Cold Sweet Potato-Ginger Soup

I like thick soup, even during the summer. But so many cold soups are more light and brothy, and I couldn't find any recipes for a cold soup with sweet potato. Mostly my searches turned up sweet potato soup to make when you have a cold.

So I took matters into my own hands, and put this soup together.

It is a simple recipe which has the thickness of a good hardy winter soup, but is great chilled, especially with a little cream over the top.

Ingredients

• 1 lb sweet potatoes
• 1 tbsp olive oil
• 1 in ginger, peeled and coarsely chopped
• 2 tbsp flour
• 2 tbsp butter
• 1 cup milk
• 1/2-1 tsp cumin
• 1/2 tsp salt
• 1 cup water
• 1-2 tbsp cream per serving (optional)

1. Preheat oven to 350. Cut sweet potatoes into roughly 1-in cubes. Place in bowl, add olive oil, shake to coat.
2. Spread potatoes on a baking sheet in a single layer. Bake until soft and slightly brown, stirring occasionally (approx. 30-40 min).
3. Make a white sauce. Melt butter in saucepan. Slowly add flour, stirring constantly, until it forms a paste.
4. Add milk, ginger, and cumin, still stirring occasionally to keep the sauce from sticking.
5. After 2-3 minutes, add the potatoes and 1/2 cup of water.
6. Use an immersion blender, or a food processor to get soup to desired consistency. You may need to add more water at this point. I left mine fairly thick, and I used about 1 cup of water. If you want a lighter soup, add more water.
7. There was still a bit of texture after I used the immersion blender on my soup, thanks to the potato peel and the ginger that didn't get chopped up all the way. I personally like that, but it is a matter of opinion.
8. Chill soup for at least two hours. Letting it sit overnight gives the flavours even more time to combine. (Yay for leftovers, right?).
9. Serve with cream drizzled over the top, if desired. I like the depth cream gives the soup, but it's up to you. 

I like bread with my soup, and I use this recipe a lot. It's about an hour from start to finish, which means that I don't have to plan that far ahead. To go with the soup, I added 1 tsp of fresh, finely chopped ginger, and 1 tsp of turmeric.

Pro...

Abortion.

Pro-life.

Pro-choice

Women’s rights.

This has been a controversial topic as long as I can remember. But lately, it has grown into one of the bigger hot-button topics of the day.

The topic of choice can be thrust into any area of life. My sister recently had a friend say to her that she can’t understand how people who are “pro-life” can have their cats spayed and neutered, since that is keeping babies from being born. That was a new argument that I wasn’t familiar with.

Pro-life proponents are often shown as old white men, who of course are not affected in any way by pro-life legislation. They are all ardent Trump supporters who think that a woman should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or she is missing the only calling that will give her life worth.

But that is not what all pro-lifers are.

I am pro-life.

I am a 29 year old woman. I am single, and I travel the world and like to have the freedom to do as I want.

No, I have not adopted a baby. That’s one of the arguments, where people say that pro-lifers are only pro-birth, and don’t want to help those lives once they are out there.

But I would love to adopt. I am not in a position that I can currently, but I hope to one day be able.

Because, you see, to really be pro-life, you can’t only say that abortion is bad and ignore the other stuff going on around you.

I know people who voted Trump mainly because of his anti-abortion stance. But, while I respect the fact that he thinks that abortion is bad, I do not believe that he is genuinely pro-life. His stance on the other lives throughout the world show that.

So, while I agreed with his stand on abortion, I felt that I was personally too pro-life to vote for him.

Pro-life to me includes the lives of immigrants, and people who are being attacked for their colour or religion. Pro-life means giving a child a chance for life even if the doctor says he or she will be badly disabled and termination is better.

I’ve talked to people who say that it is none of my, or anyone else’s business whether a woman aborts an unwanted child.

But if I was in a village in India, and saw a woman smothering her infant daughter directly after birth, because she doesn’t want to feed a daughter, and would rather try again for a son, those same people would say it is my duty to step in.

