THEY’RE MADE WITH ORGANIC, FREE RANGE VEGANS

…

in more seriousness, i just read this op-ed on veganism: Animal, Vegetable, Miserable.

if anything i think it just cleared up what i think about veganism and vegans.

1. on the fact that whatever intellectual/emotional/communication differences exist between animals and humans is irrelevant, i agree with the vegans. humanity is blindly, arrogantly, and probably stupidly egotistical to assume superiority. the egotism of thinking that what you know is the only standard of intelligence (like assuming other people are stupid because they don’t speak your language) is blind and limiting. animals don’t speak human languages, and thus can’t write you an essay on how the mass genocide of their brethren is ultimate fail. are they therefore expendable objects to be slaughtered en mass with little respect for the role they play in the balance of life? no. further, the argument that humans are superior because they’ve conquered the earth is also flimsily supported in that we’re grappling with the consequences of our growth – we consume faster than we can renew, we create new health problems with our mass consumption, we’re ravaging the earth of its resources and dumping immortal plastic garbage on the rest, and yet somehow the most impoverished of us (a giant, but quiet portion of our population) wouldn’t say they have much of a leg up over the rest of the animal kingdom.

2. but i just haven’t been able to make the leap to renouncing all animal products, and the reason can be summed by two points: (a) i don’t think humans (or any other omni/carnivore) were meant to avoid every molecule of animal product ever; and (b) i personally don’t see a change in lifestyle (and optionally then evangelizing the lifestyle) as an effective vehicle for changing the social/political things i feel wrong about, and/or as a moral salve that makes me feel ok about my part in all this.

(a) this is the “the cow would eat me if it could [or wanted to]” argument. we’re animals. there’s a food chain. those that are hungry for meat use their claws/teeth/butcher knives to make it happen. if, as Mr. Steiner points out, death is death whether the animal was living in “free range” misery or just regular misery, then what is the difference between a lion or us killing it. i don’t feel that i as a human being have a moral obligation not to be part of the hunting/eating link of the food chain. the owl doesn’t shed a tear for the field mouse as it stuffs the whole squeaking thing in its mouth. i’m ok not shedding a tear for the catfish i ate yesterday. i don’t think a bear would be too sad about tearing me to pieces. it’s all good. does that make me morally bankrupt? i hope not. i just think that if we’re going to take moral offense at the killing of animals that humans like to eat, then ALL consumption of animals should be objectionable, even by other animals. are we going to STAND for the murder of all those antelope-type animals out in the serengheti who are being USED and ABUSED by cheetahs, lions, tigers, etc for FOOD? yes? then i regret to inform you that i’m going to keep chewing on this cow.

(b) if i altered my life with an eye to everything i found objectionable, immoral, unjust or just downright unfair about life, i really think i would cease to exist. while i DO find objectionable the manic, mass production/consumption of meat (aka millions of miserable animals soon to die so people can have lots and lots of cheap choices at the grocery store, which is horrible, selfish, and see above with the “humans think they can do this because they’re superior” thing)… i also find these things objectionable: sweatshops, human trafficking, children + the sex industry, child porn, rape and other sexual assault, violence against gays, no gay marriage, poverty, hunger, no clean water, no access to medicine readily available elsewhere, no access to education, no access to HIV prevention/care, genocide, sexism, racism, workers not making a living wage, starting and being unable to pull out of wars for oil, sarah palin, choking the earth where recycling isn’t enough but not enough people even recycle…. (i’m pretty sure i could go on, but now i’m too depressed to).

if i lived my life according to an obligation to fulfill my duties to each and every one of the above causes, donating to every group that i thought had a viable chance of fixing any of the above, avoiding every commodity made in unfair conditions (just try it, i dare you. there are a LOT of basic necessities out there made unjustly cheaply by the sweat of poor people), staying abreast of every underage breast that was jizzed on by some disgusting piece of sh*t, making sure that i lived MY personal life not taking more of the earth than i gave back, writing letters on recycled paper to every congressman that needs to know about any of the above, … i think my heart would explode under the impossible weight of this guilt that all of humanity should bear.

