Cinemorphosis

Tag: food

  • The Frogman and the Sandwich

    The Frogman and the Sandwich

    The Frogman is my aspirational self. He is courageous and disciplined. I am not. I am a coward. My self-recrimination is based on the fact that I allow fear to compromise my morals. For example, I am revolted by the way livestock is abused for our animal consumption so that philosophically I should not eat meat, eggs, or dairy, but I fear that a plant-based diet will not give me optimal nutrition. Nor will it quell my rapacious appetite, so I compromise my morals and “force myself” to eat steak, chicken, eggs, cottage cheese, and Greek yogurt. The Frogman is a man of conviction. He looks at a moral problem square in the face and behaves appropriately. Gluttony is not part of his lifestyle. My soul is tormented by my awareness of the Avatar Conscience Gap: the distance between one’s idealized self—disciplined, principled, unflinching—and one’s actual behavior under pressure. The wider the gap, the louder the internal indictment, as the imagined avatar (in my case, the Frogman) functions as a constant moral comparator. My Frogman sits on my wrist, silent, resin-clad, a metronome of judgment. I measure myself against him and come up short in ways that feel precise, almost clinical. 

    Which brings us to actual clinical measurements.

    My doctor wants bloodwork—the full audit: PSA, lipids, liver function, hemoglobin. A bureaucratic harvest of numbers designed to convert my bloodstream into a spreadsheet. I concede the PSA. The rest feels like theater. At 230 pounds—twenty over my preferred fiction—my numbers will behave, mostly. LDL will be slightly elevated, the biochemical equivalent of a raised eyebrow. Twenty extra pounds leaves fingerprints. It always does.

    At 210, those fingerprints disappear. At 210, my labs don’t just improve—they absolve. At 210, I become the Frogman, at least on paper. A man whose blood tells a cleaner story.

    But I don’t need a blood test to tell me what to do. I need to lose twenty pounds. And I will be told this, formally, in a tone of gentle inevitability. A “plan of action,” as if the problem were logistical rather than existential.

    I cannot promise compliance.

    I eat well. Whole foods. High protein. I abstain from alcohol. I perform all the rituals of discipline. And yet my appetite behaves like an unlicensed contractor—loud, insistent, unconcerned with permits or plans.

    Last night, after dinner, I swore the kitchen closed at six. A solemn vow, made with the confidence of a man who has not yet opened a lunch bag.

    Then I found it: an uneaten turkey and cheese sandwich in my daughter’s bag. Soft bread. Mild cheese. The faint scent of opportunity.

    There was no debate. No internal summit. I ate it immediately, gratefully, with the kind of focus normally reserved for religious experience. It was, without exaggeration, the best moment of my day.

    This is Sandwich Serendipity—the ecstatic discovery of unclaimed food, experienced not as leftovers but as providence. The afflicted man does not assess freshness, provenance, or caloric cost. He does not negotiate with tomorrow’s intentions. He receives the sandwich as a gift from the universe and responds with immediate devotion.

    You can moralize this if you like. I won’t. The joy is too pure.

    But it does raise an inconvenient question: how does a man like this—susceptible to ambush by deli meat and porridge bread—promise a physician that he will lose twenty pounds? On what authority? On which version of himself?

    Because the Frogman would not have eaten that sandwich.

    The Frogman would have zipped the bag, closed the kitchen, and gone to bed with the calm of a man aligned with his values. The Frogman does not forage. He does not improvise. He does not surrender.

    I put the watch on anyway.

    It sits on my wrist like a massive, indestructible accusation—resin, digital, exact. It broadcasts courage. It implies discipline. It suggests a man who has made his decisions and is living inside them.

    And beneath it, quietly, is the truth:

    I am not that man.

    Not yet.

  • Tragedy Laundering in the Age of Vibes

    Tragedy Laundering in the Age of Vibes

    Shirley Li takes aim at what she calls the CliffNotes treatment of classic films—works shaved down, sweetened up, and repackaged for audiences who want the aura of culture without the burden of confronting it. Shakespeare, once a blood-soaked anatomist of ambition and ruin, now gets rinsed through the aesthetic of Taylor Swift. In this new register, tragedy doesn’t end in death; it stalls just long enough for a handsome savior to materialize on cue. Consider “The Fate of Ophelia,” where despair is airbrushed into rescue, and consequence dissolves into a soft-focus finale. The title lingered with me because I’d joked to my students a month earlier that I’d heard the song on Coffee House and found it embarrassingly overwrought—an avalanche of sentiment masquerading as profundity.

