Post no. 13

Long time no chat,

I was recently accused of using emotion and no reason when arguing my passions. I would first like to direct the accuser to a discussion I had with myself here, in order to explain the way I think and feel about "reason versus emotion" in the first place. Second, s/he should visit the paragraph under the kitty picture of this post to understand that this is not school. It is a blog. Thirdly, I will now demonstrate that I do indeed have supreme reasoning skills in addition to my overly-emotional core: *ahem*

Eating meat is morally wrong. I do not believe this is a matter of opinion or subjectivity, and my reason dictates so (not my emotions.)

It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It takes 3 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of chicken. On average, it takes 10 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat.

Consider the following: There are people all over the world going hungry; they eat literal mud cakes to fill their stomachs. Many would argue that this is not a problem of food production but a problem of food distribution. However, as developing countries consume more meat, the cost of grain is rising. Why? Because wealthier people are using that grain to feed animals, and essentially losing 9 pounds of food in the process. This higher demand for grain increases the price of it. It is a simple economics question of supply and demand. The result: people who could once afford grains no longer can.

Now, one could argue that meat consumption IN THE UNITED STATES does not drive the cost of grain up overseas. And they would be right in the most literal sense. However, the reason developing countries are consuming more meat is largely because of Western influence. A vegan I know from school who is from India and who is in my Fundraising and Developing class explained how McDonald's is popping up all over the place in India. (McDonald's is so successful because it brands itself as a "family restaurant.") You cannot tell me, with a straight face, that the "convenient," fast-food, excessive meat-consumption culture did not develop in the West. Therefore, indirectly yes, consuming meat even in the United States raises the price of grain overseas. This in turn, causes the starvation of human beings. Causing the starvation of a human being through negligence is immoral.

Furthermore, one may not be worried about a food shortage in the United States, but one should worry, I argue one is morally obligated to worry, about the effects one's food choices have on other people. With respect to the amount of grain used to produce meat, field upon field are devoted to government-subsidized corn. (see the original rant here.) This corn is used to feed animals. (I think this is also immoral as the animals eating corn cannot digest corn properly an we are commanded by God to take care of animals, not abuse them. . . but I will leave the Christian and animal argument out. Those can be found elsewhere on this blog anyway.) This makes both corn and meat CHEAP. So, anyone who, either through necessity or their own decision, buys inexpensive food is buying either products full of corn syrup or meat. The diabetes and obesity rates in this country are absurdly high, largely because of meat and corn syrup consumption. (The human digestive track was not meant to consume animal products in large quantities leading to a whole slew of other health problems as well.)

Every time you purchase meat (or something with corn-syrup in it for that matter) when you have the spending power to purchase something else, you are essentially approving the government's corn-subsidy policy. Healthful foods are more expensive, in part, because not enough of the public is willing to stand against this government policy. Instead, people exasperate the problem by purchasing inexpensive animal products. Healthful foods remain costly, and those who cannot afford to spend a lot of money on food, those living in poverty, pay the price with their health.

Meat does not just hurt other people's health directly through consumption, it harms people indirectly. Industry Factory Farm jobs are some of the most horrendous jobs in the country. Because workers are largely unable to unionize, the pay is awful and the conditions are dangerous. Granted, one could argue it is better to support these farms so that these individuals have SOME employments; clearly it is better to work in dangerous conditions than to be better employed. First, I would argue that many of these same people are opposed to sweatshops overseas, yet the same logic about employment applies. Until they figure out their argument, I won't listen to them. Second, job creation is indeed a problem in this country, and I will not deny that. But there are countless USEFUL jobs that should be created that could easily replace the jobs lost in factory farms. (I am thinking of 'green-collar' work, improving infrastructure work, safer factories that produce inanimate objects that won't act out and ram you in the gut so that we CAN stop importing all our products from sweatshops in China.)

In addition to the workers, communities located near Industry Factory Farms suffer. They are, without fail, polluted. They do not have clean air or clean water. This inevitably leads to health problems.

