According to a new PETA ad campaign, going vegan will help prevent and reverse impotence. The effects of a vegan diet on helping clear away arterial blockages and increase blood supplies are well known, and it is not *ahem* hard to imagine that those benefits would extend to the blood supplies of all of our organs.
I have to admit: this revelation has me excited. And I mean like 'whoa.'
Recent blog posts in USA Today have highlighted the talking points of Vegan vs. Non. USA Today blogger, Physician, and vegan - Dr. Patrice Green - wrote on Thurday:
To this vegan, this sounds completely reasonable. Everything Dr. Green says mirrors my own independent research, as well as the professional research of the and ADA and more.
However, feeling that research and a medical degree were simply not enough, her fellow USA Today blogger Mark DePompa wrote in rebuttal:
Now, I am a little confused? Vegan detractors have long argued that our claims remain largely unsubstantiated by medical science. Now, along comes a member of the medical community and substantiates some of our claims and now she is being publicly 'shamed.' These are often the same people who grasp fleetingly on every new report or study saying that it's okay to eat eggs now, or that alcohol isn't as bad as we thought, or that the Atkins diet will actually benefit your heart. But the strangest part about DePompa's arguments are that they are totally baseless. Dr. Green never once mentioned weight loss in her article, instead basing her assertions on the proven benefits of a vegan diet in treating and preventing heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. I am sorry to say, Mark, the case is closed on this one. The reports are in; the ink dry. If you want to continue to enjoy your steak with a clear conscious you had better tune-out the media.
It is clear: In the United states, if you manage to avoid cancer, heart disease, car accidents, or complications from diabetes you are not very likely to die any time soon, Overwhelmingly these are the things killing our citizens, and (aside from car accidents) all of them can addressed by 'going vegan.' DePompa continues on to say that there is "No clear consensus" about a vegan diet being superior, so Green was erroneous in promoting it. Whether that is true or not, I think it is safe to say that there is a clear consensus that animal products are dangerous to our health. 'Moderation' is dietary code for 'dangerous' and almost all dietitians call for moderating the use of animal fats in our diets as a key to long-term health. As for DePoma's assertion that humans are Omnivorous, being 'designed' to eat meat and vegetables I offer up this evidence: Human's cannot eat meat safely without cooking it. For a vast majority of our evolutionary history we have not had the benefit as fire as a tool. Raw meat is unappealing to most humans, who do not find it acceptable to eat until cut into nearly unidentifiable pieces and cooked. This is not the behavior of a predator. When we see road kill, we are most often disturbed, not hungered. This is not the behavior of scavengers. We, as humans, have the dullest canine teeth of any primate (primates being almost entirely herbivorous) and do not produce high enough levels of urea to suggest that we are carnivores. My fingernails, much like yours, are ideal for peeling fruit, not killing. Aside from lacking a 'clear consensus' on the issue of humans being omnivorous, I submit that there has hardly been a census taken on the subject.
We all may of had that uncle who drank and smoke, and ate bacon every day and lived to 85. But if you are like me, you also had that uncle who didn't drink or smoke, worked in the great out-doors, was thin, trim, and good natured - and after his second battle with cancer succumbed to it at 48. If you look around you in America and see healthy, happy, thriving people you may need to dramatically redefine what those terms mean to you.
Well, we know of at least one citizen who won't be using his portion of the $700b bail-out on McDonald's apple pies. On Monday, Dennis Kucinich wrote about an 'ownership society' that he would like to see emerge in America.
"Simply purchasing bad debt, 'cash for trash' and not receiving anything of value or giving $700 billion and not having a commensurate equity interest in Wall Street firms is unacceptable. No 'cash for trash,'" he wrote in his OpEdNews.com editorial.
But what exactly does he mean by ownership society? Kucinich is saying that if American taxpayers are going to foot the bill in this epic cluster-fuck, then we should, in the end, become owners of those firms to a degree fitting with our contribution. That would mean that every man, woman, and child in the United States would essentially own $2300 in stock of AIG and other firms benefiting from the federal relief package. And with that ownership we would, of course, be entitled to dividends and allowed to profit from that ownership just like any other stock holder.
Congressman Kucinich is introducing legislation that would create savings accounts in the names of all taxpaying citizens for which we may use to collect our returns. Critics are likely to submit that such a plan is impractical and would require too much man-power and logistics to execute. In addition, the case could be made that turning these suddenly impoverished Wall Street firms into public entities is not the long-term goal, and is an example of franco-esque corporate socialization. Likely, the commonly held view in Washington will be that any long-term profits gained from the bail-out should in some way benefit the average citizen, but that it should be absorbed into the national budget and distributed that way.
