Thursday, June 14, 2007

Food That Tastes Good and is Good For You, Too

I usually buy fresh sockeye salmon that comes from Copper River, Alaska. I've used all kinds of recipes, which you can find on the link below. I alter the recipes to my own taste, and always add honey on top of the salmon. I drizzle quite a bit of it on the raw salmon before cooking.

Here is my method of cooking salmon.

Put 1/4 cup of butter or olive oil in the bottem of the roasting pan or the frying pan. If you are using a small roasting pan or any oven dish, preheat the oven to 350 F or medium heat. I don't preheat the fry pan when I'm cooking this dish.

To this, add 1/4 cup of chopped, sweet onion (here, they are called Vidalia onions, from Georgia)

Sprinkle this well with Italian seasoning (basil, sage, thyme, rosemary, etc)

Now place the salmon, skin side UP in the pan. Cover it with a lid and let steam for about 15 minutes and then check it to see if the skin can be lifted off. If so, take a metal spatual or a wide knife, and remove the skin.

The fish is now skinless, so you can add another 1/4 cup of chopped onion, the Italian seasoning, and some salt. Drizzle honey over the top side of the fish, very thickly, til it is all covered. Cover and cook another 15 minutes until the fish is flakey and appears to be thoroughly cooked.

The honey makes a wonderful sauce, and you will find your family going back to find the pan the fish was cooked in, just to scrape the pan to get more sauce.

This salmon can be cooked in a pan on top the stove or in the oven. It always turns out delicious either way. I also like red salmon and king salmon. I think they are the ultimate best, but the sockeye salmon from Copper River is excellent.

A side dish to this is sweet peas. For my family, I always buy the best. I think the body is the best machinery we have to succeed in life and that good food was intended by God for us to eat. The frozen sweet peas are more expensive but the taste is excellent and they are not tough.

Nothing beats a baked potato with this dish, and I especially like the twice-baked potato recipe I got from a little English cookbook. After you turn off the oven, scoop out the baked potato, leaving enough hard potato around the edges of the shell to hold it firm. Then you mash all the potato you scooped out and add some sour cream and chives, and spoon it back into the shell. Sprinkle some finely grated cheese on top and put it back into the oven. There will be enough heat left to melt the cheese.

I use rice, more often, rather than potatoes, with this recipe, and prefer jasmati rice with wild rice, which I get in the bulk foods section of the grocery store. It is easy to cook, never gets mushy and smells wonderful.

After dinner a small piece of cheesecake made with real cacao is just perfect. No one is hungry afterwards and they don't all get up and go to the fridge hunting for more food.

Salmon recipes


Lydia said...

I use sea salt.

Lydia said...

Just wanted to tell you something about cheap food. I don't mean inexpensive food. It can be inexpensive and still be the best. I believe that if we buy cheap food that is valueless in nutrition, we will just eat more, trying to get some satisfaction from it. With the higher quality foods, the family is less likely to head for the empty-calorie type foods afterwards, and are more capable of not eating between meals.

If you want to lose weight, watch your simple-carb intake.

Lydia said...

That sounds delicious! I never thought of using honey on salmon, but it sounds like it works well. :)

Lean Not said...

Make sure you are getting wild salmon, not farm-raised. If it is farm-raised, it will say "color-added" on it.

The salmon meat is pink b/c of what the fish eats, and the farm-raised salmon is raised in a really disgusting way. Since they do not get proper nutrition, the companies dye the meat.

Farm-raised salmon, though much cheaper than wild, is not as good for you b/c of how the fish has lived and what has been done to the meat afterward.

That said, I still will eat farm-raised if wild is not available; but I do go out of my way to buy the real stuff.

Dea said...

Sounds wonderful! I often use honey in salmon recipes. One of my favourite is an asian glaze with soy sauce, a little fresh grated ginger, chopped garlic, honey and scallions. Cook exactly as you suggested but using the marinade as you do the honey. Then serve with steamed rice and broccoli. Yummy!

I am curious about jasmati rice. Is that a hybrid of jasmine and basmati? If so it's sounds incredible!!!

Lydia said...

No, jasmati is just someone's name for jasmine rice.

Thanks for mentioning the importance of wild salmon.

fresh grated ginger is wonderful on salmon!

Also some things are called salmon and look like salmon but not salmon. One particular fish that I dislike intensely is called "chum"

Lydia said...

I'm a brocoli fan, too.

Lydia said...

You can put the fish skin in your garden. Makes the flowers grow beautifully.

