Tuesday, October 20, 2009

More Banana Bread

This recipe, found on the Taste of Home web site, yields a moister banana bread than the one I posted previously. It's closer to the kind I remember my Dutch-American Grandma making. The secret is the buttermilk.

My changes:
used 1 cup wheat flour and 3/4 cup white, instead of all white
reduced sugar to 1 cup
added 1 t cinnamon
increased bananas to three
used plain yoghurt instead of buttermilk
instead of walnuts, stirred in 1 cup each raisins & chocolate chips
It still came out great.


A Cuban In London said...

Right, yes, the texture is different. Personally I like my sweet foods to be moist rather than dry and the kids love it that way, too. Many thanks for this recipe.

Greetings from London.

A Cuban In London said...

Well, well, well, not wanting to initiate another crusade here but here's my reply to your comment the other day.

'But making light of the cross is always offensive'

No, making light of the cross is on a par with making light of Italian men living with their mothers, or lawyers being called devil advocates. A satirist's job, and I speak as a former Improvisational Theatre actor, is to turn current or relevant events into morsels of humorous wit without being gratitious or cheap. That's why I favour the humour of The Office, of good old Woody Allen (before he became... oh, well, we all know, don't we?), the Coen Brothers and the Jonze/Kaufman combination, to name a few. I could have mentioned the cross, but by not bringing it up, I made you think of it. This is in the 'don't tell, just show' literary tradition. So no offense was intended, but if offense is taken the blog author should be exempted from it."

The columnist Timothy Garton Ash hit the nail on the head when he wrote: 'we have a right to criticise and mock religion, but not the duty to do so'. To me what he meant was that religion or any religious belief, was in the public realm and therefore subject to satire, or criticism. However, when people take cheap shots at religion or those who profess religious beliefs they are demeaning themselves, in the same way that if people were to have a go at Italian men who live with their mothers.

I hope I have made myself understood. You will, unfortunately, see more references to Jesus, the cross, God and the like. Not because I seek to belittle the subject, but because it is interesting from a cultural point of view.

Many thanks for your feedback. It's much appreciated.

Greetings from London.

Jen said...

Dear Cuban,
Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.

You're absolutely right about the cross being in the public domain, so anyone can comment on it. People can and do. And I can't expect someone who doesn't understand (or: believe) what's involved to treat Christ with the same reverence I would. This is not to say that all truth is determined by personal choice, just that we have to be realistic.

So, ordinarily, seeing a piece like yours I would enjoy the funny parts and ignore the irreverent parts, and not comment at all. However, like an idiot I had to try to make a comment I didn't really mean, as I said, to impress you. Then realized that I was effectively honoring you (or, my desire to post a comment to you) over Christ, so of course I had to unsay it.

Maybe that doesn't make much sense to you, but the bottom line is, don't fear that I will jump on you every time you reference God ... unless I feel I can contribute something intelligent.

Best to you and your family.

Jen said...

(after some more thought) …

I agree with you that indirect humor is funnier and better done, but it seems to me that that is a separate question from what constitutes an appropriate subject for humor in the first place. Most things (the vast majority) are, some aren’t. I’m sure you agree.

I appreciate your ethic of not taking cheap shots and of satirizing ideas and systems, not people. That’s part of the sense of human decency I have seen in you before. It must have been shocking to you, following that ethic, to be accused of being “offensive.” I did not mean that I was personally offended by your piece, but that it consituted an insult to Jesus. Naturally, since you don’t believe He is a real person, at least not one now living that would care what’s said about Him, you felt you were mocking an idea or a symbol, not a person. Just imagine if Jesus was a real person, and had gone knowingly to His horrific death to accomplish a greater purpose. You can see how, from that point of view, it simply would not be a joking matter.

Hope this does not constitute a ‘crusade.’

Good corresponding with you.