Fake Conversations Sometimes Make me Feel Good

Do you ever have that where you make up a conversation you could potentially have, and somehow just creating it out of the ether makes you feel a little happier or better in some way?

In this specific little narrative, I was driving home listening to a song that was a bit of a tearjerker since it reminded me of something that was going on in my life. Tears were, thus, jerked. I left my car hurriedly for my apartment, walked into the building and I happened upon my neighbour (Note: this was not an actual neighbour, nor do I really have a form for this neighbour. My only idea about this person is that they were generally attractive, but could be of either gender (that is to say, I'm not actively attracted to this person, but they are good looking.).)

They notice my tears and ask whether everything is okay. My imagined reply is as follows (as I am noticebly shaken up): "No..it was a song.... It's music."

The person looks back at me with a kind, understanding smile and nods in the most minute way possible. I smile more than I expected to and we part ways.

"Realists" < Hitler

I have recently concluded that no one is a bigger asshole than a person who describes him or herself as a "realist." What an arrogant statement.

First of all, when you're essentially saying is that you think you have a realistic worldview. Really? Do you know anyone else who would consider their worldview realistic? Perhaps... everyone?

Why would anyone have a worldview that they consider to be unrealistic? That's just... impractical.

I suppose the only example I can think of is someone who is halleucinating and realizes they are doing so. that would be the one situation where someone would look at the world and think, "man, my perception of things is way off right now. I sure can't wait until this acid wears off."

It's the same as when people call themselves an optimist or pessimist. That is invariably a lie. By saying that, you're claiming that you have an unfairly positive or negative view about the world, thus expressing that you know the world isn't really as sunny or bleak as you're painting it to be. Therefore, you are not an optimist or pessimist. You are a fucking realist who speaks positively, possibly so more people like him or her.

However, this is certainly not as heinous as claiming to be a realist. To anyone who has ever called themself a realist, I sincerely hope you go jump off of something.

Still Alive

Hey everybody (or, probably more accurately, nobody),

I just posted part two of the Fat Acceptance Movement to get back into the swing of things a bit here. It isn't perfect but I had most of it and it just needed a polish, so I figured why waste the copy?

I've been having a few writing ideas lately so I think it may be somewhat likely that I might consider starting to write in this blog again, possibly. I can't know for sure.

So this is really just a post so that I'm posting something so you can't say I never post anything. See! I do.

Jason

Lululemon and the Fat Acceptance Movement Part 2

This is part two of the posts, which explains why there is almost no mention of Lululemon. I suggest reading the earlier post below (and the disclaimer) before you dive into this one.

I've never been sure of what to make of the so-called Fat Acceptance Movement. To me, it's very much a two-sided issue. Obviously, making someone feel bad about their appearance is never going to help them, and will almost always hurt. There are often psychological issues involved in weight gain, and some people are naturally bigger than others. On the other hand, numerous studies have shown we are way heavier than we were a couple decades ago, suggesting genetics is not the sole problem--and in most cases, it isn't even the major one.

What bothers me about the Fat Power gang is that their movement is based on a couple premises that I think are either untrue or just oversimplifications: that "diets don't work" and that health is independent of weight.

While I agree that "dieting" is not a good way to improve one's health (because it is, by definition, a temporary state, and often depraving), a healthy diet (one that minimizes processed/restaurant foods) absolutely will. You may not lose all of the weight you would like to, but you will certainly feel a lot better, especially if combined with exercise. And no, weight is not an absolute indicator of health. But being overweight absolutely does increase the likelihood of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain cancers.

One thing I do agree with the Fat Acceptance Movement on is that overweight and obese people do face discrimination. They are invariably judged and frequently ridiculed. I consider myself quite sensitive about these issues and I still admit that I'll probably never meet an overweight person and have it not affect my view of them at least slightly.

And while I judge almost everyone at the grocery store for buying foodstuffs rather than actual food, I judge overweight people extra hard. This is absolutely not fair because no one should eat a potato chip, even though I sometimes do. I wish I could change that (and I've mostly done so consciously, but unconsciously, I think almost everyone has this in their nature. I blame television.).

As far as health being independent from weight goes and the societal perceptions of weight, I don't want to speak in generalizations, because that's almost certain to bother someone. But I can speak to my personal experiences with weight gain/loss.

Back in high school, I used to be a fast food junkie. I worked at Pizza Hut, ate out at McDonald's, Taco Bell or Wendy's at least four times a week, and I drank a significant amount of pop. I ate, basically, the worst diet one could imagine--and not one person in my life seemed to question this. Meanwhile, I was going from a fairly skinny kid in Grade 10 to a downright bulky kid in Grade 12 and the couple years beyond. Sure, my dad would offhandedly mention something about exercising more, but there was no serious discussion of my weight or lifestyle by anyone. I remember one time when I was doing one of those 6k runs in gym class. I partnered up with a smoker thinking I would be able to at least keep up with him. I could not, and had to stop running about halfway through.

After high school, when I was in my early twenties, I decided to transition into vegetarianism--and later veganism. Since this was combined with moving towards healthier living and eating, I lost about 50lbs and I now reside in the ideal BMI range for my age (I'm actually in the section that suggests longevity, according to some). I've always had a skinny build so I'm aware it was probably easier for me than most, but it certainly took a lot of work, health and education--and about four years' time. But the funny part is is that it's now people question the healthfulness of my lifestyle--since I don't eat meat, eggs, dairy or any other animal products. In general, I have the most energy I've ever had and I'm in the best shape I've ever been in.