Hedi said...

Thanks for the recipe!

Nancy said...

If anyone likes to grill salmon, here's an easy recipe I find delicious. Simply whisk together dijon mustard and extra virgin olive oil, and brush onto salmon before placing on the grill. Salt and freshly ground pepper to taste. The salmon grills to a gorgeous golden brown, and the mustard is a nice complement the delicious fish.

Anonymous said...

Great recipes.... That picture looks so good. It is so hard to find wild salmon. Where is wild salmon available? I live in the New England area.

Deborah Swinson said...

Hello Lydia, Reading this makes me miss that Copper River salmon! When we lived in Alaska my husband would go with a friend to Chitna and dip net for them. Every year we had 30 salmon. I canned it, we froze fillets and smoked a bunch. But that first salmon cooked on the grill was always the best! I do miss getting all that salmon for the price of a fishing license.

Also I miss the wild "cranberries" that we used to pick every fall and freeze for all kinds of treats in the long winter months.

Thanks for sharing the recipe.


Anonymous said...

This is great! I can't wait to try it. My father is getting out of the hospital tomorrow and I'm on the look out for heart-healthy recipes. Thanks so much Lydia and Nancy those are good ideas.


Anonymous said...

Hello Lady Lydia,
Unfortunately, I'm writing to you here because I couldn't find your email address on your blog. Although it doesn't relate to food, I thought you might like to see these lovely pictures
Thank you, yet again, for your wonderful, wonderful site.
God Bless,

Anonymous said...

Hello Lady Lydia,

I too am writing because I could not find an email address. I am researching the role of women before the suffrage movement and found an article on the Ladies Against Feminism website which states, "Single or widowed women in Colonial America who owed property were allowed to vote". Could you please give me a resource for this information. I know I have read this somewhere else before, but everything I am reading on the internet indicates otherwise. Perhaps you will know of a resource that has not been revised.

Thank you for your time,
Brenda Karl

Lydia said...

Ladies I fixed my profile so you can email me. I think you just click on my name and it will send an email.

I know that has resources about the women who had property before the era and long before so-called women's lib, which I'll post when I find.

My mother and grandmother lived before such measures and they both had bank accounts and property.There is no evidence to support the populuar myth that before the 20th century enlightened progressive measures that women were nothing more than cattle, property or less than human. they like to portray the past in a dim light so that their agenda seems worth following. Women were actually safer and better off in many ways before the feminist movement and before women's studies classes. Modern feminism has reduced women to workhorses that have to bring in an income, and pulled them down from the high place of honor they once held as wives and mothers and homemakers. It has made the less safe, as now, instead of being in their homes, they are walking to their cars in parking lots and being attacked, or being kidnapped, etc. The modern mode of dress seems to attract the less noble of men and created more danger.

Lydia said...

Sorry, I seem to have answered a question on a different thread--about the evidence of women owning land in the 1700's.

Unknown said...

Hello Lady Lydia,

Thank you for the information. Although I agree with everything you are saying, I need a source. Hopefully a primary one. I am researching this for my husband who is a college professor and this subject has come to the forefront in a world religions class...go figure.:)Anyway, it seems almost impossible to find this info on the internet and we both know we have read about this somewhere before. Can you help on that note?

Brenda Karl

Lydia said...

I think that source is available and am just looking for it. It was based on a law that said that only property owners could vote. You see not everyone could vote and those who could NOT were servants, slaves,government employees, and anyone on welfare. It was reasoned that if welfare or gov't employees voted, they would vote themselves pay raises. Many people in cities could not vote because they had no property. Apparently the reason was that the cities being more populated, could swing a vote against landowners, raise their taxes, and do much harm to the economy.

I still haven't found the source but have written an inquiry and will get that to you soon.

Lydia said...

The best source , the ultimate best would be Blackstones Law, which were the law books that were used in America from the beginning until around 1963. It was based on the Bible, and has been republished. It is by William Blackstone. He wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England, which was a standard for colonial law. It consisted of several very large books such as those you would see in a law library.

In 1964, one of the professors at a prestigious and famous law school in America said, "Thank goodness, we got rid of Blackstone!" You can see how the practice of law has gone downhill since then, in its values and its beliefs.

