DIY -- the good cook and the landfill

My community is changing its trash procedures. Up to now, the city has been subsidizing everybody's landfill fees. It can't keep doing that and still do civic things. So everybody is going to be charged a share of the landfill fees and with proof that they've paid, they get the same service as before.

This means that people using meal kits and other landfill-heavy practices are going to feel the impact. The rest of us, not so much. 

If you're a good cook, you don't contribute to messes like this. You may even be able to take advantage of a composting program in your region, as well as getting good nutrition and cutting down on grocery expenses.

Some mornings I have ramen for breakfast, using a "no-time" broth recipe that I found on-line. You can mix the seasonings up in advance and store on a shelf; other ingredients have to be kept in your fridge. You can add in veggies, which lets you use up things in your fridge that are about to go over, improving your nutrition while keeping things out of the landfill. Next to each ingredient, I show other things you can make using it, so that buying half-pound packages is a good use of your money. 

This takes about 15 minutes to make even if you don't store the mixed seasonings, because you put on the water and noodles, turn on the heat, and while the water comes to boiling, add the seasonings.

1 tablespoon garlic powder (BBQ sauce, soups, stews, chili, spaghetti sauce, most cuisines.)

1 tablespoon onion powder (BBQ sauce, soups, stews, chili, spaghetti sauce, most cuisines.)

1 tablespoon dried parsley (stuffing, soups, stews, spaghetti sauce, Provencal seasoning for chicken rub, "like the colonel" seasoning for chicken, including nuggets.)

1 tablespoon dried green onions or chives optional (Provencal seasoning for chicken rub, Chinese recipes.)

1 tablespoon sugar

1 teaspoon ground ginger (use 1 1/2 teaspoons if you want it spicier) (Chinese recipes, ginger snaps and other baked goods.)

1 teaspoon chili powder or 3/4 tsp cumin, large pinch cayenne and small pinch oregano or cilantro (India style recipes use cumin, especially garam masala seasoning)

1 teaspoon paprika (goulash, of course, KFC seasoning for chicken)

1/4 teaspoon ground white pepper (use 1/2 tsp for spicier) (Chinese recipes of course)

1 tablespoon of mix (about a quarter of a batch) per 1 ½ cups water plus

1/4 teaspoon sesame oil or chili oil

1 teaspoon soy sauce

½ teaspoon miso paste (miso soup)

bundle of dry ramen noodles (3 bundles per pack)

Finely chopped vegetables like cabbage, broccoli, carrot, kernels of sweet corn, bell peppers, bok choy leaf and any other leafy green. Use freeze-dried vegetables if you can’t get fresh.

Bring it all to a boil, turn the heat down five minutes, turn it off and let the noodles finish cooking.

The little quarter pound box of low-sodium miso paste that I bought will probably make 50 servings of ramen broth. I have a gallon jug of soy sauce because I use it so much. Unless you like your mouth to burn, use just a couple drops of chili oil and you'll have plenty for other recipes. (I left salt out of the dry seasonings because I use full-sodium soy sauce.)

The dry ramen noodles are available on websites like Weee which also sells the other ingredients, including the veggies. The noodles ought to be a staple in your kitchen. You throw away a little ring of paper that comes around each bundle of noodles, and after three servings, you throw away the wrapper. Instead of throwing away that whole bowl and the wrappings around the two kernels of corn which are all you get for veggies, every time you make a serving.

Yes you need a saucepan for the cooking; you can use it to cook single servings of almost anything you like including chili, mac n cheese, soup or stew of any kind, oatmeal (use the old-fashioned five minute type and you can also make cookies), hard or soft boiled eggs, kichri or fried rice or even a one-person frittata or tortilla espanola -- and for heating water for tea, coffee, yerba mate, and milk for making hot chocolate. 

Yes you need a bowl to serve the ramen in, and you can use it for all the other things you can cook in that saucepan (except the drinks, of course), as well as for cold cereal or servings of snacks like granola, dry roast nuts, trail mix, chips, dip for snacks.... 

