more focused on just sharing information.

While people often (incorrectly) infer my opinions from Facebook postings, my goal is not so much to let people know what I think about a particular issue or event, but rather to just disseminate information that I think is important. Even if people disagree with my particular view or the view(s) presented in the article/video, I hope to expose people to stories, events, issues that are not generating a lot of conversation in mainstream media. Or, in other instances, I hope to present a view that complicates mainstream discourses about a particular issue or event.

Since my goals have shifted more towards information dissemination rather than opinion expression, I find Facebook to be a more efficient medium than blogging. It's faster to post a link and I don't feel the pressure to provide commentary or contextualization like I do with a blog post. All this being said, I have a couple blog entries that have been running around in my head the past couple weeks that I really need to sit down, sort out, and articulate. Also, I am going to try to start posting more articles to my blog and using it as a news aggregate when appropriate.

Image Credit: Facebook

FlowTV Special Issue CFP - Sports Media: Tensions and Transitions

FlowTV Special Issue CFP: Sports Media
Please distribute widely; submission deadline is Monday, Oct. 5

As the NFL bans players from Tweeting on the sidelines and the NCAA bans fans' unofficial Facebook recruitment pages, it is clear that players, fans, leagues, and media institutions are struggling to maintain control in changing mediated sports environments. Yet it is not just new media that is both enhancing and threatening the relationship between athletic institutions, media industries and fan communities. Major transitions have also occurred in traditional media like television and radio with the 30th anniversary of ESPN's Sportscenter, and online audio and video available for seemingly every major sport worldwide. Although sports and mass media have a well-established symbiotic relationship, media studies has been slow to embrace sport as a legitimate or significant object of study; this is a negligence that Flow seeks to remedy. Questions to consider might include:

• How have fan experiences been transformed by transitions from radio to television, network to cable, and television to the internet?


• How have the games, players, fans, and leagues been transformed by these media developments?


• What of other technological developments such as screens in arenas, ballparks and stadiums?


• What is the social significance of fans', players', coaches' and leagues' use of social media technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, iPhones, and blogging?


• How do all of these developments change the fan experience and notions of fandom? And how do these developments contribute to athletes' ability to construct and promote their own celebrity image?


• Should players be given a voice via personal blogs or Twitter and what does it mean when leagues regulate and silence these voices?


• What happens to traditional gatekeeping roles when fans become the experts and journalists are bypassed by amateur coverage and footage?


• How have discourses and representations of gender, race, class, sexuality, and ethnicity progressed (or not) over the decades?


• How do advertisers, journalists, and leagues reinforce rigid constructs and representations of "the athlete" and "the fan"?

We encourage submissions that highlight and critically analyze contemporary or historical tensions between sports leagues, media industries, technological developments, fans, athletes, representations, and/or significant case studies. We welcome submissions which address any sport, American or International, professional and amateur from tennis and golf, to rugby and hockey, to college football and professional basketball. Flow has a longstanding policy of encouraging non-jargony, highly readable pieces and ample incorporation of images and video. Please send submissions (attached as a Word doc) of between 1000-1500 words to Co-Coordinating Editors Alex Cho and Jacqueline Vickery no later than Monday, October 5, 2009.


Image Credits: Collage by Jacqueline Vickery

It's health care, it's a good thing: Thoughts on health care, religion, and politics

Despite my best attempts, I still feel rather ignorant about the health care debate, although I have found the White House's site helpful for information. The issue is just so huge and complicated that it's hard to have a strong opinion one way or the other for me in terms of reform. What I do know is that the system is broken, that 40 million Americans are uninsured, that private health insurance is expensive for individuals and businesses, and that we need some sort of reform to make health care accessible and affordable to Americans. How do we go about doing that? Well, that's what I do not feel informed nor educated enough to have a strong opinion about. While I knew this was a tricky issue, I have been surprised by people's reactions, not necessarily at how divisive of an issue it has become, but rather at how much anger it has provoked from some people. I agree with NPR's Brian Unger that the Health Care Debate Is Making Me Sick. It's HEALTH CARE people, we are talking about a social issue that is intended to HELP people. How evil can it really be?