Speaking of water, according to most estimates, it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. According to the beef industry it takes 441 gallons to produce a pound of meat. Now, let's be civil and give the beef industry the benefit of the doubt and say it takes "only" 441 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat. Is this justifiable? Is it morally acceptable to waste 441 gallons of water for one hamburger when clean water is a problem across the globe? When innumerable children are dying from diarrhea because they do not have clean water, can you use a product that wastes so much without a nagging at your conscious? I can't. And I won't.

On a global level the problem of climate change, while stemming from a variety of sources, is effected by meat consumption. Studies show that meat production is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transportation combined. For starters, factories naturally emit a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere. But there are many other reasons for these emissions not as readily understood.

Billions of animals produce a lot of methane. This is through both digestion and because of the cesspools of waste created by factory farms. (the same cesspools polluting local waterways) Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. In the United States, animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions.

Nitrous oxide is another problem. 65% of the nitrous oxide emissions worldwide come from animal-product industries. And nitrous oxide is a lot more potent of a global warming gas than carbon dioxide is.

Brush, including the RAIN FOREST, is cleared so animals can graze in places like Brazil. Granted, this is not industry factory farming, but this post is about consuming animals. When Brazil recently decided to double their output of cattle, this problem became even worse. Anyone who went to the zoo as a child has learned about the importance of the Rain Forest and the necessity of protecting it. While, consuming meat causes the destruction of the Rain Forest, and, in turn, causes an increase in greenhouse gases as the Rain Forest is not able to absorb as much carbon. (Furthermore, and beside the point of the post, how can destroying God's creation to feed one's gluttony be considered anything but immoral in the first place?)

Additionally, animals are shipped all over the world for consumption. These factors make the meat industry the number one industry in greenhouse gas emissions. For the sake of all humanity, it is better not to contribute to this problem by supporting this industry. In fact, I argue, it is immoral to knowingly contribute to a problem that may cause countless deaths. (Some argue that global warming is already killing people. See Jessica Williams's 50 Facts That Should Change the World 2.0)

To summarize, eating meat supports a dangerous industry. It contributes to global warming, community pollution, the food shortage and the clean water crisis. Knowingly engaging in these acts, without doing everything reasonable to prevent them, is both negligent and immoral.

As alluded to earlier, I have many posts relating to animal welfare and Christianity and vegetarianism if you are interested. Feel free to explore the labels to the right.

May I remind you again, that this is not school. So, I know I do not have many hard statistics or citations. This was only an exercise in reasoning, and a demonstration of my ability to do so. Statistics and citations could easily be copied and pasted if I had the time to re-research all of this information–– which I do not. It is late.

Also, because it is so late, I do not want to proofread this. And so if I have made a fool of myself by not demonstrating my ability to use logic because my arguments are incoherent, feel free to point and laugh. Perhaps I will revise it later.


These are goat friends who live in Arizona at this weird Western-themed amusement park. THEY ARE SOOOOO CUTE. I wanna take them home. :)

P.S. I don't know why all those words are underlined, or how to get them not to be so.

Calla's Sixty-Third Post

I am writing this sentence to remind you: I don't edit this stuff. I just ramble. It's not cause I'm dumb. Its cause blogs aren't homework. They're a place to rant. I ranted A LOT below this. Consider yourself warned.

