Tifmurray

This item has been excerpted from the prepared Commencement Address to the graduates of Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., on May 18, 2013.

I recently turned thirty, which I know seems like a generation away to those of you graduating this morning. But it's more than just the worst. Thirty is a year where you're left straddling two worlds. One foot stands in the world of the young, among the bright eager minds and supple bodies of students like you. And the other foot stands in the world of the grey and decrepit; the ancient shapes of your professors and parents; their dulling senses; their craggily, wizened faces.

And by the way, congratulations parents! This is your day too.

But what it means is that I am in a position to talk about life after college -- as someone who just lived through it. For example, do you remember how your elementary school felt enormous? But then when you returned years later, you were amazed by how small it actually was? In time, your chosen professions will feel exactly the same way. That is not to say that you won't have almost unlimited opportunities. But it is to say that if you sleep with someone who works in your industry, just be aware that you're going to bump into that person at meetings and conferences and birthday parties for the rest of your life. I literally had to leave politics.

Yeah, we're going to talk about it. Your love is a delicate flower.

So, I'm going to skip the platitudes, OK? I want this to be a practical commencement address. And I'm going to do my best to tell the truth -- even when it's uncomfortable to say, even when I probably shouldn't say it. Because you're already swimming in half-truths, in people telling you what they think you want to hear. And in this next phase of your life, I promise you, you will encounter more.

I should preface this by saying that the problem I am going to describe involves a bad word -- not the worst word, but a bad word -- though I've made sure that I only have to say it now and then one more time at the end. So if you want to distract any little kids for a second, please do so. One of the greatest threats we face is, simply put, bullshit. We are drowning in it. We are drowning in partisan rhetoric that is just true enough not to be a lie; in industry-sponsored research; in social media's imitation of human connection; in legalese and corporate double-speak. It infects every facet of public life, corrupting our discourse, wrecking our trust in major institutions, lowering our standards for the truth, making it harder to achieve anything.

And it wends its way into our private lives as well, changing even how we interact with one another: the way casual acquaintances will say "I love you"; the way we describe whatever thing as "the best thing ever"; the way we are blurring the lines between friends and strangers. And we know that. There have been books written about the proliferation of malarkey, empty talk, baloney, claptrap, hot air, balderdash, bunk. One book was aptly named "Your Call is Important to Us."

But this is not only a challenge to our society; it's a challenge we all face as individuals. Life tests our willingness, in ways large and small, to tell the truth. And I believe that so much of your future and our collective future depends on your doing so. So I'm going to give you three honest, practical lessons about cutting the BS.

Number one: Don't cover for your inexperience. You are smart, talented, educated, conscientious, untainted by the mistakes and conventional wisdom of the past. But you are also very annoying. Because there is a lot that you don't know that you don't know. Your parents are nodding. You've been annoying them for years. Why do you think they paid for college? So that you might finally, at long last, annoy someone else. And now your professors are nodding.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, "Yeah, this should definitely be in 3D."

No, what he said was, "[T]he test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." That's what you have to do: you have to be confident in your potential, and aware of your inexperience. And that's really tough. There are moments when you'll have a different point of view because you're a fresh set of eyes; because you don't care how it's been done before; because you're sharp and creative; because there is another way, a better way. But there will also be moments when you have a different point of view because you're wrong, because you're 23 and you should shut up and listen to somebody who's been around the block.

The old people are nodding again.

It's hard to tell the difference. Me, I love getting this one wrong. I got it wrong a ton when I started out as a speechwriter to Hillary Clinton. I got it wrong again when I became a presidential speechwriter. I worked on one speech about the financial system that caused the Dow to drop like 200 points. So that speech could have been better, probably.

Just this past year, I faced this same dilemma, co-creating a show on NBC. It's called 1600 Penn, and while you may have heard of it, based on the ratings, you almost certainly didn't see it. Though, it did recently make some headlines... when it was cancelled. I had never so much as a written a line of dialogue before I wrote this show. But I'm working with directors and writers and executives with years and years of experience in the biz. We call it the biz.