While this is somewhat of a microcosm, I think it illustrates the following:
a) People don't question shitty food choices; only weird food choices
b) It's really easy to be unhealthy in our society, but we have to try to be healthy
c) Healthy living can (and I think the Biggest Loser proves it almost certainly will) have an impact on weight. It may not be the impact you want, but it certainly will have an impact.

While making someone feel bad is never the answer, are we not at least somewhat responsible for the health of the people in our lives?

The Deal with My Voice

I feel like I'm having this conversation like twice a day lately, so I'm thinking an out-in-the-open blog post might help to fill everybody in on my situation. At the very least, maybe one or two people might not have to ask why I'm so inaudible. 

For those of you who haven't seen me anytime over the last year or so, I've been having some issues with my voice. Mainly, it doesn't work like a voice. If it were a fish, you'd throw it back. That is to say, it doesn't project, it's often raspy and it's just not... loud enough.

For those of you who have seen me in the last year and knew something was up with my voice, you may not know this: I have a diagnosis. It's a condition caller Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis, or RRP. It's not horribly common, but it's not unheard of. Basically, it's a virus on my vocal chords that causes persistent growths that interfere with my vocal chord vibrations, thus inhibiting my ability to speak. There's actually a foundation for it here, and a neat video on a possible treatment here. I actually spoke on the phone with Dr. Zeitels, who is in the video. Dude's worked with, like, Steven Tyler and Cher and he took the time to call me back, which I thought was pretty nice.

While this issue sort of come to a head in May of last year, this isn't necessarily a "new" affliction. You may remember tendency to clear my throat and lose my voice, which has been the case for as long as I can remember. While I can't say with certainty I've had this for years, I don't think It's unreasonable to assume my previous throat issues are probably related.

Now the next question is generally, "what are they doing for you?" The answer is, there's not much they can do. The regular treatment is using a laser to cut the growths off (not as invasive as it sounds). That's why if you saw me in January or February, you may have noticed my voice was better. The issue with that is, the growths generally tend to come back. There are some drug treatments (eg. Avastin, the one they used in the video), but according to my doctor, treatments are generally quite spotty and there's not much good research. 

The tough part about RRP studies is that it's such a sporadic condition that the growths could just not come back one day. So in the case of the video, that could have happened anyway without the Avastin and it's impossible to know for sure how effective the treatment is until they do a double-blind study with some decent numbers (which in and of itself is not an easy feat, since it's fairly rare).  

On the plus side, I just went back under the knife (well, laser--there's actually no knife involved) today. So I will be better for at least a little while, and hopefully a bit of a longer while. And while it's impossible to say, I'm honestly just thankful I know what's going on. There's something about having a name for a condition makes it feel so much better, even if it doesn't tangibly change anything. 

On a more personal level, yeah, it sometimes sucks having to repeat your order three times in a restaurant, or wanting to have a conversation and stopping yourself because of the difficulties involved. But there's definitely something to the idea of gaining perspective through loss. Yeah, I can't always talk, but at least I can still go for runs, or type in my blog, take a photograph, strum a few chords, or any of the other millions of other things that bring me joy.

I heard someone say once that having a stake in something you have no control over is good for you. I think this is definitely one of those situations. I am prepared to deal with this thing,  or cope with it, if need be and I'd say I'm no less joyful a person because of it. 


While my life may not be better because of this thing, but it's not significantly worse. So don't feel bad. While your head tilts and concerned looks are certainly appreciated, they're not horribly necessary. I'm A-OK. And as the vocal polyps are growing, so too am I. 

Do People Change Pt.2

I was just reflecting on my previous blog post, and I feel I've come off a little pessimistic. And since I generally hate pessimism, I think I should not only clarify my last post, but add to it a bit and make it more of a complete thought. 


The last blog post revealed a bit of a personal flaw that probably impedes my personal progress more than anything: my inability to acknowledge the progress I have made. I'm too busy thinking about where I want to be than where I am compared to where I was, if you follow. I've known for a while about myself, but I can't help but fall into the same traps. 


I realized that part while having a conversation with a friend. I mentioned that I'm not even sure if I would like 18-year-old Jason if I met him face-to-face. I didn't think about it, but after extrapolating a bit further (and thanks to some thoughtful prodding from that friend), what I managed to realize is this: I wouldn't like that person because looking at him would remind me of who I could be if I continued down the path I was on. That is to say, unhealthy, lazy, mindless and even kind of stupid. 


I've had a sort of aversion lately to things, activities and people I associate with my old life. It's not because I don't like those people and things, but more that I don't like what they represented for me in the past. Furthermore, I worry that I would see myself reacting in the same way I did before. I'm afraid that doing the things that 18-year-old Jason did would make me revert partially into that Jason, thus making me realize I haven't changed as much as I would like to think I have. But I'm starting to realize that is probably not the case. 


What I can say is this: I have made tremendous progress in several ways and not recognizing that would be a disservice to my Self. I am a more positive, happy and complete person than I've ever been before, thanks in no small part to the changes I have initiated for myself. 


And while I may not be fundamentally different from the me I used to be, that's not necessarily what I wanted. I don't hate me of yesteryear; I just strongly dislike 18-year-old Jason's apathy and complacency. There were things that I really liked about that me (though I wouldn't have admitted it at the time) and I hope I've maintained them throughout this time and would be able to recognize that if I were to run into my 18-year-old self. 


In short, people do change, but not completely. However, most people don't need to change completely. That's pretty much as well as I can put it at this point because I should really get to bed. 

Do People Change?

