Ombailamos

twinkles and grapevines

No, I'm not discussing holiday decor today. I am discussing FOXTROT. I am teaching a series at Ballroom by the Bay, and twinkles and grapevines will comprise a substantial part of my curriculum. Why, you ask? Because they are important and useful figures.

So. What is a twinkle? A twinkle is a figure involving:

• a first step forward (or back);
• a second step to the side; and
• a third step, either closing the feet or (more advanced) brushing through closed to forward, diagonally forward, side and slightly forward, or forward and slightly side.

Well that was simple, now wasn't it??

Clearly not. There are a lot of options there, and things get even more complicated when you add the upper body (and the partner) to the mix.

What is the purpose of a twinkle? It is to A) change the alignment; and/or B) change the dance position. Usually it is BOTH. Alignment refers to the direction of movement, from the leader's perspective.

A basic twinkle begins with the partners in closed position, leader facing diagonally toward the nearest wall and preparing to move down the line of dance. The first three steps (in foxtrot, this is in S-Q-Q timing) will end with the partners both facing down the line of dance in promenade position. The next three steps are a step through in promenade, a step to the side, and closing the feet; the partners end back in closed position but now squarely facing wall.

There are several important changes that occur during the basic twinkle. The lead to promenade happens between steps 2 and 3; this is a change of dance position. Step 4, coming through in promenade, stays in that position, but between steps 4 and 5 comes the lead to closed position. Then there are the changes in alignment. The basic twinkle begins diagonal wall, goes into promenade facing line of dance, and finishes facing wall. Understanding the differences between the positions and the alignments is a big benefit for the social dancer.

Why is it called a twinkle? It's a mystery.

The grapevine, however, is a little easier to account for. The grapevine is a pattern in which the dancers' feet move side - across forward - side - across back. Generally this is done with the partners' feet parallel: that is, if the leader's foot is coming across forward, the follower's foot is going across back. The result is a light, floating action with a distinct weaving quality suggesting a twining vine.

In foxtrot, all grapevine steps are "quick." The grapevine is usually done in four or eight steps to stay on phrase with the music. Advanced dancers can split a measure and do six steps of grapevine to transition into a different figure, but I don't recommend splitting measures in the social dancing context; it's hard to follow.

Grapevine actions are used in all ballroom dances, from jive and samba to tango and waltz. There's a variation I'd call an "in and out" grapevine, in which partners go across forward or across back at the same time. This allows their shoulders to open away from each other, whereas in the parallel grapevine, the shoulders stay parallel.

Because of this, an "in and out" grapevine is commonly done in a double hand hold, or alternating hands, rather than in closed dance position. The parallel grapevine can be done in closed position. "In and out" is a more difficult grapevine to execute because partners tend 1) to bend in toward each other and 2) to go pigeon-toed.* They also tend to open too far away from each other and lose connection.

This series will be a real test of my ability to convey the essentials without preaching technique too much. The fact is, most social dancers do twinkles incorrectly. I always want to fix things, but ultimately I'll be happy if the series ends with our dancers doing their twinkles a little less incorrectly. We'll see!

 

*In the smooth dances, the dancers' feet should be substantially parallel rather than turned out; however, the feet should never turn IN except when taking a backward step that is commencing to turn.

ye holiday pie!

For a while I had a little photo album of our holiday dinner prep and you really should have seen it, the pie was gorgeous.  I had all these apples, you see; something had to be done.

APPLE-CRANBERRY PIE

Requirements: one deep pie dish; one oven; double pie crust; four to five medium-sized tart apples (about four cups of chopped apples); two cups of cranberries.

Other ingredients: apple-pie spice; cardamom; brown sugar; butter; flour.

The process: Preheat oven to 375. Rinse the cranberries, shake in a tea towel to dry, and deposit in a large mixing bowl. Core the apples (do NOT peel them!) and cut in eighths, then slice fairly thin - 1/4 to 1/8 inch. Deposit with the berries in the bowl.

Next, add two tablespoons of flour; 2/3 cup of brown sugar; and spices to taste (a lot, in my case - a tablespoon of apple-pie spice and a teaspoon of cardamom, plus a healthy dash of grated orange peel) to the fruit and mix well. Let it sit while you get the bottom crust into the pie pan.

Next, mix the fruit again and then pour it into the pie pan. Capture fugitive berries and replace them. Dot the fruit with a few bits of butter, and top with the other crust. Cut a few steam vents, seal the edges, and place it in the oven with an anti-browning device over the edges (I have a silicone ring courtesy of my BFF; foil also works).