As for washing up, that takes all of five minutes, most of which is waiting for the water to get hot.

I have lots of other cooking tips on my DIY page. They can save you money, give you better nutrition, keep you from putting PFAS in the landfill or water supply. And oh, yeah, we're finding out that cooking from scratch burns calories as well as letting you control the sugar, sodium, fat, and cut out the garbage in packaged foods. Without the stress involved in being an Iron Chef.

Why Fallacies are False -- the Turnkey Fallacy

This started from a Bluesky post but it's been going on for millennia or longer. Anytime somebody proposes a turnkey solution, you know that they are speaking out of ignorance or out of selfishness.

The oldest example I know of from personal experience probably goes back millennia, maybe even as far back as human speech. Ever watch the movie "What Women Want"?

This is a thirteen-year-old male attitude. There is supposed to be one thing a guy can do to get any woman he wants. Ladies, when you hear a guy say "What the hell do women want?", whether he says it to you or not, run. He wants a button he can push. He doesn't want a real relationship -- he doesn't know what a relationship is.

Demagogues feed into this thirteen-year-old mentality by offering simple solutions to complicated problems. So do dictators. That's why their earliest support comes from the ignorant, the mentally immature and from educated people whose training has been pipelined to make them ignorant of much of reality. I've talked about pipelining in this thread before. I know college professors who fall for urban legends and produce work that incorporates fallacies or, at best, can't fit into the big picture of a subject, because the writers are ignorant of everything their pipelined research cuts them off from.

Academics who fall for the turnkey fallacy include people in STEM who think human cultures can be run on math or logic, people in the liberal arts, and people who think of themselves as liberals but still think there's only one solution to everything.

Which gets me to the Bluesky post. It promoted morals as a counterweight to politics. It had several problems.

It clearly appealed to a "come to Jesus" attitude. Well, as we all know, the religious right wants a "come to Jesus" movement, only not only do they really mean Jesus, they mean the evangelical concept associated in the last decade with child sexual abuse, spousal abuse, ignorance, violence, and incompetence.

Second, it relied on a composition by a Christian minister. One of the things Christianity does is fail to understand the scripture it ostensibly takes as its basis. In Jewish scripture, the section known as Neviim, Prophets, survived the Babylonian Captivity for two reasons. One is that the prophecies included either came true immediately, or they came true on the schedule incorporated in the prophecies. That's a feature of Jewish law. If your prophecy doesn't come true on one of those schedules, you're a false prophet. 

The other reason is that everything included in those books relates to Jewish law. Samson had to be a nazir for life because there was no central shrine for him to go to, to offer his sacrifices and have his hair shorn. He lived after the Philistines destroyed the Shiloh sanctuary. David ruled that the widow's other son did not have to die because the people trying to convict him of murders did not qualify as witnesses. They were on-lookers but they did not perform hatraah, community policing to try and prevent the killing.

So appealing to Prophets as morals somehow above and beyond Jewish law is a misunderstanding of both the meaning and history of the material. Musar, which Proverbs refers to (in Writings), is not ethics that supersedes the law. It is an inner drive that keeps one faithful to the law.

Third, my legal studies classes defined politics as the way you get things done in an environment of people with differing goals, aims, desires and so on. That means it's perfectly normal to have politics going on in a religious organization. But it's only going to result in a "come to Jesus" moment in the sense that the organization agrees on what to do and how. There won't be some sudden epiphany -- another religious concept.

Put it together, and the reverend who wrote the article possibly found that the politics in his religious organization doesn't track with what he sees as moral. So he's demonizing politics and then extrapolating outside his organization.

And that gets into something else I've found out through experience. Organizations are mass phenomena, not individual phenomena. They are not designed to suit the wishes of every member. The culture of which they form part is the same way. Its laws are the same way. They carry out the general mores of the culture, which may clash with some subculture (I've talked about that before too) or individual. 