Another book is written in 1777 called Laws Respecting Women. London: St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1777 [Law E Treat ‘Laws’] {LLRBR}. Chronicling the laws affecting women in Great Britain, this treatise provides an eighteenth-century perspective. Interestingly, it presents some issues that society today would view as modern, for instance, the monetary payment a wife should receive if she and her husband agree to live separately

You can go to for more resources, and many of them are reprinted books that you'll like having in your personal library anyway. That is where you can get a copy of Blackstones Law and also Vision Forum may have Blackstones Law as well, that you can order.

Lydia said...

Here is another source (be sure to read my previous comment), but read it with caution, as it was written in 1986 and hardly an author is not already prejudiced against the 17th and 18th centuries regarding women. They tend to twist facts to suit their beliefs or they only select the facts they want. This might, however be a very good source so I don't want to rule it out. However, the best sources are the original sources--the reprints of the actual laws found in Blackstone and the Married woman's property law by richard chused.

][Salmon, Marylynn. Women and the Law of Property in Early America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986 (KF524 .S24 1986). An excellent source for studying property laws in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina and their effect on women during the period 1750-1830, this overview addresses the impact these laws had on the social structure of the colonies.

Kelly said...


Lydia said...

I'm just checking with Brenda to see if she got the above information.

I found more information as follows:

Women and Property

As in so many other respects, women suffered disadvantages in the matter of property ownership. Generally, the property women brought into marriages and the money they earned as wages legally fell under the control of their husbands. Wives could not normally make binding contracts or sue in court without their husbands' permission. Longstanding misogyny lay behind these limitations, but the need to preserve family unity provided their chief justification, although significant restrictions on female property ownership were not universal. Thus, widows often received and disposed of income accruing from their dead spouse's property, while unmarried women, if the sole living heir, might inherit the estate of their parents. Furthermore, some marriage contracts stipulated that wives retained ownership of their dowries. Despite laws to the contrary, certain cities permitted women to make investments on their own and conduct private businesses. Women also exerted some independence in the deeding of movable property (goods other than land or buildings) to their heirs. In short, despite major legal obstacles in the acquisition and disposition of property, women were by no means entirely dispossessed.

The Growing Debate on Property

During the eighteenth century, seignorialism became the object of a growing debate arising from new political conditions, especially the need for greater state revenues, and the birth of cultural movements, notably the Enlightenment. By 1750 it had become clear that the squeezing of peasants by the seigniors was seriously eroding the state tax base and reducing the incentive of peasants to produce. In some areas of Germany seignorial authority was already declining with the growth of a large number of masterless, landless workers. Influenced by the liberal doctrines of the Enlightenment, German reformers tried to accelerate and regulate this process by limiting seignorial dues and services in hopes that liberation from the most oppressive aspects of seignorialism and a larger stake in the produce of a seigniory would encourage peasants to work harder. A similar attack on seignorialism was launched in France by a group of influential political economists called the Physiocrats. The Physiocrats, too, advocated the gradual scaling back of seignorial dues, as well as the elimination of state-imposed restrictions on the use and disposition of property, which they portrayed as impediments to expanding output. Although they did not deny the legality of seignorial property outright, the Physiocrats undercut its legitimacy by representing seignorial rights as the product of the lords' historic violence and tyranny over the peasantry. Defenders of seignorial rights tried to turn the tables on the Physiocrats by contending that these rights were "natural" properties acquired legitimately through contracts freely entered into by tenants. This counterargument carried little weight after 1789, when the French Revolution, which proclaimed property as an "inviolable and sacred" right, radically scaled back peasant dues, transformed remaining ones into pure rents, and eliminated all the honorific privileges of the seigniors.

By the late eighteenth century, property in western Europe was gradually emerging from its seignorial cocoon, but this did not mean that it had lost all its political significance. On the contrary, as had been the case in England for a long time, property was considered an integral part of one's political personality, particularly insofar as it enabled its owners to resist corruption by "despotic" rulers. The late-seventeenth-century English political philosopher John Locke, in preaching the trinity of "life, liberty, and property" as natural rights of all people, helped make property holding a prerequisite for active citizenship in virtually all states until the later nineteenth century. It was only with the flood tide of democracy that property ownership became legally dissociated from political rights, a dissociation that has lasted until the present day.


Blum, Jerome. The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe. Princeton, 1978.

——. Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, 1961.

Erickson, Amy Louise. Women and Property in Early Modern England. New York, 1993.

Kaiser, Thomas E., "Property, Sovereignty, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the Tradition of French Jurisprudence." In The French Idea of Freedom: The Old Regime and the Declaration of Rights of 1789, edited by Dale Van Kley, pp. 300–339, 418–424. Stanford, 1994.

