I wanted to see how Flaubert did this—but try as I have in the past to read Madame Bovary, in either French or English, I  can't.  I always put the book down after  several pages in  utter boredom.  Finally, I think I've come upon the reason why he is unreadable. 

Flaubert in a letter to his lover Louise Colet mentions that he doesn't like Charles or Emma Bovary—could this be why—for readability do I require authors to like their creations?  Curious.  I shall consider author-character amity in future readings.  I feel that Jane Austen likes her sweet heroines and that Patricia Highsmith likes her most evil Mr. Ripley; sweet or evil, no matter which, I enjoy reading about them.

§

Almost under the nose of Charles, the doltish and soon to be cukolded husband, Flaubert humorously, but meanly, goes  between (to show simultaneity) the speech of the president of the jury announcing the winners at the local agricultural show and  Rodolphe's sweet nothings, in Free Indirect Discourse, as he seduces Madame Bovary while attending the awards presentation:

'And he seized her hand; she did not withdraw it.

"For good farming generally!" cried the president.

—Just now, for example, when I went to your house.

"To Monsieur Bizat of Quincampoix."

—Did I know I should accompany you?

"Seventy francs."

—A hundred times I wished to go; and I followed you—I remained.

"Manures!"

—And I shall remain to-night, to-morrow, all other days, all my   life!

"To Monsieur Caron of Argueil, a gold medal!"

—For I have never in the society of any other person found so complete a charm.

"To Monsieur Bain of Givry-Saint-Martin."

—And I shall carry away with me the remembrance of you.

"For a merino ram!"

—But you will forget me; I shall pass away like a shadow.'

...

Translated by Eleanor Marx-Aveling (Karl Marx's daughter who like Emma Bovary [dying slowly and painfully in the novel] committed suicide with poison) with my emphasis.

§

By the way, I did finish listening to most of the novel but it was an abidged edition from Audible.com.  There are treasures in the writing.  Flaubert wrote slowly making sure his language was precise and that he used the mot juste.

"During the lovely summer evenings, at the hour when the warm streets are empty and the maids play shuttlecock on the doorsteps, he would open his window and look out, leaning on his elbow."

Translated by Mildred Marmur.

After a hot day lolling in the shade of a tree the  hungry sheep begin to graze when the sun goes down. I think of Ramadan when Marrakech came alive at night after a day of fasting. 

I was riding well but slower than I'd hoped; I could feel strain in my glutes when I pedaled harder going uphill.

With about 4 miles to go, I was passed on a slight downhill—so I did what I do, strain or not—I sped up and stayed with the passing rider, wondering if he would maintain his speed on the sight grade coming up and watching his head bob—a sign of stress—he was riding faster than he normally does, but so was I. 

Here came the grade: he slowed a little—my heart was pounding but I had to go—I said "passing" as is good riding protocol and went around him to lead—as a matter of pride I kept my head steady—I had to maintain what I thought to be an unpassable pace until the end no matter what my heart rate was or was to become. And I did.

At the last mile marker—my finsh line—I recorded the time on my Garmin cyclocomputer and backed off the pedals, rode slowly to cool down for the 1/4 mile ride to my door; as I turned off the trail, I heard from behind me, "Hey thanks, man."  I yelled back, "Yeah, yeah..."

When I got home, I saw that I'd recorded another season best: 16 miles in 0:53:53, 1:40 faster than that recorded last Sunday and only 0:13  slower than my all time best recorded in 2008.  I should have thanked him.

Sweat dripping from my nose, with the AC roaring, I sat down before the TV to watch the last 2 miles of the Tour drinking from a gallon of Poland Spring. 

"...Christophe  Riblon of France attacked early to out-run Mark Cavendish and the other big sprinters winning the stage, finishing in 4 hours, 52 minutes, 43 seconds; ahead of Denis Menchov of Russia and Samuel Sanchez of Spain. Andy Schleck of Luxembourg was 4th but retained the yellow jersey with a 31 second  lead on main rival, and last year's Tour victor, Alberto Contador of Spain."  These guys are fast, all legs and lungs, "superhuman" with an incredible tolerance for pain.

Now that Lance is out of contention, behind by 39 minutes, due to crashes and bike malfunctions, I'm pulling for Andy.

Thanks bonnefourchette you must have talked to Gabe or Darya

Michael Pollan at Greenmarket in Union Square interviewed by NBC

The interview lasted about 20 minutes. The traffic noise on the street was so loud that I couldn't hear the questions but I suspect they were even softer than what Larry King, our primetime verbal voyeur, might come up with.  Besides, I had a question of my own so I took photographs as I waited for NBC to conclude.

