Cheesecake with speculoos bottom

I've made a cheesecake.

I'm really a fan of Jeroen Meus (Belgian TV chef). He has such a very simple recipes and he explanes it also very well. This makes that a lot of my recipes come from him. This time I used a recipe of Piet Huysentruyt (another Belgian TV chef). I do not really like him and normally I hate to watch him on TV, but this recipe was really the most easy I could find online. You can't do very much wrong with a cheesecake, definitly not with this recipe.

The ingredients: 
250 gr low fat cottage cheese
150 gr speculoos
100 gr butter
3 egs
32 gr gelatine
125 gr granulated sugar
1 sachet vanilla sugar
125 ml cream

Preparation: 
1. Separate the egg whites and yolks into two separate bowls. Put half the sugar and the vanilla sugar with the egg yolks. Beat the egg yolks with a mixer until frothy. Spread the cheese with a spatula through the egg yolks

2. Soak 20 g gelatin in cold water and wring well. Warm 0.5 dl water up and melt the gelatin in it (do not boil the water!). Pour this all stirring in the cheese mixture and cool it in a bath of cold water.

3. Put the other half of the sugar with the egg whites and stiff it up with a mixer. Whip the cream. Spread the whipped egg whites under the cold cheese mixture and carefully add the whipped cream.

4. Crumble the speculoos biscuits. Melt the butter and add the crumbled biscuit. Cover the bottom of a bowl with it. Pour above the cheese mousse.

TIP: I tasted the result and it's tasty! The only tip I would give you is to use a bit more sugar, for the bottom of speculoos and the cheesemix itself. For me it is still not sweet enough. The bottom is too much butter taste, too less speculoos and sugar. But that's off course personal taste. 

Touching poem, found on Tumblr

"I see your 

sadness

eating you up inside

and it is

s

l

o

w

l

y

killing me because

I can't do anything

except tell you

I 

love

you

and I hope that

will be enough

for now."

- Anonymous

Makes me think of one very important person in my life.

The paradox of choice: the uncertainty choices entail

I. Elaboration
As I continue to look at exactly what freedom of choice is and what its effects are, I will mainly focus on the research question "What factors of our freedom of choice make that there is a great uncertainty among the population of the affluent Western society?". So what makes that there is so much uncertainty in our Western society and more specifically, what is the effect that freedom of choice has on the uncertainty. Here I look at what different authors write about individual choice. On that basis I do a critical analysis and then I end this paper with a conclusion where I give an answer to our research question.


What does freedom in choice mean? This means that you can choose everything in your life. You choose by yourself how you fill in your own life and which color you put in it. This is of course theoretically true, in practice we can post some question marks by this definition. Freedom of choice is in fact for some people less evident because of his or her limited opportunities. What position you have in society determines how much choices you have in life. Some people for example have not the money to go to college, what limites the choice to follow certain education. Making a choice is relative because you need to get the chance. Beck spoke here of the risk society. This is a society where some people are more at risk as others. So people who actually have less risk also have more opportunities and this can also further extend into all aspects of individualization, including the freedom of choice. There is an unequal distribution of risks, what makes that some people have more risks and have less wealth. These risks and wealth are not always related to the socio - economic status, it is much more than that. There are also risks related to the individualisation, which freedom of choice is a part of. It is also true that the more risks are located in the area of ​​ecology, social - economics etc., the more the individualisation risks are enhanced (Giltjens, 2011).


Because in our Western society there is such a strong focus on freedom, especially individual freedom, this leads to a high degree of individual choice. This freedom of choice creates that people are not sure anymore about alot of things in their lives. Your job choice may change, your partner can change what makes that even your family composition can change in no time, etc. The number of choices that one must make is becoming more and more. Because we all have so much freedom of choice, we also need to have attention for the choices others make. The choices of different people can coexist, but that does not mean that these not affect others in their lifes. There is also the fear of making mistakes in the choices one makes (Giltjens, 2011; Schnabel, 1999).


Because nothing is certain and everything can change in an instant, this leads to uncertainty among many people. Our individual freedom has uncertainty and anxiety as result. This is purely because nothing is certain in our lives anymore. Due to the large amount of choices, many individuals get the idea that they no longer have a structure in their lives because everything is so easy to terminate. Also belonging to a network is your own choice and your own business. It's your own choice if you put much time and effort into building up your networks or not. It is the constant uncertainty that you will belong nowhere to and to make wrong choices, which in their way can also badly affect others life. The responsibility is always on your own shoulders, what is  enormously stressful (Giltjens, 2011).


When you eventually make a "wrong" choice, the people around you are very fast with pointing their judgmental finger at you. It's up to you to fill in your life with the choices you have, but do not make any wrong choices because otherwise the people around you will be there to judge you. You are fully responsible for everything, but next to that, every "wrong" choice is your own fault! An addition to that is that you also are expected to watch out for the "wrong" choices of others, since it also may have an impact on your life and choices. All these things create a huge stress and fatigue to make choices. This is the case for small choices, but also for big choices in life. This makes that people get tired by all that choosing and that they often let the government choose for them. All that choosing is tiresome. People are happy if they not have to choose for once and the choice is made for him or her (Giltjes, 2011).


The freedom of the individual can also be seen as a way for the government to shift the responsibility and the blame to the individual citizen. The government hereby moves his care for its citizens until a responsibility of the citizens themselves. In addition, individual freedom makes that the solidarity increasingly decreases because the individual interests prevail over the collective. There is less and less collective action anymore because people want to organize their lives more individual and they are much less in touch with the collective, the group aspect. The freedom of choice, particularly simply the Western neoliberal principle of liberty, is often seen as something that is not democratic. It is a luxury that many people see as something obvious. Although there are many somehow more socialistic and political movements that start to accept this neoliberal principle and also put it as an important item on their political program. Individualisation does not necessarily coincide with the abundant consumption and can therefore also be present within more socialistic programs they say. Often people feel that they are not compatible, but this is something the more socialistic politics want to change. They want to attach the individualisation more to the collective interests and see it as something compatible. An individualist does not need to be an egoist necessarily (Giltjens, 2011; Hurenkamp & Kremer, 2005).


The public freedom is increasingly limited, while the individual freedom is growing. A good example are the GAS - fines in Belgium. There is less and less freedom to choose how to behave, how to act in public spaces and especially for groups. Everything is increasingly restricted by the government. Here you can see that the government and its citizens have problems with creating alot of freedom and with also putting limits on that freedom. Thus, in addition to a more individual freedom, there is also a greater juridisation. These two seem somewhat walking together because due to the large individual freedom, people no longer trust the morale of others. Therefore everything is more limiting. This is a way to somehow curtail that individual freedom and to still have some form of structure (and control) to offer (Hurenkamp & Kremer, 2005; Maelstaf, 2011).


Barry Schwartz (2005) argues that individual freedom is seen as something untouchable to ensure that our prosperity in Western society is maintained. This freedom is so deeply embedded in our society as something that we take for granted. With all the choices we have completed our own unique identity. We have the freedom to fill our lifes in the way we want it, regardless of our context or where we grew up, etc. I quote (Schwartz, 2005): "Life is a matter of choices". There are two things which he indicates as a negative result because of the large freedom of choice. Firstly, our freedom of choice does not give us a feeling of freedom. It even makes that we have more a constricted feeling in life. Making a choice is not always easy, which makes people feel so oppressed. Choices are so often postponed until they simply can no longer be taken. This is purely because it is tiresome to make so many choices and next to that, it is not always easy to choose. A second negative consequence is that when someone makes a choice, they feel less happy with that choice than that they would have had fewer options. This is because when we choose an option out of a lot of different other options, we not immediately perceive our chosen option as the best one. It gives people a feeling of regret and failure which makes that it affects the happiness that freedom of choice should give us. So the more choices, the more opportunities there are to regret the choice you've taken (Schwartz, 2005).


A second reason is related to this and that is that when you compare your choices, you often look at the positive elements of the other options, which makes that those options would be a good alternative. This makes the chosen option somewhat less attractive. The more choices, the more people that are entertained with regard to those choices. This makes it unlikely to be satisfied with what there is of possibilities and we always want better and better. These high expectations make people according to Schwartz unhappy. He says that if you want to be happy, you should drop your high expectations and have more realistic expectations. Moreover, we see a "wrong" choice as a responibility of yourself. This ensures that people often feel very bad for the choices they make and that they are accountable for every time their choice is not as good as they had expected. He believes that many depressions and suicides in our Western society are largely caused by our freedom of choice and our high expectations. No choice is good enough. We put the blame also always on ourself, which also has a strong impact on our mood. On this basis, he argues that the freedom of choice not our prosperity and well-being defends, on the contrary. Having more choices is not always better (Schwartz, 2005).


