By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a call with President Trump, tensions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia escalated, with senior UAE officials feeling betrayed by Saudi actions. By the following month, the dispute had reached a point where Saudi Arabia bombed a UAE shipment to Yemen. While the Saudis claimed their request to President Trump was for additional sanctions on the RSF, not directly on the UAE, the Emirati leadership remains convinced MBS sought direct sanctions against their nation. This rift has created a significant strain between two crucial U.S. allies.
Read the original article here
The suggestion that people struggling to afford groceries should simply eat liver has, understandably, sparked quite a bit of commentary. It’s the kind of advice that seems to come from a place so removed from everyday financial realities that it’s almost comical, if it weren’t so concerning. The idea itself conjures images of a bygone era, a sort of well-intentioned but ultimately out-of-touch paternalism, suggesting that a simple dietary swap is the solution to systemic economic hardship. One might even envision a scenario where this advice is delivered with a sigh and a nod, as if the problem is simply one of poor dietary choices rather than insufficient income.
This notion of “eating liver” as a solution for financial strain immediately brings to mind the infamous “let them eat cake” quote, a phrase that has come to symbolize the obliviousness of the elite to the suffering of the common people. It’s a powerful parallel, suggesting that those in positions of privilege are offering solutions that are not only impractical but also implicitly condescending, failing to grasp the fundamental challenges faced by those living paycheck to paycheck. The disconnect between the proposed solution and the actual problem is stark, highlighting a lack of understanding of the complexities of modern economic survival.
Beyond the immediate affordability issue, there’s also the question of the nutritional advice itself. While liver is certainly nutrient-dense, it’s not without its caveats. The common wisdom, often passed down through generations, suggests that regular, heavy consumption of liver can have negative health consequences due to its high levels of certain vitamins and minerals. This raises the concern that the proposed solution might, in the long run, create new health problems for those already facing numerous difficulties. It’s a case where trying to save money on food might inadvertently lead to greater medical expenses down the line.
The reaction to such advice often points to a broader frustration with those in power who seem to lack direct experience with the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. When individuals who have never had to worry about grocery bills offer seemingly simplistic solutions, it breeds resentment and a feeling of being misunderstood or even mocked. The chasm between the lived experiences of the wealthy and the working class appears to widen with each such pronouncement, leading to a sense that the guidance offered is more performative than practical.
Furthermore, this type of suggestion implies a certain degree of personal responsibility for financial woes that overlooks larger economic factors. It shifts the focus away from systemic issues like inflation, stagnant wages, and the rising cost of living, and places the burden squarely on the shoulders of individuals to simply “eat cheaper.” This perspective fails to acknowledge that many people have already exhausted all possible cost-saving measures and are still struggling to make ends meet, having already traded down from more desirable options.
The critique also extends to the very idea of organ meats being the go-to suggestion for poverty. It evokes a nostalgic, almost regressive, view of food and poverty, as if returning to a diet of what was once considered “peasant food” is an acceptable solution. This framing can feel demeaning, suggesting that the poor are or should be content with less desirable, less appealing food options, while ignoring the fact that even these “cheaper” options can become prohibitively expensive during times of economic hardship.
The disconnect is further amplified by the understanding that many of the advocates for such “frugal” eating advice often lead lives of significant comfort and privilege. The notion of a millionaire, insulated from the realities of grocery store prices, dictating dietary choices to those struggling to put food on the table strikes many as disingenuous, if not outright offensive. It’s the kind of advice that lands poorly because it’s perceived as coming from a place of ignorance rather than empathy or genuine understanding.
Ultimately, the conversation around eating liver as a response to economic hardship is less about the nutritional value of the food itself and more about the profound disconnect between policymakers and the public they serve. It’s a symptom of a larger problem where solutions are offered that fail to address the root causes of financial distress, and instead, provide simplistic, almost insulting, remedies that highlight the vast differences in lived experiences between the privileged and the struggling. The underlying sentiment is a plea for practical, systemic solutions rather than well-meaning but misguided dietary suggestions.