So, ignorant people ANNOY me. We were talking about Opportunity NYC in class today, ya know the Conditional Cash Transfer program currently in it's pilot stages in New York City, and my goodness me are there social conservatives at my school!! Now, Opportunity NYC has a lot a lot of problems. It can be criticized from both the left and the right, and I will criticize it from the left momentarily, but I did not expect to hear all these people criticizing it from the right in my "Making a Difference" class. Why these people went to The New School is pretty much beyond me. And why they were let in is also beyond me. But, Tabby said you have to let diverse people into a school and what not, right? And I understand the merits of diversity in institutions; I do. Especially if it is an undergraduate institution. But I think when someone is in a graduate program at the NEW SCHOOL should be somewhat more progressive. (seriously, if you don't believe me, look it up.) I mean, the stupid class I was in "Making a Difference: Global, Organizational and Individual Perspective on Social Change" was conceived as a college-wide REQUIRED class so we could all be indoctrinated on how important a progressive ideology is. (The creators of the class, of course, won't admit this. But sit in on one class and you will know it is true.) So, my point is: why are all these students with adverse ideologies accepted into a school with a mission to, and I quote FROM the New School's website, " prepare and inspire its 9,400 undergraduate and graduate students to bring actual, positive change to the world." Private Universities ARE nonprofits. They exist to serve a specific purpose. The New School's purpose is clearly stated. It seems like Mission Drift to let all these social conservatives into the University.

Well, perhaps I might maybe explain what happened. So, Opportunity NYC is SUPPOSEDLY based on Mexico's Oportunidades (formerly Progresa). These are programs which offer money, not subsidies or vouchers–– actual money, to those living in poverty as long as the program participants fulfill given obligations. Well, I'm not going to get into the merits of Oportunidades, because the program is highly successful; I mean 1 in every 4 Mexicans benefiting from it highly successful. Also, from the 2 book chapters and 3 articles I read about it, I don't see anything wrong with it. Seriously, it's not controversial. No one in my class even talked about it. Opportunity NYC is the controversial one.

I first saw mention of Opportunity NYC when CNN did it's whole "Black in America" thing and those 4th graders were getting paid to do well on tests. So, the program requires parents to stay employed, school-aged kids to go to school and DO WELL in it, + the normal things like go to the doctors regularly, go to Parent-Teacher conferences etc. Probably, if you have the least bit critical mind, you are seeing a problem with this program, because right or left, there ARE PROBLEMS. Well, I sit here, and I think about how horrendous it is that we are putting blame on children for not doing well in school instead of on the failing school systems, and how the worst possible thing a person could do is raise the stakes even MORE when it comes to tests. (I think there might be a post about this somewhere, but I don't know.) Basically, high stakes testing is a total joke already. The tests are written with an unintended bias towards white middle-class students. The tests don't prove that children can learn, but that they can memorize. The culture they create in classrooms–– one of route memorization, the banking system, irrelevant subject matter, stressful work environment, isolated subjects, lack of creativity, and no critical thinking skills–– is both detrimental and dehumanizing. Furthermore, it has been shown through studies done by Friere and the likes, that tests don't actually test aptitude. Your SAT scores don't actually reflect how well you will do in college. Oh, and the requiring parents to keep a job to get paid, that is counterintuitive. If a parent loses his/her job through no fault of his/her own and can't find another one because of a job shortage like the one we are currently experiencing, well, the last thing that individual needs is the Opportunity NYC money to stop flowing. Am I right? So, this is what I thought we would find objectionable in Mayor Bloomberg's plan. That and I thought perhaps some well-meaning individuals would find it condescending to imply poor people need extra motivation to do the right thing while middle class or wealthy people don't. (I don't think that is at all what is implied by the program, but ya know, overly-sensitive, liberal, straight, white, males who are always trying to overcompensate for their undue privilege by acting offended for everyone else's sake probably would say that.) But, much to my shock and gag-reflex people were all:

I think it's wrong to pay people for what they should be doing anyway.

Parents are supposed to be invested in their children's life without getting paid.

I understand Mayor Bloomberg is trying to force all these parents to be good parents, but you can't make people do what's right.

I don't personally understand the culture of poor people not taking care of their kids properly because I'm white and from a farm and have always had opportunities and a steady career, but since that's the way it is, I think it's good that this program is in place to inspire people to care for their children someway. (I KID YOU NOT THAT IS A SUMMARY OF WHAT SOMEONE SAID. . . he was a white male, but I'm not sure if he's straight.)