While we might disagree about the details of reform, I am stunned some people seem to think we don't need reform. And I'm stunned so many people are getting angry at Obama - disapproval and disagreement are one thing, but anger! It's hard to argue against the need for reform - and if you are arguing against the need for reform then you need to take a moment to realize what a privileged position from which you are speaking. If you have a good and affordable health insurance plan great, but please recognize that you are in a position of privilege and that 40 million Americans are denied this same coverage. It is our responsibility to do something about that. Obama is putting his reputation on the line by trying to fix the system; the easy way out would be to sit around and do nothing, just let it stay broken. He's taking a risk not to win popularity or favor but because he feels it's the right thing to do.

I grew up in a part of the country where I thought the words Christian and Republican were synonymous. When I went to college I suddenly had this realization that I was not a Republican at all. While I tend to be a bit more fiscally conservative than some Democrats, from a social perspective I am on the left. And as a Christian I am often perplexed by the conservatives' response to government socialized issues. It is a Christian attitude to take care of the poor, to give, to be generous, etc. etc. etc. Thus it is my belief that as citizens it is our responsibility to ensure that the government creates standards which allow for underprivileged citizens to take care of themselves. Our current system is screwed up and inhibits access to health care for those who do not fit within the middle class, and increasingly so even middle class families are struggling to afford health care. While I'm not necessarily in favor of socialized health care all together, I do think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that all tax-paying, working citizens have access to affordable health care. If that means public options, taxes, tort reform, subsidies, etc. then so be it. And it is refreshing to see that some Progressive Religious Groups Are Lining Up Behind Obama on Heath Care.


Woman yells Heil Hitler to a Jewish man at LA Town Hall meeting (more info here)This video literally made me feel sick to my stomach - I do not understand such anti-Semitic views and I hope this woman feels remorse for her comments (although I doubt it)


Woman compares Obama to Hitler at Town Hall meeting with Barney Frank (more info here). This video will make you smile, Barney Frank is amusing.

For conservatives (and Christians) to refer to Obama's plan as a Nazi plan, spread rumors about death panels, etc. serves no other purpose than to ignite fear and misunderstanding among citizens. Such accusations are anything but Christ-like and completely distract people from the root of the issue: Americans can't afford health care! The current rhetoric has been so twisted around one would think health care were an evil thing Obama is attempting to force upon citizens against their will rather than a policy intended to HELP PEOPLE! Yes, health care is a GOOD THING, it is not evil nor are Obama's proposals. It is tricky, complicated, complex, and will require much negotiation and compromise of course, but the goal for both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals ought to be the same: find a way to make health care affordable and accessible for all citizens. I particularly loved this piece - The GOP's Misplaced Rage - from conservative economist Bruce Bartlett reminding Republicans that their rage is misplaced - Obama isn't the one they should be so angry with, it's Bush. The article offers a lot of historical contextualization about the economy, taxes, recession, and health care.

" Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting." - Bruce Bartlett

Andrew Sullivan also offers some interesting thoughts and perspectives from conservatives on the health care debate in his article Conservativism and Health Care. In particular, he explains why it was different to oppose stronger government involvement in health care in 1993 than it is to do so now. Quoting David Frum, he writes that the status quo means:

"(1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments. We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion."

By no means are Republicans and conservatives the only ones opposing health care reform (I'm sure we're all aware of the Blue Dogs), but recently liberal CEO and founder of Whole Foods has stirred up a lot of controversy (and even calls to boycott Whole Foods) with his recent Wall Street Journal article The Whole Foods Alternative to Obama Care. While it is an interesting perspective and offers some good suggestions I don't think it is enough. I feel it is still more beneficial to those already insured and doesn't do much for those who can't afford insurance. Overall it's an oversimplification to a very complex problem. He's also too optimistic about "we should all be able to live healthy 'til our 90s". While many diseases are (to a degree) preventable with proper diet and lifestyle, many healthy, active people still get cancer (my mother), have strokes, give birth to unhealthy babies (I was born with heart complications). It's an oversimplication and overly idealistic perspective to say cancer can be prevented by healthy lifestyles. While a healthier population would reduce the cost of healthcare, this view is dismissive of the absolute need for more cancer, heart, diabetes, etc research. It's more complicated than lifestyle and we have not found cures!

I'll end on a lighter note by sharing this article from The Onion, which would be so funny if it weren't so true: Congress Deadlocked Over How Not to Provide Healthcare.

Image Credits: Reality Check