therdogg

The veg burrito has black beans, the cilantro-lime rice, peppers, onions, guacamole (which the meat burritos don't come with) and cheese/sour cream (uh... I actually like BOTH) and salsa. I like it. No soy products, the "fajita" part as Chipotle uses it just refers to the grilled green bell pepper/ red onion mix.

Chipotle- the only chain fast food I eat. Yum... I actually really like the vegetarian fajita burritos even though I'm not a vegetarian. As for the salsa, the hot is REALLY hot but I love the flavor. But a whole serving is too much- so I always ordered the medium (corn) salsa and had them add a tiny drizzle of the hot down the middle. Alas, I've since moved to a Chipotle-free locale- but for 5 bucks it's one of the best-quality meals you can get on the run.

I think this is a heavy duty value judgement. In our home the TV is in view in the dining area, and is usually on. We often watch while we eat, and talk, and it does not deprive us of anything (it's an addition, not a deprivation) or draw us into noncommunal experience. We still connect. We still talk about things not related to the TV, or talk about what's on TV, or laugh at what's on TV. Usually it's Fox news or Jeopardy or a sports event when we're eating.It seems fashionable to brag about not liking TV. If you don't like TV, that's fine. There is more bad TV than good TV, but still I get the feeling that some people get kicks from claiming they never watch it. Oh no, not a value-judgment! Anything but that! Yes, I suppose I do actually believe that it is objectively a nicer, more social, and refined experience to have the TV off. I don't think I'm alone; look at the difference between dining establishments that have TVs and those that don't. I don't utterly dislike TV, and I don't get "kicks" out of claiming I never watch- but I do think that having it off during dinner is nicer. If you said that you never eat crappy TV dinners because you think homemade is better, and everyone jumped all over your back because you get "kicks" out of not consuming processed crud and are gastronomically holier than thou, you'd be pretty annoyed, esp on a food board. Similarly, I really believe that there is some objectivity to the TV/no TV during family dinner issue, and I think many people (NOT saying this to your fam, just in general) don't even know how to carry on pleasant dinner conversation in its absence. For many families, dinner is the only time they spend together (and many families don't even make it that far, instead eating separately in between activities, sports etc). I'm delighted that your family dines together and enjoys the time together, but the question begs to be asked: if TV is an addition, not a deprivation, shouldn't high-end restaurants start installing them?

Not as precocious as you think. Our weekday meals are short, and when we finish if the littles start to fidget we say, "when we want to get down, we ask: 'may I please be excused?' " They may or may not approximate this request. If you look, I said that we remind them to ask; doesn't mean they always (or ever, for the 1yo) do! But I hope that the routine will become ingrained and that they will do it on their own soon- if you observe you'll notice lots of parents reminding their preverbal children to say please and thank-you even though they rarely comply. Nothin' wrong with music- we just don't do it. Although I actually detest loud music with meals and I'm not that excited about music with words because it gets in the way of conversation. It's not something I'm against, just not something we do. Nice soft music in the background might be nice, and it might even cover up the sound of the 1yo blowing raspberries!

My husband, my two small children and I eat at our dining table each night. We start our meal in silence and say grace together aloud, then dim the lights and light candles. We really like the candle thing- it makes our dinners seem special. We also use cloth napkins and try to use a tablecloth on weekends. No TV (although we don't own one) and no music. The kids stay seated until the adults are finished and then we remind them that they must ask to be excused. Our children are ages one and two years old. As far as there being no "right" or "wrong" I respectfully disagree. The communal meal is an institution as old as humanity and I believe that there are ways that are better and worse to partake. I think TV draws those eating into separate, not communal experiences. When I think of the importance of holy communion to Christians, or of the Sabbath meal to Jews (I'm sure there are lots of similar examples from other traditions) I am reminded of how very central eating and its company and traditions are to our spirits. TV deprives those eating of the psychological, social, and spiritual benefits derived from a meal eaten together.

capers, butter, lemons, half-and-half, whole wheat pasta, millet, lentils, cake flour. Frozen blueberries and raspberries. we always run out of jam, meat, and cheese (except parm) I'm like a maniac with the butter. Whenever it's on sale I buy tons since I'm paranoid I'll run out. I have loads in the freezer but I still keep my eyes peeled for a good price. I'll probably never use up what I have, and have to toss it all when we move.