I just finished watching The Richard Linklater film, Before Sunset, and in the movie, there was a question posed of whether people change in any meaningful way throughout the course of their lives.

There are a number of ways I consider myself different from the me of even a few  years ago. On a fairly superficial level, I've lost about fourty pounds, I exercise more than I ever have and my diet has gone through a pretty radical change. On a more personal level, I'd say I see a lot of things differently. My interests, the types of conversations I have and the ways in which I spend my day are all vastly different than they were a few years ago.

But can I really say I've changed on a fundamental level?

As much as I like to think I've made changes in a positive way, I can't shake the feeling that if somebody I hadn't seen in, say, five years met me on the street, they would see me as basically the same person, possibly a little more "grown up." I'm not really sure how to feel about that. Is it that they are only seeing me on a superficial level, or am I attaching too much importance to what are mostly superficial changes?

And that begs the question: What, exactly, is change? If I go from believing in God to being an Athiest, most people would consider that a major change. However, if you walk up to me on the street, regardless of my belief or disbelief in a higher power, I'll likely react to you in almost the exact same way. So have I really undergone a change at all?

In the movie, they discussed a fairly famous study of two groups who had either won the lottery or had become paralyzed. After about six months, the people were basically the same in terms of happiness levels and overall demeanor. So do we change? Does anybody change? Does anything have the capacity to change us? Or are we, really, without free will in the context of Self?

And the kicker is, why should I work to change myself if I'm going to be fundamentally the same person anyway?

I think I have to sleep on this. I hope to have some answers in the morning...

New Fad Diet That's Even Faddier than Other Fad Diets!!

Are you sick of diets that only work for a month, before your weight bounces back up to where it was?




Tired of YO-YO Dieting?


Are you dying for a way to lose weight that's easy, but lasts slightly longer than other easy diets?


Stop playing GAMES with your body! 

You should stop Yo-Yo Dieting... and start... HOPSCOTCH DIETING!!


Hopscotch Dieting?? What's that??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?


It's a new, easy and effective weight loss program!


How DOES IT WORK?


It's simple--just like the game hopscotch.


Your first step is throwing your stone to create a marker (setting a weight loss goal). And then when you have your goal in mind, you hop onto the first square. There, you will enter diet phase one, where your diet will consist of cabbage, boiled water and salt (to be eaten separately).  THEN, after two and a half weeks, you can hop onto squares two and three. Step two is the one where you will eat carrots, cabbage, lemon and evaporated water (to be inhaled through a straw). Step three involves the exercise portion of your weight loss routine. Do 1000 jumping jacks a day, every day for 20 days.


Can't do them? Well, you're hopeless and should give up and go grab a double-cheeseburger meal and get to work on your next heart attack.

What's the next square?!?!

We can't tell you the other steps because we want your money! But we can tell you they're equally restrictive and even more arbitrary.

I Don't Understand....


Yeah, you get it! Now I bet you want to know how to order.


I didn't say that...


You didn't have to! Just dial 1-888-FAD-DIET for more information, or send a blank, authorized cheque to 123 Fake Street, Providence, Rhode Island.

Start HOPPING your way to weight loss today!!!!!


Disclaimer: The rules of this diet have been chosen arbitrarily. There is no clinical or theoretical reasons for doing any of these steps, other than a decrease in caloric intake and increase in physical activity. The Hopscotch Diet is not nearly as effective as a healthy diet combined with exercise.

Julie, Julia and Jason-lia Project

 SOooo I totally have a new and completely original idea for a blog: I'm going to go through every entry on Julie Powell's blog (the one on which she goes through every recipe in Julia Child's book Mastering the Art of French Cooking) and reenact every single one of her experiences.

The blog: Julie Powell's attempt to go through every one of 540 recipes in 365 days. It's eight years later.

The Contender: News Writer by day, Jason Halbauer was looking for a challenge. And in the Julie/Julia/Jason Project, he found it.

Seriously though, I'm not doing any of this.

BUT I am trying to blog more, and part of that will hopefully involve cooking, recipes and food photography. To start, here's a couple shots of the fantastic Sweet Chili Lime tofu with Wok-Steamed Collards and Quinoa. I'm new to food photography, but I think this one looks pretty damn good.

Banff/A New Beginning

I'm posting this partially as a way to "just post," to try and break down the wall between occasionally posting and being "a blogger." I supposed the picture is to be the focus of this entry, but the other part of the focus is on taking steps forward, on finding direction with my own personal blogosphere.

I know many of you have probably happened on this blog once or twice, maybe you even read and liked an entry or two. But, alas, I have not really posted enough to give you any prolonged reason to stay here or to revisit. Well, this post marks a change in the tides. No longer will I forget about this blog, or put it on the shelf for other things.

My problem, I think, was that I would only post when I have an idea for a blog. No longer. I will come up with ideas to post on my blog, rather than blogging when I come up with ideas.

This is not to say that my future blogs will be inane, and without purpose or direction (hopefully).  It means that I will know that I have to write a blog entry on (X) day, I will think about what to do for that entry I will blog and then I will sit down and blog said blog. I will no longer wait for inspiration. I will create it.

This may seem like a minor distinction, but t'is not. Fear me, oh dear readers. Fear me. I am a man on a blogging mission.

Lululemon and the Fat Acceptance Movement Part 1

Disclaimer: I know there are few things people who have problems with weight hate more than someone who does not (ie. me) talking about weight in such a way that casts blame on the person who is overweight. I know this is also largely the reason for the Fat Acceptance Movement. It is not my intention to insult or patronize anyone, especially not those who are already sensitive about themselves. Apologies if this blog creeps into that territory.

