bearing blog

About that $80 grocery list.

One thing Mark and I have never seen eye to eye on is the family budget.

It's not that we have different priorities, or that one of us wants to spend more and the other wants us to save more, or that we have different assessments of our savings needs.  I think we're pretty well aligned on basic budgetary values.  It's just that we have never really agreed on how to keep track of everything.  

Every time we talked about it we wound up arguing about what goes in which category, what kind of a spreadsheet to set up, how to track how much each person is spending, whether to track spending with the credit card data or whether to use cash for some categories, whether we should be allowed to borrow from one category to make up for an excess in another, whether to set priorities and buy things immediately or whether to defer buying things, whether just one of us should be in charge of the budget or whether to divide categories between ourselves... and we always ended extremely frustrated with each other because we seemed, um, unable to explain ourselves to each other.  At least, it was pretty obvious that my ideas didn't make any sense to him, and his didn't make any sense to me.

In other words, we have always had different ideas about how to engineer the budget apparatus.

(Look, couples are supposed to fight about money, right?  OK, well, this is how we do it.)

So we have avoided problems by not budgeting at all.  Believe it or not, this has mostly worked okay so far, but as our family grows it gets harder to meet yearly savings goals by the "save what's left at the end of the year" method.  

So.  Budgeting.

Somehow, I can only assume because Mark decided to be nice and do it close to my way, we have finally come up with a method that may work.  I say "may" because we haven't actually saved any money with it yet.  But it (a) makes sense to me and (b) is not odious to Mark, which is better than most of the plans either of us ever came up with before.

Here is what we are doing (I think).

First, we agree to pay for absolutely everything we can with credit cards.  (We pay them off in full each month.)  That makes data that's easy to download, as do personal checks, the next choice.   Cash is a last resort, and we will each try to limit our cash withdrawals to $50/month. 

Mark keeps the "official" record of the budget, including dividing things up into categories.  But we decided to design the categories for easy categorization of expenditures based on the information in the credit card statement.  So we have a "clothing" category and a "groceries" category.  But we also have a "Target" category and a "Walgreens or Walmart" category.  Why?  Because I buy household goods AND groceries AND clothes AND other stuff at places like Target, and if I do this all in one trip it shows up on the credit card statement as "Target."  Why should Mark worry about dividing up a single trip to Target into all the categories?  Let's just set a spending limit at Target and be done with it.   We can move money from one category to another if we happen to have the information, but we also can just leave it at that and not worry about it.  The point is to try to cap our overall spending, the categories are only guidelines.

I am in charge of deciding how to spend some of the categories, and Mark is in charge of deciding how to spend others.  I am in charge of clothes, but Mark is in charge of "outdoor gear" (skis, winter coats).  I am in charge of household goods, but Mark is in charge of hardware.  And I am in charge of the grocery budget, because I make the lists, even though Mark does the shopping.  

So anyway, I hadn't been tracking grocery expenditures this month, and just today I sat down and looked at the credit card statements and realized that if we are really going to stay within the month's budget, we only have $80 to spend for groceries this week, which is about half what we usually spend and two-thirds what we figure we ought to spend.    Okay then!

Fortunately, the freezer and pantry are really well stocked right now, so I decided to plan only four dinners and one lunch.  We'll have leftovers or make do with what we've got (e.g., scrambled eggs and toast) the rest of the time.   I also deferred non-essential restocking until the following week -- even though we ate the last of the wild rice this week, we don't need to buy more just yet.

Meal 1:   chicken lasagna (I already have everything except ricotta cheese, and I could use cottage cheese if I had to), green salad, stir-fried vegetables.

Meal 2:  taco soup (I only have to buy one can of beans, one can of hominy, one can of Ro-Tel tomatoes, and the seasoning packets), fried tortilla strips, green salad again.

Meal 3:  black beans and rice with cooked greens (I only have to buy parsley and rice).

Meal 4:  salmon patties, tri-color succotash (I only have to buy lima beans) and okra.

One lunch:  a big batch of tabouli (OK, I have to buy lemons, tomatoes, parsley, and cucumbers, but hey, I have some mint left over from this past week...)

 

So my list looks like this:

1 green pepper

1 cucumber

2 parsley bunches

1 head lettuce 

2 tomatoes

2 lemons

1 bag frozen lima beans

1 envelope ranch dressing mix

1 envelope taco seasoning mix

1 can hominy

1 can pinto beans

1 bag brown rice

5 lbs whole wheat flour

1 canister iodized salt

Enough fruit for a week (Mark's choice -- he can decide when he sees the produce section)

and, if there's still room left in the budget,

15 oz ricotta cheese

1 bottle red wine vinegar

1 can Ro-Tel diced tomatoes with chilies

I showed the list to Mark and he thought about it and added to the bottom of the list "Chocolate if in budget."  

"OK, but you're not allowed to buy chocolate and not buy my ricotta cheese."

"D'oh!"

I will let you know tomorrow whether we managed to bring it in under $80.  (We go through a LOT of fruit.)

Thought while trying to construct an $80 grocery list for this week.

The more real food and less processed food you eat, the less point there is in trying to clip coupons.

Dialogue.

Tito Edwards at The American Catholic has a post on ecumenism that is followed by an interesting combox discussion.

Writing about institutional-level dialogue and ecumenism, Tito states:

Ecumenism, whatever that means anymore, is a dead cat.  It’s going nowhere because it has no idea what it is.  Hence the forty years of fruitless labor has produced nothing to celebrate.

The only real progress I foresee is with the Orthodox.  Only they understand us and we they.  We have much in common and are capable as divinely inspired institutions to be of one.  Not our Protestant brothers who continue to devolve to the point of being unrecognizable among the worldly.

He also quotes Piuses (Pii?) XI and XII to the effect that the point of interreligious dialogue is to promote the "return" of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church.    And concludes that ecumenical efforts have produced nothing over the last forty years.

 I see his point.  Too many people (pro-dialogue and anti-dialogue) confuse "ecumenical dialogue" with "ideological compromise."  Compromise on essential truths is simply not permitted, and not possible if the Church is to remain the Church.  

The two things that can be done are to pare away inessentials and to accurately understand each other's reasoning.

To pare away inessentials is not, of course, to remove elements of worship, belief, and practice that are helpful and fruitful for many, but to identify those features of faith that, being a help to some and a hindrance to others, may be chosen or rejected freely and so do not represent obstacles to union.

To accurately understand each other's reasoning is not, of course, to adopt the reasoning of the other body, but to understand the exact definition of terminology, to know the rational basis upon which their reasoning rests, to understand the responses to common objections -- in short, to comprehend the others' beliefs on their own terms, with respect for their intellectual freedom.  It does not mean accepting faulty reasoning as faulty; it does mean scrupulously understanding each step in the chain of reasoning.

The problems Tito has outlined with ecumenism are largely restricted to institutional ecumenism:  committees of leaders of the Church, theologians and prelates and such, getting together with leaders from other traditions and hashing out documents and things like that.  

"Dialogue" -- otherwise known as "conversation" -- between two individuals is another situation entirely.  And there are other possibilities besides "I'm trying to convert him" and "I'll compromise so we can come closer to agreeing."  In the conversation between two people, members of different faiths, who are both loyal to their own faith, fruitful dialogue is possible even if neither party changes their beliefs one whit.

Fruitful dialogue is when the two parties carefully explain themselves to each other, defining terms, clarifying distinctions, and so on, so that they can each come to an accurate understanding of what the other believes and the rational basis upon which those beliefs rest.

Fruitful dialogue pares away areas where misunderstanding of terms, superficial differences in behavior or in practice, etc. makes the two believe they have differences where they really are not.

Fruitful dialogue identifies real differences. It pinpoints the areas where the two really do have to say, “Ah, I see. That’s something you assert which I deny.” Or: “Hey, my belief on that issue, though I phrase it in different words, is not really so very different from yours.”

Because to clearly identify the exact points of difference is to understand how far apart you are. And when two bodies have clearly delineated the exact points of difference — which they do through fruitful dialogue — it is a help to individuals who may be wondering if they belong not there, but here. It is a challenge to individuals within those two bodies to decide which of the two is more true.

That is why dialogue can be fruitful, even if it does not seek to “convert,” but only to teach and to learn. To teach the truth as we know it, to learn exactly where the other does not align with that truth. 

One of the greatest mistakes anyone can make in a disagreement -- religious, political, or otherwise -- is to assume you know why the other thinks and acts as they do, and to dismiss their own explanations of themselves.  It's plainly unkind.  It's remarkably self-centered ("I am the only person in the world whose beliefs are based on rational thought.")  Finally, it's stupid, shooting yourself in the foot like that, because an accurate and unprejudiced understanding of the other is crucial to crafting arguments that may convince them.  And it's disappointingly common.

"And they only get more tenacious as their chicks get older and they have more time to go after postmen."

Today's puzzling out-of-context quote.

(Context here.)

I'll just file this one away for later.

Plus you get to drink wine.  I think that's what that is in the glasses, anyway.

..

You're welcome.

Of course, you *could* try picking up the baby, but then you might have to put down your drink.

Why Mark Bittman is my cookbook guru.

Lists.

Vague habits are hard to keep.

At nearly 13 weeks pregnant, I have gained 7 1/2 pounds.  That's an okay rate -- I am supposed to gain between 25 and 30 lbs in a whole pregnancy, so I guess I'm on track for that -- but I still feel panicky every time I see a new number on the scale.  I just cannot stop myself from expecting to be back at BMI = 31 six months after having this baby.

Deep breathing, don't worry about the scale, concentrate on habits.  Like measuring all my food.

A friend said to me the other day as we cooked together in her kitchen that she was working on one good habit at a time, and that right now the habit was "portion control."  That's a good habit for anyone to develop, especially someone nursing a brand new baby as she is -- it's a fundamental habit for healthy eating, but in and of itself it's not "dieting" and so working on it isn't likely to deprive her of the nutrients she needs to keep up her strength in such a taxing time of life.  

I mused about it though -- a little bit out loud there in the kitchen as I juiced lemons and minced cilantro, and later over the next couple of days.  I was thinking about it just now as I used a 2/3 cup measure to scoop out my yogurt for my midmorning snack.  

"Portion control" isn't really a single habit.  It could mean a lot of different habits, or some combination of them all.  Think about it:  You might mean that you never take seconds, i.e., you control the number of portions.  Or you might mean that you know exactly how much you eat of everything (whether you stick to a plan or not).  Or you might mean that you plan to eat a certain amount of everything and you actually "control" yourself so that you actually do eat that much.  Or you might mean that you plan to eat a certain number of helpings of things.  Lots of different ideas.

It strikes me that if you're going to work on a habit, you'd do well to abandon a vaguely worded term like "portion control."  Better to sit down and write out the details of the new way you'd like to do things.  A standard operating procedure, so to speak.

I will always plate my food using measuring cups and measuring spoons so that I know I have served myself an appropriate size serving for each kind of food.  I will carry a set of measuring spoons and cups with me for use at restaurants.  

Something like that.  

There are obviously other features of "portion control" that you could include.  For instance, you could decide what is the appropriate size serving of each kind of food (one easy way is to use whatever serving size is listed on the label; another is to use a published system like the one in this book).  You could incorporate an actual "diet" plan by allowing yourself a certain number of these servings per day or per week, or by holding yourself to another rule like "no seconds."  You could increase your awareness by keeping a food diary.  

Or you could just work on the micro-habit of always transferring food from package, to measuring device, to plate, to mouth.  The food has to contact the measuring device and the plate on the way to your gullet.  A simple rule.  You could call it the "three-transfers" rule.  

  Original packaging ---->  Measuring device ---->  Plate or bowl  ----> Gullet

Notice that all by itself, this rule does away with eating chips out of the bag and licking raw cookie dough off the spoon....

I have slacked off on a lot of my habits since beginning this pregnancy.  I am trying hard not to "diet," and to eat when I think I need to eat (careful!  I am good at convincing myself I "need to eat" when I don't), but there are a number of habits that are harmless for pregnancy and not really linked to "dieting."  This is one.  I don't have to limit how much yogurt I eat, but I might as well be aware that I've had about two-thirds of a cup, you know?

"Old age or a pool of blood," we will sometimes say to one another.

Good post at DarwinCatholic about the problem of trying for "equality" in a marriage.

I'm not an absolutist about "traditional roles", although MrsDarwin and I have always felt strongly about maintaining a single income family with a full time parent at home, but the one thing I think is probably almost never healthy is a strong emphasis on doing everything equally in a marriage rather than having some sort of roles. If you both work full time careers, and both strive to do equal amounts of housework, parenting, cooking, etc., it seems to me that comparisons will almost invariably spring up. 

"I do the dishes every night, but she hasn't swept the floor in three days."
"I end up having to help the kids out with homework while she just takes them out to fun activities which cost lots of money."
"I make more money, but he's always going out to lunch as if money were no object."