Pumpkin chili with anchos, chicken and navy beans. At least I _thought_ I had invented pumpkin chili, naive girl that I was. Since then I have seen other chilis that also contain pumpkin, as well as risottos and soups etc etc ad nauseum. This also came to me in a dream, but I guess my dreams aren't as creative as I'd like. The other non-invention was that years ago I thought that I should patent an industrial process to season cast-iron skillets so that customers could buy them pre-seasoned. Well, wouldn't you know dh comes home last weekend from shopping and says that he saw a Lodge skillet that was advertised as pre-seasoned with a tag on it saying "We should have thought of this 100 years ago!" I felt as if my one shot at millions was washed away! *sigh*

see www.freshwasabi.com for lots more info, and you can order from them as well. A few years back I read an article (can't remember where- National Geographic, perhaps?) about this farm- apparently, growing wasabi is so difficult that they had spies trying to discover their tricks! No joke, they reported low-flying planes sweeping over their crop and New Zeeland's Minister of Agriculture (I think) trying to scale their fence. Pretty crazy stuff.

Instead of tearing lasagne noodles, just make a lasagne with bechamel sauce, which by the time you've made the bolognese and are preparing to tear sheets of lasagne is hardly much more work but is delish, especially if you're serving someone who's only had the american marinara-too-much-cheese-n-sausage version. Making your own pasta is necessary for delicate flavor.

No veal? I sometimes make an all-beef Bolognese and then I use red wine, otherwise white. I like the onions, celery and carrots really fine- I'll use the processor or my ulu to get them minced, but I've seen other sauces where they are just in small chunks. Definitely milk and butter. Ditto the bay leaf.

Oops, one more thing As for smoking, a risk-benefit assessment may determine that a smoking mother should breastfeed. The baby is inhaling second-hand smoke (very bad) either way, and breastmilk, even with some contaminants from cigarettes (which are nearly insignificant compared with what the babe is inhaling in his home anyway) is still more beneficial than formula-- with maternal smoking, incidence of respiratory illness is 7 times higher for formula fed babies than for breastfed babies (lalecheleague.org) The COD once felt that smoking was a contraindication for breastfeeding, but because of evidence that it is better for smokers to breastfeed than formula feed they eliminated it from their list of contraindications. Evidence shows that breastfeeding may mitigate the effects that passive smoking has on the baby. Of course, the best course would be to quit smoking, but it's important for smoking mothers to realize that formula may very well be riskier than contaminated breastmilk.

I would call that an educational barrier- because if breastfeeding is more painful, tedious, or time-consuming than formula something is wrong and a lactation consultant or local La Leche Leauge leader could be helpful. It's funny, because in the 1950-1970s, _only_ poor women breastfed in this country (largely) and now it's often seen as a "rich" thing. The "exhausting" part I would call a cultural barrier. For you they were obviously not insurmountable since you continued for 18 months, for which you are to be commended. As for stressors like poverty, breastfeeding also gives you very stong hormonal surges in prolactin and oxytocin (same hormone as during orgasms) which make you feel loving and nurturing toward your baby. Breastfeeding greatly lowers a child's risk for being abused and the American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledges in their statement on breastfeeding that nursing moms are much, much more likely to feel competent as mothers and noted that the psychological benefits to mothers were considerable. So if you look at it in a different light, nursing could actually _lower_ your stress. I understand that not everyone has the desire or ability to breastfeed, and this thread does not need to turn into a debate. I just feel that I have to correct misinformation about breastfeeding since I feel so strongly about it.

