Calla's Sixty-Ninth Post

I saw a book today that, um, BOTHERS ME, to say the least. It is part of this growing trend in idiocy in the vein of Michael Pollan. It by some woman who's last name is ironically Friend, and it is called The Compassionate Carnivore. I didn't read the book, only the jacket. And what I found there alone disturbs me deeply. It is another one of those eat local "sustainable" meat and the world will be a happier place. It talked about how the author raises and kills lambys or sheep or something. . . And about the surprising gratitude she felt when she ate an animal she raised and LOVED. Someone needs to explain this to me in terms I can understand. I have problems with people killing sentient beings whom they supposedly LOVE. I can't kill BUGS (I trap them, walk into the hallway, and let them out the window), let alone an animal I love. Imagine killing a pet. Just imagine slitting a beloved pets neck. If you are capable of this, I don't think you understand the definition of love. You should be willing to die for things you love, not willing to kill them. There is something twisted in the psyche of anyone who goes "oh, I love to kill things I love and eat them even though it is entirely unnecessary for my health and actually destructive for the environment!" So, that's my first beef. (haha, no pun intended.) I could NEVER kill one of my cats. Not if my life depended on it. If my life depended on it, I would die instead. How can you take the life of a thinking, feeling, breathing, trusting, loving animal, whom you love!?

Second problem with this whole movement. UNSUSTAINABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE. No matter what way you slice it, eating meat is not a sustainable process. One can argue that eating grass fed animals does not take the same grains away from people. . . But I don't get it. If the amount of animals people eat every year were all grass-fed, WE WOULD HAVE NO TREES LEFT. How are you gonna clear that much brush for that amount of animals?! Explain to me how you're gonna do that? WHICH MEANS, that it is impossible for EVERYONE to eat local, grass-fed animals. It just is. So, for whom is this diet designed? Not the general population. Additionally, even people who may want to eat locally and may be able to afford it are not necessarily going to have access to such dead animals. The argument doesn't make any sense when the general population of the United States is considered. The suggestion works for a small minority, and it is, dare I say, elitist?

Furthermore, I feel like these arguments don't work for meat-eaters. I feel like people are more likely to use them as an excuse for continuing the status quo, or there is the "slippery slope" idea, where people will switch to local death and then be all "oh, well, I can go out to eat at this restaurant this one time for my friend's birthday," and that one time turns into once a week, which turns into a habitual event. It is unrealistic to expect people to eat only local meat and not expect them to want to eat out every once in a while. I know of only two restaurant that serve local meat. That means you asking these people only to eat meat that they cook themselves, and I think that is an unrealistic expectation knowing the general weak-will of humanity.

So, what I think these books are more likely to turn vegans and vegetarians into people who eat local animals than to turn omnivores into people who only eat local death. Do you agree? Am I right?

But seriously, that love part is what gets me more than anything. I am greatly disturbed by this definition of love.

Besides the point. Calla Wright. I have to write my name. If people are going to search for me in creepy websites like 123people this blog better come up! As of now it doesn't. So I put my name it. . . for any creepy people who want to find me, now they can. haha. Weird right?

I made up a lamby dance! But Tabby needs to record it before it can go on here. So, I can't put it on here yet. BUT, the lambys do a lamby dance, the lambys do a lamby dance, the lambys do a lamby dance, they dance! 'Cause they're so happy that nobody eats them, yes they're so happy nobody eats them. And they're so happy no one abuses them, yes they're so happy no one abuses them! The lambys made up their dance. . . um. . . I think. . . not yesterday. . . but the day before. . . And I didn't see that stupidface book until today. So it made me even more upset when I saw that book, 'cause those lambys in the book don't get to do a dance! People eat them. :( And people they TRUST, the way my kitties trust me, TAKE THEIR LIVES. EWWWW.

Love,
Calla and her kitties


Squirrel Friend!

