Sometimes, you don't have 5hrs to bake and cool a pie. So what to do? Well, you make some fresh blueberry jam, toss in a partly-baked crust, and then make a little sour cream topping and toss it in the freezer to quickly chill it, and then the fridge to cool it long enough for the whipped cream to set.
Ingredients:
1 whole wheat crust
"jam"
1.5lb blueberries
2T lemon juice
1/3 cup sugar mixed with
2T cornstarch
topping:
8oz cream cheese
1/2 cup confectioners sugar
1/2 cup sour cream
3 T granulated sugar
1/4lb blueberries
Preheat oven to 375F. Roll out the crust into a 13" circle and gently place into a 9 1/2" deep dish pan. Line the crust with foil, fill with pinto beans and place in the oven for 10min.
Toss the berries and lemon juice in a non-reactive saucepan. Heat over medium heat until the berries begin to simmer in their own juice. Bring to a boil stirring continuously, then stir in the sugar/cornstarch. Cook, stirring some more, for about 2min, and scrape into the baked crust.
Place the crust into the fridge while you make the topping. Whip the confectioners sugar and cream cheese together until smooth. Stir in the remaining sugar, sour cream and blue berries.
Cover the cooling "jam" with the topping and place in the freezer for 15min. Move into the refrigerator and let sit as long as you can stand, at least 45min, preferably 1-2hrs.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Summer fruit season and prosperity
We're in the thick of summer fruit season, so there's plenty of baking going on, but the last few have been straight out of Ken's awesome book. There's not much pressure to come up with innovative recipes when so many delicious ones are right there.
As such, it's an interesting time to contemplate the financial crisis. The most recent Planet Money podcast featured a panel discussion of "financial innovation", and whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing. The most obvious answer is "it depends," although I generally agree the last twenty five years, generally the age of massive consumer credit, have been a net negative. Most interestingly, one of the members pointed out that just as there was a need for serious innovation, namely, as the predicted subprime collapse, there hasn't been any innovative way to turn things around. In fact, the rate of introduction of new products has slowed considerably (I think, but can't find a source).
Instead, we've got a lot of talk about new regulations. Just as in the 1930's, when the opportunities for financial innovations slacked off, the opportunities for government innovations rose. This actually teaches an important lesson about innovation: it follows opportunity, not need.
My most creative baking comes not when I am lacking time and resources, but when I have plenty of the first and interesting ingredients. This is why I post more recipes over the winter and early spring, during the sailing off-season, and when the normal fruits are supplanted by ones that I hadn't thought to use before. Financial innovation, and its attendant systemic risk, always has and always will follow the same pattern. Macro economists believe that good monetary policy can lessen the impact of this, and perhaps they are right, but central bankers are human, and no human is truly independent political pressure. Supply-siders will claim that regulation is itself the problem, ignoring the history of financial bubble bursts going back to the early days of modern banking. Keynesians and those farther left believe that if only regulation were done correctly, by the correct people, disaster could never happen. All ignore the fact that people are fallible, often greedy, and only work to the best of their ability when there is a clear reward, be it a massive bonus, the satisfaction of a job well done, or a delicious pie.
So, financial disasters happen because any system that provides prosperity for a lot of people relies on assumptions that are not always true. The same can be said of transportation, electrical grids, and fruit farms. Policy prescriptions that include naming a "systemic risk regulator" or otherwise trying to prevent disaster provide a false sense of security that encourages people to buy into systems whose risks they do not understand in the hope that some powerful, disinterested party is watching out for them. That party will never, can never, be as powerful and disinterested as the legislation demands, cf. Madoff and the SEC. Instead, let's try not to forget that to everything there is a season, and as individuals, companies and governments separately prepare for both a large harvest and a long drought.
Yes, this is much easier said than done. But at least I think it's saying the right thing.