WIC supplies breastpumps (since we're talking about low-income mothers here). Also, even for higher income mothers breastpump rental/purchase is cheaper than formula. You can both smoke and drink while breastfeeding. It may not be ideal, but the medical community seems to agree that the risks of breastmilk from a mother who smokes or drinks are less than the risks from formula. The amount of alcohol transferred to breastmilk is very small (even after you adjust for the baby's body weight), and basically nil if you wait a couple hours after having a drink. I am not aware of any suggestions that one shouldn't smoke while breastfeeding. Most workplaces don't permit drinking anyway. Also, unless your baby has very serious health issues you don't need to sterilize the containers you store milk in. And if your baby DOES have very serious health issues, all the more reason to breastfeed, plus you'd have to be sterilizing bottles anyway. Breastmilk itself is not sterile. Also, most manufacturers of high-quality pumps want you to boil the parts the first time you use them (who knows what happened in the factory), but then warn that repeated boiling will cause damage. Even for newborns who are fed formula very few pediatricians think sterilizing is necessary. Gone is the 1950's era housewife, boiling everything in sight, thank goodness. If one can't afford storage bags, clean glass containers with screw-on tops (like the kind mayonaisse or Snapple comes in) work very well. Breastmilk can safely be left at room temperature for at least ten hours, and can be refrigerated for up to eight days. It is better to give babies breastmilk that has never been frozen, anyway (enzymes, white cells, antibodies, and neural hormones are destroyed during freezing). Yes, it _is_ a tough issue, but I think the primary barriers for most women are cultural/educational rather that financial/logistical.

Heather- you're dead-on about low-income mothers. Some states are working to change that. Illinois, for example, passed a law stating that employers must give their employees adequate breaks for pumping and must provide a sanitary place to do so other than a restroom (gross). One of the mothers who employed me as a nanny breastfed her child for over three years- she had a very intense, prominent, fast-paced career and managed to pump in the strangest places. FistFullaRoux, her child could ask for it but she was decidedely NOT a Jerry Springer type. You need to educate yourself- the world average for breastfeeding is about four years, the World Health Organization recommends a MINIMUM of two years, and some have inferred that three was the preferred age for weaning at the time of Christ. It's certainly not a new thing.

Of course nursing isn't an absolute preventive- just like thin people who exercise can have diabetes. Still, it would be irresponsible for doctors to ignore the possible effects of obesity and refrain from warning their patients about the risks to their health that being overweight carries. Many pediatricians, however, do not warn mothers who use artificial baby milk about the risks that they are taking on. And the risks are dramatic (lower IQ, higher incidence of childhood cancer, waaaay more ear infections, allergies, asthma, diabetes, obesity, Chron's disease, infections, malnutrition, failure to thrive, sudden infant death syndrome, etc, etc, you get the idea). Hee hee, when my house is messy I just tell myself it's part of my allergy prevention program-- we're trying to approximate a pig sty as much as possible

Yes- they know that kids raised on farms or with pets have fewer allergies, in part because of exposure to dander etc. Being raised in too "sterile" an environment may cause your immune system (which isn't busy fighting off the badies of childhood that existed pre-vaccinations) to go into overdrive, treating innocuous substances as intruders. Also, the best thing a mother can do toward allergy prevention is exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life (no solids/formula) and continuing nursing through the first birthday. This strategy cannot be overemphasized since allergies are dramatically less prevalent (as well as other illnesses) in bf babies, and in babies who don't have solids too early.

Oh, gee- you don't have to be a vegetarian- I certainly wasn't trying to convert anyone! Just pointing out that it is possible to eat well for less money- not that anyone here in particular needs or ought to. Spend your money the way you wish; I am a spendthrift myself when it comes to beautiful wooden toys. But it's wrong and silly to think that a $300-400 budget means only rice and beans. We're not vegetarians either- but meat every single night is expensive- we choose a largely vegetarian diet mostly because we like it better. Either way, I think boneless skinless breasts don't taste as good as skin-on, bone-in, but I guess that's just my personal preference.