Bake for 25 minutes, then remove the edge covers and bake for another 20 to 25 minutes till nicely browned. Remove from the oven and let cool ... mostly ... before slicing.

Like all fruit pies made without cornstarch, this one lacks structural integrity. Slicing the apples finely helps a lot with that. You could also slice the berries in half if you wanted to take the time.

Please note the sugar ratio. We are talking about roughly six cups of fruit, to 2/3 cup of sugar. I really could have used even less, especially since there's that gelato on top. The apple pie recipe I started with called for a full cup of sugar. In my opinion, that is more than any fruit pie - except maybe one made with rhubarb - needs.

You can always add maple syrup ... or gelato ... if your pie is too tart, but y'all, fruit is intrinsically sweet. And I for one would rather taste the fruit than the sugar.

This little beauty served as Christmas Eve chili potluck dessert for six ... and Christmas morning breakfast dessert for two.

link of the week: nerd fitness

http://nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/12/27/adventure-travel/

Oh, this kid. You know, I would be jealous of him for doing so much so young, if it had ever occurred to me to do that kind of stuff when I was that age. Since I never had the revelation in the first place, I don't blame myself for not doing it. :-)

Steve uses the language of gaming quite a lot: "leveling up" is a recurring theme, and if you don't play computer games you might not get the reference. What it refers to is mastering a level of the game and going on to the next. Steve uses this term in the context of fitness, and it's a good way to use it. It also, clearly, resonates with a certain population that had not found their "home" in other fitness philosophies.

Since I started reading Nerd Fitness I sometimes use this term myself, in the privacy of my own mind. I'm not a gamer (the only computer game I've ever wanted to play for more than five minutes was a now-out-of-print piece of ridiculousness simply called, to my recollection, "Monty Python." It was based on Terry Gilliam's animation and had to do with a gumby searching for his lost pieces of brain) but the term works perfectly with my own approach to learning, which is to really thoroughly learn something before I try to go on.

Part of that is also the residue of a traditional academic education. I mean, if you write enough research papers, and if the structure of such things suits you, you tend to approach future projects in the same way: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. A proposition, an argument, and a proof.

I have some theories about certain physical manifestations that may be completely harebrained or that may be genius. I don't know if anyone in the world is thinking the same thoughts, or if any research is being done. Probably it is, but maybe not, because my theories do not revolve around "what kind of drug can we use to treat this symptom," and that's where most research money goes.

Fitness lends itself to the research approach. In the fitness world, it is fairly simple - and fairly inexpensive - to take a working group and a control group and compare their results. But ultimately, all of life is a research project and I think that's what Steve has shown over the past year. He had certain propositions that he made to himself - his "epic quest" - and he went out and made the arguments and found the proofs.

We can't all figure this out before we're thirty years old, like Steve did. But I think he's a great role model for any of us who want to always keep moving, always keep improving, and always keep looking for the next WIN.

the virtue of Lisbeth Salander

So I hear there is some backlash against "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." Some pollster discovered that a lot of women don't want to see it because of the story's violence against women.

I'll bet a lot of those women have no problem seeing despicable trash like "Saw" or "Final Destination" or "Friday the 13th," but we'll let slide the hypocritical assertion that that sort of violence "doesn't count" because it's not realistic.

A lot of women have read the Stieg Larsson books, because women drive bestsellers in the U.S., and they were all bestsellers. I have read all three, and I have seen all three Swedish movies based on them (excellent movies, by the way, and Noomi Rapace is absolutely brilliant).

Yes, the book upon which the movie is based is very long; very convoluted; a wee tad bit preachy; tends to glorify its protagonist, the noble crusader of a journalist; and contains some very nasty, very realistic, and quite explicit descriptions of violence against women.

However, it is also the highly unusual portrait of a complete nonconformist who - contrary to the bulk of most popular fiction - doesn't get punished for it in the end, or rescued by a hero, or otherwise infantilized. Yes, she takes a lot of damage, but in a way that makes her the equal of any great male protagonist. She literally fights her way through this story.

Here is the one real takeaway that I would like female moviegoers to consider: the character of Lisbeth Salander, who has been described as autistic, antisocial, and worse, is the quintessence of self-reliance.