Those people would even advocate for education in poor villages, where they would teach the women to care for their daughters, and teach them that all babies are important. There’s a good chance that most of these people would even approve of punishment for the woman who would smother her daughter, or leave the tiny girl out in a field where she will quickly die of exposure.

How is it different? Yeah, it’s different in that the baby is not inside the woman’s body. But the baby needs its Mother. The woman can’t use her body in the way she desires (trying for a son so that she pleases her husband), because she has to care for this little person who is entirely helpless.

To be clear, I am not saying that we should allow women to murder unwanted infants. But if we wouldn’t allow it in the case of a poor woman who does not want a daughter, why would we allow it prior to birth.

A Mother and child are 2 separate bodies. As soon as a baby is conceived, it ceases to be a single body. Why else would the murder of a pregnant woman carry the weight of two murders? You can’t say that it is a person when it serves you in getting a stiffer prison sentence for a murderer, and not a person when it was an accident.

Back to the comment about pro-lifers spaying and neutering cats…that is a way to prevent births, which doesn’t take any life. We do not take pregnant cats in to be spayed, but instead wait until they give birth, then have all of them neutered. This is to prevent the cat population from reaching a point around here where they are fighting, and roaming all over, getting shot by farmers who don’t want them around.

I have no issue with people getting “neutered”. If you don’t want kids, make it so you can’t have kids. But once you’ve reached the point where there is another being in there, even if it is still just a “clump of cells” according to pro-choicers, that’s where you are screwing with someone else’s life.

If you sleep around, that’s also your choice. I don’t think that people should be banned from sleeping together outside of marriage. It’s probably smarter on a whole lot of levels, but again, this is your body. Two consenting adults…go ahead. But again, if that creates another life, it is no longer only you on this ride.

So be smart about the choices you make. If you’re not ready for a kid, don’t have sex. Yes, it sucks a lot more for women, as they’re the ones with the real responsibility when all is said and done. Though, I think men should be held to a lot more responsibility as well.

If you make a baby, no matter which part you donated, you have a responsibility to that baby. You either raise it, or you find it a new home. But abortion should not be an option. Ever. Choices have consequences. And a baby should not be the easiest consequence to get rid of.

Sorry if this was offensive. But I think it is important to show people who are pro-life, but aren’t old white men who are pro-Trump. I want to be honest here, and if that means occasionally stepping on toes, so be it.

I do not write to be deliberately offensive, and will reply to any questions for clarification on any of my points. I write to share my beliefs and views, and appreciate people who can have a sensible conversation with those who have differing thoughts on matters.

Thanks for your time, and have a lovely day.

Don't Ruin Beauty and the Beast

It feels like there are more and more subjects every day that people hesitate to broach. Could your topic be seen as even somewhat offensive to some group of people? Then don’t say anything.

It used to be politics and religion which were off-limits. And that was a thing when you were in a more formal setting, such as a first date, or going out with colleagues, who you weren’t really close to.

Now, it seems like you can’t say anything without offending someone.

I am not pro-hate speech. I don’t say things with the purpose of hurting other people. And I can’t stand people who do that. But a person should be able to say what they think without searching every word for hidden offenses.

For example, I read an article about the new Beauty and the Beast movie. It refers to the fact that Disney put in an “explicitly gay scene” between Gaston and Le Fou into the movie.

Which kind of upset me. And when I posted something negative about it, I knew that various friends would probably take it in a way that I didn’t mean it.

My more liberal friends, those who are pro-LGBTQ, or gay/bi themselves would see it as an attack. I look close-minded because I don’t want Disney adding gay scenes to their films.

My more conservative friends would see it as a “sister-in-arms” statement. It would look like a line in the sand.

But really, all that I meant by it was that I don’t want them messing with my favourite movie.

I was mad when I saw an early teaser trailer, and heard Ewan Mcgregor’s deplorable French accent (a Scottish actor as Lumière? Maybe not their best choice…).