He also sees the choice multiplicity as a problem that occurs purely in countries where there is a high prosperity. The multitude of choices make more damage to humanity, even we think that's not the case. He argues that if our multitude of choices would be more divided and would be given to countries with a lack of choices, that that will ensure that not only they will be happier, but that we as Western citizens also will be happier in our lifes. So the redistribution of goods and services in the world according to him makes sure that the whole world would be better (Schwartz, 2005).


II. Own critical approach 
I definitely agree with the criticisms at our luxury of freedom of choice. There is also I think a strong uncertainty because you do not really get help with your choices. The choices are so strongly reduced to the individual that nobody interferes and nobody once helps you. When someone does not have to make a choice, that means less worries for an individual and therefore it can not in my view be regarded always as good. But next to that we are so individualized and focused so hard on our freedom that no one can question our overly large freedom of choice. One dares not critical to ask whether all these choices may not have a negative effect. 


Also the fear of making a wrong choice is something I recognize much to myself. I think this also applies to many people in our Western society. This is because a wrong choice can ensure that some things in our lives drastically get affected in a negative way. And if we have a "wrong" choice it is our own fault. The blame can not be laid at anyone else, simply because it was an individual choice, so we only have ourself to blame. In addition, the choices in your life about relationships with other persons create that you belong or not belong to certain groups. In former times, people belonged to the most of their groups from birth (e.g. family, your neighborhood, etc.), but now you are expected to choose your own groups, what makes that a lot of people experience problems in belonging to groups and networks. You need to look for groups where you think you'll fit in and where you want to be part of. Then you still have to make enough time for being part of a group, because being part of a group and being a member does not just happen without any effort from the individual. When people can not afford to spend much time and effort into certain groups, then the blame is again on the individual. It is so obvious in modern Western society that you choose by yourself and that not everything is decided for you. When we reflect on this principle of freedom of choice, we can determine that the choice of forming one's own life may complicate rather than facilitate.


I also think that your degree of choice is determined by your position in the society. For example, someone with a less strong position in society, will have less choices because of the limitation of his opportunities, than someone who has a high position. Also, someone with a higher position will be more able to influence others through the choices he or she takes. This can often be to the detriment of the lower positions, because someone with a high position simply takes decisions on the basis of his individual interests, which is especially an advantage for him and possibly for others who also have a high position, but mostly not for the people in the lower positions. A sense of solidarity is often missing here I think. Many people think "as long as we are okay, it's not our problem that others have it less well". We have no eye for others in a more precarious situation. I think this also makes that many people are anxious and insecure. They do not see the society's structure as something that is in their favor because they do not have enough voice (or choices) in order to assert their rights.


In addition, we live also, I think with a little distrust of the choices others make, because these choices can affect our lives. We will look primarily to our dense environment such as our husband, parents, children, etc. Paradoxically, people seem to be less and less interested in the political system, despite that these choices have also a strong influence on their lives. Bauman says that this is because people have the feeling that they are less (to even not) able to exert influence on politics and the problems that plague the world. I believe also that this ensures a great anxiety and uncertainty. You sometimes hear people say: "Why should I vote, the politicians do not listen to the people." So although many people make choices, they often have no choices because they do not believe these are worthwhile and will create change. Only in their own environment, what is perceptible, they find choices important.


I also believe that because of that liberalization this also creates that people look at other people in certain positions and see their choices as not the "right" (socially - acceptable) choices. "It's their own fault!" The debt that society bears seems to be forgetten. I think that freedom also gives society a free pass to slide the guilt of their shoulders and slide it further on the shoulders of the individual. 