a lifetime isn’t enough. by the time i figured out what i was allowed to eat, somebody somewhere else will have opened another sweatshop. by the time i figured out which products i’m allowed to buy, a village somewhere will have seen another bunch of poverty-related deaths. i can’t stand it but i can’t function if i lived to the letter of all my moral objections. it’s too much for one person. for that matter, back to veganism, is it even possible to completely avoid harming any animal? the houses we live in and the whole foods/coops we shop in displaced countless species that used to enjoy forests, lakes, fields. is it possible to be sure that nothing we use was made at a factory that dumped toxic waste into a lake or river? what would vegans do with a roach infestation? (just because roaches are gross, annoying and look like aliens doesn’t mean they’re unworthy of dignity and respect, right?). should we go off into nature and not take advantage of the butchering, manufacturing, mass-consuming tools that the rest of humanity has created for us consumers? i think somebody tried that, his name was christopher mccandless. the closest i can think of to a solution is to renounce this privileged american life and go overseas to volunteer in something related to basic survival – (aka, unrelated to imposing western values on the third world).

i’m not ready to do that, so for now i make my choices. i choose to eat meat in moderation, try to stay relatively aware of what products are justly manufactured and support the good companies as much as i’m able, donate what i can when i can, drive a hybrid, vote, i’ll do pro bono when i can and am more qualified, and otherwise try to live my life without pissing too many people off.

3. which leads me to vegan superiority. says Mr. Steiner, “And how can people continue to eat meat when they become aware that nearly 53 billion land animals are slaughtered every year for human consumption? The simple answer is that most people just don’t care about the lives or fortunes of animals. If they did care, they would learn as much as possible about the ways in which our society systematically abuses animals, and they would make what is at once a very simple and a very difficult choice: to forswear the consumption of animal products of all kinds.” he also says, “meat-eaters are a self-righteous bunch.” oh really? who just spoke as if his way of thinking was the ONLY plausible response to a piece of knowledge?

i respect the choice that vegans have made and wholeheartedly applaud it. i’ll learn to cook vegan meals, not just “in case you come over” but because, in the face of said outrageous slaughterhouses and excess, it’s important to make it a viable lifestyle. but i don’t subscribe to it as MY whole lifestyle, nor do i subscribe to the idea that veganism is a superior (or “the only”) way of life, or that vegans have a superior moral code due to that choice. if they do, are they then superior to the natural predators mentioned above? (who has the superiority complex now? i thought we were over the assumption that we’re smarter and better than animals). you can judge me for eating meat and try to convert me, but i can also judge you for not being equally outraged at the number of people that died of curable diseases in the amount of time it took you to specify loudly and self righteously that the cupcakes you brought to work are VEGAN and not the regular type, or the number of rapes that occurred on college campuses across the US during your evening jaunt to whole foods to get VEGAN ingredients to make VEGAN meals. or maybe you knew about all these things, too, and DID NOTHING! .

let’s face it, the world is a clusterf*ck. let’s spend less time attacking each other’s flavor of activism, and/or being defensive and superior about our choices and just act on our respective moral indignations in peace.

i am starting to get sick of hearing about her. and frankly, the worldwide hype about her, in the manner that it has taken place, is starting to seriously piss me off.

am i out of line? i love hearing her sing, and of course i think it’s remarkable and wonderful that she has rocketed to the top of the world on pluck and guts and awesome talent. is she a beautifully talented singer with a remarkable voice? yes, of course. is she worthy of all the attention she’s getting? of course. should she be on the worldwide stage, melting every heart on this planet? yes!!

but look how we gave it to her. correct me if i’m wrong but the whole POINT of all the hype around her is that this mature, portly woman who would not inspire most adolescent men’s dicks got up on stage, and people expected her to suck, knowing nothing more about her than those surface, appearance-based things. and then BOOM she opens her mouth and the world melts, flowers bloom, angels cry, etc. it’s like everybody’s shocked that she has something to offer. what the f?

the two goons at the side of the stage being like, “betcha didn’t see that comin’ did you!” – why did they say that? what do we know about her that would cause us to not see that coming? and now what is all this fuss over whether she’s been kissed? how did that even come up?

says Amanda Holden, one of the britain’s got talent judges about why she’s not getting a makeover:

“She needs to stay exactly as she is because that’s the reason we love her. She just looks like anybody who could live on your street.

“The minute we turn her into a glamour-puss is when it’s spoilt. That can perhaps come later when she’s signed the album deal and conquered America.

