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!

Calla's Sixty-Fifth Post

Michael Pollan is my arch nemesis. (Is that how you spell his name?) I think he is a moron. I have said this before, but I will say it again. He is not smart. He is illogical. AND THE WORST PART IS, people listen to him and think he has intelligent arguments against veganism. I'm pretty sure I have been over these before. OK, I looked it up. It's Post no. 11 from Jan. 19th. (It really is a swell rebuttal, you should check it out) And I don't have oh so much more to say or anything. I would like to point you to this article to show you how REALLY wrong he is about the "less animals die" illogical point. But even though I don't have oh so very much more to say I do have a little more to say. It has come to my attention that one of Pollan's problems with vegetarians is that they are estranged from culture or something ridiculous. Like, we can't eat Thanksgiving turkeys or hot dogs when we go to (BORING BORING BORING) baseball games. But why would I want to be engulfed by a culture that is unethical? It was the culture in antebellum south to own slaves. Am I supposed to be sorry I missed out on that cultural tradition? Cause, um, I'm NOT. And ALSO, if his overarching argument is to eat LOCAL, what the hell kinda ball park franks is he eating? He is contradictory and I don't like that. And then the other thing I want to say is that people take his argument and pull out what they want from it and leave the rest. So, people use his book, which was written to promote LOCAL omnivorous diets, to justify their current habits. Oh, and also, someone who only eats local (which is good, don't get me wrong) is going to have a much harder time going out to eat with friends than a vegan. There's nearly always something a vegan can get on a menu. I even had them modify something at Applebee's for me once. If you can find something at applebee's you can find something everywhere except McDonald's. So, who is more estranged from culture? The strict vegan or the strict localvore?

Speaking of McDonald's, I hate them. And they also have led me to the realization that I have no clue how to relate to the majority of humanity. So, they have that commercial for the filet o' fish sandwich that makes me want to cry!! There's a dead fish on the wall singing "give me back that filet o' fish. Give me that fish./ give me back that filet o' fish. Give me that fish./ What if it was you hanging up on the wall?/ if it was you in that sandwich/ you wouldn't be happy at all!" And I think, yeah bastard stopping eating dead animals!!! But this is an advertisement FOR McDonald's. That means listening to a dead animal complain that his friend is being eaten ENCOURAGES people to eat dead animals. That is sick and twisted. I do not understand. I do not understand. Someone explain, because I do not understand! Why would that make people WANT to eat fish when it makes me want to cry? I don't understand how people can be so desensitized. Also, there was this commercial on the radio that Tabby read about and told me about where the guy orders two fish sandwiches and says "i'm a fishaterian." And the lady behind him orders two french fries and he says "are you a potatotarian?" and she says "uh no, vegetarian." MCDONALD'S FRENCH FRIES ARE NOT VEGETARIAN!! THEY HAVE BEEF IN THEM!!! They are dirty liars and I hope they get sued again by more vegetarians because of their lying stupid-face commercials!

McDonald's is evil. They give people heart attacks. I've never seen super size me, but I'm pretty sure if I had, I woulda been convinced that one should never eat McDonald's. . . Because I already am convinced of that. But maybe you should watch it so you can be convinced too. And none of this "everything in moderation" bull-shit. Why would you put poison in your body in moderation? DUMB.

Um, there was more to say, but I don't feel like it right now. I used to be so great at writing on this everyday, and now I'm not. BUT, I will probably write about Galactica later cause it was on last night and it was amazing. And I will put some senior work stuff on here in a minute for real this time. I did a midterm on Thurs and Fri and am supposed to be starting another one right now, but I don't want to want to want to. I don't want to want to at all!!!! I will do it soon though probably.

Oh, and Michael Pollan is dumb. He said "don't eat anything your grandparents wouldn't recognize as food." But different people's grandparents recognize different things as food, firstly. Secondly, why are there cultural norms better than ours? Thirdly, does this metaphor carry to other aspects of life? Should I not wear anything my grandparents wouldn't recognize as clothing? Is that clothing too "unnatural?" hahahahahhahahaa. Bye.

Love,
Calla and FUFFERS IS NEXT TO HER. Where is the Mama?



Fake animal friends Tabby bought me for Christmas

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.