As such, it's an interesting time to contemplate the financial crisis. The most recent Planet Money podcast featured a panel discussion of "financial innovation", and whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing. The most obvious answer is "it depends," although I generally agree the last twenty five years, generally the age of massive consumer credit, have been a net negative. Most interestingly, one of the members pointed out that just as there was a need for serious innovation, namely, as the predicted subprime collapse, there hasn't been any innovative way to turn things around. In fact, the rate of introduction of new products has slowed considerably (I think, but can't find a source).
Instead, we've got a lot of talk about new regulations. Just as in the 1930's, when the opportunities for financial innovations slacked off, the opportunities for government innovations rose. This actually teaches an important lesson about innovation: it follows opportunity, not need.
My most creative baking comes not when I am lacking time and resources, but when I have plenty of the first and interesting ingredients. This is why I post more recipes over the winter and early spring, during the sailing off-season, and when the normal fruits are supplanted by ones that I hadn't thought to use before. Financial innovation, and its attendant systemic risk, always has and always will follow the same pattern. Macro economists believe that good monetary policy can lessen the impact of this, and perhaps they are right, but central bankers are human, and no human is truly independent political pressure. Supply-siders will claim that regulation is itself the problem, ignoring the history of financial bubble bursts going back to the early days of modern banking. Keynesians and those farther left believe that if only regulation were done correctly, by the correct people, disaster could never happen. All ignore the fact that people are fallible, often greedy, and only work to the best of their ability when there is a clear reward, be it a massive bonus, the satisfaction of a job well done, or a delicious pie.
So, financial disasters happen because any system that provides prosperity for a lot of people relies on assumptions that are not always true. The same can be said of transportation, electrical grids, and fruit farms. Policy prescriptions that include naming a "systemic risk regulator" or otherwise trying to prevent disaster provide a false sense of security that encourages people to buy into systems whose risks they do not understand in the hope that some powerful, disinterested party is watching out for them. That party will never, can never, be as powerful and disinterested as the legislation demands, cf. Madoff and the SEC. Instead, let's try not to forget that to everything there is a season, and as individuals, companies and governments separately prepare for both a large harvest and a long drought.
Yes, this is much easier said than done. But at least I think it's saying the right thing.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Pie-friendly podcasts
This is a shameless promotion and thanks to the producers of my two favorite podcasts, The World's Technology Podcast and Common Sense with Dan Carlin.
The first is the only tech podcast I've heard that really focuses on technology as a human endeavor, not a bunch of gadgets. Clark Boyd hosts and produces the show, which includes stories of interest from the BBC, PRI and longer versions of interviews than could run on the radio. It very intentionally doesn't cover things like new versions of fake-fruit company products, but if you want to know what people are doing to influence their world, and those actions affect others, this is the show for you. Also, it has bagpipes.
The second is a political commentary show hosted by the "moderately radical" Dan Carlin. As a former TV newsman at LA's ABC affiliate, he knows all about the absurdity that is big media today. As a student of history, with an excellent history podcast as well, his perspectives take the long view. Some of his policy prescriptions are a bit outlandish, but they are well argued and supported.
I generally listen while baking, but I'd be happy to replay them for anyone who comes over for a slice.
The first is the only tech podcast I've heard that really focuses on technology as a human endeavor, not a bunch of gadgets. Clark Boyd hosts and produces the show, which includes stories of interest from the BBC, PRI and longer versions of interviews than could run on the radio. It very intentionally doesn't cover things like new versions of fake-fruit company products, but if you want to know what people are doing to influence their world, and those actions affect others, this is the show for you. Also, it has bagpipes.
The second is a political commentary show hosted by the "moderately radical" Dan Carlin. As a former TV newsman at LA's ABC affiliate, he knows all about the absurdity that is big media today. As a student of history, with an excellent history podcast as well, his perspectives take the long view. Some of his policy prescriptions are a bit outlandish, but they are well argued and supported.
I generally listen while baking, but I'd be happy to replay them for anyone who comes over for a slice.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Do we need more STEMs?
"Brakes squeak, and other stuff."