“For now we’ll keep her exactly as she is because that’s why we’ve all fallen in love with her. I think it’s the underdog thing. It’s somebody who’s looked after her mother all her life.”

1. why are we talking about whether she needs a makeover in the first place?

2. it’s spoilt when you acknowledge that the reason you love her is ‘cos she looks like someone you wouldn’t expect to bust out mad singing chops? last i checked, vocal cords have very little to do with a person’s outer shell.

i feel like the very nature of all this hype about her is a slap in the face of people who don’t look like christina freaking aguilera or [what] britney [used to look like]. many mediocre-to-good looking people get up on shows like that and sing as well as she did, but we’re not SHOCKED when they do well. many ok-looking, young-ish people get up and perform arguably as well as susan’s performance, but simon rips each of them a new one. i can understand if part of the obsession is because she managed to get so old with such a talent without being ‘discovered,’ lending to some of the low expectations (“if nobody noticed her til now, why should we”). but there again, it’s such a bizarre, unreasonably low expectation. MILLIONS of artists of all shape, size, age, beauty and talent go undiscovered every day. i don’t think age makes the shock that she can do this less insulting. i can’t get over feeling like we’re all saying “oh, susan, we love you even though you’re old and look like you’ve been punched with a sack of fish. now men who would have been repulsed by you before want to kiss you.” i mean i guess ultimately it worked out fine for susan, but geez.

can we love her without obsessing about physical appearance?

oh and don’t get me started on that website made for tossing around names of the porn she’d be in if she were in one…

1. YAY PEREZ HILTON!!

2. what the f is opposite marriage?

3. what would mr. california say?

so here’s another pageant barbie that delivered on inanity and incoherence… i could be pissed about what she said, but i’m really more just happy that people are pissed off. what are these girls supposed to be, like, the pinnacle of society? well-rounded, accomplished, well-educated lady-types? “i’m better than you and i look good in the types of clothing that men objectify women in”?  i’m kind of stoked that when one of those gets up and says, “i don’t believe gays should marry,” enough people are like WHAAAAAAAAAAAT?! that it creates a media stir. she’s evidence that whatever the other 46 states have to say about gays marrying, the definition of PC has been changing.

also, i’m pretty sure conservative answers from barbies shouldn’t and don’t surprise me … who’s dolling up their women and parading them around like commodities? oh yeah, people who think feminism is silly.

even miss south carolina, (poor shmuck…).. if any sense is to be made of that psychobabble, it’s that even though 1/5 of ‘US-Americans’ don’t have maps, we’re still somehow in a position for our education to help the Iraq. it’s like, when in doubt, go with an answer about the supreme awesomeness of America doing something to save the third world.

anyhow, point is, i refuse to condemn a beauty queen for a silly answer when we’re not parading around our men in speedos and tuxes and holding them accountable for adequately answering equally hard-hitting questions. what would a fine, upstanding, accomplished, well-groomed, well-educated man say about gays marrying, and why don’t we care enough to pluck one from each of the states and compare them to each other and rank ‘em? would we piss ourselves if he said “two men shouldn’t marry but if two women would like to share the carnal pleasures, that is hot”? or would we just be like *shrug* oh, that’s just boys… they like what they like… what’re ya gonna do…

worse, we could be like, “well it’s about time someone spoke their mind!” as if this idea is somehow shocking and new.

what would definitely perplex and upset me about this situation is if conservatives/homophobes start talking louder about how she’s so brave for speaking her mind (“even though she was asked the question by a gay man”) and how those who are against gay marriage are condemned and she’s so great for standing up to the gay marriage crowd. yada yada. yeah, ‘cos homophobes have been SO oppressed in this country!! i see comments like “it’s about time someone spoke her opinion! people support gay marriage but condemn those who are against it. such hypocrisy!” and i’m just like are you absolutely freaking serious?! did i fall asleep and wake up in an age when gays are treated as equals in my country? can they marry in all 50 states?? what are these “people” of which you speak? the majority of my country??

oh. no. only it’s only 4 states who legalized it to the soundtrack of bible-tappers wailing about how the sole purpose of marriage is breeding.  ”it’s about time” indeed.

poor homophobes.

f’n GROW A PAIR. KWITCHERBITCHIN. and LET GAYS BE GAY.

so there.