We're living in a time when one of the subcultures is so ignorant of how everything works that it is trying to make the entire culture live by its wishes. In other words, as I've said more than once, the thirteen-year-olds are trying to run the school.

And the school is letting them do it. It took a while, but some of the older kids are speaking out about this. And it exposes that they haven't taken the hard classes that would let them speak effectively. What's more, some of them were so comfortable at school up to now, they never developed the outside experience that would have given them a clue earlier. So they break away because nobody at the school listens to them, and they get on the outside and are shocked to find that the outsiders they ignored while they were fat dumb and happy, knew all along that this was going on.

I stopped joining organizations when I was in my teens. Either I got tired of being expected to espouse ideas I didn't agree with, or I found that the organizations didn't live up to their billing, or the organization shifted in ways I didn't agree with. 

There is no one solution to these situations because there is no one situation, plus you are an individual not a peg to put in a hole. Plus situations change. You must be ready to break away and work on your own. You must be ready for your situation to change so that you have to change what you do and how, and you must be ready for the same thing to happen to your allies. You must realize that your set of allies will change for reasons of their own -- and sometimes you will have to ditch them for reasons of your own. 

Write it Like a Fairy Tale -- postscript

I was just rereading something I wrote and realized there's one tip I didn't give you. I've used it, and it will help with your word count.

Avoid pluperfect tense. 

Oral narratives are straight-forward. They tell the tale from beginning to end. They do not have retrospectives. They have what I call sidebars, inset narratives. The Judah-Tamar story in Genesis is a sidebar in the Joseph saga; it gives us our second look at sexual behavior and sets us up for the hat trick in Egypt.

Immediately after it ends, there's a line telling us that Joseph has ended up in Egypt. In Biblical Hebrew, it uses a hufal perfect aspect, which indicates a completed action without a named agent. In Septuagint, it uses an "aorist" which, in my Greek thread, I call an imperfective, and again, it has no named agent. It is not a "pluperfect". The Vulgate uses ductus est which is a perfect passive; there is no separate pluperfect passive. So English translations that have a pluperfect in Genesis 39:1 don't have support for it in the usual source documents.

Biblical Hebrew narratives use perfective verbs to open and close episodes, as in Genesis 39:1 and the creation story, and to express one-time resultative actions. The idea of X happening before Y, once Y already starts happening, comes elsewhere in the context, not in the verb. Inside the story, BH uses what Dr. Cook calls a narrative past, which is really vav plus an imperfective verb. It ain't over until it's over, and the episode can end with a perfective verb or something like "and it is there to this very day", etc.

Fairy tales and other oral narratives treat the action, while it goes on, as not yet completed, the opposite of what a perfect verb means. All the more so, they are not going to use a pluperfect. Check out Grimm's tales (in German of course, see Internet Archive). 

Remember, you don't have to explain how things happen or how things happen to show up just in time for your action to take place. That may be one excuse for pluperfects in written literature, especially mysteries and thrillers, but you don't do that if you're writing it like a fairy tale. The other excuse for a pluperfect in a mystery is, of course, that once somebody commits the crime, you have to have retrospective discussions as you figure out who, why, and so on. 

In other fiction, that would be telling the story back to front. It's confusing.

Also, I suggest that you never have somebody use a pluperfect in speech. Just use a plain past tense. Not "I had already done that" but "I already did that." 

I rewrote a chapter in a fanfic novel a dozen times to get rid of the pluperfects in the first draft. The main character in that chapter was completely illiterate. The pluperfect is, if anything, a tense of written literature. If he couldn't write it, he couldn't use it. Rethink your uneducated or undereducated people and how they communicate. 

In another work I wrote "Nobody can possibly act out a pluperfect tense, acting is all about the present moment." After what I said about film as oral literature, it should be obvious to you that your Regency novel will not translate to film unless you rewrite it to get rid of pluperfect tenses.