This was written by a customer at a bike repair festival where I was a volunteer. Most customers were asked to write their complaints on a card, or hang around and wait for the one or two people who were screening the bikes. Most customers wrote about a part that was causing a problem, such as a chain, tire or handlebars, or nothing at all. We had a couple people, myself included, who would answer verbal questions of those willing to wait for us, but these were generally people with very specific requests that involved high quality bicycles.
When I hear calls for more Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) teaching in grades 1-12, I often think of that day, especially that quote. I think the hope is that more of those students will be able to maintain their own bikes, or at least be able to explain what they need more clearly. Similar hopes haunt IT help desk workers, car mechanics, and others who make our complex economy work.
However, this is a blog about baking as much as policy. With the exception of mulberries, stems are just annoying compost once they've served their role attaching fruit to plant. As a professional "STEM" educator, I find myself very much in agreement with an Ohio State professor who put it well: "I can teach mathematics to someone with mechanical ability much easier than I can teach mechanics to someone with mathematical ability." One the best bike mechanics I know has a degree in anthropology. At the same time, it's hardly a safe bet that someone with a mechanical engineering PhD can change a tire or brake pads.
On top of this, we engineering professionals are not the only ones who wish students had a stronger background in our field before leaving high school. English programs around the country now sic graduate students on first year undergraduates to try and break them of habits learned on teh intertubes & txt msgs, and to teach basic grammar that was never learned. Text analysis, knowledge of history and even basic geography are all skills that are badly needed by all citizens of a republic.
To answer my question,"yes." But that does not mean we should flood the schools with math teachers, science text books and a battery of standardized tests. Mathematics is a language, not magic. Engineering is an art form that serves a purpose; its practitioners are not coldly rational so much as aware that reality can't wait to prove them wrong. Technology is often thought of in terms of gadgets, but it is the sum total of human endeavor, and must be understood in that context. Science, ultimately, is nothing more than that which we have not disproven yet.
The critical failing of most STEM education is that it teaches in terms of "right" and "wrong" answers to simple questions. The professional scientific and engineering world is full of "better" and "worse" solutions to very complicated problems. Ironically, this lesson is best taught in history, shop and home economics classes in high school. Good stems are needed to get good fruit, but it is important to remember that STEM is a means, not an end.
This was written by a customer at a bike repair festival where I was a volunteer. Most customers were asked to write their complaints on a card, or hang around and wait for the one or two people who were screening the bikes. Most customers wrote about a part that was causing a problem, such as a chain, tire or handlebars, or nothing at all. We had a couple people, myself included, who would answer verbal questions of those willing to wait for us, but these were generally people with very specific requests that involved high quality bicycles.
When I hear calls for more Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) teaching in grades 1-12, I often think of that day, especially that quote. I think the hope is that more of those students will be able to maintain their own bikes, or at least be able to explain what they need more clearly. Similar hopes haunt IT help desk workers, car mechanics, and others who make our complex economy work.
However, this is a blog about baking as much as policy. With the exception of mulberries, stems are just annoying compost once they've served their role attaching fruit to plant. As a professional "STEM" educator, I find myself very much in agreement with an Ohio State professor who put it well: "I can teach mathematics to someone with mechanical ability much easier than I can teach mechanics to someone with mathematical ability." One the best bike mechanics I know has a degree in anthropology. At the same time, it's hardly a safe bet that someone with a mechanical engineering PhD can change a tire or brake pads.
On top of this, we engineering professionals are not the only ones who wish students had a stronger background in our field before leaving high school. English programs around the country now sic graduate students on first year undergraduates to try and break them of habits learned on teh intertubes & txt msgs, and to teach basic grammar that was never learned. Text analysis, knowledge of history and even basic geography are all skills that are badly needed by all citizens of a republic.
To answer my question,"yes." But that does not mean we should flood the schools with math teachers, science text books and a battery of standardized tests. Mathematics is a language, not magic. Engineering is an art form that serves a purpose; its practitioners are not coldly rational so much as aware that reality can't wait to prove them wrong. Technology is often thought of in terms of gadgets, but it is the sum total of human endeavor, and must be understood in that context. Science, ultimately, is nothing more than that which we have not disproven yet.
