What's for Supper?

I've been doing it for almost 45 years now --- putting supper on the table nearly every night --- and it hasn't gotten any easier. I should qualify that a little bit; I didn't know how to cook when I was first married, and now I'm a competent cook who can improvise and put a decent meal on the table without a lot of physical effort. But it's still a struggle to think, "What shall we have for supper?" The only respite comes on the infrquent occasions when we eat out, or when we have lots of left-overs. (We've been working on a beef pot roast for several days now. I have to think of something different for supper tonight.)

When I was first married, I bought a good cook book, and sat down every day to write out a strategic plan for our evening meal. The big challenge was timing --- making sure everything was done and ready for the table at the same time. Over the years, that struggle has been made easier by microwave ovens, and I've given up trying for precise timing anyway, because I have a husband, who, when called to the table, will say, "Just a minute." and appear 30 or 45 minutes later. That means, fortunately, that he's not fussy about what he eats, and is willing to fend for himself on occasion.

Later in my marriage, I went through a phase of reading every recipe I came across in newspapers or women's magazines, evaluating it, and clipping it out if I thought it was worth trying. Gradually I learned that many recipes are for people who like to handle food and fuss around in the kitchen. I'm not one of them. Why bother to do something complicated with a perfectly good piece of fresh fruit? I don't even bother to squeeze orange juice when I can just eat an orange.

It's always been a goal to shop for groceries only once a week, instead of running to the store every two or three days. That means a certain amount of planning ahead, even if I also rely on seeing what looks good when I'm in the store. When I ask my husband for menu suggestions, I can rely on his reply: chile. That's fine once in a while or even once a month, but not every week.

I know I shouldn't complain when much of the world goes hungry. We not only have enough to eat, we have choices that would be unimaginable to most everyone in the history of the world. Maybe that's the trouble. Instead of serving the same thing day after day, I have too many options when I think, "What's for supper?"

Leavening

Jimmy Carter's latest book is Our Endangered Values:America's Moral Crisis. Anyone who thinks the present administration in Washington has taken the wrong turn will agree with much of what Carter has to say. (It's always gratifying to read an author whose opinions reinforce one's own!) He plainly defines his conservative Christian background and allows that there will always be differences of opinion on any important issue.

So what's new? The extreme and partisan divisions within the country have created a political power struggle that prevents any efforts to work constructively or come to a consensus or even compromise. As a result, many of our nation's historic customs and moral commitments are threatened, both in government and in religious communities.

Carter attributes this change to three factors: September 11; the massive amounts of money that are being channeled into the political process, greatly increasing the influence of special interest groups; and most importantly, the growing power of religious fundamentalists.

His definition of religious fundamentalism is telling, for although he is discussing Christian fundamentalism, the definition can apply to any religion or strongly-held belief. He summarizes fundamentalism in three words: rigidity, domination and exclusion.

I'm not a political person by nature, and I don't keep up with the ins and outs in Washington. As I read Carter's book, I found the problems of our society adding up to a frightening sum: deteriorating relationships with other countries, erosion of human rights, preemptive war, major threats to the environment and more.

Carter has attempted through his books, to speak as the wise elder statesman, and through The Carter Center, in Atlanta, to improve the lives of other people, all over the world. But I felt depressed when I finished reading the book. The situation seems so bad, it will take monumental effort and many years, if not generations, to correct. Carter had no suggestions for anything I could do to make things better.

Then we received an email from a former student of my husband. He had written a paper rebutting the theory that the Wikipedia on the internet, would eventually self-destruct. Critics predicted that allowing anyone to contribute information and to edit existing entries would give a disproportionate voice to the uninformed, the illiterate, the pranksters and the cranks.

Instead, this resource for all kinds of information has (so far) been a success. The author of the paper pointed out that it's important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the way the Wikipedia works. It will always be changing and it will never be prefect. But what I found most encouraging was the way the community of Wikipedia contributors tend to civilize and moderate each other.

That made me realize that as we work together, in whatever context, for good or bad, each of us is like a little bit of leaven. We may not be able to make big changes in the world, but it's still important that we make small contributions from a variety of experiences and viewpoints. And if the Wikipedia is any indicator, the majority of us are still intelligent, conscientious and kind. I have renewed hope!