I was even a little annoyed when I saw how they made Beast look.

Beauty and the Beast has been one of my favourite movies pretty much since it came out. Maybe my absolute favourite movie. And the older I get, the more I love it. I have the special edition of it, and I never watch it with the bonus songs, because the original is pretty well perfection.

My problem isn’t really the gay aspect of it. I couldn’t care less if they give Elsa a girlfriend in the new Frozen movie, because I thought Frozen was complete rubbish, and I don’t care to ever see the second one.

My problem is that they are taking Beauty and the Beast, and making it a vehicle for their agenda. They say that the gay scene is “really subtle and delicious”, but when they went on record to point it out, they changed the movie into something other than what it was.

There’s always been speculation that Le Fou is gay. In any story, when there’s a same-sex duo, and the one is more bold and manly, and the other is more delicate and feminine, there’s always speculation. It’s not really that much different than the automatic guessing to figure out which male/female couple is going to get together in a movie (thanks for that, Disney and Hallmark).

I am getting super tired of every area of entertainment being used for one agenda or another. Honestly, even if they used Beauty and the Beast as a platform to promote helping refugees, or rescuing abandoned puppies, I’d still be pissed.

Yes, we need to be aware of issues facing our world. Yes, we need to educate children about what is happening around them, and teach them to not be afraid of people who are different.

But don’t screw around with the classics.

If you want a gay Disney character, write a new story. Don’t take a movie that has been around for 25 years and make it into your gay love story.

And, something that just occurred to me…wouldn’t this be offensive to gay men? I mean, seriously, the first gay Disney character, and he’s one of the biggest idiots in Disney history? That’s empowering…Anyway…that’s off-topic.

My initial reaction to reading this article was that I’d not see the movie. But I probably will after all. I’ve been uneasy about seeing it since I first heard they were doing a live-action version.

Yes, my affection for this film may be slightly ridiculous. But remember, I saw it when it first came out. I still remember seeing it at the theatre. It was snowing when we walked outside after the movie. That was 25 years ago…I’m 29 now. It’s been a major part of my life, and when they take something like that, which means a lot to me, and they cheapen it by making it a “watershed moment” for the studio, it makes me mad.

Maybe I should go watch the original. That always makes me happy.

The Christmas Truce

You've probably heard the story of The Christmas Truce during WW1, but just in case, here it is. My notes on it underneath...

On December 7, 1914, Pope Benedict XV suggested a temporary hiatus of the war for the celebration of Christmas. The warring countries refused to create any official cease-fire, but on Christmas the soldiers in the trenches declared their own unofficial truce.

Starting on Christmas Eve, many German and British troops sang Christmas carols to each other across the lines, and at certain points the Allied soldiers even heard brass bands joining the Germans in their joyous singing.

At the first light of dawn on Christmas Day, some German soldiers emerged from their trenches and approached the Allied lines across no-man’s-land, calling out “Merry Christmas” in their enemies’ native tongues. At first, the Allied soldiers feared it was a trick, but seeing the Germans unarmed they climbed out of their trenches and shook hands with the enemy soldiers. The men exchanged presents of cigarettes and plum puddings and sang carols and songs. There was even a documented case of soldiers from opposing sides playing a good-natured game of soccer.

Some soldiers used this short-lived ceasefire for a more somber task: the retrieval of the bodies of fellow combatants who had fallen within the no-man’s land between the lines.

The so-called Christmas Truce of 1914 came only five months after the outbreak of war in Europe and was one of the last examples of the outdated notion of chivalry between enemies in warfare. It was never repeated—future attempts at holiday ceasefires were quashed by officers’ threats of disciplinary action—but it served as heartening proof, however brief, that beneath the brutal clash of weapons, the soldiers’ essential humanity endured.

During World War I, the soldiers on the Western Front did not expect to celebrate on the battlefield, but even a world war could not destroy the Christmas spirit.