I think it skews people's values. People need to value education for what it is, not because it pays. What are these kids gonna do when they graduate and aren't getting paid to go to college, are they going to go?

Since in poor communities education isn't valued properly, I think it works to put a monetary value on it, so individuals can tell what it's worth.

Alright, two of those weren't even criticisms, they were praises of the program but for DISGUISTING reasons. THESE PEOPLE ARE MORONS. Here is what I gathered their opinions are: poor people don't care about their kids, we must pay poor people to do the 'proper' thing, poor people don't understand the value of education. Alright bitches, I bet all of them can understand the value of education better than you can because you probably took it for granted your whole life where these parents, who are struggling to pay bills, pay the rent, keep their kids out of trouble, WISH they could have what you have so that life WOULDN'T be so hard. Not to generalize because I'm sure some people in my class are from low income families and communities, but, my gods, these people in class blabbing about how poor people don't know the value of education most likely don't understand the value of it themselves because they've never had to struggle without one. Furthermore, how DARE they accuse parents of not wanting what's best for their children because they don't have time to go to a frakken PTA meeting. I mean really, if you are a single parent working multiple jobs and you have the choice between going to work to make money so your electricity doesn't get cut off or going to a Parent-Teacher conference, well, I guess that's up to you what you would do. But I'm damn sure gonna make sure my babies have electricity and running water and a safe place to come home to before I'm gonna sit down and chat with their teachers. My babies can tell me themselves how they're doing in school, and we won't end up in transitional housing or a homeless shelter, thank-you-very-much! But, if you pay me $25 for that hour of my time, hell ya! That's more than I'd be making at work anyway, and yes I'd gladly be MORE involved in my child's life if I had the means to do so. . . And, maybe I already WAS making every effort and going to these meetings, but at the cost of less nutritional meals 'cause all I could afford after missing that hour of work was HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP filled food. Oh and now we all have diabetes.

OK, you get my point. These people are not ok with me. I don't know outa what world they fell, but they need to go back. . . NOW. And Tabby and I were talking about how probably they are not Republican. Probably they do not consider themselves conservative. Maybe they consider themselves fiscally or socially liberal. BUT they are, in part, social conservatives. You saw all that "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" bullshit, did you not? Somehow, because these parents don't have time to go to conferences, don't have the resources to make annual doctor's appointments, they are bad parents? They don't CARE about their kids? bullshit. You know its bullshit. We aren't necessarily talking about abusive crack-head parents, and even if we were I bet I could make a case for them caring about their kids anyway. We are talking about people who grew up in the ghetto, and who are raising their kids in the ghetto, who have no hope of getting out of the ghetto because that's where their moms were raised too. We are talking about multi-generational poverty brought on by unfortunate and despicable social problems and failed policy solutions. Living in poverty does not make you a bad parent. It makes you damn busy. PLUS, a lot of these parents probably already WERE doing these things. It's not like Bloomberg targeted people who weren't doing these things. He targeted poverty-stricken families who may or may not have been doing these things, but why should that matter? Why NOT redistribute the wealth in their favor? They are working harder than all those damn morons in the financial sector who make millions and billions.

BTW, my parents DID have the means and time to take me to the doctor's and dentist and they still didn't. I have been to the dentist 3 times in my life and once was after I had already graduated high school. This has nothing to do with not caring. It has to do with certain a level of organization that many people lack. So yes, I understand most children are covered by health insurance, but if people don't have basic organizational skills, and why would they necessarily have ever gained these skills if they themselves did not have the opportunity to finish school and balance college and a job at the same time (Most people who do finish school and finish college still come out lacking in the organizational department), why should they be expected to remember to make a doctor's appointment when they are worried about how they're gonna get their next meal? THEN, how should they find the time to get their child to it? I am so rambly. I am repeating myself a lot, I know. It just really really bothered me.