In Kucinich's plan the revenue would be spent at the tax-payers discretion, allowing it to bypass the sticky fingers of lobbyists, and pet-project earmarks recently made famous by this year's election cycle. But, the plan is also flirting dangerously close to communist/ socialist ideals and for that reason alone it is unlikely to gain much traction in the House. Equally good ideas might be to invest the profits in to a nationalized health-care scheme, perhaps even leveraging the now nationalized AIG's experience and position within to insurance industry to administer the plan. Also, we could use the money to invest in renewable energy, which as Bill Clinton said last night on Larry Kind Live, would: "Pump millions into our economy, create jobs, and stimulate investment competition."
What would Dennis Kucinich buy with his $2,300? I don't know, but I would buy 660 boxes of Tofutti Cuties!
A letter has been delivered to the founders of Ben and Jerry's requesting that they stop producing Ice Cream with cows milk, and instead use human breast milk. I don't know what this phenomenon is, but lately the American media has been obsessed with breast milk to a degree Freud would find astonishing.
In this humble vegans opinion, PETA was not actually serious in their request. Likely, they proposed the idea to garner a little media attention, as well as make Americans stop and consider for a moment: Why is it that drinking cows milk is Okay, but you are grossed-out and totally put-off on the thought of ingesting human breast milk (which is actually formulated for our biology)? I am sure someone from within PETA saw the same stories online that I have written about in the past week and decided to stir the proverbial pot a little.
The really story in all of this? People's reactions to the story. I think its safe to say that nobody really understood the message, and PETA - while noble in deeds and thought - has alienated the American people even further, and succeeded in being the butt of their own joke.
The people behind Veganopolis are calling it quits. After 3 years and 10 months they are packing it in, and heading back off to Chicagoland, where according to their website, they hope to "finally finish" the Veganopolis cookbook. Apparently the business model for success in Bush's Amrica is to:
A.) Close your doors.
B.) Move 1500 miles away from your customer base to a city known for slaughter houses, and cold-cuts.
They ain't fooling me. Veganopolis fell in to the all-to-common trap of form before function. Is it a grocery store? An art gallery? A deli? A buffet? A place to park fixed-gear bicycles? I'm not sure? But I am sure that they have way too much under utilized space, and spent a whole lot of money renovating it. These problems - compounded by their tendency to over-staff - has likely led them to be unprofitable. The last time I was in Veganopolis was about a month ago. They had two people behind the counter, two cooks, a buss boy and both owners were present. It took us ten minutes to get the banana split we were sharing, and we were the only customers in the building. It's as if the whole business started over a glass of shiraz, one friend telling another: "You should really start a restaurant! Your food is so good!
But the reality of owning a restaurant is hard work, long hours, sacrifice, and then more hard work yet. You don't run a quick-service deli like the French Laundry, and the quickest way to erode your bottom line is to shun any hard work yourself, and instead hire a cadre of employees. With the five employees working as I described above, paying them only minimum wage, monthly labor costs for Veganopolis would have been to the tune of $10,000.00. I did some research, and according to Portland real estate group Norris & Beggs, a smiliar sized and zoned property just 4 blocks from Veganopolis leases for $10,180.00 a month. At ten dollars a meal, they would have to serve over 2,000 meals a month just to pay the rent and employees. I am not even factoring in food cost, insurance, utilities and so on. Also, all of this is before the owners can pay themselves a dime.
According to Wikipedia, 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as vegans. According to a 2007 estimate, there are 568,380 souls in Portland. If %1.4 are vegans, that means there are less than 6,000 vegans in Portland, and Veganopolis would have to draw 1/3 of us to their restaurant a month just to pay rent and cut paychecks. Again, all of this does not factor in other costs, or how many vegans are geographically close enough to even consider eating there.
Further evidence of Veganopolis's financial insolvency is an apparent lack of effort to try an sell the property. Generally, if a restaurant is profitable (or even close to profitable) it is much wiser to sell the business. Also, the timing of the closure is suspect. Many banks offer small business loans with a clause that allows the borrower up to 4 years to bring the business 'out of the red' and make it profitable. At that point the loan must be repaid. As they stated on their website - they have been in business 'three years and ten months.' I offer as further evidence that they are moving to Chicago. What vegan do you know that wants to move to Chicago?
