Restaurant Review: Casa Oaxaca

I have been on a quest since I moved to DC a few years ago to try out as many different restaurants in the city as I possibly can. Last night, a friend and I chose to have dinner at Casa Oaxaca, in Adams Morgan. The restaurant bills itself as "authentic Mexican cuisine," and the menu reflects it. There are not fajitas, or chimichangas, or any of the staples of Tex-Mex restaurants. Instead, a whole section of the menu was focused on mole. I'm not even going to pretend to understand what mole really is, so you can check out wikipedia if you're curious. Regardless, we were intrigued as to all the different types of mole the restaurant had to offer, so we asked the waiter for help. He very nicely brought out a plate of all the different mole sauces with some corn tortillas to dip. We sampled them all and quickly picked a few favorites. This was very helpful in deciphering the menu.

I chose the Mole Coloradito, which was beef served with a red mole sauce. It was really very good. The meat was cooked perfectly and sliced very thinly, and the sauce was really amazing. My friend chose to eat the mole poblano, which was a mole sauce served over chicken breast. It was very tasty, the chicken was not at all dry and the sauce was just the right amount of spiciness. Both meals were served with rice and black beans--making them a very good plate all around.

Overall we really enjoyed our dinner. The food was great and the service was equally good. Our waiter was very friendly and helpful and at one point, a man who seemed to be the manager stopped by to ask us how the meal was. We chatted with him for a few minutes about the restaurant and Mexican food. It was interesting to find out that they tweak their menu often, and will soon be re-adding grasshoppers to the menu. My dining companion was excited to return to try the grasshoppers, while I remain a bit unconvinced.

So, if you are looking for a different type of Mexican food, a change from the usual Tex-Mex stuff, I highly recommend Casa Oaxaca. It's a great place to go for a reasonably priced, very good dinner.

Will Universal Health Care Make Americans Healthy?

One of the great things about living in DC is you have the opportunity to go to talks on a random Monday afternoon about whatever subject you happen to be interested in. A friend of mine often sends me e-mails about events hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Today, they were hosting a talk about health care, with featured speaker Congressman John Dingell. Being interested in health care issues, I decided to attend to hear with the Congressman had to say.

The title of the presentation was "Long Time Coming: A Historical Look at Health Reform and Priorities for 2009." Congressman Dingell, who has been in Congress for over 50 years (which is a whole other issue, but that's for another day) has a long history with trying to reform the health care system while in Congress so I figured he would have some interesting things to say.

I had mixed reactions to the Congressman's talk. On one hand, I thought he did a good job summarizing how our health care system has come to be what it is today. I also thought that he did a good job explaining how a revised health care system could actually benefit the economy. He argues that American corporations will be able to compete better in the global economy if they do not have to factor in health care costs into the cost of their product. I thought that was a newer way of thinking about the benefits of changing our current health care system.

While listening to the Congressman talk was very interesting, I did leave the discussion a bit disappointed. I wish that he had talked more about what he feels the best way is to reform the system. He spoke of the two schools of thought (government health care versus single payer), but didn't really talk about what he felt would be the best system.

My other issue with the remarks is that too often we think of universal health care as the magic bullet to make people healthy. Congressman Dingell seemed to buy into this as well, as he did not mention any other initiatives he would support to improve the health of the American population. The reasoning is, if people have health insurance, they can get everything they need to be healthy. Sadly, this is not the case. Just because people have health insurance does not mean they will go to the doctor and get the care they need. We still need better education so that people know what they need to do to be healthy--paying special care to ensure that we are reaching the under-served, undereducated population that might not hear the general messages. There needs to be changes in urban planning so that we invest in communities so that they are healthy--building parks, tearing down unhealthy buildings, making sure there are grocery stores that sell healthy foods. We need to make sure that we control our food supply to make sure that it is safe and healthy. These, and more, are also factors in a healthy population. I can only hope that when universal health care comes into reality (as I hope it will), that we do not forget to do more to improve the health of the entire population.

Why I can be a feminist--and vote for Obama

As I've been watching and reading the news recently, there has been, as expected, a great deal of coverage of Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee and of Clinton's loss in the primary. While much of this discussion has been quite interesting, one recurring theme has annoyed me. I have gotten the sense that many Clinton supporters are angry at those women who did not support her in the primaries. Apparently there was the idea that women should always support a female candidate. Gloria Steinem (who is someone I do admire) was on a show recently and made the argument that young women don't understand the urgency of having a woman president. According to her, for my generation, we always think that there will be someone else. A day or so later, I read an article in the Washington Post about how Clinton's loss will force the feminist movement to change its focus as there was a surprise that the women's vote didn't all go for Clinton.

Statements like these really annoyed me. I would love to see a woman be president--but I want it to be a woman I can believe in. I don't think that makes me less of a feminist. Just as I didn't vote for Obama because of his race, I didn't not vote for Clinton because of her gender. If a woman runs for president who moves me the way Obama has, I'll vote for her in a second. And isn't that what feminists should want? The idea that we can truly judge people, candidates, whatever on their merits, not on their gender.

Perhaps it is a generational thing. Perhaps women in older generations do have a sense of urgency, of wanting to see a woman elected president in their lifetime. I do have the advantage of youth, I have plenty more elections ahead of me, and I do strongly believe that I will see a woman in the Oval Office. As a feminist, I strongly believe that women can hold the job of president just as well, if not better, than men. And when that candidate comes along, I'll be right there for her.

So yes, I am a feminist. And yes, I supported, and continue to support Obama as President. And I don't see those statements as contradictory.

Book Review: Three Cups of Tea

I recently finished Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace...One School At a Time. I hadn't heard too much about the book, but on a recent business trip to Denver, I was browsing in a fantastic bookstore called the Tattered Cover (seriously, if you like to read and are ever in Denver, you should check it out). I saw the book on a shelf with some "staff recommendations" and decided to check it out. I was not disappointed.

The story of Three Cups of Tea is the story of Greg Mortenson, a mountain climber who, after getting lost descending from K2, spends time in a village in Pakistan called Korphe and decides after he leaves, to build the village a school. He is able to found an organization called the Central Asia Institute, which has built schools across Pakistan and Afghanistan, focusing especially on providing schooling for girls. The book details Mortenson's work, as he negotiates finding funding, dealing with local customs and politicians, religion and the changing view of Americans after 9/11. Upon a bit of further research, I was very impressed to learn that the Central Asia Institute has established 64 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan--quite impressive!

I found the book excellent reading for several reasons. Just reading about Mortenson's drive was quite inspiring. Here was a man, an ER nurse and a mountain climber, who decided to completely change his life and devote it to building schools in remote areas of the world. It was impressive to me how someone could so dramatically change their life and be so successful.

I also enjoyed how the book portrayed Afghanistan. It put a country which is often in the news into a much more personal light. Hearing about Mortenson's experiences there, and how things changed after 9/11 was quite interesting. It definitely made me want to learn even more about the region.

Hello World!

Why hello everyone (or all 5 of you who are probably reading)! After much convincing, I have finally decided to start a blog. How long this lasts is very much up in the air. I do have a tendency to have a slightly short attention span for many hobbies. But I will give this my best shot.

What will I write about? Well, most likely a combination of topics interesting to me: public health issues, general politics, books, cooking, life in DC. I'm sure there will be a few other topics thrown in, whatever makes me think on a particular day.

So stay tuned, theoretically I will write something more substantial soon.