Several minutes after the interview ended, with two people before me, I got my turn;  I told him how much I enjoyed Power Steer, a piece he'd written for the New York Times Magazine, about buying a calf and following it through the feedlot process until its slaughter at an industrial abattoir.  It was refreshing for a carnivore to critique the factory meat business and it was so much more believable than if Mr. Pollan had been a vegan telling the same story.

He politely, but disinterestedly, listened to me as a celebrity should listen to a fan's adulation, but he brightened when I mentioned his book The Botany of Desire and told him how much I liked how he questioned agency there.  To wit and in my case, did I choose sheep to raise or did sheep choose me to raise them.  Was I the agent, the actor who decides, or were they.  The question that is central in The Botany of Desire is "Who is really domesticating whom?"

"Ah, so you see," he smiled. "Yes, you've made me wonder." I said. But I have a question for you.  He looked at me expectantly.  "Given that 100% grass-fed livestock is healthier for the animals and for those who eat them than livestock that is 100% grain-fed as they feed in feedlots, is 100% grass-fed healthier than 90% grass-fed/10% grain-fed, for example?  Where is the science that proves or disproves this?"

He gave me some anecdotal explanations but did not point to any conclusive studies.

In fairness to him, the circumstances were such: We were on the street, our time together was limited, I'm sure he had an itinerary, and I had to get back to my stand.  Perhaps I will email him, hopefully to continue the discussion, if he's not too busy.  This is the most important person in food today.

In parting, we shook hands and I said, "I must thank my sheep for getting me down here to meet you."  He beamed.

"The USDA wants to change HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) to make it almost impossible for small-scale producers to comply.  Writing in The Atlantic, Joe Cloud (artisan butcher and co-owner with Joel Salatin of True & Essential Meats), frames the crisis this way:

The intent of HACCP is to prevent contamination of meat by harmful pathogens. Plant HACCP plans are approved and overseen by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the inspection arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On March 19, 2010, the FSIS published a draft guidance document on HACCP system validation, outlining new rules which would institute regular, year-round testing of all meats, whether or not problems have been identified. The proposal recommends testing for testing’s sake, and it will cost small plants tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, every year. The financial burden appears great enough that this will destroy much of the remaining community-based meat processing industry, which is enjoying a renaissance and creating jobs.

Small, local meat processors have always supported food safety. At our plant, we have had a functioning HACCP plan since 1999, and it works. We undergo extensive E. coli testing every year, and we have never had a positive result—ever. The purpose of HACCP is to employ well-recognized, established processes and process-control parameters to produce safe meat products—processes and parameters recognized and published by the USDA itself. Now, for some reason, the USDA wants to test the system and require excessive end-product microbiological testing, rather than allowing us to depend on these well-recognized procedures. Perhaps a large plant slaughtering 5,000 animals per day can afford its own lab and microbiology staff, and can pass the cost along to the consumer, but most small plants can’t. And perhaps large plants should open labs—those are the plants where a massive beef recall can involve millions of pounds.

In my opinion, the USDA needs to recognize that “one size fits all” inspection no longer fits current industry practice and consumer demand. These new HACCP requirements are going to cause a train wreck in a portion of the industry that is growing for the first time in years, and then the USDA is going to have a serious embarrassment on its hands. Someone needs to take a clear-eyed look at this situation and find a way to split the agribusiness mega-plants from the community-based localized plants within the regulatory structure.

This does NOT mean that small plants are not serious about food safety. It is because consumers are serious about food safety that they are coming to us, and we need to keep local infrastructure alive in this country. We need an inspection system that recognizes that the small plants do not put either the food economy or millions of people at risk in case of a food safety event.

All is not lost, though. The USDA opened up the new regulations for public comment. If you’re concerned about what these new regulations might do to your ability to have access to locally-raised, pasture-fed, and humanely-slaughtered meats, you’ve got until June 19th to let them know your opinion!"

Send email comments to:  DraftValidationGuideComments@fsis.usda.gov

The Food Renegade

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010 | Author: KristenM |

To confirm our findings, we looked at the mucous membranes of the lambs for signs of anemia (bloodlessness) and found none: their noses were pink, as were their gums and when we rolled back their lower eye lids we found dark red membranes, the most healthy FAMACHA score.

At this time, we will not deworm the lamb flock as a whole even though they had been grazing with the flock a week ago and were exposed to parasites from their immune mothers.  Vigilance with microscopic fecal examinations and watching for anemia is required over the Summer months when the lambs are at pasture and most vulnerable.

It's not that a shepherd wants no stomach worms in her sheep, what she wants is sheep that have an immunity to the stomach worms they do have.

Sheep must develop immunity to stomach worms such that they are not over treated with anthleminitics.  That overuse compromises the efficacy of the medication as has happened on many farms in the southern United States: the dewormer no longer kills the worm that kills the sheep. So then what do you do?