I've been thinking about doing a blog on the fat acceptance movement for a while now, as I find the whole thing quite interesting--the idea that people are persecuted and discriminated against for their weight. I've been quite interested in discrimination in the past few years (speciesism is a favourite as of late, but sexism and racism are also high on my list). But what really clenched it was this article that Tracy pointed out to me about Lululemon. Basically, there's some reason to believe the company may be getting rid of sizes 12 and 14 (and incorporating a size 0). It was one instance where I really thought, "maybe the fat power folk are onto something."

While the actual details in the Lululemon case are in the allegation phase right now, one can definitely understand their motivation for doing so:

a) They want their product to appeal to other potential buyers (...and maybe size 14 folks aren't good advertising for lulu)

b) They promote a healthy lifestyle (...and most of would us probably assume size 14 folks aren't part of that lifestyle)

But one could also argue that not providing these sizes is a form of discrimination or prejudice. It would be tough to find another group that could be actively excluded without it raising some serious flags. It also makes a company that already seems a little elitist (with their high price tags and fancy storefronts) seem even more so (since people who are poor are far more likely to be overweight).

And you can't claim they are just avoiding unusual sizes because the size 0 is far more rare than size 14, let alone size 12. In fact, overweight people actually make up the majority in Canada and the U.S. (and, I'm sure, other countries).

But then, there always stands the argument that by accommodating for people who are overweight or obese, you're simply allowing them to go with their unhealthy lifestyle without trying to make real, healthful change (of course, that assumes that overweight/obese people are always unfit, something I'll get into in Part 2).

This leads me to the real issue I want to examine about obesity, its perception in society and whether the Fat Acceptance Movement is a worthwhile idea, or something we should be at least somewhat skeptical of.

To be continued...

Moral Schizophrenia

I was having a conversation with a friend at work and he pointed out this story to me, about a Tundra Swan with an injured left wing who had to be flown back to Alberta, otherwise he might have died.

The friend expressed what I might call outrage that such resources were put into helping one animal. He pointed to another story (which I'm having trouble finding right now) about a deer in New Brunswick (I believe) that was stranded on a lake, injured, and wandering around, obviously suffering. Members of the public were fairly outraged that officials didn't get to the deer more quickly and end its suffering. Meanwhile, probably 100 yards away, there were numerous people... hunting deer:

"Why don't they just hunt that deer instead, put it out of its misery, and everyone just shut up," said my friend.

One local ended up boating out to where the deer was and killing it. The CBC story ended, by the way, with a thankful, "The deer meat did not go to waste."

While I don't necessarily agree with my friend (or CBC's) conclusion on the matter, I do agree there is a serious disconnect between how we treat and view animals in different situations. Why does it matter if a deer suffers if we see no value in the creature's life anyway? Or do we just feel less bad when it's a "quick kill" or when the suffering is done in slaughterhouses, hidden from view?

My experiences have shown me that most people have at least some problem with animal cruelty, though where they draw the line between "cruel" and "acceptable" may be vastly different. Maybe they draw the line with companion animal abuse, cruelty with no purpose or with what goes on in our meat and dairy industries.

I know a number of people who will become irate when hearing about Michael Vick or the Toronto Humane Society, and then turn around and eat a steak. Or people who look down on hunters, but have no problem eating meat from animals that had far less of a fair chance at life, and far less of a pleasurable life. I've even seen someone eat bacon while looking up cute pictures of pigs online. Of course, I dare not bring up that pigs often have their tails chopped off and are castrated at a young age (by hand and with no anesthetic).

Prof. Gary L Francione refers to this as a type of moral schizophrenia, where we place animals in different categories for no logical reason. Animals A, B, and C are our friends; animals D, E, and F are our food. An organization out of Toronto had a great series of ads that showed animals from each category and bluntly asked, "Why love one, but eat the other?"

While there are no simple answers for what we deem cruel and what we deem "the natural order of things," I nonetheless think this is worthy of consideration. Are our instincts to feel bad flawed or wrong? Or should we recognize our moral considerations towards all animals and find ways to incorporate them into our daily lives?

Objection

Mae Mua Loi didn't feel like an object. Yet, she had slowly figured out that this was, in fact, the case. She knew this by the way she seemed to exist for the sole purpose of her owners' whims, even those that seemed relatively frivolous. And by the fact that she even had owners. As she walked through the streets of Bangkok, doing tricks for a few hundred baht, she noticed how no other person seemed to have owners. Every person seemed quite free--particularly the young, lighter-skinned ones wearing backpacks--her owners' best customers.

The only logical conclusion was that she was not deserving of personhood. Mae had no choice but to make these trips. It didn't matter that her sensitive feet were cracked and hurting. It didn't matter that the city absolutely overwhelmed and confused her. She was going to get her owners the money, like it or not.

Of course, Mae Mua Loi couldn't vocalize--or even rationalize--any of this. But the transformation from a self-perceived person to an object could be seen in every aspect of her demeanor. Instead of moving with haste, eager for what may come next as she once did, she simply moved along as instructed.

The problem was, Mae Mua Loi didn't particularly like being an object. She felt like she had goals, albeit maybe not as socially complex as that of her owners. She liked meeting other elephants. She enjoyed strolling through bushes, looking for leaves and fruit to eat. In fact, those times were the only ones where she felt... normal. But those instincts were wrong. They had to be. Why else would she be in this position? Perhaps it was some sort of design flaw.