Post no. 11

So, I have never read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I am not an omnivore, so I assume I have no dilemma. (haha. Most of you have a dilemma and I don't!!) OK, well today I was with a fellow vegan at virgin megastore who happens to be insecure about all of his/her beliefs. (Not just to do with food. This particular person has the tendency to NEED to be right about everything, so if s/he reads something which goes against his or her beliefs s/he freaks out that s/he may be wrong and needs reassurance.) So, this friend was browsing Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, and s/he demanded that I read about two pages of it and then justify my position on veganism and animal rights.

OK, so this guy is either a complete moron or I am missing A LOT. What I gathered was his argument against veganism from the 2 pages I read (and I am admitting I only read two pages. . . but I don't care to read the rest because, like I said, I am not the one with the dilemma.): point 1: Vegans are just crazy idealists who can't actually make a difference because people will always eat meat.
point 2: We would kill more animals if everyone stopped eating meat because of all the field mice that die during the harvest of crops, all the birds that die from ingesting pesticide laced grains, and all the earth we would have to turn into fields thus stripping other animals of their habitat.
point 3: In parts of the world where people rely on meat because their land is not conducive to growing crops, the amount of food which would need to be imported would cause mass pollution.
point 4: We would be ever further removed from nature if we stopped eating flesh.

Alright, so I am sure there is more that he wrote that is interesting. Additionally, I have been told his main overarching point is that everyone should eat locally grown or raised organic food and that everyone who eats meat should be willing to kill the animals him/herself. And also, he does not like factory farming. So, it turns out I agree with him on all these points. (Though I am guilty of buying bananas and some food that is not organic. I prefer to buy organic and I buy all other fruits/veggies and my bread from the local farmer's market. Also, I eat at restaurants that do not buy local.) But, I still think he is a moron because:

My response to point 1: Most likely child molestation, murder, rape, theft, abuse, etc. will not ever be eradicated in my lifetime. So, should I just engage in these practices because I am being too unrealistically idealistic if I don't participate in the evils of the world? Um, last I checked, no. Just because I choose not to participate in something I deem immoral doesn't mean I am naive. It means I am living what I perceive to be an ethical lifestyle.

I am reminded of a conversation that took place before class one day. I was talking to this other vegan and she was telling me about the "chicken" salad sandwich she had just bought that she would soon proceed to eat. She said, "It actually tastes like chicken, which I personally like." Her friend interrupted us to respond with, "If you like the taste of chicken, why don't you eat a chicken?" To which the said vegan rejoined, "hmm, crack tastes good. . . I better go smoke it. UM NO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS." (ok, this is a little off topic, but I love love the anecdote. She responded so quickly it was so funny.)

But basically, my point is that I shouldn't be unethical because "everyone else is doing it." How old are we? Oh I forgot we must be 13 year olds and we must be talking about nicotine use.

My response to point 2: Does anyone else think this is just stupid? Last I checked, (and maybe things have changed since then. . . maybe we feed cows more dead cows than we used to. . .) it takes ten pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. If we simply stop raising animals for food, milk and eggs and stop breeding them, we have more than enough fields in place to feed the nation. We don't need new fields. We need to remove some of that government subsidized corn for shizzle and diversify the fields. . . But we don't need anymore fields! Thus, no excess birds and field mice need die. Seriously. I was just downright confused by this argument. He neglected to mention we must FEED the animals that omnivores proceed to eat. I don't get why he thinks there aren't enough fields if the population of farmed animals is dramatically decreased.

Now, this was, thankfully, not one of the points that I read in the two pages of Michael Pollan's book. However, it is worth mentioning because the argument I just made will naturally lead some people to this point that I have heard reiterated mindlessly more times than I can count. That is, farmed animals only exist because humans eat them. If humans ceased to eat them, they would go extinct. And isn't it better to exist than to not exist? I have a response to this which I feel I must share in case someone who reads this jumps to that conclusion.