    Hollywood, never one to miss a profitable dilution, has joined the exercise. Emerald Fennell’s take on Wuthering Heights and Maggie Gyllenhaal’s reworking of Bride of Frankenstein into The Bride! arrive pre-softened, their rough edges filed down to avoid drawing blood. The originals demanded something of the audience—patience, discomfort, moral stamina. The remakes offer a tour: quick, glossy, and politely unchallenging.

    Li names the trend with surgical accuracy: “the rise of CliffNotes Cinema—watered-down transformations that offer glossy but thin summaries of the originals and strip away the challenging material that helped turn them into cultural mainstays in the first place.” That sentence does the autopsy. What’s left after the procedure is a body that looks intact from a distance but has been emptied of organs.

    Should we be alarmed? Yes, because the sweetness isn’t accidental; it’s diagnostic. These remakes signal a culture inching toward infantilization—hungry for reassurance, allergic to ambiguity, and convinced that gravity can be outsourced to wardrobe. Give the audience a fairy tale that flatters its appetites, but dress it in canonical clothing so it can pretend it just attended a seminar. Call this Tragedy Laundering: the conversion of moral difficulty into marketable comfort, where death becomes a scheduling inconvenience and ambiguity a branding problem.

    A culture marinated in TikTok loops, cute-animal dopamine, and the immaculate emotional arcs of Taylor Swift’s pop maximalism will predictably resist the adult weather systems of the classics. It wants its cod liver oil chased with honey—and increasingly, it wants the honey first, the oil omitted. The result is a literature of safety: all vibe, no verdict; all sheen, no sting.

  • The Vegan Diet That Actually Behaves

    The Vegan Diet That Actually Behaves

    Most vegan diets chase variety. This one chases something else: predictability. I wanted a plan that supports gut health, delivers about 150 grams of protein, and stays around 2,300 calories—without turning every meal into a digestive gamble. The result is not a celebration of abundance. It’s a system that behaves.

    The guiding idea is simple. Every meal is built from three parts: a stable starch, a low-residue protein, and a measured dose of fiber. The aim is not to flood the gut with “healthy” inputs, but to give it clear, consistent instructions.

    Breakfast is structured but quiet. I start with well-cooked buckwheat groats—soft enough to digest without resistance. Into that goes a scoop of pea-and-rice protein powder, half a banana, a teaspoon of psyllium husk, and a small pour of unsweetened soy milk. It’s not exciting, but it is dependable. The psyllium adds just enough cohesion, the banana binds, and the protein arrives without the usual legume side effects.

    Lunch simplifies things even further. Oatmeal becomes the base—again, in a controlled portion. I add another scoop of protein powder, then rotate between half a banana and a small serving of applesauce. A modest amount of soy milk smooths it out. That’s it. No stacking of proteins, no fiber fireworks. Lunch is designed to send a single, clear signal to the body: digest, don’t negotiate.

    Dinner does the heavy lifting. This is the anchor meal, the one that determines how the next morning unfolds. A plate of white rice and red potatoes forms the foundation—arguably the most reliable pairing for digestive stability. On top of that, I add about six ounces of extra-firm tofu and a side of sautéed zucchini or carrots. Everything is cooked soft. Everything is deliberate. A tablespoon of olive oil finishes the plate, not for indulgence, but for smooth passage.

    If I need something at night, I keep it controlled: half a banana, a tablespoon of peanut butter, and a small glass of soy milk. Enough to take the edge off, not enough to start a second digestive act.

    Across the day, the numbers line up: roughly 2,300 calories, about 150 grams of protein, and a moderate fiber intake that stays in the zone where things hold together instead of falling apart. The real achievement, though, isn’t the macros—it’s the consistency. Meals repeat. Ingredients overlap. The system stabilizes.

    There are rules. Beans and lentils are out as daily staples—not because they’re unhealthy, but because they introduce too much variability. Raw vegetables are unnecessary friction. Fiber is measured, not celebrated. Variety is limited on purpose. This is a diet built on the belief that clarity beats complexity.