The first time she suspected she was an object was when she was a very young elephant, about three years old. She was separated from her mother by several men with sticks with nails on the end. Of course, she did not know this was the last time she would see her mother. If she had, she might have fought a little harder to be with her for even just a few moments longer, before the pain from the stabbings became too unbearable.

Instead, she did as the men seemed to want. She had learned that if she listened to commands, they would have no reason to stab her. It was a lesson she could not forget, because of the still-fresh wounds on her backside. But when she saw where she was being driven, she suddenly lost her calm sense of obedience. She was being led towards a small, wooden cage. Too small, or so she thought, to fit her elephant girth.

While it's true that few beings enjoy such confined accommodations, Mae Mui Loi had a particularly strong aversion. She began to look for an escape route when she realized that, in her panic, she hadn't noticed a rope slipping around her neck. She jerked hard, trying to pull away. The rope tightened. She noticed the men closing in on her, sticks held high. Her lungs emptied with a scream as the first jab hit her behind her back-left leg. Her eyes rolled back as she struggled to find a position of relative calm. As the second jab hit her right side and she felt another rope tighten around her, she knew she had to submit. If she would just enter the cage, maybe she would be left alone. Two holes in her thick, but sensitive, skin was enough.

Defeated, she walked towards the cage. The man with the rope around her neck pulled her forward with force. And then, a moment of calm. This didn't seem so bad to Mae. But the calm did not last for more than that moment. The next thing she knew, she was being jabbed again, this time from behind. She felt vague feelings of shock, confusion, betrayal. Had she not done what they wanted her to do? Suddenly, it was loud all around her. Men chattering was all she could hear. Soon they had ropes tied around her extremities. She felt the vibrations of one man climbing on top of the cage. And then, blinding pain from all directions. Her eyes rolled back again and she let out a low, rumbling sound that surprised even her. Her legs almost gave out as the pain seared through her body. But the vicious attack did not stop there. For three days, the men would sporadically stab her. She no longer believed they wanted her to do something for them. She didn't know what to believe. In her limited knowledge, she could imagine no reason for one being to do this to another. Towards the end of this cruel, ritualistic experiment was the first time Mae considered the possibility she was an it.

But now, walking down the streets of Bangkok, towards Mae decided she was going to listen to her instincts, no matter how inappropriate they may have been. The vibrations in her feet, the noise, the potholes--it had all become too much for her. Her giant body turned, much to the surprise of her Mahout, and she was moving away from the busy market.

She was an object. Running away. A ball rolling away from a child who never appreciated it in the first place.

Thoughts on My Gradual Loss of Voice

Those who have seen me over the last little while probably have at least some knowledge of this, but for those who don't, I've been having some major issues with my voice as of late. It's to the point now where if there's more than three people in a room, you probably can't hear me talk. The question that invariably follows my squeaky attempts at talking is "what is it?" or "is it laryngitis?" The answer to that is, frankly, I don't know. My doctor seems to think it's some sort of virus. I tend not to agree with him (I've had a tendency of losing my voice for years). But really, no one knows. I'm going in for a biopsy in December, so hopefully that yields some answers.

My early response to this affliction was a mix of optimism ("it'll go away!") and feelings of minor irritation. It's just something I have to deal with for now and then it will get better. And then, after a couple of months of things not getting better (but rather, worse), I started to consider the possibility that this wasn't a temporary affliction--that even if whatever was bothering me was fixed, I still may never have a full voice again. Always the optimist, I thought "I'll always have the written word." I recalled The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. That guy wrote a book and all he could do was blink. I can still take pen to paper, type, send communications by way of punching... "Loss of voice? Is that the best you can do, universe?"

After a little over six months of this, I'm still in a similar place. But I've also started to realize the full implications of being voiceless. Things like quips, for example, are a thing of the past. Nobody laughs when nobody hears you. I'm also more selective about what I say. I have to avoid complicated social exchanges with people I don't know, to prevent any confusion or the inevitable awkwardness of someone not hearing you three times. I'm often the subject of pity, which is a mixed blessing. It is kind of heartwarming to see total strangers being so kind and empathetic towards something even I don't fully understand. But on the other hand, being on the receiving end of pity has a way of making you feeling a certain kind of pathetic. It's also made me a less attractive person (not in the sexual attractiveness way, because no affliction in the world can hide this raw sex appeal). I've noticed good friends hesitating to start a conversation because of the vocal barriers involved. Meeting people for a beer or a tea or just having a good, thoughtful conversation, which are usually my favourite things to do, are now almost not worth it. Furthermore, written communication has a number of barriers, like a misunderstanding of tone, the absence of accompanying body language... and the fact that some people just aren't great at communicating through reading and writing.

I'm very aware that things could be a lot worse and I'm quite thankful for every other part of me that is fully functional. I can't even begin to count the number of ways in which I'm lucky, and I'm certainly not trying to complain. I just thought some people might want to know what is going on and what my thought process has been on it, since I haven't been too vocal about it (pun intended).

Dave Coulier is America* or Who is Dave Coulier pt. 2

*I use America as a sort of general term for Canadians and Americans. I don't want to single out people from the United States because it doesn't really seem fair to generalize a nation and leave out another, remarkably similar nation(at least in terms of culture). If you're going to generalize, at least be somewhat fair about it.