Furthermore, I strongly agree with what Schwartz says about our freedom of choice. I believe strongly related to our freedom in the quote "less is more". Why do we have to be able to choose everything in our lives? And okay that one can choose, but why in so many different versions? It makes people only more uncertain. "Have I made the right choice?" ;"Am I happy with this choice?" And I do not think we should return to the times of our grandparents where your life was tied so strong that if you tried to pull yourself out of it, you could be disowned. But I do believe that we have a too great range of choices. It does us no good and next to that, our level of consumption is also way too big for the carrying capacity of our planet. A redistribution of the choices that we have is needed. Less choices for us and more choices for people in other parts of the world (third world countries) will benefit to our humanity and planet. Only it seems that too many people the redistribution not see as a potential option, because the neoliberal ideology is so strongly present in our culture. And for being capitalistic (~ neoliberal), it is not possible to redistribute. Freedom at the expense of solidarity and equality is for many people the habit.


III. Conclusion
I conclude that the choice certainly has its share in causing uncertainty and fear among the Western civilians. People have no structure, nothing is longer sure. One must choose and fill in everything with the constant fear of a wrong choice or with the idea that other choices maybe would have been better. In contrast, traditional frameworks are not so obvious anymore. Groups to which we formerly belonged are groups we now must look up and self appeal and put effort in before we can be a member of them. 


We have many choices, but also all the others in our lives have many choices too. Thus, the partner has also always the choice to end the relationship, just as you have. This means that you are never sure about your relationship. This applies just the same for many other aspects of life such as work, neighborhood, religion, family, etc. You should always have a good alternative in mind when your first choice goes wrong. In addition, you can hear too often from others when you have made a wrong choice. Every wrong choice you make is your own fault, nobody else's fault and certainly not the fault of the society. They give you so much freedom and choices, so how can you say that the society is part of the mistake? This is a philosophy that strongly prevails.


You can rather ask yourself: what is not in doubt? A security that is reasonably assured appears to be the family, but even that is relative. Just look at the high number of singles or how many families that change in their structure becuase of divorces, etc. Prosperity is no longer associated with well-being, especially when we look at the freedom of choice. Nothing is good enough for our Western citizens. Yet it seems something one should never question, because ending our unlimited freedom of choice maybe can inflict damage to our welfare. Every choice also determines strongly our unique identity. And you better be unique because not being an unique individual is not socially acceptable. Not just for teens is the search for identity strongly present, but also in the life of our Western adults. Every day choices create your personality. Nobody helps you with your choices, but everyone is waving with their judging finger when you make a wrong choice. This can only create a lot of uncertainty and anxiety concerns if you ask me. 


IIII.Bibliography
Andrades, C. (2007). Angst aan het begin van de eenentwintigste eeuw. Krisis, n.v. (1), 105 – 109

Duyvendak, J.W. & Hurenkamp, M. (2004). Kiezen voor de kudde: lichte gemeenschappen en de nieuwe meerderheid. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.

Giltjens, V. (2011). Cursus Maatschappelijke Activering. Antwerp: Artesis.

Hurenkamp, M. & Kremer, M. (2005). Vrijheid, onder andere een ideaal. Consulted on 29 novembre 2012 on http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.e.a.hurenkamp/bestanden/Vrijheid%20onder%20andere%20een%20ideaal.pdf

Maelstaf, H. (2011). Cursus Sociologie 2. Antwerp: Artesis.

Schnabel, P. (1999). Individualisering en sociale integratie. Nijmegen: SUN.

Schwartz, B. (2005). Barry Schwartz over de paradox van keuzes. Consulted on 30 novembre 2012 on http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/nl/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html  

Reading of Melanie Joy

Tuesday the 11th I went to a reading of Melanie Joy.

She works at Harvard as a psychologist and wrote a book where she analyses why it's okay for us to eat meat and why we eat just a few animals. When we think of eating dogs, cats, etc. then a lot of people are shocked, but in fact you can ask yourself, why is eating a pig okay, but not a cat? 

She gave a good presentation about the gap we have in our head when it's about our eating habits where a lot of animals are slaughtered for in a way that is too awful to imagine. And even we know this truth, we just ignore it. We eat meat without accepting it was once an animal.

Next to that she said what the causes are of this gap in our head. It's part of our culture and is seen as normal. We need to understand it's a cultural habit, so it isn't the truth we are talking about. Because when you go look at other cultures, there will be things we think that are extreme and they see that also as a truth. But it's just a perception, another pair of glasses to look at the world. So you can say that the need to eat meat isn't based on the factual reality, but on our normative reality.