And on, and on. Perhaps I'm an unusually unpleasant person, but in a work environment I can't help constantly measuring myself against the other people who are "doing the same thing I'm doing". This can be pretty harmless at work so long as one keeps a lid on it. After all, it's just work, and we get to walk away at the end of the day. But when you bring this same tendency towards competition into a marriage, I can see nothing but trouble coming of it. There it seems to me that it's very important to have complementary but different roles -- not do everything together as "co-parents". This doesn't have to be some kind of radical partitioning. But if one of your major goals is, "We'll make equal money, do equal work, and have equal fun," I think conflict will almost invariably result. Marriage is meant to be based on complementarity, not measured equality.

This is all very well said.  I think where many folks go wrong is in the mis-application of the truth that men and women have equal dignity, worth, and importance.  It is good to say, and to believe, that "men and women should be equal," and it's also correct to say "Husband and wife are equal partners in a marriage," all as ways of communicating the truth of equal dignity, worth, and importance.  Equality of persons.

The error is in understanding that to mean "Husband and wife must expend equal effort and/or receive equal benefit."  That's the fallacy of interpreting equality to mean sameness or consistency.  It's an easy one to make because in many non-marital contexts, ensuring "sameness" and consistency is a handy way, or even the only practical way to ensure equality -- children sharing a cake "equally" should get pieces about the "same" size, judges should try to apply laws in a consistent way to all the people before them, etc. 

But equality of persons is not dependent on equal effort expended and equal benefit received.  It has more to do with equally valuing the different efforts of both:  the classic example is to value the work that helps the family without bringing in money equally with work that helps the family primarily by bringing in money, but there are many other examples.   It has more to do with trying to equally meet the needs of everyone in the family -- which almost surely means that some members receive "more" of something or other, because of needs specific to that person.  Trying to treat all your children equally is impossible.  Trying to meet all your children's real needs is worthy.  

Really, the essence of the "equality = sameness" error?  It ultimately assumes that someone who doesn't produce the same as another isn't worth the same as another.  It ultimately measures people against a standard of sameness.  A (the?) fundamental truth about persons is that persons are unique.  Which means unique needs, unique abilities, unique desires.

(I always find that a good mental test for any sort of philosophy of marriage and family is this:  "Would this idea hold up if one of us became permanently and severely disabled?"  Hard cases may make bad law, but hard cases also make obvious hash of bad principles.) 

Finally, I'm reminded of something one of my Indian co-workers said when someone asked her how it was that she'd remained happily married for 20+ years to a man she only met ten minutes before her wedding. "You just tell yourself you don't have any other options," she said. "If you really believe that, it helps you avoid starting problems that will make you want out." At this point in modern America's divorce culture, it's very hard to tell yourself that there are not other options, but I think that rebuilding that mentality -- not just as in "I'd better put up with this, because there's no way out" but rather "I had better make sure that I'm easy to live with, because if I cause problems there is no way out of them" -- is probably the only real path back towards marital stability and sanity in the wider culture.

I find that the "choice to have no choice" is an extremely powerful one, the purest act of free will, the best way to do what you really know is right or even just to achieve an optional, but dearly desired, goal.    That's true whether applied in matters that are small (I want to resist eating them, so I choose to consider these potato chips completely off limits), medium (I want a natural birth, so I choose to think of the epidural as Not An Option), or vastly, eternally important (this marriage isn't over until one of us is dead).  

The more firmly you believe in the Not-An-Option option, the easier it is to figure out what your useful options are.

The funniest thing I read on the internets today.

"Genre microfiction" at Wondermark.

I was talking with a friend about a Twitter-based fiction contest that he’d seen, and he mentioned that this contest had stipulated genre requirements. So, of course, the conversation turned to how short a story could possibly be and still have some recognizable genre. I postulated that it wouldn’t take much at all:

“A final tear dripped down her dying cheek. Cancer! On our wedding day!” [Drama/romance]

“A final tear dripped down her dying cheek. Tuberculosis! On our wedding day!” [Period romance]

“A final tear dripped down her dying cheek. Nanobots! On our wedding day!” [Sci-fi]

... Following several more examples in the same vein, the blogger challenges his commenters to write their own, and hilarity ensues.

As far as I'm concerned,  Commenter Yeah No wins the thread.  I also liked the all-caps one, kind of comes full circle in a nice historical way, don't you think?

Kids and guns, then and now.

Thought-provoking post by Katie Allison Granju, complete with eighties-era photo.  Good comment thread follows with a variety of opinions and speculations.

Me, I think kids aren't much different, but parents (or at least parenting) have changed.   For the better?  Not, I think, in an unalloyed way.