The critical failing of most STEM education is that it teaches in terms of "right" and "wrong" answers to simple questions. The professional scientific and engineering world is full of "better" and "worse" solutions to very complicated problems. Ironically, this lesson is best taught in history, shop and home economics classes in high school. Good stems are needed to get good fruit, but it is important to remember that STEM is a means, not an end.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
First Junket Report: CCO 2nd Annual Conference
A couple members of the Pie Cabinet traveled to Washington, DC for the Center for Complex Operations 2nd annual conference. It was quite an event, and if anyone from that organization reads this, I'd like to have you over for pie.
There was lots of interesting material, consisting of singleton speakers and panel discussions, on the "3D's", Defense, Diplomacy and Development. I remember getting into aerospace engineering when the "3d's" meant dull, dirty and dangerous, the kind of work that should be handed off to unmanned systems. Had I any doubt that the passion for a Revolution in Military Affairs was dead, it's been settled.
Two broad themes seemed to emerge from all of the discussions: (1) the importance of adaptability and (2) the growing militarizarion of foreign policy.
These are not fundamentally opposed, actually they're quite complementary in our system. Militaries throughout history have been major sources of innovation, since the concept of "maneuver" applies to technology and doctrine just as much as the movement of engaged units. Today, the US DoD runs five undergraduate institutions (USMA, USNA, USAFA, USCGA, USMMA), four War Colleges (USN, USMC, USAF, US Army), and the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA with satellite campuses nearly everywhere (this may not be a complete list). Not to mention the hundreds of rigorous academic courses taught by officers around the country in ROTC programs, and schools for everything an enlistee might have to do. Slightly outside the DoD are "Centers of Excellence" such as the Center for Naval Analysis and RAND corporation whose exact job is to keep smart people on call to solve tough problems. Also, and it was argued more importantly, all but its very tip-top is run by career professionals who are largely promoted on merit, regardless of administration. Obama got lots of kudos for keeping Gates, and the relative smoothness of DoD's actions vs. State, Treasury and other departments' speaks to the problems that come with the Spoils System (thanks President Jackson!).
On the civilian side, we have the US State Department and USAID. The performance of State tends to improve as an administration goes on, but every four or eight years its top people, and I think it's the same number of people as DoD despite having only ~10K people at Foggy Bottom, you get a fresh bunch of leaders who probably don't like the policies of their predecessors. The result has been a more ossified legalistic culture below the appointee ranks, since promotion depends not on ability and initiative but conforming to established rules. The middle and upper level management of State is run by former FSOs who've had to deal with this their whole professional lives, making it very difficult for them to culturally adapt to a changing world. On the other hand, Provincial Resconstruction Teams (PRTs) made up of enthusiastic youngsters with a clear mandate to do what is necessary to accomplish their "hearts and minds" mission are credited with a lot the success in parts of Afghanistan and Iraq. The resemblance to Roman military engineering teams shouldn't be overlooked.
As a result, USAID is trying to formalize this quasimilitary approach to development assistance. Specifically, several speakers spoke of a more "expeditionary" USAID; one that would relate to its grantee NGOs and in-country employees as a theater commander setting goals for deployed companies and batallions. Details of this arrangement, which scares the crap out of the NGO community, have not been finalized yet.
To the extend that US policy is designed to improve the capacity of states to exert their writ and for their people to become prosperous, this militarization is appropriate, according to several panelists. The chief obstacle to development in much of the world, especially the places where the US is deploying more aid, is security. Development projects have a mixed record at best, but they always fail when security fails. Whomever is officially in charge of the project needs to acknowledge that, and adopting cultural aspects from the most dynamic of government departments (scary, isn't it) can only help break a beaucratic logjam. Militarized need not mean jack-booted, but must include a fundamental recognition that "the enemy gets a vote, too." --paraphrased from a general during the COIN debate in 2005ish
Unfortunately, formally implementing these lessons will require action from Congress and an end to much of the Spoils System. On top of that, a paradigm shift is needed in the thinking about development aid and perhaps even the definition of prosperity, governance and security. Knowing that lots of smart people have decided to find solutions makes me hopeful that they'll succeed. But Mark Twain's commentary on the denziens of the Hill is as true as ever.
There was lots of interesting material, consisting of singleton speakers and panel discussions, on the "3D's", Defense, Diplomacy and Development. I remember getting into aerospace engineering when the "3d's" meant dull, dirty and dangerous, the kind of work that should be handed off to unmanned systems. Had I any doubt that the passion for a Revolution in Military Affairs was dead, it's been settled.
Two broad themes seemed to emerge from all of the discussions: (1) the importance of adaptability and (2) the growing militarizarion of foreign policy.
These are not fundamentally opposed, actually they're quite complementary in our system. Militaries throughout history have been major sources of innovation, since the concept of "maneuver" applies to technology and doctrine just as much as the movement of engaged units. Today, the US DoD runs five undergraduate institutions (USMA, USNA, USAFA, USCGA, USMMA), four War Colleges (USN, USMC, USAF, US Army), and the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA with satellite campuses nearly everywhere (this may not be a complete list). Not to mention the hundreds of rigorous academic courses taught by officers around the country in ROTC programs, and schools for everything an enlistee might have to do. Slightly outside the DoD are "Centers of Excellence" such as the Center for Naval Analysis and RAND corporation whose exact job is to keep smart people on call to solve tough problems. Also, and it was argued more importantly, all but its very tip-top is run by career professionals who are largely promoted on merit, regardless of administration. Obama got lots of kudos for keeping Gates, and the relative smoothness of DoD's actions vs. State, Treasury and other departments' speaks to the problems that come with the Spoils System (thanks President Jackson!).
On the civilian side, we have the US State Department and USAID. The performance of State tends to improve as an administration goes on, but every four or eight years its top people, and I think it's the same number of people as DoD despite having only ~10K people at Foggy Bottom, you get a fresh bunch of leaders who probably don't like the policies of their predecessors. The result has been a more ossified legalistic culture below the appointee ranks, since promotion depends not on ability and initiative but conforming to established rules. The middle and upper level management of State is run by former FSOs who've had to deal with this their whole professional lives, making it very difficult for them to culturally adapt to a changing world. On the other hand, Provincial Resconstruction Teams (PRTs) made up of enthusiastic youngsters with a clear mandate to do what is necessary to accomplish their "hearts and minds" mission are credited with a lot the success in parts of Afghanistan and Iraq. The resemblance to Roman military engineering teams shouldn't be overlooked.
As a result, USAID is trying to formalize this quasimilitary approach to development assistance. Specifically, several speakers spoke of a more "expeditionary" USAID; one that would relate to its grantee NGOs and in-country employees as a theater commander setting goals for deployed companies and batallions. Details of this arrangement, which scares the crap out of the NGO community, have not been finalized yet.
To the extend that US policy is designed to improve the capacity of states to exert their writ and for their people to become prosperous, this militarization is appropriate, according to several panelists. The chief obstacle to development in much of the world, especially the places where the US is deploying more aid, is security. Development projects have a mixed record at best, but they always fail when security fails. Whomever is officially in charge of the project needs to acknowledge that, and adopting cultural aspects from the most dynamic of government departments (scary, isn't it) can only help break a beaucratic logjam. Militarized need not mean jack-booted, but must include a fundamental recognition that "the enemy gets a vote, too." --paraphrased from a general during the COIN debate in 2005ish
Unfortunately, formally implementing these lessons will require action from Congress and an end to much of the Spoils System. On top of that, a paradigm shift is needed in the thinking about development aid and perhaps even the definition of prosperity, governance and security. Knowing that lots of smart people have decided to find solutions makes me hopeful that they'll succeed. But Mark Twain's commentary on the denziens of the Hill is as true as ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)