My family has a tradition of preparing New Orleans file gumbo on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

Things have been a little hectic this year, so we're just getting around to tackling the task, which first involves boiling the carcass of the turkey (bones and what little meat is still attached), then adding a classic set of ingredients.

I photographed the results of my veggie chopping in preparation for the soup and posted it on Facebook, which elicited a request for the full recipe.

So for my friends and for my siblings who were collaborating to assist my brother who, apparently, was trying this for the first time, follow the link below.

It is from my bride Regina's recipe database (that's how you combine nerdiness and foodiness) and shows the attribution to my mom Estelle Coleman, born and bred in New Orleans.

And for those who don't know, "file" here is pronounced fee - lay.  Think of Hank Williams song On the Bayou which includes the lyrics "crawfish pie, file gumbo".

Enjoy!



Mawmaw Estelle's turkey file gumbo recipe

A Reflection on Matthew 12:51-56

Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided:

father against son

   and son against father,

mother against daughter

   and daughter against mother,

mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law

   and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.’

A group of my friends recently discussed these verses and the ones that follow.  I've been thinking about them since.

I wonder what about Jesus' message would cause such divisiveness.  "Love your neighbor" seems pretty innocuous on the surface.  How could it drive a wedge between family members?

This fairly dark passage is followed by another.

He also said to the crowds, ‘When you see a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say, “It is going to rain”; and so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, “There will be scorching heat”; and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

I think perhaps he answers the question here.  He calls us to be prophetic.  The prophets of the bible were not so much fortune tellers as they were people called to see their world and to speak truth to power.  Or, as the passage says, interpret signs.

Is the division caused by divergent interpretations of signs?  One looks at the healthcare debate in one way and sees a train wreck coming and decides to "repeal and replace".  Another looks at the same situation, also sees a wreck coming, but it's a different wreck with a different solution.  The one view is the polar opposite of the other.  Neither can see middle ground.  So, the conversation becomes a confrontation.  Division occurs.

I see our times as "the new sixties", a time of change from old ways to new ways with those in power clinging to the old ways.  The polarization reminds me of the rifts in the country over civil rights, the war in Vietnam, women's rights, and so on.  In fact, it appears everything old is new again.  Civil rights is still an issue but expanded from racial minorities to the LGBTQ community.  There's a new war, a war on terror, that is the longest war we've ever fought.  And the struggle of women to be completely equal partners in our democracy continues.

I wonder if Jesus foresaw a day when family members would argue to the point of severing ties with each other.  I know it's happened in my family.  I know other families that struggle with division.

I'm a firm believer in the power of compassion.  What if we, regardless of left or right, blue or red, straight or gay, white or not, would view all the signs through the lens of compassion?  

I think the result would be safety for refugees, access to healthcare for all, equal rights for all.  

What do you think?

Why Should I...?

Why should I pay for maternity coverage, since I'm a male?

Why should I pay taxes for airports since I hate to fly?

Why should I pay taxes to support libraries, since I don't read?

Why should I pay taxes to support passenger railroads; I never travel by train?

Why should I pay for prostate cancer coverage since I'm female?

Why should I pay for contraceptive coverage since I'm male?

Why should I pay for public schools?  I send my children to private schools.

Why should I pay for the EPA?  The air and water are great where I live.

Why should I support public colleges?  I've graduated.

The answer to these and so many other questions is as follows:

We're all in this together and none of us are getting out alive.

Conservatives and the moral high ground

I had read the column by J. Pepper Bryars earlier in the week with my AL.com application on my smart phone and could barely restrain myself from writing before it was published in the Huntsville Times.

What follows is my letter to the editor on the matter.

On the one hand, I agree with his observation of the apparent hypocrisy in the conservative "acceptance" of Donald Trump's moral turpitude with respect to his three marriages.

I disagree, on the other hand, with his premise that seems to say that conservatives have traditionally held the high ground when it comes to moral decisions, that we live in a world of black and white choices where there generally are no shades of gray.

Let's review some history and see where conservatives have found themselves.

Slavery -- conservatives argued for the peculiar institution.

Emancipation -- conservatives opposed freeing of the slaves.

13th amendment -- conservatives opposed granting citizenship to the freed slaves.

Women's rights -- conservatives opposed "giving" women the right to vote.

Labor law -- conservatives have always sided with management with regard to worker rights.  They generally have opposed unions and that whole "collective bargaining" thing.

Child labor -- where were the conservatives advocating for the elimination of children working in sweatshops (and worse)?

Civil rights -- guess who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the 1960s.

Vietnam War -- now here's one where neither party has a corner on the right side of history.  Eisenhower started with military advisers, Kennedy ramped up, Johnson took us all the way in, Nixon slowly and painfully removed us (but not until he'd won a second term).  Still, there were few "conservatives" to be found in the anti war movement.

Equal Rights Amendment -- conservatives claim unnecessary, but women still don't earn as much as men in the same job.  Passed the senate in 1972, but failed to carry three fourths of the states in the ratification process.

As for living in a world where there are few shades of gray:

1. Consider how we all recognize national sovereignty (especially our own) but are wrestling with certain countries (Syria, North Korea, Iran) that could really stand a change in regime.  A word of caution:  we've tried regime change in other countries before and that has worked so well for us, hasn't it?
2. Health care -- a right?  a privilege?  Oh, Mr. Byars, don't think I've forgotten your previous column where you claimed the system in Europe is in tatters but we have the greatest healthcare system on earth.  Both claims should be reviewed with the actual data.
3. Russia -- friend or foe?
4. China -- our administration wants its help in dealing with North Korea, but has everyone forgotten about what China is doing in the South China Sea?
5. Israel -- ally, worthy recipient of our aid, but serial abuser of Palestinian rights.