I guess my point was that $300-400 per month is not just barely scraping by, but that you can eat very WELL at such a price. Sure, it might involve shopping with a natural foods co-op and buying in bulk. And you might make what is in season and on sale instead of what sounds the best based on a whim. Our family eats better than most. I think that our varied, largely vegetarian diet is the envy of our friends and family. I don't understand these cries of "we wouldn't be happy" if your food budget was cut in half. I understand all about sacrificing so your children can have the extras. Some sacrifice by having a high-powered career so their children can have the extras of lessons, new toys etc. I sacrifice by not earning money and being a stay-at-home mom. We drive one car, do not have a TV (!), buy our clothes second hand. I feel that we are quite affluent and are lucky that our children receive high quality care. As a former nanny to the rich, I can say with confidence that our children are getting the best care money can buy (although paying myself is starting to get old.... ) Maybe we need a foodblog of a scrimper who cooks well so you can all see that cooking on a budget doesn't have to feel miserly. Some typical dinners: curried veggies over peanut-millet roast squash pupusas with black beans sweet potato-parsnip latkes refried bean tacos with pineapple upside-down cake for dessert beef enchiladas with ancho mole sauce lentil soup with homemade bread crepes with creamed vegetables vegetarian spring rolls shepherd's pie with salad felafel with whole-wheat pita and baba ghanoush on the side (i can never spell that) all-beef bolognese over pasta, or better yet- mixed with pasta and then baked with a layer of bechamel on top- wonderful creamy casserole kids love! garlicky fried polenta served on a bed of kale potato bar- baked potatoes with toppings (VERY economical, and popular with kiddos) homemade pizza spaghetti squash with tomato sauce and fried capers mussels when they're on sale Nothing above is fancy, but it's from-scratch and kid-friendly. Ground beef for 3.49! Yikes! If you live in a metropolitan area, why aren't you shopping at ethnic markets? Cheap and better. I love Wholier-than-thou Foods, but sheesh! when I shopped there it was very expensive! BTW, I'm all for supporting local growers, high-quality artisanal products, union grocery stores etc etc. It's one thing to say that since you value high quality and exotic food you're okay with blowing $50 on black truffles even though it means you don't have savings in the bank. As long as you're not in debt, spending your money and prioritizing food as your top expense is your perogative. I don't understand, however, spending twice what you need to just to shop at a grocery store with "ambiance." (I'm not saying anyone here does that, but I know many who do)

Okay- this is sticking my neck out here, but 800-1000 bucks on groceries for a family of four is way over the top, IMHO. I mean, if you're that affluent and you enjoy eating premium foods that's fine, but recognize that that is not a reasonable budget for most households. For many households it might represent 40% or more of the family income. I am on several email lists for women with large families (not because I have one yet, but because I want one) and they generally spend 400-600 to feed their families (between 8-14 people). They cook from scratch or buy from co-ops. I thought we had a runaway grocery budget because I sometimes spend $400 per month on just the four of us. I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou: spend it if you've got it. But most of us don't and we still manage to eat well. Our family enjoys grain or bean-centered breakfasts. Some examples are millet with milk and honey, oatmeal, brown rice cooked in milk with brown sugar. I also like black beans for breakfast with red wine vinegar. Sometimes fried eggs over slices of polenta. Homemade scones or muffins appear regularly. Lunch might be homemade soup or a wholegrain pasta dish with vegetable. Maybe a pie or fritatta made from last night's leftovers. Lunchmeat is very expensive and I'd rather forego it altogether than eat inferior brands with fillers (we like Boar's Head) so we don't really eat it. Dinner varies but we rarely buy meat other than ground chuck or chicken thighs (I also like duck and sometimes lamb shank stew). Since I've been pregnant and/ or nursing since my honeymoon, we only buy wine for cooking. When we really stick to the above, our family of four could eat very nutritiously for under $200 per month. We rarely stick to it because we can afford and enjoy extras. I think of things like ice cream, jam, orange juice, out-of-season fruit other than bananas, and bacon as "extras." Also, we very frequently entertain and have others for dinner. And things still go moldy in our fridge and we toss out wasted food.