Love,
Calla and her Kitties. (MEOW)


(I need to take more pictures)

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 Thirty-Fourth Post

If you have not heard yet, change.org is letting people vote for what they believe are the most important issues for the Obama administration. Everyone can vote for ten ideas. The top 10 rated ideas will be presented to the Obama administration on January 16th. There are three animal rights ideas and one idea to require public schools to provide vegan lunch options! Register and vote!! None of these are currently in the top ten. And you must love the furry furry puppies! So vote for animal rights options at change.org/ideas.

(The creation of a Department of Peace is number nine! Kucinich's dream may yet become a reality.)

In other news, this is the subsidized corn rant from a long long time ago in a state far far away. (I wrote it on my sister's myspace page while I was in Arizona about two and a half years ago.) If it is already here somewhere I am sorry I could not find it and that this is a repeat. But TV always shows re-runs, so my blog can show one too certainly!!

My name is Christin. My sister, Calla, hates subsidized corn
"The government subsidizes corn. . . and only corn. That is why this nation is fat. Everything has corn in it. Corn syrup, corn meal, etc. Livestock is fed with corn. Everything made with corn (meat included) is cheaper than things made without corn. But everything made with high-fructose corn syrup and all the fatty hamburgers are bad bad bad for you!!! Many people cannot afford to buy a five dollar salad from McDonald's, but they can buy that double cheeseburgers for a buck. Our nation is fat because it is much cheaper to be fat than to be healthy.
Corn pollutes our environment. Well, no not corn in and of itself. But the price of raising livestock on corn and shipping that livestock all over the country in fuel guzzling trucks is about the cheapest way a livestock farmer can make a living. When you eat food it gives you energy, but the amount of energy provided by every cow made into beef is no where near the amount of energy taken from the earth to raise that cow. Far less people would raise cows for meat for a living if the government would stop subsidizing the corn the cows eat.
On Wednesday July 27 2005 Economist Joseph Stiglitz appeared on Lou Dobbs and made the claim that poverty is up in Mexico because the farmers cannot compete with our subsidized corn. I don't know much else about that argument but it sounds like a good one.
Subsidized corn is a devil!!! BOYCOTT!! But it will take you hours at the grocery store i'm sure to read all the lables and you will not be able to buy the majority of the food you like. Boycott anyway."

THINGS I RECENTLY DISCOVERED I HATE: (Calla talks a lot too. . . the beginning of the end of my own myspace)
1) subsidized corn
2) people that use God as an excuse to hate
3) organized religion
4) what the majority of this nation has turned God into
5) the contraversy of the Da Vinci Code. FICTION! (my sister, Calla, thinks this proves the stupidity of the nation. . . but that is a whole nother rant)
6) ILLEGAL immigration
7) the fact that the U.S. has no official language (my sister, Calla, thinks it's stupid that the government doesn't like our national anthem sung in any language except English but English isn't our official language. . . so that's dumb.)
8) people that come to this country and won't learn English (my sister, Calla, thinks i'm ignorant)
9) ignorant people, especially ignorant people in their cars on the same road as me
10) the war in Iraq
11) America is more worried about aid to foriegn countries than our starving children in AMERICA! (my sister, Calla, hates that we call our country America when it is actually the United States of America and not America in and of itself. . . though it is on NORTH America, are Canada and Mexico are also. . . not to mention all the countries on South America. . . ) we should all move to Canada
12) abortion that is forced or used as birth control. (my sister, Calla, hates abortion. . . it would take a really long time to explain why. . . longer than the subsidized corn thing. basically, she thinks it is ALWAYS used as an excuse to cover up other problems. our country doesn't have to deal with rape or domestic violence or incest or educating people or poverty or bad maternity leave laws or lack of housing for pregnant and mothering college students or shitty adoption laws or dead beat fathers etc because we have abortion. she is a psycho about this one, really, and she thinks pro-choice feminists are also the devil. Go to http://www.feministsforlife.org because it is her favorite organization in the world. They work to REDUCE the number of abortions by getting at the root of problems. George W. Bush and his fricken abstinence only plan is INCREASING the number of abortions because Bush is also the devil and he refuses to educate children on the uses of condoms. ok cool. . . that was pretty long too. . . let's NOT move to Canada because they like abortion even more than we do.)
13) domestic violence and how ignored it goes and how most people blame it on the woman. (my sister, Calla, says AMEN!)
14) so many women and children live in the ghetto while the "daddies" drive around in their pimped out range rovers. ("how can you force that woman raising her children in the ghetto to have another child. You have to let her have an abortion." "How can you force that woman to raise her children in the ghetto moron!" ROOT OF THE PROBLEM!)
15) that Calla has taken over my myspace. . . it is as if it was a Callaspace. . . she even typed that!

