Skip to main content

eat the cup, part 4


this is just silly.

i mean, i went out to dinner last night and went to caju specifically for the purpose of enjoying a mocqueca. tonight, i am staying at home to prepare the evening’s dinner (and the morrow’s lunch) and i am preparing... mocqueca.

this has to be a sign of something wrong. isn’t it weird to keep craving this? what is it about this particular fish stew that makes me happy to eat it for days on end?

simply put, mocqueca’s flavour, much like the brazilian soccer team, may be impossible to beat. the lush mixture of seafood (most commonly shrimp), tomatoes, coconut milk and spices combines the heartiness of the old world with the exotic flavour of the new. it could only come from brazil.

after all, brazil almost defines multiculturalism and diversity. before being conquered by the portuguese, brazil’s indian populations, unlike the incans or mayans, were disparate, diverse, ununified. today, the population continues to be one of the most heterogenous in the world, with roots in portugal, africa, asia, and other areas of europe (after slavery was outlawed there in the late nineteenth century, large numbers of immigrants, particularly italians, came over to work on the coffee plantations).

mocqueca finds its origins in bahia province, itself a cultural mix, being both a centre of catholicism and of candomble, the brazilian variant of voudoun.

nonetheless, one can identify elements of a unified national culture, based largely on its citizens’ reputation for warmth, great parties and dominating the world in soccer.

it’s a good thing that i like their food so much, because the way they’re playing, i have a feeling that i’m going to have a lot of opportunities to enjoy it in the coming weeks.

(you may note that i have eschewed my habitual placement of the national flag of the country whose cuisine i’m appropriating for the evening with a photograph. that photograph was taken on college street in toronto this afternoon, an hour and a half after the brazilian win.)

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …