Amen, Chad Love. Even before I was a vegetarian, I didn't like fish. But I went fishing about every summer when all my extended family rented cabins at a lake in Mississippi. When I was a camp counselor, I taught little kids how to fish with bamboo poles (SPAM is great catfish bait, by the way). I think some of these people might lose a bit of their high-and-mighty-tight-ass-ness if they were to see the entire process. There was no mystique for me, having caught the fish, seen my uncle gut and clean it, and watched my family fry it and eat it with some homemade hushpuppies. It actually made me proud as a kid watching someone eat a catfish that I caught. Soft-hearted liberal though I am, I can even throw my support behind people who hunt if they eat or share what they kill. They're getting food without contributing to any of the greenhouse gases caused by the processing factories. You'd think the greenies would appreciate that.

"The resolution says eating less meat significantly decreases a person's exposure to infectious bacteria"

As opposed to that ugly batch of SPINACH that poisoned so many people two years ago, or those GREEN ONIONS at Chi Chi's restaurants that poisoned people before that....

Granholm's an idiot, forgetting history and doomed to repeat it.

BF and I are primed and ready (and so is my rifle and his bow) for turkey season. Can't wait! The only problem I've found with wild turkey, though, is that the leg muscles are so tough, you have to parboil them before you bake them. Makes them tenderer (is that a word, "tenderer"?). o.O

It wasn't too long ago that the whiners were complaining that Granholm was precluded from becoming president by being born in Canada. I think the Founding Fathers got this one right.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

Boy, I totally misread the title of this post, as "take a day to go vegan hunting". Not my idea of sport... most of 'em can't run very fast.

Flynne, I ground the meat from wild turkey legs and made jerky with it using one of those jerky kits available in sporting goods stores. The meat works just as well as venison, although taking out those splint bones in the drumstick before grinding is tedious work.

NumberSix is right about the low environmental impact of eating wild meat. In fact, on farms around here, the best way to recover the nutrients in soybeans and corn (the production of which requires labor, fuel, and fertilizer) eaten by deer and turkeys is to eat the deer and turkeys.

Axman, thanks for the tip! I'll try that this year. And yeah, those splint bones are a pain in the ass. But when you parboil the drumsticks, those splint bones come out pretty easily. There's just so many of 'em! (When BF grinds venison for meatballs, he adds a little pork fat to it. They seem to hold together better that way. Tasty, too!) The annual game dinner is coming up soon, April 19th, I think. Maybe I'll win another rifle raffle! o.O

I heart Chad Love. And Cousin Dave, I read that title the same way. Gave me my laugh for the day (along with Pirate Jo's Pink Floyd reference).

Granholm is a total moron in more ways than one. I'm so glad I don't live in Michigan anymore.

@NumberSix

"I think some of these people might lose a bit of their high-and-mighty-tight-ass-ness if they were to see the entire process."

Do you think more people would want to eat meat if they saw the process? Many people become vegetarians BECAUSE they don't like seeing the process. My dad wouldn't eat chicken after he had to pluck them as a kid and I stopped eating seafood early on because of childhood fishing trips. And trust me, growing up in a small rural town full of farmers and hunters I've seen my share of animal guts. But in the end, I became vegan because I think it would be wrong for me to intentionally and knowingly harm animals just for my own pleasure -- which it would be given the abundance of great, healthy plant foods I am fortunate to have available to eat.

"They're getting food without contributing to any of the greenhouse gases caused by the processing factories. You'd think the greenies would appreciate that."

Many do. I've known environmental "vegetarians" who didn't eat meat normally but weren't against hunting non-endangered species. But a real vegan (as opposed to someone just eating a strict vegetarian diet for their health or the environment) won't -- at least not enough. That's because the point of being vegan isn't to reduce environmental damage. That's a nice benefit sometimes, to be sure, but actually being a vegan is by definition to avoid exploiting animals (as much as reasonably possible).

Thanks Pirate Jo- now I have to listen to The Wall today. You can't just hear one or two tracks.

Plants are alive too!

I don't understand. How did the Vegans get to Earth. I thought that the Air Force discredited the flying saucer studies.

an is the suffix used to show that a person is from a particular location.

Serbian - a native of Serbia

Vegan - a native of Vega

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega

Vega (α Lyr / α Lyrae / Alpha Lyrae) is the brightest star in the constellation Lyra, the fifth brightest star in the night sky and the second brightest star in the northern celestial hemisphere, after Arcturus. It is a relatively nearby star at only 25 light-years from Earth, and, together with Arcturus and Sirius, one of the most luminous stars in the Sun's neighborhood.

A vegan hunting trip? Now I'm picturing an environmentally-friendly Elmer Fudd warning us to carefully sneak up on the prey 'cause them potatoes have eyes and the corn's got ears.

can we stop talking about meat before lunch? 'cuz now you got me jonesin' for wild turkey jerky...

heh, I like how the Gov says "I'll go meatless if you hunt with me..." Twould have been better if he had said, he would go meatless for a day, if the Vegans ATE meat for a day. Get them some nice steaks and stuff.

bbbbut meat is murder! why? because bambi has weepy eyes, and a turnip doesn't? Humans are incapable of eating things that aren't alive.

>>In the long run it might be more productive to engage those with philosophical differences than it is to simply disparage them,

That would sure shut this board down, wouldn't it? Heh, heh.

However, to engage those with philosophical differences, one has to also be engaged by those with philosophical differences.

I am reminded many years ago in the factory where we worked. My brother was a harvester of the deer which ate my father's corn. Corn fed deer taste good.

One year, he took off work in deer season. A couple days later, he was back at work, which made it obvious he had harvested his deer.

A Bambi nut came running up, all emotional and asked, "Did you kill Bambi?"

He said, with a straight face, "No, but I did kill his sister, and my brothers ran him into the next county."

Oh, did she scream.

Taking a vegan hunting strikes me as analogous to taking a pro-lifer to observe an abortion, or a human rights advocate to observe a third world torture session, or a priest to an orgy. Those people avoid those things because they believe those things are morally wrong, not because they don't understand what those things are really about.

I agree that reaching out to people who disagree is more productive than simply disparaging them, but when they think you're a walking talking Hitler, there's not a lot you can do.

"I agree that reaching out to people who disagree is more productive than simply disparaging them, but when they think you're a walking talking Hitler, there's not a lot you can do."

Especially when said attitude is an aspect of projection... I take a live-and-let-live attitude towards vegans. But few of them are willing to grant me the same consideration.

"I became vegan because I think it would be wrong for me to intentionally and knowingly harm animals just for my own pleasure -- which it would be given the abundance of great, healthy plant foods I am fortunate to have available to eat. . . . but actually being a vegan is by definition to avoid exploiting animals (as much as reasonably possible)." ~Meg

So the rodents that get caught up in the combines during harvesting season are what then? Still dead, even if it was unintentional. I say at least respect an animal enough to do something with it's corpse after being killed.

What about the insects killed by pesticides? Or if you eat organic - killed by insectivorous bugs imported and exploited by the farmer. Do they count?

And what about habitat destruction? Bogs that have been filled in for rice have destroyed fragile ecological niches entirely. Where are all the buffalo now that the plains are being used to grow corn, wheat, and soybeans? They're being kept on ranches for meat - probably preserving the species better than if we just left them alone in their rapidly dwindling habitat.

What about the nitrogen enriched fertilizer dumped on fields by the ton to keep the soil from dying? It comes either from animals if its organic (bones and blood) or petroleum products shipped god knows how far with a huge environmental impact.

You aren't minimizing animal suffering. You're deferring it to third parties.

Ah. Good ol' Michigan. Never fails to remind me why I left.

I like the live and let live philosophy as well Cousin Dave. Except when it comes to meat. I like my meat dead. And my veggies.

@Elle

As I said, "intentionally". I have no delusions that I can live without indirectly and unintentionally causing animal suffering. That's not the point. I do what I can, but I know I can only do so much. I'm not perfect and I never said I was.

But that doesn't make it right for me to intentionally harm animals for my own pleasure anymore than the fact that some people will be unintentionally killed in car accidents makes it alright for people to intentionally go around hitting people with their cars for kicks.

Again, this is a moral issue for me. You may disagree with my premise, that it's morally wrong to intentionally and knowingly harm/kill/use/exploit animals for pleasure, but that's what I believe so it's up to me to live my life in accordance with that as much as I can.

If we want to talk about "deferring it to third parties", let's talk about the many, many meat-eaters that think hunting is "barbaric" but don't think twice about picking up some steaks at the grocery store.

I'm a vegetarian and I'm 100% pro-hunting. I have no problem killing animals for food, I just abhor the factory farm system for a multitude of reasons-it's cruelty to the animals, it's bad for the environment, the meat produced is so fatty/full of antibiotics that it can't be good for anyone...hunting/free-range farming is a highly preferable alternative. My county also has a huge deer overpopulation problem, which causes car accidents (and also means that many deer starve from lack of food) and hunting is probably the best possible solution.

(What I can't stand is when people who rail on against hunting, yet have no problem chowing down on a Big Mac that someone else killed. If that's how you feel, then you should put your money where your mouth is and stop eating meat altogether.)

In response to Chad's comments, I do agree that more people should be exposed to the process of hunting/farming; however, he's ignoring the fact that most people do not eat a "wholesome, organic, sustainable, eco-friendly wild game diet." Taking people to a factory farm would be more representative of where most people's meat comes from. But I'm willing to bet that his endeavor would have the opposite effect than intended of turning a lot of people vegetarian. After all, being exposed to the slaughtering process is usually what turns people vegetarian in the first place! On the other hand, taking a vegan hunting is pretty much pointless-virtually all vegans/vegetarians start out as meat eaters and make the conscious decision not to eat meat; it's not like they've never been exposed to the world of meat eating. I agree with Pseudonym's analogy that it's like making a pro-lifer witness an abortion.

Also, here's some food for thought: Americans consume more meat then almost any other country. The planet simply can't sustain everyone eating as much meat as we do, particularly if you strive to eat "wholesome, organic, sustainable, eco-friendly wild game" as Chad Love advocates. The only way it works is if some people/cultures/countries abstain from eating meat, or at least eat less. So me being a vegetarian literally means that there's more meat to go around for the rest of you. So why the hell would you want to convert me, you know?

Elle-it takes about 10 pounds of grain/corn/soybeans to produce one pound of meat, meaning that your argument goes out the window. Sorry.

Shannon, you're absolutely correct. Earth can sustain about 1 or 2 billion people who eat meat, which is part of the natural human diet. We've got about 4 billion people too many.

So the choice is to eat a bizarre artificially-contrived non-meat diet that the human body wasn't designed for and suffer the debilitating consequences, or population control.

I propose some new dishes to help out:

Leg of Vegetarian with Thyme Butter
Rump of Politician with Pork Gravy
Banker Ribs on a bed of Lettuce

I'd favor it, but try to find a vegan to cooperate.

I've never known a vegan that wasn't so goddamned sanctimonious about their beliefs that they'd bend even 1/10th as much as they expect everyone else to do.

"Elle-it takes about 10 pounds of grain/corn/soybeans to produce one pound of meat, meaning that your argument goes out the window." - Shanon

Bullshit. Completely and utterly untrue. It takes that much if you're eating CAFO grain-finished meat. But cows that are raised the way cows were meant to live - eating grass, grass, and more grass - don't use *any* grain. Ditto with chicken and pigs. Left to their own devices, all of these animals eat things that people can't.

"If we want to talk about "deferring it to third parties", let's talk about the many, many meat-eaters that think hunting is "barbaric" but don't think twice about picking up some steaks at the grocery store." - Meg

But that's not me. I hunt and fish and get my meat from ethical sources (grass finished and pastured raised). I've got the ovarian fortitude to eat what I cause to die (excepting the bugs on my windshield). If a rabbit is going to die because of me, I skin it and eat it. (Yes, even if I automotively harvested it.)

And I'm sure it comes as a comfort to the buffalo to know that you really didn't mean to destroy their habitat. It was just a little oopsie.

(Incidentally, I don't eat grain. Partially because I'm not convinced it's healthy. And largely because I object to what modern monoculture farms are doing to the environment and the food supply)

>>When BF grinds venison for meatballs, he adds a little pork fat to it. They seem to hold together better that way. Tasty, too!

I'd run a mile for a great beef steak (well, I'd walk jolly quickly) but I'd turn vegetarian rather than live on venison meatballs.

Absolutely no disrespect to you or your BF, Flynne!
It must be an acquired taste. (Had 'em prepared by an expert hunter friend - his wife agreed they were his best yet - and I can still summon that sinister dark, dark taste at the back of my throat. You guys must have iron guts!)

@Elle

Even with grass-fed beef, it still takes a lot more resources, including space -- or do you think that grass-fed beef live in another dimension? One can feed a lot more people by turning grazing land into plant farming land. And if you can grow grass to feed cows, it's very dubious that you couldn't find humane-edible plants that would grow there -- though it does take knowledge of your local terrain and the plants that best can grow there. Just as an example, there have been amazing things done with silviculture on land that doesn't work well with the kind of standard monoculture farming we're used to in the U.S.