REMEMBER! THESE ARE ALL THINGS I HAVE recently DISCOVERED I HATE. (Calla hates that in caps lock there was no way to emphasize recently)


That is more than the corn part. That is the whole thing I typed while my wonderful sister was telling me half of what to type. Probably not the whole thing would be a re-run even if the corn thing is. I did not just re-read it, so I don't know what it says, but I hope it was good!!

Also, you should do your best to remember that that thing is so so old so those things are no longer things my sister recently discovered she hates. I don't know if she even hates them all anymore. I didn't read it. I just copied and pasted and trusted my former self and my sister's former self to not frak the whole thing up.

Did you see King Korn? I saw it in the movie theater like a year a go. My boyfriend and I bought popcorn on purpose to be ironic. hehehe

Love,
you know WHO-OO


Christmas Photos Below




P.S. I had a vague recollection that Lou Dobbs was mentioned in the myspace note, so I just skimmed it post publication and this is an edit to say he annoys me. . . so I am tagging this note as such. Also, there is a bit about abortion in there.

Calla's Thirty-Third Post

Alright everyone,
This calls for a resurrection.

I tried really hard to resurrect it before like it was a humanoid cylon model, but to no avail. Rica finally figured out a spell for me by spying on a witch fairy who knows how to bring stuff back from the dead because this was just TOO TOO TOO TOO MUCH. . .

. . . . (which is called an ellipsis, the guy at the made up musical insists.)

So anyway, as I was typing, . . .

THE FREE CREDIT REPORT GUY IS LIP SYNCING. Or so I was told by some online answer thing when I went to figure out precisely who this amazingly talented song singer man was. And I googled, "free credit report guy." And this was the first result: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/726312

And as you can see, assuming the link works and the question is still present, the answer given by one "silverkyle" reads as follows: http://www.ericviolette.com/ his name is Eric Violette and he is French canadian he did not sing the song he was the actor the song was dubbed over.

OK, um, what? OK, so ok. . . this is NOT ok. So, I am so sad. These are like the best commercials ever. I especially love the Ren. Fair and the Biking ones. (I don't know how to spell the word which I have abbreviated as Ren. I hope you can figure it out.) I find myself wanting the CD, but now I am crushed. My dreams are shattered. I had this ideal of this great song singer man who is actually not a song singer man. It is like Milli-Vanilli. Is that how their name is spelled?

Well, that is all for now. Hopefully this blog can continue trucking along. This was bad bad news.

ove, Calla and her kitties


Also, my fuffer kitty briefly turned into a zombie and tried to eat the little pixie kitty's brains! Don't worry; we found a cure. Lightning works just like it did for Shelly Winters.

Also, my chocolate sorbet has corn syrup–– at least it is not genetically modified. It reads, "NON GM CORN SYRUP," and I can only assume this means non genetically modified because I am too lazy to look it up and therefore not just assume. Um, how gross is it that we must specify that our corn syrup is "NON GM."? I think it's gross. Corn syrup is one of the devils. Did I tell you ever? If not, I must say, you are in for a treat when I finally feel the urge surge within. (haha. URGE SURGE.)