OK, so firstly, I don't think it's fair to assume farmed animals would go extinct if we stopped breeding them. Many people have grown to feel about pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, etc. the way people feel about dogs and cats. Naturally, some people who have room for chickens or cows will want chickens or cows. (Consider that farm sanctuary is always finding homes for their animals with loving vegetarians and vegans.) Thus, the argument that they will cease to exist is void.

Secondly, I don't get it. Farmed animals are not a necessary part of our ecosystem, why do all these people care so much about their potential extinction but I don't see them trying to conserve animal habitats elsewhere or trying to prevent global warming which is wiping out many species of plants and animals. This is clearly just a (really crappy) excuse. "I eat the animals to save them. . . drrrr." WEIRDOS.

Thirdly, animals ARE INDIVIDUALS. If an individual chicken isn't ever born, guess what there is no way for the nonexistent chicken to care about not existing. Think about this, something that doesn't exist DOESN'T EXIST. There are no feelings. There is nonexistence. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS AN ARGUMENT. There is not like a mass chicken consciousness just as there is not a mass consciousness for humanity. When a person is not conceived because a couple was intelligent enough to use a condom, YOU DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T CARE. Chickens will not care if they go extinct. They will have no way to know because they will not exist. I don't know how else to explain this to you. If farmed animals went extinct, which they wouldn't even if people stopped using their flesh for personal gain, it wouldn't matter. The ecosystem wouldn't be effected and also the animals wouldn't be around to care.

That has nothing to do with Michael Pollan as far as I know. (just in case you forgot.)

My response to point 3: I would just like to point out that, according to most studies, people who do not eat meat and do not buy locally do more for the environment than people that both eat meat and buy locally. Additionally, how many people do you know that buy locally? I am not going to say it doesn't happen. I know a few who only buy local. But most people ALREADY buy a mix of local and non-local. (Like I said, we buy bananas.) So, I don't really get the argument. You are not going to have a sudden surge in people who were buying strictly local buying only imported foods. It's just not going to happen.

Furthermore, uh, CHINA. How many people who "only buy local" buy everything that is not food from ACROSS THE WORLD? (A lot.) If Michael Pollan is so worried about people needing to import items why isn't he lobbying to bring industry back to the United States so we can stop polluting the earth with things made in China? That would probably be more beneficial than arguing we should eat meat. (Do you know how many resources go into raising animals for meat!?)

My response to point 4: So what? That is honestly my response. Go on a nature retreat. Lobby for community gardens so more people can experience growing their own food. Push for green space in cities. Go apple picking and berry picking. Eat raw food. I dunno; go get chased, and potentially mauled, by an abused tiger trapped in a circus act. There are better ways to "get in touch with nature" than eating innocent and abused animals. That's it. That is all I have to say.

So, that is my response to the two pages. The guy seems ignorant for sure. I can only imagine what I would have to write if I read the whole book. It woulda been yucky for positive.



Now, this is unrelated. It has recently been brought to my attention that most people EDIT their blogs! They like write rough drafts of things and proofread and weird things. Well, I don't do that. That doesn't sound like fun. I mean, what is this? School? No. It's not school. BUT just so you don't think I am a complete moron, I would like to point out that I do have some school papers as blog posts on here. If you don't believe me that I can write well, you should read one.

Another unrelated. There is a commercial with cute little monster friends!! They are small and little! And I want one to be my friend. I would kiss her/her facey for sure!! Tabby said s/he would be named Lizardo. (The commercial is for some job search website called ladders or something.)

That's it. That is all. The end.

Calla's Twenty-Eighth Post

So, I haven't had time to write in two days. . . and though I have class in 50 minutes and didn't read the 300 page book I was supposed to read for it, now I have time to write. (sorta, whatever.) Anyway, so I am going to write 3 posts today to try and make up for it. So really this is "Calla's Twenty-Eighth Post pt. 1" Unless I decide to do a picture post and an informative post or something for the other ones, then it is just how it is titled.