This story pisses me off. It was on the radio a couple of days ago, and for the first time, I realized just how much I hate it. It's supposed to be such a touching story of how humanity comes through, despite war.

But then you get to the end of the story. And they all go back to normal. Do you know what normal was?

Normal was sitting in the trenches, getting frostbite and pneumonia. Normal was being terrified every moment that a shell would land in the trench and blow them to kingdom come. Normal was killing the guys they'd just played soccer with, and exchanged presents with.

And why? Because the two governments them you to.

Yes, this story does show how kindness and humanity survives despite everything.

But so does killing. And following orders even if they don't make sense.

What would have happened if both armies up and refused to fight? What if people all over the world stopped killing people for no other reason than that their government told them to do it? It isn't about rebelling against the government. It's about doing right no matter what you're told to do.

It says toward the end of the article that future attempts at holiday ceasefires were "quashed by officers' threats of disciplinary action". Why? I'm sure it was great for morale. This article says that soldiers continued to try to interact with soldiers on the other side throughout the whole war. They didn't want it to be only a one-time thing. Did those in authority worry that the soldiers would suddenly realize that the other side was not really that different, and that Germans weren't the monsters that the Allied governments wanted everyone to believe (and I'm sure vice versa...)?

It's sad how willing we are to do what we know is wrong simply because a few people say it's what needs to be done.

Say It, Do It, Live It

It may not seem like it, but I love you.

Well...not you specifically...

Well...depends on who you are...

Well...may just depend on the day...

This really has nothing to do with anything that I'm writing...but anytime I
say, "well..." multiple times, this is what I think of :~) 

That wasn't so much a statement directed toward you (whoever may be reading this), but more a statement to induce thought. 

Is saying the phrase 'I love you' really enough? Can you act in any way that you want, as long as you are sure to say that you love often enough to the people around you?

It's been a topic I've been thinking on recently...

Most of you know about the situation with my brother. I'm not going to go into detail about it, because that's not what this is about. But it is what triggered this line of thinking. 

I just saw him a short time ago, because I was at my Grandparents' house when he came over to check their furnace. Before that, I last saw him at last year's Autumn on Parade (if you don't know AoP, your life is tragic...). So, basically, AoP weekend is now the time that I see my brother. Hmmm...Not sure how I feel about that. 

Moving on...I wasn't really going to talk to him. I mean, the last time that I saw him, I sort of insisted that he talk to me. It was an ok conversation, I suppose, but sort of pointless. It really made no difference. I mean, I offered him my phone #, and he took it, but I'm pretty sure that it was more so that he would know to not answer if I found his number and called him. 

So I carried on conversation with Grama and Grampa. I had Leaf with me, and was also a little distracted by her (she thought he was a demon monster, and was a bit freaked out). Life went on as it usually does when I'm over there. 

He was leaving, said his goodbyes to my Grandparents (I'd still not said much by this point), and just before he walked out the door, he said, "I know it may not seem like it, but I love you."

Now...my initial reaction was to say something that was not very nice. But I'd promised G&G that if I was at their house and Steve showed up, I would behave myself. And I did. I was actually pretty pleased with how well I behaved myself. I do think I snorted a little, but then I said something along the lines of "Well, if that's true, you could give me a phone call sometime. You have my number, I don't have yours, ball is in your court." And he actually said that, yes, he still has my number, and made noises that sounded like he was going to call.

Hasn't happened. Don't expect it to. He's risking a fist in the nose if he tells me again that he loves me. I mean, it's one thing to say that you love someone even when you don't often talk to them. I have people that I love a lot that I seldom talk to in any way. But the thing is, if I need them, I know that they are there. And vice versa. If something big happened, I definitely wouldn't let Steve know. I'd let people I care about on the other side of the world know long before that.

If you threaten the people you "love" with restraining orders just for attempting to talk to you, then it isn't love. If you don't let your parents see their grandchildren...not love. If you refuse to even attempt family counseling and just keep saying that there are issues with the family that need to be resolved, and you love them, but you won't even consider working on the issues, then it isn't love.