I'll always cringe remembering those little embarrassing moments when I said something dumb on a conference call, when my inexperience poked through, when I should have been more solicitous of the judgment of those around me. They're a reminder that it's not mutually exclusive to be confident and humble; to be skeptical and eager to learn.

But there is another side to this coin, which brings me to lesson number two: Sometimes you're going to be inexperienced, naïve, untested and totally right. And then, in those moments, you have to make a choice: is this a time to speak up, or hang back? I worked for then-Senator Clinton during her campaign for president -- and I believed in her, still do. But I vividly remember feeling like things weren't right in that campaign; a lot of the young staffers felt that way -- it wasn't a secret that there were problems in how the campaign was run. The campaign pollster for example, rolled out so many slogans it was impossible to keep track. Here's a sample:

Let the Conversation Begin

Ready for Change, Ready to Lead

Working for Change, Working for You

Strength + Experience = Change. Which leads to the lesser known corollary: ( Strength + Experience ) / Change = 1.

And then, my favorite: Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time to Pick a President. Which he had printed on the side of a bus but it was basically too small to read.

So, I'm putting these slogans into speeches and I look over at an Obama campaign rally on cable news and they have one slogan. It's just the word "CHANGE" in big letters. That seemed better. But I was timid; and a lot of us just assumed, or wanted to assume, that more experienced people must know what they're doing. But that wasn't true. So the campaign ended, my candidate lost, and I ended up as a presidential speechwriter anyway, which was cool. But the lesson I drew from that campaign, other than the fact that it's always a mistake to run against Barack Obama, is the subway rule: "If you see something, say something." And I've tried to honor that ever since; to call BS when I see it -- and to not be afraid to get in people's faces, and throw a punch or two, to make a point. Metaphorically. Look at me. I wouldn't do well in an altercation.

Now, lessons one and two can be in tension. And I can't tell you how to strike the balance every time. Though it helps to be very charming. And from my point of view, I'd rather be wrong and cringe than right and regret not speaking up. But the good news is, as long as you aren't stubbornly wrong so frequently that they kick you out of the building, or so meek that everyone forgets you're in the building you'll learn and grow and get better at striking that balance, until your inexperience becomes experience. So it's a dilemma that solves itself. How awesome is that?

Finally, number three: Know that being honest -- both about what you do know, and what you don't -- can and will pay off.

Up until recently, I would have said that the only proper response to our culture of BS is cynicism; that it would just get worse and worse. But I don't believe that any more, and I think this matters for what comes next for you. I think we may have reached a critical turning point.

I'm going to say that word one last time. I believe we may have reached "peak bullshit." And that increasingly, those who push back against the noise and nonsense; those who refuse to accept the untruths of politics and commerce and entertainment and government will be rewarded. That we are at the beginning of something important.

We see it across our culture, with not only popularity but hunger for the intellectual honesty of Jon Stewart or the raw sincerity of performers like Louis CK and Lena Dunham. You can even add the rise of dark, brooding, "authentic" super heroes in our blockbuster movies. We see it in locally-sourced, organic food on campuses like this, at places like the Shakedown, a rejection of the processed as inauthentic. We see it in politics.

I believe Barack Obama represents this movement, that the rise of his candidacy was in part a consequence of the desire for greater authenticity in our public life. But you don't have to be a Democrat to believe me. You see it across the political spectrum, from Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts to Chris Christie in New Jersey to Rand Paul in Kentucky.

And what's awesome is that you -- the graduates of schools like Pitzer -- will be the ones who are best prepared and most likely to lead this movement. What's striking about the culture of this school is an unabashedly sincere desire to do good in this world; to be responsible for one another and to carry yourselves with integrity. And it's exciting that, maybe -- just maybe -- those traits won't just mean you do good; that this earnestness, this authenticity, will help you succeed in a society that is demanding those qualities with both hands.