    Is it boring? Often. But boredom, in this context, is a kind of luxury. It means nothing is going wrong. It means your body is no longer improvising. It means the system is working.

    Can I sustain my health and muscle on a plant-based diet? What if I feel weak? To be honest, I have two contingency plans: I may have to add a scoop of Greek yogurt a day, and replace the vegan protein powder with whey protein powder. That will be the tentative part of the journey. 

  • The Lazy Tax in the Kitchen

    The Lazy Tax in the Kitchen

    A few years ago, my wife and I attempted a moral upgrade. We bought top-tier stainless steel pans—clean, durable, virtuous. The kind of cookware that suggests you’ve finally grown up. What we actually got was a daily demonstration of failure. Meat clung to the surface like it had signed a lease. Eggs fused themselves into modern art. Dinner became a split decision: half of it made it to our plates, the other half calcified into a crust we had to chisel off like archaeologists of our own incompetence.

    So we retreated to ceramic nonstick—the promise of safety without the suffering. And to be fair, it worked. Eggs slid. Meat behaved. For a few months, we lived in a frictionless utopia. Then the decline began. The surface lost its glide, the cleanup grew less effortless, and by the one-year mark, the pan looked like it had survived a minor war. We replaced it. Then replaced it again. Three pans in three years. Smooth sailing followed by predictable decay.

    Now I’m floating a compromise: carbon steel for meat, ceramic reserved strictly for eggs. On paper, it’s elegant. Carbon steel rewards discipline—season it, preheat it, clean it promptly—and in return, it gives you something close to permanence. But the fine print matters. Acidic sauces erode seasoning. One careless move and the pan reverts to its old habits, clinging and punishing. You can follow the rules and still lose.

    If I’m honest, I suspect this experiment will end the same way the others did: with a sigh and another $100 ceramic pan purchased in quiet resignation. I’ve started calling this cycle the Lazy Tax—not because we’re lazy in the crude sense, but because we refuse to turn dinner into a technical exercise. We don’t want to manage a pan like it’s a piece of lab equipment. And yet the alternative is paying annually for convenience that quietly expires.

    That’s the real tension. If something feels like a job and only delivers a marginal improvement, you won’t sustain it. You default to ease. But ease has a cost. It trims your skill set, narrows your tolerance for friction, and charges your credit card for the privilege. In the end, you’re not just buying pans—you’re renting competence.

  • The Moral Danger of Divine Cheesecake

    The Moral Danger of Divine Cheesecake

    Last night I had a dream that unfolded with the logic and extravagance of a Fellini film set on a public beach. I discovered a stray dog wandering along the shoreline, a scruffy creature with the melancholy dignity of someone who had seen too much of the world’s indifference. The dog could speak. His first words were disbelief. He could not imagine that I, a random human loitering by the Pacific, intended to adopt him.

    To prove my sincerity—and perhaps to apologize for the miserable hand life had dealt him—I performed what can only be described as an act of culinary sorcery. With no apparent effort, I summoned two desserts out of thin air and placed them on a small café table facing the ocean. One was a mango cheesecake the size of a steering wheel, glowing with tropical radiance. The other was a monumental chocolate cake decorated with extravagant ribbons and shell-like ridges of frosting, the sort of cake that looks less baked than sculpted.

    The dog, clearly a creature of refinement, approached the cake with delicate reverence, nibbling with the restraint of a Parisian pastry critic. I told him not to worry—I knew of special utensils designed specifically for dogs who wished to eat cake with dignity. I would run downtown and return in minutes.

    That’s when the trouble began.

    When I returned to the café table, I found a woman plunging a bakery knife into my cake with the stealth of a pirate raiding a treasure chest. I launched into a lecture about theft and decency. Mid-sermon, another woman attempted a lightning strike on the mango cheesecake, hoping to slice off a piece before the moral police arrived. I drove her off as well.

    In that moment it dawned on me: these desserts were not ordinary desserts. They were supernatural artifacts. Something about their beauty radiated outward like perfume, alerting passersby that heaven had briefly opened a bakery on the beach. People could sense it. They were willing to bend their morals for a taste. And I had a darker suspicion—once someone tasted the cakes, the bending of morals might turn into a full collapse.