While you think about this, brush up on your grammar so that you know the difference between the pluperfect ("I had gone to Birmingham that day") and the conditional ("Had I bought a ticket for Birmingham"). Remember, context is king.

Try not to use pluperfect tense. Edit to get rid of it, and watch your prose become less confusing and more immediate as your word count drops.

Knitting -- it doesn't get any older than this

So if you read my post on netting, you have an idea of how much I like finding ancient techniques. This post is about another one best known from Finnish work.

A pair of socks from Egypt worked in the Coptic culture of the 200s-500s CE uses a technique now called nålbinding which is related to both knitting and crochet. Because people used it that long ago, and because it is found all over northern Europe, you can suspect that it has a much longer history, possibly back as far as the breeding of wool sheep out of the original mouton hair sheep. So, by 3000 BCE. Museum pieces of nålbinding in Scandinavia date to the same time as development of the Selbu rose motif but obviously reflect a long history.

You use one needle with an eye, so if you have yarn or tapestry needles, those would work. 

You use long pieces of yarn, you don't work directly from the skein. 

You form a chain of loops by working the yarn into old loops and then into a loop around your thumb, which you push off your thumb while forming a new thumb loop.

This technique works best with wool yarn, unless you have a fairly sturdy yarn that will survive working with very long pieces to avoid having to add yarn. You have to add in new pieces of yarn when you get to the end of one. Adding yarn involves slight felting, which requires hackling. Only wool yarn hackles. 

Hackled yarn isn't strong enough for a loom. You want to take your spun yarn, wind it into your loom and cut off the extra. You don't waste those pieces, you work them up into small items with nalbinding. They couldn't afford to waste anything in those days.

This site gives the most detail, including videos for several families of stitches: Finnish; Oslo; York. York was captured by the Vikings and became the capital of the Danelaw so it makes sense that the Vikings imported their crafts. This site includes instructions on classic ways of doing multi-color work and the patterns used by people the writer interviewed.

https://www.en.neulakintaat.fi/

You can get special needles at a number of sites like Mielke Fiber Arts and Lacis. Do NOT buy Woolery's curved needles. I worked with them for a week and could not turn out a nice braid. The swelling around the eye is too large. They're nice to look at but it's like the "darning needles" that Woolly Thistle sells: that flange at the eye makes it impossible to use them for darning, duplicate stitch, tucking in loose thread or sewing seams. None of the nalbinding videos use needles this fat and most of them are straight; the curved ones do not have such an extreme curve.

Mielke's has three types of needles. The wooden ones should work well with heavy worsted and bulky yarns. The bone one works with worsted and should work with sport weight. The metal ones would be good for DK and fingering.

Most people make socks and mittens in nalbinding. If you use a three or four yard piece of cotton yarn, you can make a nice lanyard. There’s also a pattern for a shawl in two parts at this site. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVUEFGYEjTc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoTjPjGruE

You can learn to carve your own needles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wQcdqiLjnU

When you are learning to work on the flat, use this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaKlTSKqcvk

When you work your first sample, I highly recommend that you use a different color of yarn for the second row so that you can see which loop you picked up to make your last stitch, and then you can be sure which loop to pick up for your next stitch. Also notice that when you are about to start a new row, you pick up two loops before taking your stitch, but as you work down the piece you only pick up one loop.

Hints.

To splice in new yarn, unravel the plies of your yarn for a couple of inches. Lay them together, get them wet and lay them across one palm. Then use the other palm to roll them together and get them to hackle. Work slowly for a while so you catch it if they try to unhackle, and dampen and roll again.

If your yarn refuses to hackle, go ahead and use a square knot. Wait until your working yarn is less than a foot long and then you will get past the knot pretty quickly and go back to using plain yarn. Use your needle and fingernails to loosen old stitches and get them over the knot. But first make sure your grandma from the Old Country isn't watching cause she will throw a hissy.

