Buy to fit, fit your buy?

So two weekends ago, Hubby, Baby1, Baby2, and I were heading home from a visit to Philly. Baby2 started fussing, so I thought I'd hop into the back seat of our A3 to see if mom's company could cheer him up a bit. As I squeezed between his car seat and Bab1's booster seat and held his hand, I started thinking.

Hubby is tall, so we've been talking about getting a bigger traveling car, given that in our A3 when we have both kids in the back seat, there's no room for him to be able to push his seat far back and allow his legs to stretch a bit. From the outside, however, a result of us getting a larger vehicle easily parallels a common pattern I see with many parents: pop out a kid, get an SUV.

Here's where my brain started to roll through a series of questions and social commentary: do most parents get an SUV because they actually need one, or do they get one because, well, just about everyone else has gotten one when they had a child? Is the SUV the beginning of the 21st century's equivalent of the (so sexy, whoo!) mommacar minivan? And leading into another question, do they get one because they have more crap to schlep, or do they get one and then schlep more crap (have more space, get more shit)? Do SUV's really give that much more safety, given that the more people get bigger vehicles, the bigger vehicles get, until we are all driving the equivalent of mobile homes?

So while I held Baby2's tiny little hand, I took a mental inventory of the crap we schlep in our trunk on a road trip. What's necessary: clothing, toiletries. What's desired: travel bed, stroller. All these items add up to pack our trunk to the hilt. Besides the fact that some of the children's items really are designed to be miniature humvee's to keep the chiropractic industry going strong, this stuff takes up quite a bit of space (I mean really, that plastic car seat - you really think the extra 4" of curved plastic on each side is going to protect your baby that well if you get T-boned?). But when I really started thinking about it, carrying around all this stuff on our trips really is more a means of convenience than one of necessity. Which brings me back to my original question:

What the hell do parents need an SUV for?

Have we reached the point where our basic surroundings are not enough entertainment for our kids, that we need to schlep 10 more pieces of entertainment that they can use for all of 5 minutes before announcing that they're *surprise* bored out of their minds? Have we become slaves to convenience, to pack these mobile living rooms (complete with DVD player, forget about actually talking with your kids the way our parents used to talk or sing with us) to the hilt with more crap than we could use in the course of a weekend? Are we spiraling out of control while chanting "Bigger, Bigger, More, More"? Last I checked, these SUV's were great for people who were big, or if you were navigating mountainous regions on a regular basis, or if you were actually transporting the Lakers. But most of the time, all I see is the SUV's carrying the equivalent occupant load of what can be handled in a stationwagon. Cynicism reinforced.

Side food note - pomegranates are piled high in our local supermarket. I love them, and so does Baby1. Before heading into the depths of dark winter, it's just beautiful to enjoy these little red gems. In my real, stationary living room.

Cake experimentation

There haven't been too many new dishes of recent. Baby2, however, has started eating a bit of food - Japanese pumpkin to start. The first time I tried feeding him was 2 weeks ago - he would have none of it (what the hell is this crap you're putting my my mouth Mom!). Quite in contrast to Baby1, who just took to eating solid food immediately. This past week, I tried again, and he was definitely a lot more receptive to the food I was feeding him. Bobbleheading his way to try to aim and get his mouth around the spoon, once he did manage to get his mouth on the spoon he lapped up the pumpkin that was on there. Granted, half of it would end up back on his lip or chin, but hey, he's trying.

Despite lack of experimentation with new dishes, I have been experimenting with my base cake recipe. This, as I thumb my nose at Hubby's statement that baking was a science, something not to be futzed. Last weekend, I baked my go-to cake recipe with a couple of variations:

Replace 3T of the 1c flour with 3T of corn starch (typical replacement ratio for 1c of AP flour to yield cake flour)

Added 1/2t of baking soda to dry mixture

Use of both lemon and vanilla extract

The result was stupendous. The cake texture - it was delicately moist with a fine crumb. I topped with my version of buttercream frosting (about 1/2c whipping cream + 3T melted butter + 1/2t vanilla extract + 1/4c sugar) - the frosting came out lovely and fluffy, and remained so 4 days later under cover. To get more density and shape, I may increase the quantity of butter next time. This frosting formula, however, will be perfect for when I'm going to make some strawberry shortcake.

Another variation was substituting about 1/4cup of the flour with cocoa to make chocolate cake. Again - fairly successful, though the chocolate flavor didn't come through so strongly - I may need to add more cocoa in lieu of the flour next time. I also made another attempt at my chocolate ganache frosting, this time with a formula of 1/2 square of Ghiradelli + 2T butter + 2T cocoa + 1c heavy whipping cream. It looked to curdle at first, but upon beating more, it fluffed up and tasted wonderful. It still doesn't have the subtle chocolate flavor (still fairly smoky from the cocoa) of the cocoa frosting I remember from long ago, but it was still quite tasty. Baby1 ate the entirety of her slice of cake - AND the frosting. Quite a change from when she would eat only the frosting.