    The dog and I decided the beach was no longer safe for divine pastries. We relocated to the lobby of a nearby hotel, where the two of us quietly devoured the cakes like conspirators protecting a sacred relic. Strangely, the effect on us was the opposite of what I had feared. Each bite seemed to make us kinder, calmer, more decent versions of ourselves.

    Between bites, I told the dog he would never be homeless again. He would live with me forever. He thanked me with the solemn gratitude only a talking beach dog can muster.

    Then he asked the obvious question: how had I managed to summon cakes of such celestial quality?

    I admitted the truth. I had no idea what I had done or how I had done it. But one thing was clear: it was a one-time miracle. The bakery of heaven had closed its doors.

    The rest of our lives, the dog and I would have to live on ordinary meals—and the memory of that impossible dessert.

  • Life Is Uncertain. Porridge Is Not

    Life Is Uncertain. Porridge Is Not

    For the past week my appetite has surged like a rogue wave. That could mean several things, none of them particularly flattering. Perhaps I’m medicating stress with food. Perhaps there are subterranean stress triggers rumbling beneath the surface that I haven’t identified yet. Life, after all, provides a constant background hum of anxiety, and it’s difficult to distinguish ordinary daily strain from something more corrosive.

    Retirement is hovering in the distance like a financial fog bank. I’ve been emailing HR about the price of keeping my Kaiser coverage after I retire versus moving to my wife’s more modest plan. Her school pays less than mine, which means we’re staring at something in the neighborhood of $1,500 a month once dental and vision enter the scene. Retirement, which is supposed to represent liberation, suddenly looks like a complicated negotiation with spreadsheets, identity, and self-worth. And apparently my body’s response to this existential accounting exercise is simple: eat more chicken.

    There is, at present, a dangerous quantity of takeout chicken in this house. Fried chicken. Roasted chicken. Greasy, seductive chicken lounging in the refrigerator like a gang of edible hoodlums. I open the fridge intending to take a small, respectable bite. Five minutes later I’m standing there gnawing through a drumstick like a raccoon that has discovered civilization. The aftermath is predictable: gluttony followed immediately by anxiety.

    The anxiety, unfortunately, does not arrive alone. It brings a surveillance drone. I watch myself overeating as if my consciousness has sprouted a third eye hovering above the scene like a judgmental security camera. I am both the criminal and the detective. The more I watch myself eat, the more anxious I become. The more anxious I become, the more I eat. I have achieved what behavioral psychologists might politely call a closed loop of misery.

    Action is required.

    My proposed solution is radical in its simplicity: three meals a day, no snacking. Breakfast will be steel-cut oatmeal or buckwheat groats fortified with protein powder. Lunch will be rolled oats with yogurt and more protein powder. Dinner will consist of a sensible portion of protein, vegetables, and an apple. It is not glamorous, but glamour is precisely the problem.

    Oatmeal comforts me. It possesses the mild, reassuring neutrality of something that has no ambitions beyond keeping you alive. Perhaps it is a kind of surrogate baby food. Perhaps the approach of retirement has triggered a mild regression in which my brain seeks the emotional equivalent of warm porridge and a quiet afternoon nap. As I drift deeper into my mid-sixties, it is entirely possible that my culinary philosophy is reverting to something suitable for a kindly monastery.

    Life is uncertain. Porridge is not.

    I like the predictability of three meals a day involving some form of oatmeal. I like the idea of owning a Lenovo ThinkPad, which is the oatmeal of computers. I like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, which are the oatmeal of the automobile world. And I like my solar atomic G-Shocks, which are the oatmeal of timepieces—durable, accurate, incapable of drama.

    If possible, I would like to swim inside a large industrial vat of oatmeal, floating peacefully while the chaos of the modern world clangs harmlessly against the outside of the tank.

    Unfortunately, hostile forces surround the vat.

    My daughters campaign relentlessly for takeout: Dave’s Hot Chicken, Wingstop, Panda Express. Holiday gatherings appear with enough pies and brownies to launch a regional bakery franchise. A man can only resist these temptations for so long before the walls of discipline begin to buckle.

    Meanwhile, medical costs continue their relentless ascent, and retirement funds tremble nervously as global markets perform their daily interpretive dance of geopolitical uncertainty.

