Electronic Matchmaking Before the Internet

This is a fascinating essay from today's Wall Street Journal -- about a computer matchmaking project in 1965.

The piece is interesting because of its historical content, but it also resonates with me because of the way my husband and I met: through personals, in 1984. It sounds so archaic now: We both placed ads in the Des Moines Register (I lived in Des Moines; he lived in Ames, which is about 40 miles north of DM).

This project involved writing the ad, contacting the newspaper, paying for the ad, and then receiving from the newspaper's advertising department a big envelope full of replies. And then deciding who to contact, and writing letters in reply, mailing them, waiting for response.

It was so -- drawn out and so, well, personal: All those handwritten letters from respondents. (*1)

My husband's ad and mine launched a bizarre chain of events: We answered each other's ads; realized the other was a person someone else had already tried to set each other up with; another set of letters crossed in the mail because of that realization, as did the letters we'd written in reply to the letters written in reply to the ad. (If you can follow that...)

You get the drift. Wierd. (*2)

Anyway, I have no real point here except that I'm fascinated to discover that 20 years earlier, a group of people at Harvard attempted a form of what we know think of as electronic matchmaking. I think, based on the author's description of that effort, that I'm glad I used pen-and-ink. If nothing else, I had a hell of a lot more control over the outcome than her mother did.

_________________________________

*1: My big envelope of replies was heavy on responses with "drawer numbers" as the return address, "drawer numbers" being the address of men at the state penitentiary.

*2: By the time I realized how many weird coincidences were involved, I had no desire to go on a "date" with the guy. It sounded too much like a recipe for disaster.... And yet, here he and I are, bearing down on the 25th anniversary of that first date. Which, to make things weird beyond belief, consisted of us seeing the film "Liquid Sky," which, let me say for the record, is absolutely not a movie you want to see with someone you don't know.

Yes, You Should See That Jon Stewart Rant About CNBC. Brilliant.

Confession: I've never actually seen an episode of the "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." Yes, I realize that makes me a Total Loser.

(But I already knew that. I also have no idea who Hugh Jackman is or why he hosted the Oscars.) (Which I didn't watch, but news about which was hard to avoid.)

But I have seen a number of Stewart's videos, and yes, this one about the lunacy of CNBC is absolutely worth watching. Stewart plays the role, in our times, of exceptionally brilliant court jester. When we look back on this era, his will be regarded as works of comic genius. (I saw the Santelli rant several times last week because, ya know, it was hard to avoid. My personal opinion is that it was all part of his effort to get his own program on some cable network.)

Found at many places today, but tip o' the mug in this case to The Big Money. (Which, in all honesty, belongs in the Top Ten Most Confusing, Badly Designed Websites Ever.) (But is otherwise worth following.)

Beer, Economics, Statistics, and Other Things. Including Tall Women . . .

. . . of which I am one. Jacob Grier notes this piece in the Financial Times (always an interesting read, by the way), on the connection between and among beer, statistics, and other things. (Including, only by a stretch of my imagination, tall women...) Tip o' the mug to the always on-the-ball Jacob, who, according to Twitter, is mixing interesting drinks tonight. If we're lucky, he'll share some of the recipes when he's finished.

In the Kitchen: Porridge

See? I wasn't kidding about the basic food part. I am a fan of breakfast. Breakfast is a Very Big Deal. I've got a wonky insulin/blood sugar system, and if I don't eat a lot of food first thing in the morning, well . . . it's not pretty.

So, I eat maybe, I dunno, half? my day's calories at breakfast. Nuthin' I like better than two over medium, corned beef hash, hash browns with jalapenos, some toast. A little tea. (And if there were someplace nearby to get such a vision of bliss, I'd probably go there at least once a week, screw the expense. Sadly, the nearest good diner is 40 miles away, soooo........)

Anyway, one of my favorite breakfast (and even lunch) foods is porridge, especially like this one from Culinate. ("Porridge," by the way, is a high-falutin' way of saying "hot cereal.")

This is seriously good eats. It's also relatively inexpensive: assuming you buy the grains from the bulk section of your local "health" food store, they'll cost you about five, six dollars, and you'll get 12-15 servings, so it's great value. (And a helluva lot less expensive than those boxed whole-grain cereals, like Arrowhead.)

I've made it many times, and here's my advice:

1. It definitely needs salt (which the original recipe does not call for.) I'd say a good tablespoon or so.

2. Feel free to fiddle with the mix of grains. I love millet, so I usually add that.

3. Make sure to mix the salt and cinnamon into the grains before adding the water.

4. I don't own a slow cooker (I'm not even sure what that is), so I just put everything in a big pot, add the water, put it on the stove, turn the heat to "1" (with 9 being high flame and 1 being low), and set a timer for two hours. Do check it after a couple of hours! It may already be done. (Mine usually takes about two to three hours.)

5. If you feel the grains are cooked, but there's still water, don't worry. The grains will continue to absorb water even after you've turned off the heat. So if you like "runny" porridge, don't let all the water cook away!

6. This makes a lot of porridge: maybe 12-15 servings (depend on the size of your appetite). I can't eat all of it before it starts fermenting, so I just portion it out into containers and stick it in the fridge.

In the Kitchen

In my (apparently) never-ending attempt to provide maximum bang for your reading buck, I'm launching -- you guessed it, didn't you? -- another series: In the Kitchen.

I taught myself to cook when I was in my twenties and have been wielding a knife and standing at the stove ever since.(*1)

Two reasons why I learned how to cook: 1. I loved food. 2. I had no money.

Again, I was in my twenties, it was the early 1970s (can you say "inflation"?), I had no skills, and lived more-or-less hand-to-mouth, working at low-wage jobs. It followed, therefore, that if I wanted good food, I had to learn to buy and prepare it. Going out to eat was not an option. Poverty shaped how and what I cooked: I had to figure out how to stretch what few dollars I had, AND eat food that was nutritious.

Thirty years later, my taste in food (no pun intended) hasn't changed much: I still focus on basic food. Real food. But ease and convenience also matter: My husband and I go out to eat maybe ... three? four? times a year, so I cook the food we eat. (No "year" is not a typo.) (*2)

But I also work long hours, and don't always want to spend a lot of time in the kitchen, so I'm big on leftovers, and on dishes survive well in the freezer. (Smartest thing I ever did was convince husband to buy a small freezer. Bliss!) So, this series is focuses on what's cooking.

And yes, I have an ulterior motive: Perhaps some of you will share some of your kitchen creativity. After 30 years, I've got a repertoire, but everyone's repertoire can benefit from the occasional kick in the ass.

Two final points: If it's gourmet you're after, well, this ain't the place. My food is basic. Rice and beans? Love 'em. Last point: My offerings aren't necessarily original, so whenever possible, I'll provide the original source of the recipe, along with the tweaks that I've added to it.

_____________________

*1: I grew up in a household where I was expected to do lots and lots of household work, but for whatever reason, that work did not involve food preparation. Washing dishes? You bet. Weeding the garden? Oh, yeah. Dusting, cleaning, etc. I'm a pro. But no cooking. When I was 18, I had no idea how to cook an egg.

*2: As far as I'm concerned, most of the time, it's more trouble than it's worth to go out to eat: You gotta figure out where to go, then go there, then wait for a table, then wait for someone to take the order, then wait for the food. Etc. It's just easier to eat at home. And of course, it's considerably less expensive to eat at home. True, I live in a small town and there's not much to choose from, restaurant-wise.

Now if there were a decent place to eat breakfast, that would be a different matter. I'd probably take myself and my morning papers there once a week. But there's not, so I don't, and we eat nearly every meal at home and that means I cook. Which, I should add, I enjoy doing. I wouldn't want to cook for six people three times a day, but I do enjoy my time in the kitchen.

"Beers Wars" Goes "Official"

The "official" page for ticket sales for "Beer Wars" is now up and running at Fathom Events (the company that will provide the in-theater event.) That page is here. So, now that it's "official," it's also time for full disclosure: I'm in the film and will be on-stage during the live event that follows the film. But, hey, don't let my presence stop you! Be there -- or be square.