Markoff, John. The Abolition of Feudalism: Peasants, Lords, and Legislators in the French Revolution. University Park, Pa., 1996.

Pocock, J. G. A. Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History, Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, U.K., 1985.

Schlatter, Richard. Private Property: The History of An Idea. New York, 1951. Reprint, 1971.

Wright, William. Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign: Agrarian Reform in Eighteenth-Century Bohemia. Minneapolis, 1966.

from this source:

please let me know if you are getting these..

Anonymous said...

The thread of conversation concerning womans' rights - land ownership, monitary control etc is rather interesting. Here in Australia, up until 1973-1974, from first hand information gained from ladies now in their 60's and 70's, a woman could not apply for a bank loan or entre into a contract to purchase a house from what I understand (though I wonder how truthful they're being - this seems to be common knowledge among that generation) having a bank account in their own name was permitted; Many of these women went out to or returned to work during their younger lives and hailed the lifting of laws preventing married women from working in bank, proffessions etc though these laws cannot have been too inflexible for as many who speak of these times, just as many speak of staying in teaching, nursing (especially in family practice with their husbands who were doctors - death of the family medical practice another sad loss to the moddern era for another conversation). To find out the legal truth of the matter, if anyone here has the extensive knowledge of Australian law dealing with this subject, i would be most interested as I wish to know the truth one way or another. here in Aus, one citizen, one vote had its origins in pre-Federation days in the last years of the 19th century and was rolled out nationally in 1902 (NZ in 1898 if I'm correct).

The logical end of the importance of the centrality of family can be witnessed on a daily basis in my nation (and most likely a majority of the nations from which other readers and commentators hale from also) breakdown, the vulnerable, disabled and elderly overlooked, their carers pressed in the modern materialistic, economic rationalist vice or surrendered into institutional care (the elderly a case in point), 100,000 homeless persons in Australia with up to 20,000 families, divorce, substance abuse, neglect...the list goes on. We tiny band of ladies (and the occasional gentleman) are the remnant who will help put it all back together. Will we see society in our lifetime return to a more sensible, compassionate, god-fearing, obedient rightly balanced model? possibly not. Will this incredible inherritance be handed down to the next generation and the one after it? Yes. A supertanker doesn't turn about in an instant. We have, with God's grace and infinite resources, a great work of healing and repair to undertake that the 'Comufem' ajenda be turned around and society strengthened and given a healthy new lease on life.

Finally, though I am aware Lady Lydia has just completed one book, as this latest article deals with good, wholesome, delicious food, it would be fantastic if all here, from every corner of the globe, could share their own cultural food herritage - greek, French, Indian, South American, English, Scandinavian, Eastern European, Aussie, New Zeald , Canadian, US etc that these could be gathered into a book along with modern home helps, home hints, Verses of Godly wisdom and inspiration that 'covertly' the Lady's role could be presented in a way that is subtle and imparts ideas and knowledge without the reader on a conscious level even knowing it (smile).

Just a thought.


Mrs. E.

Karen said...


There's something I'd like to do but wanted to check with you first. Several of your past posts have struck a chord with me and I'd like to include a permanent 'Favourite Lady Lydia Posts' links section on my blog.

If you feel more comfortable, you can have a peek at my site in order to feel more comfortable with where your words will be seen :)


Lizzie in Australia

Anonymous said...

Lydia said, "It has made the less safe, as now, instead of being in their homes, they are walking to their cars in parking lots and being attacked, or being kidnapped, etc. The modern mode of dress seems to attract the less noble of men and created more danger."

How true this is, but most of society and especially women, don't seem to understand this and blithely continue to put themselves in danger every day. This mentality of "I am strong, I'm invincible, i am Woman!!" harms us because it is isn't true. No one is invincible,
and women are physically weaker than men, so we need protection.
I believe we need to resurrect the old laws that dealt severely with men who committed crimes against women. That is something worth marching for, in my opinion. Rape should once again become a capital offense. I also wouldn't mind seeing all the weight of the law thrown against those who do physical or sexual violence to children and the elderly or disabled.

Having said that, however, there is much that we as women can do, because in our own God-given way we are very powerful, and in fact, hold the keys to a societal revolution. If you doubt that, let me ask you a few questions.

What if tomorrow, all of us quit buying and wearing anything that wasn't dignified and feminine? Imagine the young, unmarried girls doing this, too. What if said maidens refused to let the fellas so much as breathe on them, and instead of being sexually aggressive themselves, behaved charmingly, but ladylike? What if the only thing they flashed was a winning smile?