    Under such circumstances I find myself clinging to a personal doctrine I’ve begun to call The Porridge Principle: the instinct to confront anxiety by retreating into humble, reliable technologies and routines that promise frictionless predictability. Oatmeal breakfasts. ThinkPad laptops. Honda sedans. Solar atomic watches. These objects do not thrill, but they do not betray.

    When the world becomes chaotic, the mind begins searching for tools and rituals that behave exactly the same way every day.

    So that is the plan.

    Trader Joe’s opens in an hour. I will buy groceries for my family and a heroic supply of oatmeal. The campaign against uncertainty has begun.

    Pray for me.

  • The Taco Bell Effect: How Fast Food and Watches Keep You Hungry

    The Taco Bell Effect: How Fast Food and Watches Keep You Hungry

    My daughters wanted Taco Bell for dinner. I could have abstained, assembled a respectable salad, and preserved my nutritional dignity. Instead, I chose the chicken soft tacos—modest, reasonable, practically virtuous by fast-food standards. And Taco Bell, as always, performed its engineered magic. Somewhere in Irvine, a laboratory of flavor chemists continues its quiet mission: maximize salt, fat, texture, and novelty until the brain lights up like a slot machine. The tacos tasted fantastic. Dopamine rang the bell. I walked away feeling disciplined, even proud—two tacos and a side of sliced bell peppers. Look at me, a responsible adult navigating fast food with restraint.

    Then, about an hour later, the bill came due.

    My appetite didn’t return politely. It kicked the door in. Hunger surged with a strange urgency, as if the meal had not fed me but awakened something restless and unfinished. I ate an apple. Still hungry. I opened a bag of Trader Joe’s Organic Elote Corn Chip Dippers. Still hungry. I cut a thick slice of sourdough and buried it under peanut butter. The sensation wasn’t indulgence—it was pursuit, as though my metabolism were trying to collect a debt the tacos had promised but never paid.

    I was still hungry when I finally surrendered—not to satiety, but to sleep, the only reliable way to close the kitchen.

    Clearly, I had suffered from the Taco Bell Effect: the paradoxical state in which a highly engineered, intensely satisfying experience delivers maximum sensory pleasure and minimum lasting fulfillment, triggering a rebound surge of appetite shortly after consumption. Designed for flavor density, salt, fat, and rapid dopamine, the meal convinces you—briefly—that you’ve eaten well and even responsibly. Then, an hour later, your metabolism files a formal protest. Hunger returns louder than before, prowling the kitchen like a debt collector. The Taco Bell Effect isn’t overeating; it’s under-satiation disguised as satisfaction—a culinary confidence trick in which the experience feels indulgent, the calories look reasonable, and the aftermath sends you negotiating with apples, chips, and peanut butter while wondering how two tacos opened a hunger portal instead of closing one.

    The Taco Bell Effect and the compulsive watch purchase run on the same psychological circuitry: both deliver stimulation without closure. Taco Bell gives you flavor, salt, fat, and novelty, but not satiety; the experience excites the appetite rather than resolving it. A compulsive watch purchase works the same way. You get the hit—research, tracking, unboxing, wrist shots, forum validation—but the emotional hunger remains untouched. Instead of quieting desire, the purchase sharpens it. Within days, you’re browsing again, comparing again, chasing the next micro-difference the way a fast-food meal sends you back to the pantry. In both cases, the problem isn’t excess; it’s insufficient psychological fullness.

    The illusion that traps people is the calorie logic of the hobby: “It’s only one watch,” just as “It’s only two tacos.” But the real metric isn’t the size of the purchase—it’s the behavior that follows. A healthy acquisition produces satiety: you stop looking, you forget the market, you wear the piece without agitation. A Taco Bell watch, by contrast, is engineered for stimulation—limited editions, countdown drops, spec debates, influencer hype. It tastes intense but digests poorly. The result is the horological equivalent of metabolic whiplash: the dopamine spike fades, and the mind, still unsatisfied, starts hunting again.

  • How We Went from Breakfast Mascots to Political Tribes

    How We Went from Breakfast Mascots to Political Tribes

    A few nights ago, I watched Big Vape: The Rise and Fall of Juul, the four-part autopsy of a company that promised salvation from combustible cigarettes and instead managed to hijack a generation’s taste buds. Juul framed itself as a public-health crusader. What it actually built was a sleek delivery system for addiction, turbocharged by flavors engineered to lodge themselves deep in the dopamine circuitry of young brains.