If you haven't read my last post, but were sucked in by the utter intriguingness of my current post's name, I spent much of the post talking about Dave Coulier in the context of Jagged Little Pill (the popular Alanis Morisette album of which, I was suprised to find, he is the subject). My conclusion was that he wasn't the devil Alanis made him out to be, nor is he the boring, unfunny schmoe we all made him out to be; he is, simply, average. When pressed, he will take the path of least resistance (hence, why he left Alanis for the "older version of [her]" in the song You Oughta Know). Therefore, Dave Coulier is America.

What Dave Coulier wants is not dissimilar to what everyone wants. What everyone wants is greatness, accomplishment, fame, "The American Dream." But no one wants to work for that dream. That's why reality television is such a trend now--you don't have to do anything, you just have to show up. People are famous for no other reason than because they are famous.

I'm sure I could make an argument for movies, television and music being partly to blame. Almost every movie you have ever seen has undoubtedly ended with some grand romantic climax or final justice; every TV show with a clever line or moral; every song with the ultimate expression of emotion. But that isn't life--at least, not neccessarily. It's the interpretation that is most profitable.

Of course everyone wants that happy-ever-after, that perfect job or mate, that absolute level of accomplishment. The problem with Dave Coulier (America) is that he isn't prepared to work for any of it. Think about one person you know and what he or she says his or her dreams and goals are. Now think of everything they do in a day to accomplish that goal. It's probably very little, isn't it?

There are a few people who actually, genuinely have a lot of goals and plans and they actively work at them. But they are by far the minority. Most people just spend their evenings watching reruns of Full House.

Pretension vs. Discretion

There are some people who like everything, as long as it's popular culture. Every movie, television show, band, whatever. As long as it's presented to them, they swallow it whole. One thing I really notice whenever you get into a discussion with these people is that they seem to think that, by not liking every new dance movie or dramatic series about renegade cops/doctors/crime scene investigators, you're being picky or, even worse, Pretentious.

I think the problem a lot of these people have is they confuse pretension with another, somewhat similar word: discretion. This is an important distinction, but it's also a difficult one to make. The former is choosing whether to like something based on how important it makes you seem; the latter is choosing whether to like something based on whether or not it is any good.

Some examples will likely aid in this process:

Pretension: Not liking something because it's popular, or liking an artist until they become popular.

Discretion: Not liking something because it's popular and you're aware that most of what's popular is awful.

Neither: Liking something because it is being marketed to you/ you like the pretty sounds/images attached to the idea of it.

Pretension: Listening to Godspeed You! Black Emperor

Discretion: Listening to Death Cab for Cutie

Neither: Listening to Billy Talent

Pretension: Reading reviews before you decide whether you like something.

Discretion: Reading reviews before you decide whether a band/movie/show is worth checking out.

Neither: Reading reviews and dismissing them immediately because the author is clearly a fool for not having liked P.S. I Love You.

The last example brings me to the somewhat controversial subject of critics. While I don't generally trust one critic, critical consensus is a pretty good measure. The website Rotten Tomatoes is great for this. For example, it gave Transformers 57% (And Transformers 2 a 19%) and it gave Up 97%. Certainly, it is an inexact science and it does not account for taste (I know some people who thought Transformers was an 80%. Personally, I would've given Transformers approximately 0.5%. But nobody thought Transformers 2 was good.) Overall, it's a pretty good way to decide which movies are worth consideration, and which are definitely not.

I know it may seem like a pretty minute part of our daily lives and my concern over this may seem overblown. But it isn't.

The second we stop saying "this is good entertainment and this is bad entertainment" or "I'm going to exert my time watching this, but not watching that" is the second bad entertainment rules every facet of our lives--simply because bad entertainment is easier and cheaper to make. When we stop seeking out bands whose music has genuine feeling, those bands stop making that music. When we stop demanding more out of our movies, our movies cease to demand anything from us. It all becomes meaningless, vacuous entertainment.

So if you want a world where shows like Two and Half Men and According to Jim rule the television and Nickelback and Black Eyed Peas rule the airway, then fine. But I, for one, am going to ask for more from my entertainment providers.

A Brief Response to as Many Anti-Vegan Arguments I Can Drum up

Hey all,

As much as I don't necessarily want to make this a vegan blog, I think it's obvious to anyone who knows me well at this point in my life that it's something that matters a great deal to me. I was thinking I could use this entry as a somewhat definitive explanation of the ideas and thoughts through the art of refutatio (Latin makes you feel good about yourself).

Many of these are arguments I face almost once a week: some of them are valid, some just plain nonsense. But I'm always willing to hear people out because I'm certainly interested in hearing contrary opinions, as my vegan lifestyle is something I stand by. Having said that, if I'm certainly not unwavering. If I found a definitive study that veganism involved health risks or had other negative side effects, I would certainly consider it and react accordingly. I think it's extremely important to think about why we believe what we do and whether those reasons are sufficient to justify our choices. Here goes:

Isn't veganism unhealthy?/isn't consuming meat or dairy healthy?

Short answer, no. I'm certainly no dietician, but the American Dietetics Association is made up of some. They released a statement (and they're not the only ones) saying veganism is perfectly healthy. Search it yourself. In fact, I've been reading the book, The China Study, which is centred around the largest biomedical study of nutrition and disease ever conducted. The conclusion of the book (which is written by one of the authors of the study, a respected biomedical researcher) is essentially that the more plants we eat, and the less meat/dairy we consume, the healthier we are. He cites a wide variety of studies from around the world to back this up.

Aren't there some conflicting reports?/I heard the jury's still out on science...

There have been millions of studies and not all of them say the exact same thing. But from the vast majority of what I've seen backs up exactly what The China Study reports: the three leading causes of death (heart disease, diabetes and cancer) all drop drastically on a low-fat, plant-based diet. I implore you to find one that says otherwise.

What about iron/protein/calcium/B12?

Again, not a dietician, but this is all available online on various websites and in those things with words that are made out of paper that some people use to level their desks.

Iron: calorie for calorie, there are many plant foods whose iron amounts far exceed that in meat

Protein: The RDA of protein can easily be met by anyone, unless you're eating all fruit, all junk food or all air (by that, I mean not consuming enough calories).

calcium: There are a number of studies that show veg/veegs have equal calcium stores than non-veggies/veegs. Related article:

http://www.examiner.com/x-6753-Philadelphia-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m7d10-Do-vegetarians-really-have-weaker-bones

B12: It's true, there are no reliable vegan dietary sources of B12. But that doesn't mean we're meant to eat meat. We used to get this from our soil, but since pesticides and other contaminants came into the mix, we've wisely started washing our veggies better. And B12 is not specifically in meat, but rather it is produced in bacteria. There are a number of plant-based supplements that are readily available.

It must be so hard/expensive./I guess you can never eat out again.

Short answer again, it is not hard, nor is it that expensive nor do I spend inordinate amounts of time cooking or preparing food. Most of my stand-by recipes take about ten minutes to prepare and you can find plenty at veganyumyum.com or vivelevegan.blogspot.com and in various cookbooks. Ask for suggestions if you're interested. I will also add the cost can be quite minimal if you're eating well and if you don't want to eat those fake veggie meats all the time. The most expensive things you typically buy at a grocery store are meats/dairy products/ processed foods. Regarding eating out, yeah, it's not always the easiest thing to do as a vegan, but most places will have something--you just have to ask or clarify ingredients. And as far as feeling bad about being a difficult customer, you wouldn't feel bad if it was an allergy or a facet of your religion keeping you from eating whatever food, so why feel bad about a deeply held, moral belief?

Who cares about stupid animals, anyway?

This is a tough argument to have because it usually comes from a meat-eater who suddenly feels on the defensive as soon as you mention you're a vegetarian. But my rationality for caring about the treatment of animals is quite simple, really: if other beings don't need to suffer for my food, why would I make them?

And suffer they do. Factory farms are virtually animal hell. There's a wealth of information around, and plenty of absolutely appalling videos that represent standard industry practices. Things like de-beaking and removing the tail of a pig seems pretty horrible, but it's essentially par for the course. Not to mention how little room the animals have to move around and how often they get sick, break limbs... the list of atrocities goes on.

But why vegan? Why not just vegetarian?

Again, the ideas behind this shouldn't be difficult to understand. No, animals don't have to be harmed for people to take milk and eggs from them, but they almost invariably are. Some of the worst animal abuses happen in dairy and egg production--not to mention the fact that the dairy industry is very closely tied to the meat and veal industry.

And even if that wasn't the case, using animal products lends itself to the idea that these animals exist purely to satisfy human wants. I think that is an absolute fallacy and any rational person, I expect, would agree. For me, it's a Ghandi-esque non-participation in anything I believe to be evil. I've heard arguments that the net suffering for a glass of milk or an egg is actually more than that of meat. But I don't care, because I'd rather just not participate in the whole, cruel mess.

But no one can ever be purely vegan. Aren't you just a big hypocrite?

Yes.

I am.

At some point in my life, I'm going to accidentally or unknowingly consume an animal product. Even while driving a car, I'm killing bugs left right and centre. Certainly, that can be considered hypocritical. But isn't everyone?

I certainly don't see how that's any more hypocritical (I would argue far less by matter of intention) than saying you like animals and then participating in the slaughter or commodification of animals--For example, by loving a dog and eating a pig. Or by getting outraged over Michael Vick getting pleasure from dogs suffering while simultaneously getting pleasure from watching a sport in which a ball covered in the skin of a cow is thrown around.

At least I'm trying to participate in as little suffering as possible.

But what about free-range/organic/family farms? Isn't that okay because the animals are treated better?

While I don't disagree animals being treated better is a good thing, this is still operating on the presupposition that these animals exist for the purposes of our food enjoyment. I don't think that should be considered self-evident, just because we have created a system in which it appears to be. I don't care if the animals are tickled and you hire a string quartet to play as you slit their throats. I do not accept the idea that they are ours to eat/use.

How do you know plants don't have feelings?

I have actually gotten this one several times, believe it or not, and it's probably the easiest to refute. Even without getting into a biological argument about the existence nervous systems and brains, and the concept of sentience, the simple fact is meat is a much less efficient way of producing food. It takes up to sixteen pounds of wheat to create one pound of meat. Therefore, vegetarians actually require far less plant food than meat eaters. So if you're truly concerned about your poor, defenseless corn, steak is not the right answer.

But I like meat.

So? What if baby brains tasted good? Would that be justified?

Don't you miss the taste?

Don't you think slave owners missed having someone else to do their work for them? I mean, these last two arguments are obviously a little bit hyperbolic, but I'm using that to show how thin such arguments actually are. And I consider them only a little hyperbolic because, as I described above, these conditions essentially amount to torture.

anyone who knows me, knows I'm very particular about my food and if vegan food weren't delicious, I would not be as happy as I am right now. But even if meat was the best tasting thing in the universe, I certainly don't think food is the pinnacle of human existence.

Yeah, animals may not be able to play chess or talk about the government. But what does that matter? There is quotations that I've become quite fond of that basically explains my feelings on the people vs. animals thing, and the artificial and superficial barriers we create to justify our awful treatments of creatures that are, for all intents and purposes, extremely similar to us.