All you have to do is avoid BSing yourself -- in whatever you choose to do. To avoid the path of the sad gay judge filled with regret. To go forward with confidence and an eagerness to learn. And to be honest with yourselves, and others -- to reject a culture of insincerity by virtue of the example you set in your own lives. And I say this only as someone hoping to do the same, along with you for the ride.

Pitzer Class of 2013, you don't need any more encouragement from me. Congratulations. And I can't wait to see what you do next.

Watch the full speech:

FBI agent Reginald B. Reyes got to snoop through the email of Fox News correspondent James Rosen by persuading a judge that there is probable cause to believe he violated the Espionage Act of 1917, a World War I era law intended to stop state secrets from being passed to foreign governments.

To be more specific, he stands accused in this search warrant application of violating 18 U.S.C.§ 793 (d). Glenn Greenwald explains what that means in plain English. "The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law," he writes. "Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself."

This is a radical legal theory*.

As it happens, it has also been directly addressed and discredited by past Supreme Court justices. Concurring in the Pentagon Papers case, Justice William O. Douglas (and Hugo Black, who joined him) expressed his belief that Section 793 doesn't apply to the press. He noted that the U.S. Congress considered and rejected an alternative version of Section 793 that reads as follows:

During any national emergency resulting from a war to which the United States is a party, or from threat of such a war, the President may, by proclamation, declare the existence of such emergency and, by proclamation, prohibit the publishing or communicating of, or the attempting to publish or communicate any information relating to the national defense which, in his judgment, is of such character that it is or might be useful to the enemy.

"During the debates in the Senate," Douglas notes, "the First Amendment was specifically cited, and that provision was defeated."

He continues:

Moreover, the Act of September 23, 1950, in amending 18 U.S.C. § 793 states in § 1(b) that: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize, require, or establish military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect." Thus, Congress has been faithful to the command of the First Amendment in this area.

The bygone analysis of two Supreme Court Justices doesn't end this debate, but it does provide another data-point that supports this conclusion: the Obama Justice Department is using a WWI-era espionage law to criminalize journalism in a way that its authors never intended. Elsewhere, I cite Hugo Black in support of the proposition that they're also transgressing against the 1st Amendment. For even more on this case, see Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News.

Update: UCLA's Eugene Volokh, one of America's foremost 1st Amendment experts, emphatically disagrees with this conclusion. Please click through to read his reasoning, which I don't think that I can succinctly and accurately summarize. He additionally notes that "if there's a First Amendment right to solicit, aid, and conspire in leaks of classified defense information, then there'd be such a right to solicit, aid, and conspire in leaks of tax return information, leaks of attorney-client confidences, leaks of psychotherapist-patient confidences, illegal interception of cell phone conversation, illegal breakins into people's computers, illegal rifling through people's desks, and so on."

*Given Volokh's analysis, it is perhaps better to say that this is a legal theory that has radical implications for the ability of journalists reporting on the federal government to do their jobs as they have for generations.

President Obama attempted something familiar in his well-crafted speech at National Defense University: he signalled that counterterrorism efforts would change significantly in his second term; and like his predecessor, he avoided mentioning that the forsaken policies were mistakes.

Like all presidents, Obama began his tenure with a daunting challenge: a rapid transition from a political campaign to a constant barrage of often intractable, life-and-death decisions. Some were foisted on him by policies already in place; others arose suddenly and unexpectedly. With no experience heading the executive branch, imperfect information, and too little time for reflection, Obama gave orders, all of them filtered through an uncontrollable bureaucracy. Of course he made big mistakes. Little surprise that he regards his second term as an opportunity for course correction, reining in his inner Dick Cheney just as Bush reined in actual Dick Cheney. With time, on-the-job experience, and the benefit of sharp critiques, Obama gained perspective.