Once I made hot chocolate for my then future SIL. It was topped with a huge mound of whipped cream, and she said it tasted great and wanted to know what kind it was. I told her that I made it. In utter disbelief, she said "You can MAKE whipped cream??! How do you do that?" It took all my strength to remain composed and say in even tones: "well, you just whip some cream." (duh!)

Flossie- Yes, baking Christmas cookies is traditional. Many give them away as presents, packaged in tins, and of course we always leave out a plate on Christmas Eve for Santa and his reindeer. For many families cookies are the requisite (and only) Christmas dessert. Christmas cake is rare here (at least _good_ fruitcake is rare- it mostly serves as the topic of jokes). For many, Christmas would feel lonely and bare without at least butter cookies, although probably the most traditionally "Christmas" cookie is gingerbread men (it's not often made outside of Christmas). My mother would typically take several days off work to go into her Christmas cookie baking frenzy. It was the only time of year she would ever bake. I don't think she was that unusual- there are probably as many "Christmas bakers" as there are "Christmas Christians" (folks who go to church once per year- Dec 25). LOL

A household of two which meets eligibility requirements could receive up to $259 per month in assistance. Amy Dacyczyn, in her Tightwad Gazette, writes about how she feeds her family of eight on $180 per month. I've had friends who have purchased food for others with their leftover money because they never spent their allotment. I'm not saying it is easy to make it, but that the problems are often more those of not being able to prepare cheap foods or being unwilling to eat nourishing whole foods (a huge array of socioeconomic issues plays into this) than in it truly being an impossibility. I have lived in a homeless shelter alongside a couple who literally spent what would have been a month's rent on fast food each month- this while living in a shelter that provided wholesome meals. Because they turned their noses up at salads, beans, egg dishes, whole-grain pasta etc they remained in a shelter while spending their own money (which they could have saved to get out of said shelter, which btw was a dungpit) on McDs. Part of the cycle of poverty is consumer culture that often, ironically enough, victimizes the poor the most. Another woman I met would spend $80 on Tommy Hilfiger jeans for her teenage daughter- again, while living in a shelter. I'm not saying that these people didn't have it tough, because they did in so many ways, and yes- it's hard not to be able to buy a latte when you feel like it. But, uh, should the federal government really be subsidizing your morning Starbucks?

Cheesecake preferences are personal- I am in the water bath camp, prefering a creamy cheesecake custard with no crust. For reasons I don't quite understand, some actually prefer the dense consistency, sunken middle and noticeably brown crust of a cheesecake exposed to direct oven heat. Go figure.

Stuffed mushrooms (not sure how they'd work if frozen, but my hunch is they'd be okay...) Didi Emmons, in her book Vegetarian Planet, has a very easy recipe for wasabi-flavored asparagus tempura (wasabi powder in the batter). You can't freeze it, but it's easy to do that day and is a delicious dish with unusual flavors. This summer sometime, Cook's Illustrated had some good ideas for bruschetta, like a cannellini bean puree with caramelized red onions and arugula (maybe I'm combining two different recipes here...) They looked easy enough, and everyone likes bruschetta. And hey, it's not very sophisticated, but potato chips and onion dip always goes over well...

Nutritionally, frozen can definitely be as good as fresh; and out of season I think it can often taste better too. Strawberries or raspberries, flash-frozen in season, will taste better in baked desserts than the South American "fresh" varieties we get in out supermarkets in November. Depending on where you're from, there might not be a whole lot of fresh veggies in winter other than, say, kale. Since I'm not willing to limit our produce to hearty winter greens and root vegetables (although I'm filled with admiration for those in chilly climes who still eat locally and only in season) I opt for frozen over the less appetizing "fresh" stuff.