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?