"...a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

-Jeremy Bentham, philosopher

As I mentioned before, I'm happy to debate anyone or answer any other criticisms you may have. So hit me with it.

Dream Farm Turns into Slaughterhouse...

Hey all y'all,

Apologies for the lateness of this post. I hope the article to which I'm referring has not been taken down by the time you, dear reader, come across it:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Swine+turns+dream+farm+into+slaughterhouse/1581664/story.html

I stumbled across this a while ago and, really, it flat-out irritated me. The article is about an Alberta pig farmer who had to quarantine, and eventually kill, 500 pigs because they were infected with H1N1. The article talks about how he came over from Holland and the wonderful life he made for himself in Alberta before the tragedy struck. What I take serious issue with it the definition of "tragedy."

I think the part of the article that most bothers me is the title: Swine flu turns 'dream' farm into slaughterhouse. Because the slaughterhouse is the exact place the pigs would have been sent next if they hadn't come down with swine flu.

The supposed tragedy, then, is not that these pigs were killed--it's that no profit was made from these pigs being killed. I'm sure you could also make an argument for wasted "food," but I obviously take at least some issue with that.

I know picking on a poor farmer who just lost thousands of dollars is not going to make me the most favourable of folks. It certainly doesn't make me happy to hear about Van Ginkel, or any other farmer for that matter, losing large sums of money. But at the end of the day ( I'm paraphrasing a quotation from the movie, Your Mommy Kills Animals here), him making a profit off of those animals would have ensured more animals would have been moved in to take their place. At least now, there's a bit of uncertainty on that.

I would also like to add that there's a lot of speculation that factory farming might have played a major role in creating the Swine flu outbreak:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/swineflufarm/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/30/did-factory-farming-cause-the-swine-flu-outbreak/

For those of you who don't think factory farming is an issue in Alberta, here's one for you:
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/06/factory_farm.html

That is a 2001 article, so that 1/3 number has probably changed. One thing history tells us about factory farms is they grow almost as fast as the sickly animals on their farm.

And on that note, I'm officially going to continue calling it Swine Flu whenever possible.

A Vegan Preamble

Hello anyone who might be listening,

I'm planning on a series of blogs based around my beliefs regarding veganism and animal rights. I just wanted to explain myself before I do for all the people who don't understand that my belief in animal rights doesn't have to coincide with me being a crazy.

I'm not radical... in any real way. I've never really been a contrarian, nor have I ever really wanted to offend anyone. I don't particularly like debating, because I think it's pretty useless for the most part. People don't really listen to you anyway and they're going to believe what they're going to believe.

The reason I do debate, however, is for that rare person who is actually willing to listen or take what was said and think about it and do their own research. If they don't come to my conclusion, fine, but at least they've considered it and are truly better for having given whatever issue a reasonable amount of thought.

I feel the way we eat has become such a mindless process to most people because we're so far removed from the system of production. I obviously think that's dangerous from an animal rights perspective, but also from a health perspective--and what we call the Standard American Diet (SAD). I'm no nutritionist, but I find people's concepts of health have become these vague statements about how we "need a ton of protein" or about how milk "does the body good." The more I read on these subjects, the more I take issue with them.

But I had these same preconceptions and, after reflecting on where they might have come from, the only thing I could come up with is from advertisements. But I digress.

The extent of my "radicalism" can be summed up as follows:

1. I want to minimize suffering in any living being wherever possible.

2. Meat, dairy and egg production--or any production that involves animals--almost invariable results in suffering.

3. It is very much possible to live and thrive without eating or wearing anything that comes from an animal.

I'm not trying to shake the system to its core, nor do I think everyone is going to all of a sudden turn vegan--but if I can make just one person think about the philosophy behind such consumption than I am happy.

Thanks for reading.

Edmonton Questions 9/11, Along with Its Sanity

So I was walking down the street the other day in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, (AKA not New York or anywhere near New York), and I noticed a series of posters that exclaimed Edmonton Questions 9/11.

Edmonton.

Now my thoughts on 9/11 aside (though I'd say it's somewhere between this and this), what, exactly, is Edmonton questioning 9/11 going to do? Do the supposed conspirators have a map of the world with little bulbs that light up when a city with a population over 1 million (which Edmonton just has) is "on to them?" Will Dick Cheney be casually strolling through our fair city, on his way back from checking out the now-fourth-largest mall in the world, see the poster and realize he must finally break down and tell everyone the truth? Will Edmonton be the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel's proverbial back?

A part of me suspects this is not the case (the "brain" part). I have a small, but growing, suspicion that the... maybe 200 people, (I bet a dollar that none of them are structural engineers or established scientists) will not bring this thing crumbling down.

Or maybe I'm just in on it.

Disclaimer: (If this note comes off as patronizing (which it most assuredly will), let the record show that is not my intention. I know people who I consider quite intelligent who believe 9/11 was an inside job. While I certainly understand, and even share, their mistrust for government, I personally find the evidence flimsy. Furthermore, when you have no direct evidence of something, you're forced to accept whatever news reports you have access to. If you look at many of those clips, articles and videos outside the context of Loose Change or 9/11 Truth or Everyone is a Liar but Me, and still believe what you believe, than fine. I've made up my mind, and you're entitled to make up yours.

I do think it's kind of irrelevant, in that it was eight years ago, in a different country. I think it takes people's attention away from what's far more important, say... working to make this a functioning, participatory democracy.)