I tend to use my lowest three fingers to stabilize the working yarn.

The biggest problem is knowing which loop behind your thumb is the previous thumb loop. Pull gently on the top of the current thumb loop; the one behind your thumb that moves is the previous one and that's the one you want to pick up going front to back, then turning and working into the current thumb loop and under the working yarn.

Before making a new stitch, gently tighten the previous thumb loop to lie against the braid. This will make a neater result. Then tighten the current thumb loop slightly by pulling on the working yarn that goes to the needle, and then take your stitch.

When I stop working, I put my needle through the previous thumb loop in the direction it should go when I make my next stitch.

Work slowly and carefully until you get the hang of it. By the time I finished my first row for my learning project, I had considerably picked up speed and the second row went even faster despite having to double check and make sure I was consistent about which loop on the first row I picked up before taking the stitch.

If things go wrong, just work backwards to the last place that looks right and start from there. I had to do that twice yesterday.

If you've done nalbinding and this looks wrong, let me know what you think I messed up on. 

I'm just getting started with nålbinding and I think I will try to work some things in bulky yarn once I clear out old projects that I never got around to.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- the -enu suffix

So I wrote something different here on my blog from what I wrote in Narrating the Torah and I thought I'd better do some homework to back up what I say.

See Genesis 1:25-27 in the table of contents, specifically this post. In it I go along with millennia of translations but I have changed my mind.

The -enu suffix does not always mean "our". My Hebrew word processor has a great function that lets you search your own files, so I did. I had to attach the "e" to a consonant so I used mem, tav, and dalet because of specific cases that suit my point. Out of 249 occurrences seven were odenu, which is always singular, and some were mimenu which can be either singular or plural.

How do you tell? What is it I always say? CONTEXT IS KING.

So what's the context of these two verses? Because naaseh is nifal 3rd masculine singular (NOT qal 1st masculine plural), they decree the making of humans. If Gd says "Our image", that's nonsense. Gd has no image. Judaism prohibits inventing an image for Gd, let along creating an image and claiming that it is Gd. All the more so as we know that people have gender and Gd does not.

Because Hebrew grammar allows the -enu suffix to be singular, b'tsalmenu is more likely to mean "in his image" than "in Our image". All the more so as there is no "Our" in creation. Verbs about what happened in creation are singular -- except for that other nifal decree for the waters to collect together, and it has to be plural because maim is a grammatical plural.

And those two nifal verbs divide the creation narrative neatly in half, with two THREE day intervals, at the THIRD day and the TWO TIMES THREE day. This is Olrik's classic Law of Three in his Epic Laws.

In the same way, ki-d'mutenu is also more likely to be singular. People are similar to people in a bunch of different ways -- and they are unlike Gd in all those ways except for one, which we don't get to until the denouement of the narrative, and another that we don't get to until the Gan Eden narrative.

And that throws out the window the argument that elohim ever was a plural in the creation story. When it refers to Gd, this word always comes with singular verbs. When it has plurals around it, it refers to mortals -- Genesis 6:2, Exodus 4:16 and Exodus 22:27 are examples.

It also throws out the window the idea that Genesis 6:2 is about gods having sex with mortals. Judaism would never allow such a thing. It comes from the mistaken idea that ben always means a genetic relationship. In Genesis 16:17 Avraham says he is ben meah shanah and there is no possible way to interpret that as him being the genetic descendant of a hundred years. If you call somebody a ben brit, you can't possibly mean that he is genetically related to a covenant. So in Genesis 6:2 we have people with the characteristic of being lords or masters or somehow the rule-makers, in my sense that elohim who is God is the rule-maker and the Tetragrammaton is the promise-keeper. But the bney-elohim are not gods.

And this all gets me into one of my pet peeves which is Gentiles writing about Jewish scripture. There's a three hour documentary on Internet Archive debunking alien astronaut claims and it would be fine except that the guy who did the documentary not only proves he knows nothing about Tanakh, he also drags in on it another guy who knows nothing about Tanakh, and at one point they burble about the Nefilim, whom I have debunked on my urban legend thread. 