So, this post is to let you know the resolution of the Farmer's Market/Christmas Market space dilemma. Turns out there is actually enough room for both and the construction for the restaurant does not go out as far as I had thought it went out when I was protesting it. And that is all there is to say about it. I hope you appreciated this critical update.

The. End. Calla and her kitties (who are a little bit crazy and a lot bit cute!)

Calla's Twenty-Fifth Post

They're setting it up
They're setting it up
They're setting it up
THE CHRRRIIIIISTMAAAAS FAIR!
They're setting it up
They're setting it up
They're setting it up
THE CHRRRIIIIISTMAAAAS FAIR!
They're setting it up
They're setting it up
They're setting it up
THE CHRRRIIIIISTMAAAAS FAIR!

This is the song I sang all the way home from Union Square because I saw them setting up the CHRISTMAS FAIR!! Ohmeohmy you have no idea how much I love Christmas time!! I love the decorations and I love decorating. I love baking cookies and decorating cookies and eating cookies and giving cookies away. I love buying gifts and making gifts. I really love wrapping gifts. I love getting a tree and naming my tree and decorating my tree. I love when the kitties sit under the tree like they are God's gift to humanity. (hehehe) Oh CHRISTMAS TIME. I even love the stupid movies on T.V. I love Christmas time celebrations. Christmas is such a good fun time. I used to not care about Christmas so much. Even when I was little I didn't care so much, but ever since about three years ago I really started loving it. I get super excited for anything that has to do with Christmas. And I say "LOOK!! It's Christmas time, that store is decorated for Christmas!" So today when I walked by Union Square just now and saw the beginning of the wooden vendor thing-a-ma-bobs I went "" and Tabby went "WHAT!?" And I said "They're setting up the Christmas fair!!" And then I started singing the song that began this post.

Now, here, this year, there is a downside to the Christmas fair. . . They sold all this big section of the park (the part with the pavement with the labyrinth on it) to some fancyshmancy restaurant and so there is not so so much room. So I do not understand how the Christmas Fair and the Farmer's market can coexist peacefully!? Now, in the winter it is true there is less for farmer's to sell. . . But some farmers still have all their stuff to sell, like if they have milk or bread or something. . . . BUT YES, the farmer's market is smaller in the winter which is why the Christmas Fair and the Farmer's market could live together before. Now, See, I don't know. Plus right now, like right this second, still lots of farmers have things to sell. On Wednesday guess what I bought from them. Did you guess? I will tell you regardless. I bought two different kinds of apples, concord grapes (YUM! I WILL MISS THEM SO SOON), tomato, zucchinis, bread and a knish. I think that is it. But also there was a lot more I coulda bought. Oh, I also bought potatoes, the big red kind of them that are called something with the word purple in their title. So see, still a lot is in season even now. So, I don't know how this will work.

I protested that restaurant business with the Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping. I really like those people. They are great at what they do and they have such a good message. But the protest didn't work and also I never expected it to work anyway. But I still like Reverend Billy a lot. But I like Christmas time more than I like Reverend Billy.

I will put a picture of Baby Kitty under the tree last year. I don't think Mama liked the tree. I don't remember for certain though, but I don't have a picture of her under it, so I would have to put up a different kind of picture even if she did like the tree. What Mama likes is attacking things, not sitting under trees.

Oh also, the tree in the picture is named "Sister Tree." Now she is living at Tabby's parents house on the edge of Queens and Nassau County. If you are in the area you should drop by and say "hello Sister Tree." I don't remember why her name is Sister Tree. I tried to see if I could donate her to the city parks department so they could plant her, but they did not respond to my question, so then she moved to Tabby's parent's house.

Also, I thought also this about the Farmer's market just now. If there is no room for it, who will sell me my Christmas tree!?

Love,
Calla and her kitties.