Veganopolis was an excellent idea, executed poorly. As is standard for most vegetarian/ vegan restaurants, the service was slow (unless you are eating buffet items), and the food was expensive for what it was. While admittedly their food is better than most, they simply had too much over-head to remain afloat and eventually succumbed to questionable business practices. Vegan operations play by the same rules as any other business, yet we still tend to approach everything like we are going to change the world, operate outside of accepted principles, and turn everything we do in to an arts and crafts project. Let Veganopolis's fate be a warning to all of those thinking of entering into business, vegan-centric or other wise; Business isn't a game. It is all too easy to lose all that you have in a poorly planned or managed venture, and if the folks at Veganopolis had sat down at the kitchen table and done some simple arithmetic, they might still have a pot to piss in.
After agreeing to a performance in Israel, Paul McCartney has been the target of death threats from several Islamic terror-groups. Syrian-born Omar Bakri Muhammed - a militant activists with known ties to terror organizations - was quoted last week in an interview, saying: "He will not be safe there. The sacrifice operatives (suicide bombers) will be waiting for him" he went on to admonish the former Beatle, saying "Instead of supporting the people of Palestine in their suffering, McCartney is celebrating the atrocities of the occupiers. The ones under occupation are the ones who should be receiving help."
Nugent has in recently stated that McCartney should "...not bend or waiver to voodoo religious whack-jobs," and continued on to say "It would be my pleasure to keep this legendary musical hero safe from terrorists and madmen, and then buy him a nice dinner of tofu." The rocker has also stated that our only failures in Iraq have been "...not nagasaki-ing their asses," implying that The United States should have opted to use nuclear weapons in the Iraq conflict.
Many are skeptical of Nugent's qualifications to protect. We all know he has the guns, but does he have the balls? In a 1977 High Times interview, Nugent described his efforts to dodge the Vietnam draft saying that "[I] stopped cleansing my body weeks before the physical, stopped eating foods of nutritional value, and even stopped going to the bathroom. I just went in my pants, and my clothes all started to become crusty." He later defended his statements saying that "These guys [interviewers] would just show up glass-eyed and high, and so I would just make stories up," he added that his failure to serve in Vietnam was due to an academic deferment. He also referenced his 2004 USO show in Fallujah and Afghanistan as evidence of his bravery. I was unable to find a record of how many soldiers were killed at the USO show, although the number is believed to be 'zero.'
The Nuge's offer of protection comes as a surprise. The two musicians appear to have little, if anything. in common. McCartney is, as Nugent describes, "An animal rights maniac" and has cited industry friends fired by McCartney for "Sneaking a hamburger" while on tour, and went as far as defending them in an article he authored, oddly entitled "live and let live." Nugent, who gleefully shoots anything without a social security number, is perhaps the antithesis of vegan ideals. He is, however a self proclaimed 'avid conservationist' and told travel/ food writer Anthony Bourdain on his Travel Channel show 'No Reservations' that whatever you take from the land should be replaced "two-fold."
Even so, Nugent has had a troubled past with animal rights activists. He told Penn & Teller on their television show Bullshit! that PETA activists have threatened his, and his children's lives. On another occasion in 1992 he called Heidi Prescott of the non-profit Fund for Animals, a "worthless whore" and a "shallow slut," and also stated: "who needs to club baby seals, when we can club Heidi?" He was later ordered to pay $75,000.00 in damages to her as a result of the remark. Most recently, Nugent has garnered criticism for his ownership of Sunrize Acres, a ranch near Jackson, Michigan that offers what are known as "canned" hunts to paying customers. Although he "...understands the criticism" that canned hunts "violate the ethics of the fair chase," he still operated the ranch, even acting as personal guide.
Nugent insists he is rearing to go to Isreal, and describes himself as "Dirty Harry with a pony tail." It is unlikely that McCartney will accept this (bizarre) offer of protection, and it is even more unlikely that Nugent was in fact sincere in even offering. More likely, it is an opportunity for this vocal NRA supporter, and animal well fare opponent to paint vegans as weak and helpless.
It seems as if soccer moms aren't the only ones to feel the squeeze at the gas pump. Lately, the media has been blitzed with articles talking about how Americans everywhere are having to adjust their routines and find other alternatives to driving, all the while costs for a gallon of gasoline continue to hover at 'ridiculous.'
With all the sudden interest in all things 'green' and 'renewable' it still comes as surprise to see a sudden rash of robberies throughout the nation where the perp' escaped either on bus, or by bicycle. In addition to the mass transit get-aways, there has also been a sudden rash of bicycle thefts around the country leaving many to wonder whether they will have to rob a bank to fill up this week, and if so, do they still have a bike on which to do it?
No word yet on where all these criminal masterminds are getting their bright ideas from, but personally, I suspect this guy.
Posts
All Comments