Several changes he announced Thursday are implicit admissions to civil libertarians that the critiques they've made and the pressure they exert ought to shape policy going forward. One memorable illustration interrupted the speech itself. As Obama called on Congress to lift restrictions on Gitmo detainee transfers, Code Pink heckler Medea Benjamin drew attention to a fact that Obama himself imposed a moratorium on repatriating detainees already cleared for release to Yemen. He wasn't responding to her interjection when he said, moments later, "I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen." But those words were part of the prepared text thanks in part to sustained pressure from folks like Benjamin who want to close Gitmo. Implementing a step they've long called for is tantamount to saying, "You're right, I've been an obstacle."  

It it critical to understand that without the sustained dissent of Obama Administration critics, Thursday's speech might not have occurred; it certainly would've lacked certain key concessions. Now civil libertarians can cite Obama's words as vindication on matters including these:

• His assertion that drone strikes target only terrorists "who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people" doesn't accurately describe the actual behavior of the CIA, assuming any reasonable definition of imminence, but is nevertheless a clear rhetorical concession that it is illegitimate to target with drones people who pose no imminent threat to America.

• His assertion that "there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured" in U.S. drone strikes is at odds with the reality of drone policy, given that hundreds of civilians have been killed. It is still an admission that uncertainty about civilian death makes a drone strike illegitimate.

• When Obama states, "I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress," he is conceding that present oversight is inadequate and ought to be augmented in some way.

• Obama's statement that "the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam," strongly suggests that NYPD spying on innocent Muslim Americans, simply due to their religion, has the potential to make us less safe, despite the fact that John Brennan, his top counterterrorism adviser and current CIA director, praised the program.

• Obama mentions the need to put "careful constraints" on the State Secrets doctrine, another step civil libertarians have championed, and calls for the creation of "a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board."

• His statement that "journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs" is an apparent rebuke to DOJ's decision to accuse James Rosen of violating the law by soliciting classified information from a government employee.
  

• Perhaps most importantly, Obama is on record stating that a failure to end the AUMF that provides the legal basis for the War on Terrorism would do damage to America, though he provides no timeline. His unexpected assurance that "I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further" is arguably the most important promise that he made in his speech.

There are, alas, huge caveats to consider. Some concessions, like the change in status for Yemeni prisoners cleared for release, appear to be policy changes that Obama will actually implement. But he has a long record of broken promises and misleading rhetoric on civil liberties, and it would be naive to assume that he'll follow through on everything he said on Thursday. The speech was an inescapably political maneuver, intended in part to disarm his critics, following the classic Obama pattern of affirming their strongest insights and critiques, but acting as if, having done so, there's no need to change course in the way those critiques imply.

As Benjamin Wittes put it at Lawfare:

If there was a unifying theme of President Obama's speech today at the National Defense University, it was an effort to align himself as publicly as possible with the critics of the positions his administration is taking without undermining his administration's operational flexibility in actual fact. To put it crassly, the president sought to rebuke his own administration for taking the positions it has -- but also to make sure that it could continue to do so.

With that in mind, let's take a closer look at the most misleading passages in the speech. Some concern descriptions of what Team Obama is supposedly doing already; others pertain to what it purportedly will do.

1) President Obama spoke as if he wants to persuade Congress to end the Authorization to Use Military Force. Wittes notes that "Obama does not need Congress to narrow or repeal the AUMF or to get off of a war footing. He can do it himself, declaring hostilities over in whole or in part." Instead, his administration has been taking steps to institutionalize semi-targeted killing, and Pentagon officials have talked about fighting the enemy for another ten or twenty years. Suffice it to say that the actual course he'll take for the rest of his term is decidedly unclear.

2) Obama spoke as if Congress is exercising "strong oversight" of his semi-targeted killing program. "After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress," he said. "Let me repeat that - not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes." Later he says that "the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action," which he opposes, "has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process." This elides the fact that, prior to a drone strike, only the executive branch is part of the process. If Obama were to wrongly kill someone, Congress would only find out after the fact, and even that would be uncertain, because we have no idea what is included in a "briefing." The Obama Administration's bygone claim that civilian casualties were in the single digits, and Senator Feinstein's outrageously low estimate of civilian casualties, are both reason to doubt the quality of information being forwarded in those briefings. And the fact that oversight committee members have had to fight hard for information about targeted killing, including basic information like its legal rationale, gives the lie to the fact that oversight is generally "strong."

3) Obama claims that targets of drone strikes are only killed when they present an imminent threat to America. I've written at length about how the Obama Administration's working definition of imminence bears little resemblance to the word's actual meaning. And the facts bear out the evident problems with the rhetoric. Thousands of people have been killed in drone strikes since Obama took office. It just isn't credible to argue that all of them constituted an imminent threat. But for drone strikes, how many attacks on Americans are we to believe there would've been? The imminence standard was reasserted in the document released Thursday that set forth the criteria for drone strikes going forward. We'll have to see what "imminence" means in practice.

4) As noted above, the claim that drone strikes only proceed when there is a "near certainty" that no civilians will be killed doesn't square with credible estimates of hundreds of dead civilians, including children. Also notable is the muddiness surrounding how the Obama Administration defines "civilian." Credible reporting suggests one operational definition is "military-aged males killed in drone strikes." Again, we'll have to see how "civilians" are defined going forward.

5) Obama states that "I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen - with a drone, or a shotgun - without due process," then adds, "But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America - and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot - his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team." This elides the core of the controversy: how is it determined that an American citizen falls into the latter category of waging war against America and plotting to kill? Obama believes that the executive branch is empowered to make that determination in secret, using opaque standards. Civil libertarians cite the Constitution's 5th Amendment and the treason clause to argue otherwise.  

6) Though it is widely known that many U.S. drone strikes have been carried out by the CIA, Obama made no mention of the clandestine intelligence agency in his speech, raising the question of whether he is acknowledging and incorporating their actions in his characterization of drone strikes generally, or treating those strikes as classified, which is to say, as if they don't exist. A failure to talk about the CIA's role constitutes a significant lack of transparency, for better or worse.

All things considered, Thursday's developments were an improvement on the status quo. Obama constrained himself rhetorically in ways he hadn't before, expressed agreement with core civil libertarian critiques, and signalled that future policy will shift in that direction as a result. But talk is cheap, Obama has a history of breaking promises to civil libertarians, and drone strikes remain surrounded in enough secrecy that it will remain difficult to verify what's going on. Moreover, policies implemented at the president's prerogative can be changed on his determination too. There remains an urgent need for Congress to step into the breach and constrain the president, even if only in the ways that Obama says that he has constrained himself.

The subpoena of AP phone records over what seems like a fairly routine leak has puzzled me from the start. Why did the administration go so ballistic over this? Today, the LA Times helps me understand what was going on. Apparently the leak compromised the efforts of an al-Qaeda mole who had been recruited by British intelligence and was one of our prized assets:

His access led to the U.S. drone strike that killed a senior Al Qaeda leader, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed Quso, on May 6, 2012. U.S. officials say Quso helped direct the terrorist attack that killed 17 sailors aboard the U.S. guided-missile destroyer Cole in a Yemeni harbor in October 2000.

The informant also convinced members of the Yemeni group that he wanted to blow up a U.S. passenger jet on the first anniversary of the U.S. attack that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. They outfitted him with the latest version of an underwear bomb designed to pass metal detectors and other airport safeguards, officials say.

The informant left Yemen and delivered the device to his handlers, and it ultimately went to the FBI's laboratory in Quantico, Va. Intelligence officials hoped to send him back to Yemen to help track more bomb makers and planners, but the leak made that impossible, and sent Al Qaeda scrambling to cover its tracks, officials said.

Jack Shafer speculates a bit further:

The AP states in the article that it published only after being told by “officials” that the original “concerns were allayed.”....That may be the case, but the government was still incensed by the leak. In fact, it appears that officials were livid. As my Reuters colleagues Mark Hosenball and Tabassum Zakaria reported last night, the government found the leak so threatening that it opened a leak investigation before the AP ran its story.

Now, what would make the Obama administration so furious? My guess is it wasn’t the substance of the AP story that has exasperated the government but that the AP found a source or sources that spilled information about an ongoing intelligence operation and that even grander leaks might surge into the press corps’ rain barrels.