Plus they pretend to know what the Mahabharata says, quoting a translation of that. There is one, count 'em, one English translation of Mahabharata online, and I have compared it line by line to the Sanskrit (us retired people have time to do that sort of thing) and it is no better a translation than the horrible Septuagint is of Tanakh. 

So I gave the documentary a one-star rating and told them why, then I went over on the website and gave him links to all my stuff here. It remains to be seen if the guy who posted the documentary is embarrassed enough to take it down, or the guy who made the documentary is embarrassed enough to go do his fucking homework.

So next time you see somebody claiming to know something about Tanakh or Mishnah or Talmud and it's not on a Chabad site, let me know. I mean, there's a sheet on the Sefaria site that burbles about something supposedly in Avot d'Rabbi Natan that isn't in there. Let me know, and I'll point you to data that proves you heard/read an urban legend.

In the meantime, here's the TOC for my Biblical Hebrew lessons, and here's the TOC for my urban legends page.

Knitting -- Argyle with small diamonds

The big annoyance with working Argyle is all those little bobbins you have to wind your yarn onto. They clatter, and you can't unwind too much yarn at once or they get tangled up, and you have to refill them every once in a while because you can't fit a whole skein of yarn onto one.

And when I wrote about Argyle before, I said you couldn't do it using Fair Isle floater control because it left dimples.

Well, that's true when you use big diamonds. But if you use little five-stitch diamonds, you can group them to look like big ones and do your lines at the same time as you knit the diamonds.

The problem here is that you are working with three colors most of the time. So the same thing applies as when you are doing Icelandic jumpers: you hold two yarns in one hand and the third in the other, and it's not easy to keep an even tension on the yarn. 

You also have to use bigger stitch counts because the fabric will have even less give than Fair Isle. 

You have to work loosely and slowly so that you remember to catch in your floaters. 

I finished the jumper and washed it, and it looked too narrow for me to get into. So I had an old kitchen chair with a back as broad as I am. I fitted the jumper over the back while it was still a little damp and left it there for several days. Not only did the dimples smooth out but when I took the jumper off, it stayed that width. 

Then the weather turned warm so I haven't tried it on yet.

I call this Girl's Best Friend (IYKYK) and with it I used up a mess of different blues that I bought when I was making my Myrdal jumper, along with a mess of neutrals. 

Knitting -- finagling a sleeve join

If my description reminds you of any pattern you've used, let me know. I was between a rock and a hard place and did this to try to eke out some yarn.

It's Jaggerspun yarn; the company went out of business in 2024. I was using a cone of Maine 3/8 to knit a jumper and I knitted a lace motif from the antique Williamson stole (Shetland Islands) into the body. To keep working in the round, I did steeking at the top.

Normally when you do steeking you pick up around it and knit from the top down, but I couldn't do the lace motif in the sleeves that way, I had to knit from the bottom up. To test whether I might have enough yarn for two full length sleeves, I knitted one of them close to the length I wanted, then cut the yarn. Then I knitted the other one. 

Now the problem was how to join them to the body around the steeking. I supposed faggoting would have worked and maybe I'll try that some other time. But this time here's what I did.

I had underarm stitches on holders.

I did not cut the yarn when I finished the second sleeve. I cut the steeking and pulled the yarn through the stitch at the bottom of it, then went around the whole steeking pulling yarn through each stitch, the way I normally do.

I turned the sleeve inside out and put it inside the body so the wrong sides were together. 

Then I knitted off all the stitches around the steeking with all the stitches around the sleeve, the way you knit off at the shoulders of the body of a jumper. 

At the underarms, I did Kitchener stitch to close them, and closed up a couple of stretched stitches.

I'm still working on the second sleeve hoping against hope that I have enough yarn, but this post is about the sleeve join, and here's how it looks.