Another thing is that the meat industry is such a big actor in our economy what makes that they also have a lot of influence on our politics. This makes that the policy all let this happen, because there is alot of money involved in this issue. 

I thought this was a very good reading. She's a very pleasant woman that informes in a clear language. I thought the information she gave me, in spite of the fact that I knew most of it already, was a real eye - opener for me.

I think that I'm doing a really good job already by eating no meat and fish and trying to drink more soymilk etc. It always can be better but I'm working on it.

Next step I have to do is reading her book "Love dogs, Eat pigs, Wear cows". Another book on the "must - read - list". I'll put down here a review of it, but give me some time. Still have some books to go before I can start at this one.
You want more information, just go to her website.

Bread Pudding

I've made today my first vegan bread pudding.
I used some 'speculoos' and apples to make it complete.

If u want to make it yourself, here is the recipe:

300 g old bread
700 ml soymilk
100 g cane sugar
50 g pudding poudre
2 small apples
6 à 8 speculoos (cookies)

1. Tear the bread into pieces, put them in a large bowl and cover with the soy milk.
2. Preheat the oven to 180 ° C and grease a springform pan with a diameter of 23 cm.
3. Stir in the bread-soymilk mixture until everything falls apart and you get a paste. Mix in the sugar. Strain the custard powder over the mixture and stir well.
4. Then mix the apple pieces through, break the speculoos biscuits into small pieces and mix them well into the dough.
5. Pour the mixture into the greased tin and bake the bread pudding for 40 minutes at 180 ° C.

And then you get this as result (see picture).
Enjoy!

Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer

My first review is of the book Eating Animals, written by Jonathan Safran Foer.

I read this one when I was like 6 months veggie and I heard this is the bible of all the vegetarians. So as a newborn veggie I was kinda required to read this book.

In the beginning of the book Jonathan introduces himself. He starts with telling the readers which family he comes from and what eating meat means in that (Jewish)  family. It's a light - hearted way of starting the book so I think this was a good starter to open the book with. When he just became a father of his firstborn child, he became more critical about everything in the world. He wants to give his child the best of the best in its life and so he also has its doubts about his choices in nutrition. What is the best nutrition he can give his child, what is healthy and what is ethically correct? With this questions in his mind he starts his research and travel to find the right answers about eating meat.

An important thing he says is that he isn't against eating meat basically. He's more concerned about the way the meat industries treat animals and after which battle an animal ends up on our plate. So he thinks eating meat is acceptable when an animal dies in a respectful way and when the overconsumption of meat wouldn't be that much present as it is now.

In his book he visits a lot of farmers. He researches how pigs, poultry and bovine animals are treated in the meat industries. He also visits smaller farms where they treat their animals with more respect than in the big meat industrie. After he visited and interviewed all of them he wrote all his critical reflections about them down, linked to his objective findings. He also writes down what effects the enormous meat industries have on our environment and he also gives some attention to the subject if eating no meat is unhealthy because of the risk of lack of vitamins. He writes down the hard reality, even when that is very shocking to read.

I think the book is very interesting and is a 'must - read' for every vegetarian or veganist. The only thing you should keep in mind is that the research has been done in America and that the legislation is different in the EU about the meat industrie than the legislation in the American countries. So don't base whole your persuasionmechanisms on the legal framework in the book because it doesn't matches with the one that we have in Europe. But next to that it is also quite similar.

So the book starts very accesible and light - hearted but it gets more research related and heavier to read the more chapters you pass. It surely interesses me, but the book does not keep my attention to the fullest because of all the statistics, all the research material. All these statistics are very heavy sometimes. After all it stays a book with a focus on research, what can make it sometimes not very accesible to read.

What I think that is very good is that he also puts light on the environmental problems we have because of the large meat consumption and the culturally determination of eating meat, what makes that being critical about eating meat is threatening to a lot of people. I also find it very pleasant that he talks about his own feelings, about his own life in the book. That makes it more accessible than the book would be purely a book of research.

Wednesday Addams

Thanks to Daria Colaes for being Wednesday Addams!
Also special thanks to Danielle Pasmans for the make - up!
This one was part of my horrorproject.