dang, the democrats sure do call for money a lot. i kinda wish i felt any different for giving or not giving any money. life kinda just goes on either way. i have almost no conception of what the money is used for. i mean they say the shpiel about how the republicans are about to [big evil thing], and the democrats need the support now more than ever before, .. but … what does an expense report for the democratic party look like. is my $20 paying you, mr. caller-person, for your time? and what else?

i think they should give tidbits of democratic secrets when registered partyfolk give money. doesn’t have to be much. if they’re afraid of leaks, tell stuff that republicans already know but the average american doesn’t. what’s really being worked on in washington. forget the shpiel, let’s get the dish. heck, it doesn’t even have to be politically relevant. give me democrat gossip. the juicier, the bigger the donation.

this would never work. but it would be cool.

i left my cell phone in the office last night. lemme tell ya … ain’t no better way to get your ass back to the office early as all balls as racing against your alarm clock in order to get there before the time you would be waking up.

(i guess the alternative is to let your alarm clock do its deal for 45 minutes or an hour or whatever, but, the interminable, unshuttuppable alarm clock with no owner is sooo college, and we left that maneuver behind with the poor choices that caused us to not be in our rooms when our alarms went off in the first place).

(i never did this).

- dealing with rainy morning -

callin’ it like it is:

somebody just walked by and said “i’d say good morning, but it’s actually kind of a shitty morning outside. so, happy shitty morning to ya! =D “

denial:

i’ve pulled the shades down. it doesn’t look poopy outside, it looks like shades.

positive mental outlook (PMO):

at least i’m not outside.

—

random side note… can we stop raising our children to believe that human beings are genetically predisposed to be certain ways based on their race? if one more person tells me that asians are shy and reserved, or that asian women are soft and sweet, i’m going to stick my shy, reserved, soft and sweet little foot in their outgoing, all-american ass.

not that i’m irritated. asians don’t feel anger.

lame. i’m so used to being a student that i still say “i need to study.” hell to the NO i do not need to study. i “work” now. yeah.

except that i do still need to study. actually typing the above just reminded me to look into finding a comparative law class. as luck would have it, there’s a comparative law seminar offered just down the street from where i live. yay, sort of! if this works, and if i pull off taking a class while working without turning into a surly sleepy bitch, and as a result extract a diploma from Duke that says my name + the letters “LLM,” … i’ll be dang happy. but it’ll be that sort of hateful happy, where getting it doesn’t really give me any true joy because it still means that because of a buncha selfserving clowns who don’t give a shit i’ll have had to spend a lot of time and money that i shouldn’t have had to.

grr.

beta fish are awesome.

as a girl who could so easily be boxed into one of those types that, whenever there’s dancing, always tries to make the guy dance even though he doesn’t want to, and insists that “of course you’ll enjoy it, you just don’t know it yet / just have to try it,” i would like to point out that urging a guy to dance is motivated by something a lot less selfish than a personal desire to dance, and insisting over a guy’s objections is not out of a shallow or malicious refusal to accept that he doesn’t enjoy it. it’s really not that evil and i’m done with guys who can’t get down complaining about us trying to do so with them.

if girls just straight up want to dance, period, end of story, we can dance anytime. where there’s music, floor space, and other people (and even this is optional), there is no lack of opportunity to dance. if we want to dance with any male body, there is usually no lack of willing partners. and if for some reason there is such a lack, a simple desire to have a male dance partner isn’t usually so much that we’ll go into coercion mode to get you to dance.

asking a specific guy to dance has to do with the guy that’s being asked. we want to dance with YOU. we want to feel the music with YOU. we want to feel how YOU feel the music. we want our bodies to move around with YOURS.

and when that is the case, it makes no difference whether you know how to dance or if you look good doing it. i don’t even know if i can emphasize that enough. knowing how to dance or knowing the ‘right moves’ is completely irrelevant. you’re not going to look stupid because that path has already been paved for you – people have seen “bad” (“unconventional”) dancers. it’s nothing new or interesting. nobody (the girl, your friends, strangers, the bartender) is looking for a performance. even if your friends are like “haha. nice robot, dude” – it’s not like they’re no longer your friends, (seriously), and you get props for DOING it instead of acting like this is the one thing that would destroy your dignity.

the point is that you’re pulling stupid moves together and laughing together, you’re trying new things together, you’re going out on a limb together, you’re LETTING GO together. by dancing together, you’re saying, screw what people think, we’re doing something for ourselves. maybe everybody’s looking, maybe nobody’s looking, maybe they’re only looking ‘cos they think you’re judging them, maybe nobody is so invested in strangers that they’re paying any attention.

nobody really knows how to dance. how about that. (except professional people on tv, and even then). there is no formula that everybody learns that only guys on dates don’t know. i’m *pretty sure* that everybody has been self-conscious about dancing at some point in their lives. and i’m pretty sure there’s nothing more comforting than being able to let go and enjoy yourself with somebody, because that’s the point – you’re comfortable with each other, so it’s ok.

so when you say no, and when you flat out refuse to dance with your girl, EVER… it means more than you just not wanting or liking to dance. it means you won’t even take a chance on some goofy momentary commonplace activity that she enjoys. it means you can’t or won’t give her 3-5 minutes. (i don’t know about most girls in this situation but i’d be satisfied with one song). it *essentially* means that if you’re out with her where there’s dancing, you’re going to block her from doing something because your image, or not looking stupid, or whatever you’re so afraid of, is more important - enough to you that you will take an entire activity off the list of things you’re willing to do with this person.

on the other hand, i can acknowledge that some guys actually, seriously dislike dancing, not just because they’re self-conscious or because they don’t like the music. i can acknowledge that there could be guys that are actually perfectly good dancers but would never choose to because they don’t have fun doing it. and, i would never advocate that a person is somehow obligated to suck it up and do something they hate.

but i just think, when a guy says he won’t dance, we keep pushing because we really wanna be absolutely SURE it’s ‘cos they really just hate it as an act in itself, not because they “tried it once and felt stupid.” because being shot down all the time just because they’re worried they’ll look silly doesn’t feel any good.

and then to go on and rag about how “girls are always trying to make me dance, and i tell them i don’t want to and they’re like yes you do!!” – a girl wants to spend time with you and share a (fun) sweaty physical activity with YOU.

IS THAT SO BAD??

“but i’ll slow dance with a hot girl” indeed. hmph. you should be so lucky.

what happens when candles burn? you know the type that evaporates as you burn it so when you’re done, literally nothing is left but the nub of the wick and the metal thingy it was stuck to? where does it go? after it evaporates, does it rain wax somewhere else in your apartment?

“look mom, a cloud. it’s jar-shaped and smells like Country Linen! … … AHHHH it’s raining waaaaaaax!!”

now if we could just borrow a few ‘candles’ from madame toussauds…

“we just want the male ones. you can have them back if you leave some buckets out. now if you’ll excuse us, the Weather Girls have a song to sing…”

there’s too many choices in the cleaning-agent aisle.

there, i said it.

this must be the one place in the whole of target/walmart/supermarket where you can’t just be like “um … i like this one.” it’s not like choosing between fruit snacks and sandwich meat. if you pick the wrong one, your tub will still be dirty, or you will have to get down and scrub really hard to get it clean(er), and end up chapping your hands. there might still be bacteria (i don’t know, what happens when you get the one that *doesn’t* say “kills 99% of all bacteria!” ?).

and there’s really no guidance down there. (unless you chance upon a friendly storeperson or random-shopper who knows what’s going on and is willing to help). for complicated things like washers and guitars and mattresses, someone will tell you that it has an option for a double cycle or what “permanent press” means. (if google is not handy ).

so, here’s the multimillion dollar idea. there should be a touchscreen computer dealy at the end of the cleaning-products aisle that computes what the hell to buy. you just go describe whether you have tiles or porcelain or whether the space between your toilet or your wall is big enough for __ mop. you tell it what you hate worse: mops that push grime around instead of soaking it up, or having to squirt cleaning fluid onto the floor. then it spits out a cleaning regimen, detailing what products are the best fit for you, and if necessary, a step by step guide.

we just have to make sure clorox or lysol or comet don’t jack it and monopolize it. no partisan cleaning advice allowed. except maybe method. method is cool. i trust method.

so yeah. i was so lost today. there were like 7 options for foam sprays that claim to clean tubs (“removes dirt build-up and soap scum!”). i stood there lost and then some lady whizzed by and grabbed one, so i took what she got, ‘cos she looked like the type of lady that had clean tubs.

do you read chinese? can you tell me what this says?

also, this looks amazing.