What if they held out for marriage and refused any potential mate who could not provide for them? What if a woman settled for nothing less than being the queen of her home instead of someone else's paid worker? And if all those women currently working began to come home?

How would the men react to all of this? Once they got over the shock, I think you would see a revolution in them, as well. Because men want and desperately need women to love them, and nurture them, and have their children, I think you would see them shaping up in a hurry. It would energize them, give them back their drive to do and be their best. Just think of it!

This would of course work only if their was enough unity within the ranks of women, but if so, you would see a completely different society inside of a month, I am sure. We would all have to make some sacrifices in the short term, but eventually the wage thing would turn around and once again, a man could support his family without having to depend so much on bean dishes and thrift stores.

Women aren't invincible, but in my view, ladies come awfully close to being so.

Lydia said...

Gail your comments were so good I felt like posting them twice!

Lydia said...

I will take issue of the danger of immodesty to the Guard the Home blog. I believe immodesty puts our daughters in danger. The argument that it shouldn't matter how a person dresses, is like saying a wolf nearby shouldn't eat the meat that is dangled before him. Those who defend immodesty say that it doesn't matter, because if they are attacked it is the other person's fault. However they fail to realize that there are unscrupulous and unregenerate, unprincipled, untrained, violent people on this earth. Not everyone is well mannered or well behaved. There is danger out there, and that is what the girls won't accept. In South Africa, the women cannot be alone, as such things are out of control these days. In fact, some of them will not have long hair, because society is so dangerous that they can be grabbed by their hair and dragged away.They are also warned not to wear sexy clothing in public.

Many young people insist that more laws and stricter laws will prevent it all, but if a people in general do not hold to Biblical standards as written in the scriptures (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc) it doesn't matter how many laws or police there are, it won't stop the crime. Therefore we can begin at our own doorstep to do what we need to do to keep attention away from ourselves. I have gone over this many many times when we were on the Beautiful Womanhood message board. I used the example of locking our houses and pulling the curtains so people couldn't look in and see valuables to steal. No one in their right might would put everything out in the yard and tempt the thieves to come and steal. They hide what is precious to them,including their children. They don't let the wolves surround the camp.

If you see your comments here on this subject disappear, it is because I will be putting them over on the Guard the Home blog, which deals with parents who are challenged by grown rebellious children. Someone over there made a remark about how "ridiculous" it was to suggest that young women would attract less attention from those who would do them harm, if they dressed modestly.

Lydia said...


I often read Marianne Horvat and will try to put her link on the side! She deals with customs and traditions that are good for today

Lydia said...

Did Brenda Karl get the references I posted here for her husband's research on colonial women's property rights?

Unknown said...

Dear Lady Lydia,

Thank you so much for your help and information. I really appreciate your help. I am excited that my husband has the opportunity to present so much truth to these young ladies who have no idea what happened or why it happened. Please pray that this presentation would spur them on to further study on their own.


Lydia said...

I hope that map thing is working.So far it hasn't shown any locations.

also ladies if I've forgotten a link you suggested, please remind me.

And, will the lady who didn't get her newsletter that she paid for, please email me?

Lydia said...

Deborah Swinson: I noticed on your block you are moving. Are you leaving the west of Oregon and going east?

Anonymous said...

Mrs.E., the laws preventing married women from working in certain professions were there for a reason.
That's some info what I found on the net concerning the issue:
"In 1936, a Gallup poll asked a national sample, “Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said she should not."'
And the reason they answered in this manner was probably this: "A woman who worked while her husband was employed was often thought to be taking the job of another family’s breadwinner."
Also, quite ironically, the article I linked to mentiones decline in real wages by the end of the 20th century, but not the reason of it.
That is what Vox Day wrote on the issue:
"There is one reason that men in their 30s are earning less. It is that many more women are working. Unlike immigrants, women don't create any additional demand by entering the work force. The Law of Supply and Demand is an iron one. If supply rises faster than demand, the price falls. That has been the case for labor, because with the expanded labor pool, the price of labor has naturally fallen.

That's how it works. The unfortunate effect is that the more women that choose to work, the more women who don't want to work will find that they have to because their husband can't earn enough to allow them to stay home. It's a vicious circle. So, if you're a married woman with a job you'd rather not have, be sure to thank your feminist sisters.

I note that the base point, 1974, was one year after US hourly wages peaked."

I noticed that those links do not open in a big window, so reading is not that convenient.
Here they are: