Everybody is asking about the famous diet. OK, here is the example of what I ate today.
Breakfast: I made a frittata with beet greens, tomatoes, zucchini, a teaspoon of garbanzo flour dissolved in water, and 2 egg whites. And some cracked rosemary.
Lunch: lentil soup with spinach and zucchini. And an ear of young corn.
Dinner: zucchini and patisson noodles (I bought a ton of zucchini at the farmers market and now it goes into everything) with tomato and fresh basil sauce.
I eat raw cucumbers and radishes at every meal because I always do.
I’ve been on the diet for exactly a month tomorrow, and I lost 10 lbs.
Ah, who needs the darn Tween Peaks. I want to see a sequel to Buffy. There can never be enough Buffy.
Imagine if Melissa McEwan or the freaks on Feministing or Slate heard something about the erosion of the nation-state and decided to share the news with their excitable followers. The trajectory of the nation-state model is a complex subject that requires a nuanced treatment. Here on the blog we have spent years trying to figure it out.
But what if the subject is stumbled upon by the people who are incapable of nuance and mistake psychological problems for a political stance? They would produce something along the lines of “the nation-state is collapsing and the pieces will fall down on your head and give you a concussion and then the job market would reject you and you’ll die! And we will all die! Immediately!”
I’m reading The Falling Rate of Learning and the Neoliberal Endgame by David J Blacker, and by God, he is the Melissa McEwan of the nation-state erosion. He is in love with the concept of eliminationism that prompts McEwan to see every ad featuring thin people as an attempt to eliminate fat people and that, in Blacker’s case, translates into the idea that standardized school testing has as its goal the physical elimination of students. Like in causing their physical death. And that’s just one of his insights.
The writing is so overwrought and intense that it reads like a parody of everything Zygmunt Bauman and Ulrich Beck ever wrote. I enjoyed being a popularizer of these ideas on the blog and in my book but now I have seen what will happen if the over-eager yet intellectually unsophisticated folks stumble across them. And it’s not pretty.
People give kids boiled carrots or green beans and when kids refuse to eat them (and who wouldn’t?) declare that “kids don’t like vegetables.”
Every day I hear at daycare that Klara “wouldn’t eat her vegetables.” And then we come home and she devours my lentil soup with zucchini, carrots, and beet greens. Or my Israeli couscous with spinach, pâtissons, and tomatoes. Because they are real food and not some boiled out, bland stuff that tastes like paper.
P.S. I find it very weird that people would serve green beans right in the pods. I have no idea how to eat something like this. And especially how to get kids to eat them except for cutting them all up in tiny bits and mixing with something else.
Please note how naked and transparent is the terrorists’ desire to destroy girls. This is still Rotherham. It’s an endlessly replayed symbolic destruction of a culture’s future.
People who are stuck in the oedipal stage can’t avoid forming conflict-ridden triangles. The point of this activity is to try to insert oneself into a dyad, proving that you matter more than the relationship within it.
Example: you love your job / hobby / friend Judy more than me! Do I even matter to you?
Another example: mommy can’t possibly have sex with daddy, she loves me and not him. Yesterday and today, my news feed is exploding with missives from sad children who are still fixated on mommy.
The main two tasks parents face are teaching the child to deal with frustration and helping the child to see the role of “an excluded third participant” as acceptable and not painful. Many people fail at this task judging by the crazy proliferation of triangles everywhere.
I truly, honestly can’t understand how you can say such a thing and live with yourself:
Mulvaney said he believed in helping to provide “a safety net so that if you get cancer you don’t end up broke,” but separated those situations from others he termed “ordinary healthcare,” what he described as the heart of the debate.
He continued, “That doesn’t mean we should take care of the person who sits at home, eats poorly and gets diabetes.”
There’s something so deeply damaged about this fellow that I have no name for it. What makes one want to appoint oneself a judge and an executioner of some poor diabetic?