I hope I've made my points.  Conservatives cannot claim the moral high ground.  The world is full of shades of gray.  Moral dilemmas abound.

What do you think?

Something some politicians obviously don't understand about healthcare

We (the media, the politicians, regular people who care) are all agog about the most recent development in the discussion about the nation's health care:  the GOP proposal to repeal (partially) the Affordable Care Act.

I've heard a quote from a Congressman that uninsured people can always use the emergency room for their health care.

No!  That is wrong on so many levels, so let me hit the high points.

The emergency room is the most expensive environment to receive routine care.  The reason, primarily, is that the fixed costs associated with an ER are high because the ER has to be prepared to treat the most critically injured or ill patient.

Next high point:  An ER, by law, cannot turn a patient away regardless of the patient's ability to pay.  When an ER sees an uninsured patient (at an average cost in excess of $1200, that patient must pay out of pocket.  Since few of us are prepared to fork over that much money, the care falls into the category of "uncompensated".  But a hospital has to stay in business, so how does it cover the cost of that care?

A public hospital, underwritten by a city or county government, turns to the taxpayer to make up for the loss.  In addition, it may, like the private hospital, attempt to shift costs to insured patients, by raising prices to recover the costs, hopefully, from those patients' insurance companies.

One of the motivations behind the Affordable Care Act  was to provide insurance coverage to more people so that they could go to their doctor for their routine care and not strain the health system's emergency rooms' resources.

Twenty odd years ago, when Tennessee conducted the great Tenncare experiment, converting Medicaid to a managed care model and expanding Medicaid coverage, the hospitals were primary supporters of the effort, for precisely this reason.

So reducing the number of insured lives will eventually hit everyone's pocket, either through taxes or through higher insurance costs.

So, please, get it out of your head that the ER is the best safety net for uninsured people.  It doesn't provide appropriate level care and it is too expensive (especially when you multiply one visit by 24 million lives).

What do you think?

The Military

Let me say from the outset that I'm going to try to avoid getting myself into a lot of trouble, but am likely to fail.

This issue most recently made it into my thought processes during the Republican presidential primary season.  Everyone, it seemed, felt that the military needed to be rebuilt and that more money needed to be spent on the military.

That led me to investigate just how much money we appropriated for the military.  The first thing I learned was that the spending is divided into two categories, discretionary and mandatory.

The latter is formula driven and consists of Social Security, Medicare and Health (including Medicaid), Veterans' Benefits, Transportation, Food and Agriculture, and some other areas.  It is the larger portion of the budget (about $2.45 trillion for FY 2015).  However, it should be noted that some of the largest portion of these expenses are offset by the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds, into which payroll taxes have been paid over the course of the working lives of citizens.  

The smaller portion, discretionary spending, (about $1.11 trillion for FY 2015) is determined by Congress.  Congress decides how much is going to be spent and on what.  For FY 2015, the appropriation for all things military was $598.49 billion or about 53% of the total for discretionary spending.  So, defense spending is clearly the highest priority when it comes to discretionary spending.  Lower priority categories include government (to fund the executive, legislative, and justice departments), education, additional Medicare and Veterans' Benefits spending, housing, etc.)    See Federal spending for additional details and an informative description of the budget process.  

Do we ever think about the details of that spending?

We pay the salaries and benefits for military personnel, we pay for equipping those personnel and for the development of weaponry.  We pay for the upkeep of some 800 military bases throughout the world.

I'd like to raise a couple of questions for pondering.  First, does anyone else wonder about our having military bases all over the world?  Does this trace back to the "manifest destiny" philosophy of the 1800s?  For an excellent summary, read US bases in foreign countries.
Most of the growth took place during World War II and the Cold War.  Has anyone noticed that WWII is over as is the Cold War?  Why do we still have all these bases?  Does anyone wonder why we even have a military base on Cuba of all places?

Now, the Trump Administration wants to increase defense spending by 50+ billion dollars, alleging that our military has fallen into disrepair.  Really?  Does anyone really believe that?  If so, what has the Congress been doing with the incredible amounts of money we've already spent on defense?  How could they let it fall into such a tattered condition?

Why do we spend more on our defense than the next 10 countries combined, at least 8 of whom are considered allies?

What do you think the reaction would be if, say, Russia built a base in Canada?  Or France built a base in New York state?  Wouldn't we complain of imperialist intentions?

We do not have an emperor, yet, but with the number of bases we have girdling the globe, it looks as though we have an empire.

Let's assume that we really don't need that extra $50 billion to be spent on the military.  Let's also assume we really don't even need the $600 billion we're spending now, that we could "live" on spending $400 billion.  Imagine what could be done with that extra $200 billion dollars.  How much infrastructure could we address?  How much healthcare and research into cancer, ALS, diabetes, and other debilitating diseases could we support?  How could education benefit?

I think we should rethink our priorities.  What do you think?

Let's not repeat 2009

Seeing some of the "town hall" meetings disrupted by protesters opposing  Donald Trump's actions as well as the actions of the Republican Congress took me back to 2009 when the nascent Tea Party was using similar tactics to voice opposition to the government bail outs of the financial system as well as to voice opposition to a newly elected President.

It seems to me that belligerence generates more heat than light.  Shouting down your representative falls into the same uncivil trap as 8 years before.  To paraphrase Michelle Obama, "They went low, we go high!".  It also gives people like Alabama Representative Mo Brooks the opportunity to avoid such meetings with constituents, claiming the need for additional security against "anarchists".

The point is, progress will not be made when you start with a shouting match.  I am a firm believe in civil dialogue as the best way forward.

What do you think?