    Former employees and users all pointed to the same thing: mango. Mango wasn’t just a flavor; it was an event. People didn’t vape mango casually. They marinated in it. Mango was the hook.

    Watching this, I was transported back to my own childhood and my first chemical romance: Cap’n Crunch.

    There was something about that unholy alliance of corn flour, palm oil, and brown sugar that short-circuited my will. I didn’t want moderation; I wanted saturation. My parents imposed limits, which only deepened my resolve to grow up as fast as possible so I could make my own enlightened dietary decisions—namely, Cap’n Crunch for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I failed to notice the irony that a grown man subsisting on sugar cereal would represent not maturity but infantilization.

    Cap’n Crunch’s true genius wasn’t just sweetness. It was proliferation. The same cereal reappeared in endless costumes—Crunch Berries, Peanut Butter Crunch—each one offering the illusion of choice. King Vitamin was the most audacious iteration: Cap’n Crunch in a health halo, a masterclass in rebranding junk as virtue. Lipstick on a pig, poured into a cereal bowl.

    Then there were the mascots. Quisp the Martian. Quake the muscle-bound coal miner. As a child steeped in superhero comics and Hulk fantasies, I gravitated toward Quake. Strength. Power. Identity. I didn’t realize I was choosing a brand avatar, not a breakfast.

    Cereal companies were having a field day. We watched cartoons while eating the very product being advertised between scenes. It never occurred to us that we were being conditioned—trained to celebrate a non-nutritive food substance that dissolved teeth and rewired appetite. The Juul kids didn’t know it either. They thought they were buying into a sleek, adult lifestyle. What they were really purchasing was dependence, with a mango aftertaste.

    What troubles me now is that adults don’t seem any less susceptible.

    Today, many people consume political tribes the way we once consumed sugar cereal and flavored vapor. Politics has been repackaged as lifestyle branding—complete with slogans, merch, cosplay, and dopamine hits. The substance is thin. The stimulation is constant. Critical thinking is nowhere to be found.

    These aren’t political commitments; they’re identity snacks. Sugar rushes masquerading as convictions. Defense of one’s “views” consists of chanting talking points with the same reflexive loyalty I once reserved for Cap’n Crunch. No wonder the country feels like it’s in free fall. We haven’t grown up—we’ve just swapped mascots.

    We are a nation of adult children, hooked on political flavors the way kids were hooked on cereal and Juul users were hooked on mango. Politics has become a consumer product: addictive, polarizing, shallow, and wildly profitable. All dopamine. No nutrition.

  • Why Good Salsa Matters

    Why Good Salsa Matters

    In 1967, my father took me to the grand opening of a Taco Bell in San Jose, California. This was my first encounter with fast food as spectacle—and with teenagers as a category of human being. They stood behind the registers in a loose formation, and every one of them appeared to be afflicted with the same alarming facial condition. Spots everywhere. An outbreak.

    I was five. I did the math available to me. Had a disease swept through the workforce? Did Taco Bell exposure cause lesions? Were the refried beans radioactive?

    I asked my father what was wrong with their faces.

    “They’re pimples,” he said. Then, without hesitation, he added, “According to Aristotle, God gives pimples to teenagers to teach them humility.”

    I knew immediately this was untrue. Not because I had read Aristotle—I hadn’t—but because I knew my father. This was him doing what he loved most: inventing authority on the spot. He also harbored a low-grade contempt for teenagers, whom he regarded as overconfident and undercooked. Acne, in his view, was divine pushback. Cosmic slapstick.

    The pimples unsettled me, but they did not interfere with my appetite. I ate my tacos and frijoles under the Taco Bell canopy, admiring the beige stone “Mexican” architecture—the aesthetic equivalent of a sombrero on a filing cabinet. The food itself was a novelty. We didn’t eat Mexican food, and Taco Bell certainly wasn’t Mexican food, but it was a portal. A gateway drug.

    Within a few years, my mother was making tacos, burritos, and enchiladas at home. Our Mexican-American neighbors, Mike and Felice Orozco, made salsa from ingredients grown in our own backyards. The salsa lived on the coffee table in a volcanic tureen, like something sacred and faintly dangerous. You could smell it the moment you walked into the living room—chilies, onions, garlic, alive and unapologetic.