And that's the key. The AP story itself didn't mention anything about a double agent. But apparently, the fact that AP had found itself a leaker got officials scared that the existence of the mole might become public. And as Shafer documents at length, that's exactly what happened:

What not for the U.S. government to like here?

To begin with, the perpetrators of a successful double-agent operation against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would not want to brag about their coup for years. Presumably, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula will now use the press reports to walk the dog back to determine whose misplaced trust allowed the agent to penetrate it. That will make the next operation more difficult. Other intelligence operations — and we can assume they are up and running — may also become compromised as the press reports give al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula new clues.

Likewise, the next time the CIA or foreign intelligence agency tries to recruit a double agent, the candidate will judge his handlers wretched secret keepers, regard the assignment a death mission and seek employment elsewhere.

Last, the leaks of information — including those from the lips of Brennan, Clarke and King — signal to potential allies that America can’t be trusted with secrets. “Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” as Obama put it today in a news conference.

The ultimate audience for the leaks investigation may not be domestic but foreign. Obviously, the government wants to root out the secretspillers. But a country can’t expect foreign intelligence agencies to cooperate if it blows cover of such an operation. I’d wager that the investigations have only begun.

You can decide for yourself whether the government's reaction to all this was reasonable and proper. But for the first time I feel like I understand what might have motivated them, and I thought I'd pass that along.

You know how when you learn a new word, you suddenly hear it everywhere–in books, articles, and coming out of people’s mouths? Or how, when you make new friends, you don’t know what you spent your Saturdays doing before you met them? When I was in school, I loved the convergence of different subjects, how what you were learning in math could somehow become relevant in history class.

Since I’ve been exploring Middle Eastern food, I’ve noticed newly learned techniques pop up everywhere and flavor combinations that first seemed improbable appear completely sensical. Had I missed the fact that you could temper yogurt with egg or flour and use it to make a creamy soup? Is sumac the new smoked paprika?

Yet the more I read, taste, and cook, the more I notice continuity between what I already enjoy and what’s eaten in Lebanon, Turkey, Armenia, and Egypt. In fact, the third time I read about that yogurt soup in Claudia Roden’s The New Book of Middle Eastern Food, I realized it bore a similarity to one of the first dishes I ever got in the habit of cooking for myself, a pasta dish I wrote about in In the Small Kitchen, which uses egg, yogurt, and pasta water to create a creamy, slightly tangy, no-cook sauce for pasta. In fact, one version of the soup actually has vermicelli noodles in it.

Taking inspiration from the convergence of an old favorite and a new-to-me technique, I made a 2013 version of my old favorite yogurt pasta. I cut down on the Parmesan cheese, three tablespoons of which has always seemed so comforting, and ramped up the flavor with herbs–mint and thyme–and scallions. I used fresh versions but you could use dried.

I’m thrilled with the result, and thrilled to have a new, easy dinner for one that’s comforting yet bright.

This sponsored post is part of an ongoing collaboration with Sargento, called Flavor Journey. Throughout the year, with the support of Sargento, I’m exploring Middle Eastern cuisine–at home, in Brooklyn, and wherever the flavors may take me. Sponsored posts let me do some of my best work on this blog, and I only ever work with brands whose values and products mesh with the content I love to produce for you. You can read my affiliate disclosure here.

**Recipe**

Creamy Linguine with Mint, Thyme, and Lemon
Serves 1; easily doubled

Ingredients
4 ounces linguine
1/3 cup whole milk yogurt, preferably Greek yogurt
1 egg
1 tablespoon Parmesan cheese, plus a little extra for garnish
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon chopped fresh mint, plus a few leaves for garnish
1/4 teaspoon chopped fresh thyme
Zest of half a lemon
1 scallion, thinly sliced

Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Cook the pasta, following the package directions, until al dente–about 10 minutes.

Meanwhile, in a small mixing bowl, beat together the yogurt, egg, the Parmesan, the salt, mint, thyme, lemon zest, and chopped scallion.

Just before the pasta is done, add 2 tablespoons of hot cooking water to the yogurt mixture and whisk it in to temper the egg. Drain the pasta and immediately add it to the yogurt mixture. Toss to combine. Top with a little more Parmesan, a few grinds of black pepper, and some mint leaves.

I know it’s first thing in the morning. But I want to talk about booze. No, not vodka, not tequila, and not gin. Something sweeter and nuttier. Maybe more like breakfast? Or really, dessert. It’s Frangelico, a hazelnut-flavored liquor that’s about to take my chocolate mousse to the next level.

But first, let’s go way back.

Years ago, I interned in the test kitchen of a famous food personality. As the only non-professional chef in the kitchen, I spent my days feeling like Amelia Bedelia, pouring salt in the sugar jar and spilling sugar on the floor.

Now, there is a lot of know-how involved in being a home cook, like understanding how to improvise meals from an empty pantry or what it means to stretch dinner to feed double the number of guests intended (hint: add potatoes), but not knowing how to handle a hazelnut is one of the downfalls of never having earned a culinary degree.

One quiet afternoon in the test kitchen, we were testing recipes and a chef handed me some extra pie dough to play with. With the freedom to fill my pie crust with any of the kitchen’s gourmet wonders, I kicked around ideas, finally deciding on a chocolate mousse filling with hazelnuts. The crust baked up fine, and the mousse set. Feeling good, I toasted the hazelnuts, failed to remove their papery skins, scattered them across my tart, offered slices around the kitchen, and drooped home after the entire test kitchen staff declined to taste my tart.

“You know you have to remove the skins before you serve them?” the head chef finally said.

Obviously I hadn’t known. Right then I knew, though. Lesson learned.

So when I got the chance to work with Frangelico, a hazelnut-flavored liquor, I knew my recipe was going to be the story not just of hazelnut liqueur but of redemption. Make that crustless redemption.

When I think of a dinner party dessert, I think of chocolate mousse. I just do. This may seem old-fashioned or overly traditional, but I have my reasons. Often, after a big dinner, eating cake is too agressive a move. Fruit for dessert sounds dull. A chocolate bar shared among guests is nice and rustic, but maybe too homey for some parties. Chocolate mousse, made in this case with nothing more than chocolate chips, eggs, coffee, and a big pour of Frangelico–hazelnut liquor that also happens to be quite light and low in calories–is, as I said, the perfect dinner party dessert.

But the best part about this recipe is that you can whip it up to suit your own cravings, even when there’s no dinner party on the agenda. (For that, maybe cut recipe in half.) Whirl chocolate chips in the blender with coffee, making an elevated ganache. Add eggs, for substance, to help the chocolate solidify during a short wait in the fridge (you have to eat the savory part of dinner sometime!). The Frangelico adds sweetness and a Nutella-esque nuttiness. And then, sweet redemption, toasted and peeled hazelnuts scattered on top bring this little dessert together.

This sponsored post is part of an ongoing collaboration with Frangelico. I only ever work with brands whose values and products mesh with the content I love to produce for you. You can read my affiliate disclosure here.

**Recipe**

 Easy Hazelnut Chocolate Mousse
Serves 4
Adapted from The Pioneer Woman

Sometimes I use great chocolate to make this. Sometimes I use supermarket chocolate chips. Whatever. On the other hand, use the freshest eggs from the market since you’ll basically be eating ‘em raw.

Ingredients
6 ounces semi-sweet chocolate chips (1 cup)
pinch salt
2 eggs
1/2 cup strong, hot coffee
2 tablespoons Frangelico
12 hazelnuts, toasted for 8 minutes in a 350°F oven and peeled

Combine the chocolate, salt, and eggs in a blender or food processor. Blend til the chocolate is chopped really, really finely. Pour in the coffee, which should be extremely hot. Blend until all the chocolate is melted. Pour into four ramekins or other little bowls. Scatter 4 hazelnuts on top of each. Place on a baking sheet and refrigerate for 2 hours, or until set. You can also refrigerate them overnight. Serve cold, with a little whipped cream if you like.