Family members move geographically apart. My sister lives in Salt Lake City, and she calls Mom all the time (usually during the one tv show that Mom wants to pay attention to, but that's that...). No, she isn't close enough to pop in for a visit whenever, but when she says "I love you", she doesn't have to preface it, and she means what she says.

Actions speak louder than words. "I love you" means nothing if you don't back it up somehow. Don't throw those words around unless you mean it, and unless you're prepared to stand behind them.

Sorry if this is offensive, but it encompasses my feeling so well...

The Rights of Cattle

Started writing this a while ago, then things settled down a little on this issue. But...they're flaring up again, and I put time into writing it, so here you have it.

This whole Colin Kaepernick thing is bogus. Just one more thing for people to hate each other over (and yes, I realize that this is a theme of my blogs lately...it's all you see anymore is people hating each other, so it's on my mind). So at the risk of being hated, I'm going to address it. Because I don't care how people feel about me. The important people love me either way, and if you don't like me, that's ok :~)

1. Rights
In this whole thing, the complaint has been the "disrespect" Colin has been showing toward the men and women who fought for and died for his right to do what he feels is the right thing.
Well guess what...they fought for that right. As such, he has the right to not stand for the anthem. You can't pick and choose what rights you're fighting for. You can't say, "Well...I believe that we should have the right to carry guns around, but I don't believe that a man has the right to marry another man, so gay marriage is disrespecting me." Those who fight for the rights that we have fight for all of them, whether they like that or not.

2. What's wrong with the country...?
This was the comment on a picture saying that the people who approved of Kaepernick's stance (or lack of standing) are what's wrong with the country (spelling and punctuation have been left as they were when it was posted...):
"Amen brother! Id like to see him not stand up if he was in a room full of Marines!!!!! Good old fashioned high school locker room beat down would cure this punk! And also dont buy anything from company's that sponsor him!!!! just my two cents!!!!"
If marines are going to "beat down" this punk for doing what he believes in, then they are themselves taking away those rights that they've supposedly been fighting for. You don't fight for someone's rights, and then not let them use them while yapping about how you've provided those rights that you won't let them use. Those aren't rights and freedoms. Those are the signs of a dictatorship.

3. Law?
According to Title 36 (section 171) of the United States Code, “During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in (military) uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.”
How many people actually follow these exactly? Not very many. If we're going to whine about one person not standing, you should be equally offended by anyone who does not have their hand over their heart, or their hat held just right. Doesn't work so well to take one small part of the code and act like it is the only one that matters. If it matters, all of it has to be followed. If the other things aren't required, then sitting down should be allowed.
Different people show respect differently. Personally, I would prefer someone sit during the anthem to all of the people who hoot and holler during said song. Sitting affects me not at all. Yelling and drowning out the song makes it so that I cannot hear the anthem, and is incredibly distracting. But heck, if they want to yell and act disrespectful, that's their dang right.

4. Moooo...
How many people that you know actually stand, put their hand over their heart, remove their hat, etc, etc, because they feel so passionate about the flag/anthem/country? I would bet that if you are at a sporting event or whatever, and the announcer comes on and says, "Please stand and remove all hats for the national anthem of the United States of America", a large percentage of the people around you are standing simply because it's the thing to do. It's a herd mentality. We do what everyone else is doing, because it's what we're supposed to do. You won't get in trouble if you go along with what all of the others cows are doing. So we accept that we have to stand at this time or that, and sing/say the right things. We submit to having our bags and ourselves searched, and having guns banned in places where they should be legal, because that's what we've been told to do, so it's what we have to do. But most cows wind up in the same place in the end anyway.

I'll end with this quote. I came across it today, and thought it was a good one. And pretty darn accurate.
"If free people have fainting spells every time off-putting rhetoric wafts into their ears, soon enough organizations that work to stifle speech will be dictating what acceptable discourse looks like."

Wait...What Lives Matter?

What camp are you in?
Black lives matter?
Blue lives matter?
Furry lives matter?
Unborn lives matter?
Orc lives matter? (I'm sure it's a thing...)
There was a "Veg Fest" at the SLC library, and I went to it, thinking it sounded interesting. It said that it was "family friendly", so I figured they wouldn't be showing pictures of animals being killed or whatever. Not things that I want to see, and I hate the fact that people think that if you don't eat meat, or you like to rescue animals, that you want to see photos and videos of animals being abused and killed.
I was looking at the t-shirts for sale when I realized that, for all their talk about how life matters, lots of vegans don't actually care that much about life. Only the lives that they deem important enough. A lot of their shirts and whatnot refer to the lives of animals being more important than the lives of humans.

Now, I am very much into the idea of animals being treated better than they are currently. Small farms and the like are supposed to be the humane way to raise animals for meat, but I have seen plenty of people who are just nasty to meat animals because they don't want to admit that the animals are intelligent, sentient beings. Not even necessarily abuse or neglect, but things like pulling the ears of a pig until it squeals so that they can laugh about the stupid reaction of the pig. Which really only shows their own stupidity and inhumanity.
But how can you claim that we need to respect the lives of all of the creatures with whom we share the earth, but then cheer the death of those that disagree with you?
People claim that black lives matter, so cops should be killed.
Animals matter, so hunters and farmers should be killed.
Baby lives matter, so abortion doctors should die.
Now, I'll be honest. This is something that is a big struggle for me. I read about people abusing animals, and I wish they would die. I worked with girls who had been trafficked, and heard the stories about pimps and johns beating and raping them, and I wanted them to die. I found traps in the creek, and had visions of the trappers getting caught in their traps and dying like they intended the animals to die.
It is something that I struggle with, but it also makes me feel like a total hypocrite. Because I know that I can't choose who is worthy of living, and who is not. Each person or creature who is alive has been given life for a reason. I may not understand the reason, but that doesn't mean that they deserve to die.

The "(Insert favourite colour here) lives matter" thing pretty much does nothing but divide us further. Most of the issues that this world has right now stem from too much division. Race, religion, sexual preference, politics. Why can't we understand that we have a lot in common if we simply focus on finding those things instead of looking only at the differences?
I'm a straight white female. I'm a Christian, though I don't really identify with any specific denomination. I'm vegetarian, and have been since I was in my teens or so, though most people don't know that because I don't make a huge deal of it. I don't believe in pre-marital sex. I'm probably closest to Libertarian if I have to choose a political view. I'm too conservative for a lot of people, and too liberal for most of the rest. I love to travel, I'm wildly introverted. I prefer sitting in bed, watching a movie or reading a book while snuggling with my cats to going out and partying (though I do like hanging out with people under the right circumstances.

Most of the people that I met while traveling in Europe this spring were atheist or agnostic. Some were bi or gay, some were into sleeping around. Our political views were quite different, and our backgrounds and reasons for traveling were nothing alike. But I really enjoyed talking to a lot of them despite all of the differences. We found the things that we did have in common. We talked about books and movies. We talked about the places we've traveled. With one girl, I watched kittens from the balcony of the hostel. With all of these people, we talked about the things we had in common, then we talked about the things we didn't agree on. And we didn't argue. We discussed. We each explained our views, and we talked about both sides. Opinions may have been changed in some conversations, and stayed the same in others.
Respect is something that has been lost in the world. Respect of other people's views, and their right to life. We have these checklists of what we stand for, and if someone else doesn't stand for at least a certain percentage of those things, then we have no interest in them.
There will be plenty of people that you simply do not get along with for whatever reason. Sometimes you can agree on everything and your personalities simply clash. But whether you get along with them or not, you can treat them like humans, be respectful, and basically just be kind. I gripe about people, but even I can see that things would be so much nicer if we were all just a little bit kinder.