She does not expect anyone to take care of her, because manifestly no one ever has. She trusts almost no one. She prepares. If her strategies and tactics take her outside the law, she doesn't apologize for it, because the law has been her oppressor. She does not expect things to work out in her favor. She takes what she needs. She arms herself. She knows that a 90-pound woman is no match for a 200-pound man, no matter how good her martial skills are, without a weapon.

If you think women ought to be prepared to defend themselves against the myriad assaults we can endure (the statistics are staggering) there is just one scene in the Swedish version of "Dragon Tattoo" that every woman ought to see. It is a scene in a subway exit when a mugger proposes to take Lisbeth down. Her response is a flurry of what may seem excessive violence.

But here's the thing: it's effective. She does exactly what she needs to do to disable the mugger so that she can get away. She doesn't then gratuitously kill him, though clearly she could.

She is like an animal. She will hurt you as much as she needs to, to save herself.

That's where most women fail, and that's why I wish a lot of women would see - if not the U.S. adaptation, please, the Swedish - "Dragon Tattoo." That is what you have to do, ladies. You can't be afraid of hurting someone who is proposing to rob or rape you. You have to hurt that person badly enough to stop him (it is usually a him, let's face it). And then you have to get away.

All too often, we women find ourselves in danger. We need to channel Lisbeth and make it stop. (Of course, we also need to stop having kids with drunkards, thieves, and gamblers; we need to stop staying with abusive bastards because "he didn't mean it;" we need to stop playing the "girl" card to get out of doing hard work; and we need to stop pretending that a weekly step class is keeping us fit.)

Mostly we just need to stop accepting that it is ever okay to be assaulted. It isn't. Ever.

You don't have to try to "relate" to Lisbeth. You don't want that kind of life, so you don't want to be that character. You don't have to find her sympathetic. But if you really think about what she represents as a character - not as a potential friend, or the stereotypical American movie heroine "girl next door" we're all supposed to aspire to be - I think your appreciation of the stories wound around her will be magnified.

happy at home

one pan, three components: laziness wins again!

So, the produce box! This time, in addition to yet another Delicata (which was the galvanizing force I required in order to address the four other Delicatas, and one Butternut, resting on the shelf by the open window in my kitchen ... all now roasted, thanks) and four nice fat leeks and a whole mess of citrus and apples and turnips, I got a bunch of spinach and a bunch of finger-sized carrots.

Neither bunch was big enough to form a reasonable side dish on its own, but both together served the purpose. What I did was bring out my trusty not-paella pan, heat some olive oil and butter, and throw in a nice big pork tenderloin. That browned on all sides over medium heat.

Then, the seasoning mix went on: a half-teaspoon each of

• powdered ginger;
• coriander;
• allspice;
• ancho chili; and
• curry powder; plus
• a generous dose of low-sodium soy sauce; plus
• a splash of maple syrup; and
• a little water to cover the bottom of the pan.

Then, in went the scrubbed carrots. They got rolled around in the spices a bit, a lid went on the pan, the heat was lowered to medium-low, and everyone got left alone for ten minutes. When the timer buzzed, I turned over the tenderloin, splashed some more seasoning on the carrots, put the lid back on, and gave it another eight minutes.

When the pork was done - the carrots now nicely fork-tender - I took everything out of the pan and set it aside. Into the pan went the (laboriously cleaned) spinach, and a good solid squirt of lemon juice. Tossed the leaves in all the pan juice and left them to wilt while I set the table.

When the spinach was done to my liking - probably about five minutes, tops - I divided it between two plates, divided the carrots likewise, and gave us each a chunk of pig on top of the greens.

This was a Success. Adding the lemon juice gave the spinach an acidic sweetness that was a great contrast to the spicy sweetness of the pork and carrots. It was also really pretty, quite a difference from my usual monochromatic plate: dark green spinach with browned meat and bright orange carrots - lovely. And of course, the more color your food has, the more nutrition it generally has. The only thing this was lacking was a little something crunchy, and I'm thinking some pine nuts would have been perfect.

I would not call this a recipe. It's just taking one set of seasonings and cooking two items, then cooking a third item in the same seasonings +1.

On that note: pork tenderloin is not a very flavorful meat according to most. That's because it's quite lean, and fat is where the flavor is! So whatever spices you use, pork tenderloin will act like mushrooms and take on primarily the flavor of that spice mix. It's cheap and easy to cook, and I like it.

Some people like to boil their greens, or steam them; I am not a big greens eater but when I do have 'em, I use fat. If it's raw greens, the fat is in the dressing (Caesar or blue cheese); if they're cooked, it's in pan juice or olive oil or butter.