    The color stopped you. A deep ruby red. Not restaurant red. Not industrial red. Real red. I have eaten excellent salsa over the decades, but nothing has ever matched the salsa Felice Orozco taught my mother to make in the late 1960s. Even now, if a Mexican restaurant brings out a pre-meal salsa that approaches that standard—even halfway—I take it as a sign of moral seriousness.

    Felice Orozco’s salsa wasn’t just delicious. It was philosophical. It carried an unspoken argument about what survives and what matters. When families pass down food traditions, they’re saying something quietly radical: some knowledge deserves care, repetition, and fidelity. This isn’t about novelty or performance. It’s not about artisanal swagger or bragging rights. It’s about love made practical. Wisdom with onions.

    So what was Taco Bell to me as a child? A desecration of Mexican food? No. It was a signpost. A crude outpost with a faint aroma of the real thing. It pointed toward a richer city beyond itself—a place where food meant connection, where flavors carried memory and generosity.

    The sign didn’t point south.
    It pointed to Felice Orozco’s house.

  • The Potato Diet and the Gospel According to Mel Brooks

    The Potato Diet and the Gospel According to Mel Brooks

    Recently, I fell down a nutritional rabbit hole and emerged clutching a potato. Not just any potato, but the cooked-then-cooled kind—Idaho and sweet potatoes transformed into resistant starch, that miraculous category of food that sounds like it should be protesting something. Resistant starch, I learned, behaves like a probiotic: it feeds the gut microbiome, supports immunity, improves metabolic health, lowers cholesterol, and may reduce colorectal cancer risk. It even helps regulate appetite hormones, which is a polite way of saying it tells your brain to stop behaving like a feral raccoon.

    There’s a whole taxonomy of resistant-starch foods, but I’m a simple man. I’m focusing on potatoes. I eat them cold from the fridge or gently reheated. Lunch and dinner get a potato. Snacks get a yam blended into yogurt like some deranged Thanksgiving parfait. If it’s an Idaho potato, I dress it up with plain Greek yogurt, nutritional yeast, and a reckless amount of herbs and spices. This is what refinement looks like in 2026.

    So far, the results have been suspiciously positive. I feel energized. My gut feels calm and cooperative. I enjoy the strange pleasure of eating potatoes at all hours of the day. The real stars, though, are the yams and sweet potatoes—especially the purple Japanese sweet potatoes, which look like food designed by a medieval alchemist with a sense of humor.

    Then came today.

    On the Schwinn Airdyne, I felt… powerful. Not delusional powerful. Not “I should enter a CrossFit competition” powerful. Just quietly, inexorably strong. I burned 825 calories in 62 minutes. The last time I broke 800 calories on that bike was three years ago, back when my joints were younger and my expectations were less realistic.

    Do I attribute this personal record to my potato regimen? I don’t know. The potatoes could be a placebo. I could be committing the cardinal sin of confusing correlation with causation. More likely, I just had one of those rare days when physiology, psychology, and stubbornness line up like planets.

    I don’t expect to hit 800 calories regularly. Seven hundred is already serious business. Eight hundred requires intent. Eight hundred is a flex. It’s bragging rights territory—the kind of obsessive pursuit Howard Ratner brings to the giant black opal in Uncut Gems, except with less jewelry and more sweat pooling under a stationary bike.

    There was another factor, too. Today’s ride was a response to yesterday.

    My daughters were at Knott’s Berry Farm. My wife was out seeing Leslie Jones. I usually enjoy solitude, but yesterday it curdled. The headlines were bleak. My creative energy flatlined. The world felt slightly out of phase, like a record spinning at the wrong speed. When things get that dark, my internal soundtrack defaults to King Crimson’s “Epitaph”—a song that sounds like it was written for someone weeping against a stone wall at the end of history.

    I got through the night with two documentaries: Mel Brooks: The 99 Year Old Man! and Secret Mall Apartment. One was joyous defiance. The other was a reminder that some people respond to modern despair by secretly building illegal sanctuaries inside dead shopping centers.

    Mel Brooks said something that landed with force. Life is hard. We suffer loss. But piling misery on top of misery—indulging self-pity—only deepens the wound.

    I took that personally. I suspect the 825-calorie burn was my way of replying: I hear you, Mel. I love you. I’m choosing motion over rumination.

    And so I did.