Monday, August 17, 2009

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.

Monday, July 20, 2009

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.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

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.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

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.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

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.)

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Having it all figured out...

Today, I realized that I'm happy I have things figured out well enough to know that I have nothing figured out. It's a good place to be.


I dislike this quote“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

Socrates


I'm going to start posting short posts more often. This is a step in that direction. Go me!

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Trying to make the Daily Jason a little more... "daily"

Hey all (or none, perhaps),

I've been intending to write more in my blog, but I haven't been horribly motivated to do so. If you read my second blog entry, you know that time is, as always, what seems to bring me down (as I type, I get closer and closer to being late for work, for example). But time is, in essence, all we have. If not for this moment, what is there? I've heard people talk about killing time and I just think that is the most ludicrous thing in the world (apparently, existence of rap artist ludacris has made me forget how to spell "ludicrous." I figured it out eventually, though).

I think time needs to be resurrected--we need to breathe new life into these moments. If there is time that you feel needs killing, examine what is wrong with the situation to prevent you from appreciating the one thing you have (which is, essentially, that moment, because outside of the current moment, nothing exists). Examine what aspect of yourself is preventing you from enjoying your whole world, as it exists in that moment. Then change it.

I could probably quote the song Raise a Little Hell here, but as I said, time is of the essence so I'll get to the point of this entry. The next couple of entries will be short, sweet posts (sweeter than this one, even). So... look out for that.

And... now I'm late.