One good reason for this is that many of the valuable nutrients in plant parts (roots, tubers, stems, and leaves) are metabolically accessible only in the presence of fat.

The other good reason is that they taste a damn sight better that way.

slippery slopes, and the deception of clothing sizes

Crazy Aunt Purl recently recounted a sad tale concerning a well-intentioned gentleman who was desperately trying to figure out what size dress to buy for his lady friend, and CAP's timely intervention to save him from imminent ruin by sending him to the jewelry counter instead. (Read it here: http://www.crazyauntpurl.com/archives/2011/12/earrings_always_1.php#comments )

Why is it so darn hard to find the right size, people?

If you go in Forever XXI or H&M, if you can find numerical sizes at all, they are going to be around the same size they were in the 1980s. If you go in Macy's or Bloomingdales, numerical sizes are going to be one to two sizes bigger than they were in the 1980s. Now, if you are like me, you don't buy things like tank tops or tee shirts at Macy's; you go someplace like H&M or OC Designs, where these disposable garments cost what they should (i.e. $5 to $10).

But if you aren't like me, and don't mind spending $20 on a tee shirt, you may be buying an 8 and congratulating yourself that you still fit an 8. Unfortunately ... you don't. You're now in what would have been a 10 or 12, twenty years ago.

This is only one of many nefarious ways that the clothing industry enables you to slowly, gradually, gain weight without "noticing." As you get older and generally more prosperous, you start shopping in stores with higher average prices and bigger, on average, sizes.

Another example. This fall I bought my first pair of jeans in about twenty years. The helpful saleslady at Macy's steered me toward Not Your Daughter's Jeans, because obviously I am middle-aged, and everything marketed for people under 30 is made with that ridiculous "low-rise" cut, which by the way I abominate. It only looks good on very thin people who never sit down.

But back to my story. I was getting frustrated with the various jeans I was trying on (not only NYDJ) because all of them marked 8 were too big. I know perfectly well I am not smaller than I was in 1989, so a size 8 should FIT, dammit. Or be TIGHT. It should not be so loose that I could stuff my entire large handbag under the waistband.

NYDJ markets themselves as making you look and feel a size smaller. You know why? Because their jeans are cut so generously that a size 6 is too big - the waistline on the jeans I finally settled on has room for 10 extra pounds of belly - for a woman who is demonstrably not a size 6. The thighs and the butt fit great, I'll grant you - except that the butt is always sagging because the waistband is so vast. I don't want to wear a belt, people. I want my jeans to fit. Is that so wrong?

I have only been a size 6 once in my adult life, and that was after six months of subsisting on bagels and coffee while I tried to get a hostile ex out of my apartment.

Do those jeans make me look and feel a size smaller? NO THEY DON'T. Because the body inside is still the size that it is - a solid 8, and on a bad hormonal day, a 10. Just because the tag says "6" does not make it so.

The moral of this story is: don't believe what you read. Shop, once in a while, in a store intended for people under 25, and you may get a rude awakening. We have to keep ourselves honest, and not fall for marketing that tells us we can look and feel a size smaller ... without losing the weight.

I'm not getting into a real size 6 pair of jeans in this lifetime. I don't even want to - I would lose most of my (if I may say so myself) excellent ass, if I tried. All I want is a pair of pants that fit.

I may have to start shopping in the men's department. They are still cutting men's pants with a ten-inch difference between hip and waist. Isn't that sad? A whole industry out there, telling you lies so that you can lie to yourself.

waste not, want not: broiled marrow bones

Marrow bones are a fairly recent discovery for me and I have only used them a few times; once to fatten up a mirepoix, once in a pot roast, and most recently broiled, to eat with fresh warm bread. WOW, y'all.

Beef marrow is like beef butter. It's almost pure fat - though unsaturated fat. It is not a staple food, or something that should be on the everyday menu. But if you like the unctuous and the rich and the indulgent from time to time, this was a laughably easy preparation that really fit the bill.

As an appetizer, count on one bone per person. I had a package of six bones ranging from 1.5 to 2 inches in height. It is shocking, and I am sorry to confess it, but two of us cleaned those up in one sitting.

The preparation: set bones on a sheet of foil in the bottom of your broiler pan (remove the grate). Curl up the foil around the bones a bit - this is just for ease of cleanup later. Dust each bone with sea salt and freshly ground pepper.