The anemic economy has left millions struggling to get ahead. Student debt is making it even harder for many of them, as they delay purchases of things like homes and cars.

Just look at him.

Tonight, after a packed day, I’m heading to our monthly girls’ potluck, still known as Mag Club in spite of not having adhered to the original meaning (we’ll all present an article from a magazine! and a dish the article inspired! yeah, right!) for years. These days, instead of dating and parties, we talk of engagements, weddings, and apartment decoration. In spite of these topics, we manage to have fun getting together.

Back to that packed day. One of the challenges of living and working in New York City is the extended time we spend away from our apartments. To leave at 7am and return when the clock strikes 10pm, after work, dinner, and the gym is exhausting in its own right, never mind the work and plans that take a toll on people like me who enjoy fresh air, homemade lunches, and 8 hours of sleep. Being out all day often means carrying a lot of bags, too, wedging ourselves plus our gym clothes, lunch bags, and scarves into an already slim column of air on the 4 train.

Even when it means an extra bag, I like to bring a homemade dish to Mag Club. (We don’t dock membership if you buy sushi, sesame noodles, or pizza, but have you met me? I’m the queen of homemade.) Since everyone has become pretty health-conscious, my last few carb-y contributions (Swiss Chard Lasagna, and a huge container of fried rice) weren’t ideal for the occasion. I decided to eliminate the carbs and load up on vegetables in tonight’s roasted vegetable salad with chickpeas and goat cheese inspired by the sweet-and-tangy flavor combination of eggplant caponata. I hope you – and the girls tonight – like it!

And here’s how to be a potluck party all-star.

**Recipe**

Roasted Caponata Salad with Chickpeas & Goat Cheese
Serves 6 as a side

Most of the time I roast my vegetables nearly to oblivious. I like them crispy and as crunchy as possible. Not so here – I wanted the zucchini, eggplant, peppers, and shallots to be just tender, a little juicy, like they’d been gently sautéed. That just means this recipes comes together more quickly!

Ingredients
1 Japanese eggplant
Coarse salt
1 zucchini
1 red bell pepper
1 shallot
Olive oil
1/2 teaspoon sugar
juice from half a lemon
About 3 ounces goat cheese, crumbled
One 14-ounce can chickpeas

Preheat the oven to 400°F. Line a baking sheet with parchment paper. Slice the eggplant lengthwise and place the slices on a paper towel. Salt them generously and then flip them and salt again.

While the eggplant is resting, cut the zucchini and pepper in a half-inch dice. Place on the baking sheet. Blot the eggplant slices, then cut those in a half-inch dice too. Toss with olive oil–about 1 tablespoon. Put the pan in the oven and cook for 5 minutes. Meanwhile, dice the shallot, then toss it in with the other vegetables. Bake for 12-15 more minutes, until the vegetables are cooked and just barely colored. Squeeze most of the lemon juice over the veggies and sprinkle on the sugar. Cook 2 more minutes, then remove and let cool for 10 minutes.

Toss slightly cooled vegetables with the chickpeas and the rest of the lemon juice. Taste and add another drizzle of olive oil and some salt to taste. Layer half of the salad into a serving bowl and sprinkle with half the crumbled goat cheese. Pile on the rest of the salad, then the rest of the goat cheese. Serve warm, room temperature, or cold.

Indiana lawmakers have reached a compromise that would direct more non-violent, low-level felons to work release and other local programs rather than sending them to prison.

The president reveals his NCAA tournament picks on ESPN.

A study showed that participants consumed more calories and were an average of two pounds heavier after one week of sleeping only about five hours a day.

“I have no faith in anything,” says Maurice Sendak in his final interview. “I never have, much.”Sendak, author of children’s books both widely beloved (Where the Wild Things Are, In The Night Kitchen) and staunchly defended (Outside Over There, We Are All In