The cooking: set the pan under the broiler for 7 minutes. Remove; turn the bones over; set it back under the broiler for another 7 minutes. Voila.

That is all. Now take your bones to the table and give everyone a knife to dig out that delicious gelatinous goo and spread it on fresh bread.

Recommended pairing: strong red wine. And, please do follow this with some kind of salad!

link of the week: the happiness project

http://www.happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2011/11/14-tips-for-controlling-holiday-eating.html

I have sooo many strategies for controlling eating. Many of them are on Gretchen's list. In fact, I'd say I employ all of her tips from time to time!

The biggest and most successful, of my personal tips, is: if you're apt to eat all of it, and it has no nutritional value, don't bring it into the house at all. As a general rule:

I don't buy chips (except for Have 'A Corn Chips, and then only when we're planning to make guacamole; or on the very rare occasion that I crave salt, in which case I get a single-serving package).

I don't buy crackers (except for fancy crispbreads or rice wafers, and then only when we're planning to serve a cheese plate).

I don't buy cookies (except for the occasional hormonally-imbalanced drugstore Oreo raid, in which case I buy a single stack, not a jumbo pack, because I know they are in my belly within a couple of days and the fewer I have on hand, the fewer I will eat).

I don't buy anything that comes in a jumbo plastic tub. You know what I'm talking about ... the "economy" size macaroon or meringue cookie or whatever container, possibly from Costco or Trader Joe's. There are times when only a coconut macaroon will do, but for me, the solution is to go and buy that one macaroon on that one occasion. Having them in the house is just asking for trouble.

Regarding economy sizes: It is not CHEAPER if it contributes to making you - or keeping you - fat. I have a hard enough time keeping the fat off without sabotaging myself with excess quantities of non-nutritive, tempting junk food.

I also, as a rule, don't buy mass-market candy. I love chocolate, so I buy high-quality chocolate. The kind that satisfies you with an ounce or less. I remember the days of eating an entire giant-size Hershey bar ... not going back there. It makes me break out, anyway (must be the palm oil).

And finally, I don't buy cheap ice cream. Just like chocolate, excellent ice cream satisfies in smaller quantities. My favorite is the handmade gelato from the shop a few blocks away. For emergencies, there's Haagen-Dazs 5. I was weak (hungry) enough to buy some ice cream at Trader Joe's last month, and you know what? I regretted it. It just wasn't that good.

Real food tastes better; real food satisfies in smaller quantities. Stay away from anything manufactured and you will generally eat less and have greater food satisfaction - not to mention, much better nutrition.

But a final confession: I am not the one to come to if you need a reason not to eat sweet potatoes with marshmallows. I love that stuff.

stuff that makes me crazy

Here is a section pulled from today's edition of Dear Abby (yes, of course I read Dear Abby):

I am 35 and my husband is 45. When we met, he weighed 375 pounds. He has now hit the 600-pound mark. I have five kids, a full-time job and go to school two nights a week. He talks about losing weight, but it's easier to talk about than actually do. He was in a car accident that left him with back problems, and on top of that he has bad knees from sports.

The future doesn't look promising. I know that one day he'll be confined to bed -- I predict in the very near future -- and I will have to drop everything to take care of him. He is already dependent on me and the older kids to take care of him because he's in pain all the time and can't physically do anything. He doesn't have insurance.

I want you to look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. And then look back at the second and third sentences of that paragraph. Do you seriously think that his bad back and bad knees are from a car accident and sports?

Here is a guy who weighed, I'm guessing, twice as much as he should have when the woman married him. She then went on to have five kids with him and while she is doing that - and holding down the job and holding up the house - he packs on another 225 pounds. He now weighs THREE TIMES as much as he should.

His bad back and bad knees are due to his poor abused skeleton carrying the equivalent of three people. Sports have nothing to do with it.

Abby, of course, is not in the health & fitness business and she confined her response to, basically, get counseling now and find a way to get him in a program or you will be on welfare. But she does -obliquely - address how someone who apparently doesn't leave the house manages to gain 225 pounds.

He manages that by being fed, of course. By someone actually, literally, handing over the excessive amount of food that is slowly killing him and not-so-slowly ruining the lives of his kids and his hardworking wife.

Let's see ... "he's in pain all the time (no wonder, see above re: abused skeleton) and can't physically do anything (ditto)." PAIN is the body telling you STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

In this case, STOP EATING EVERY DAMN THING.