Of course, I'm not telling anyone to starve if they truly have no choice and I really don't care much what you do to animals that have died unintentionally, but there is little excuse for most people to eat meat and especially the amounts that many people do. The reason why people in the U.S. and similar countries choose to eat meat is largely taste and, as much as I loved the taste of bacon, I think it's a poor excuse to hurt other animals when we do have other choices. You may call hunting and fishing and buying grass-fed beef "ethical", but no, I don't see it as ethical. I still think it's morally wrong.

"And I'm sure it comes as a comfort to the buffalo to know that you really didn't mean to destroy their habitat. It was just a little oopsie."

I don't have to answer the buffalo. I answer to my conscience. And again, I keep that clear by doing the best I can do and learning from my mistakes. And you have to answer to your conscience. But guess what, since you seem so environmentally-minded, you should know that grass-fed beef is going to take a lot more habitat than my plant-based diet. But then I guess that gives you another excuse to hunt when the wild animals over-populate an area because their territory has been encroached on by cattle farms.

@Robert: "I've never known a vegan that wasn't so goddamned sanctimonious about their beliefs that they'd bend even 1/10th as much as they expect everyone else to do."

Robert, I think you do Meg a disservice. She's explaining her reasons for being a Vegan, meeting strong objections with strong objections of her own, but not (it seems to me) being any more self-righteous about it than the defenders of carnivory. I appreciate her contributions and admire her articulateness even though I do not share her outlook.

Also, here's some food for thought: Americans consume more meat then almost any other country. The planet simply can't sustain everyone eating as much meat as we do

Americans eat more meat because we're rich. Once we pull the third world up to a first world standard of living (or enact statist policies that drag us down to a third world standard of living), economic forces will alter production and/or price. If we can't figure out how to make more of it, we'll eat less.

"but there is little excuse for most people to eat meat"

I don't need an excuse. I eat meat because (a) my body was designed to eat it and (b) I choose to.

As far as the morality and ethics of not eating meat being superior to eating meat, good for you. Jesus thinks you're swell. Just super. Gold stars on your report card and an extra carob snack on Saint Swithen's Day!

I'll take protein-fueled human evolution for 600, Alex. Oooh! The Daily Double!

Do you think more people would want to eat meat if they saw the process? Many people become vegetarians BECAUSE they don't like seeing the process.

Meg, you misunderstood the point of my post. What I said was that I think these people would lose some of their tight-assness about eating meat if they saw the process, not that they would want to eat meat. It certainly doesn't make me want to eat meat. That is, in fact, why I finally gave up the fight and became a vegetarian (whole roasting duck on QVC is what did it for me). But seeing someone eat and enjoy an animal (cold-blooded animal though it may be) I essentially killed is kind of beautiful in a weird way. Circle of life and all that. And seeing the process doesn't turn everyone against eating meat, only those with the proclivity to begin with. Just ask anyone who grew up on a farm. I think losing some of the mystique about where your food comes from would go a long way to reconciling the groups.

Jesus thinks you're swell. Just super. Gold stars on your report card and an extra carob snack on Saint Swithen's Day!

Gog, I hold you personally responsible for the comical Diet Coke spit-take that just occurred.

Elle- glad to have another woman on the board who hunts!

"but I'd turn vegetarian rather than live on venison meatballs." Jody, I should send you some corn-fed venison from these parts (northern IL and southern Wisconsin) It's indistinguishable from beef. I grew up on vile southern venison (woodsy, gamey, blecccch!) so I have a frame of reference. This stuff is better than beef since it's as organic as you're gonna get, and less fat. We use it in fajitas, meatloaf, on nachos, as burgers, stew, stroganoff....kinda gotta, since we got 5 deer last fall. No funky dark flavors lurking. And Flynne's right, add a little pork fat (bacon grease!) and it's NOMS!

"And I'm sure it comes as a comfort to the buffalo to know that you really didn't mean to destroy their habitat."

Well, hello. Time for some consistency.

If you're going to save animals by eating vegan, you should probably think about the habitat destruction you enabled because WalMart was too far away - at three miles - and you had to have one closer. You could name a dozen other ways you've personally contributed to driving animals to death, other than eating them.

You should push for cities to become more compact. Even NYC is more efficient than others a fifth its size because of a lack of sprawl. Oh, yeah, I know you don't know how to do that - but if you're already an advocate for vegetarians, you can learn about some factors in civil engineering. The first thing to learn is that "mitigation" means habitat gets lost anyway after the County Commission gets paid.

Imagine what SF Bay looked like 400 years ago. Or Manhattan.

There's a balance to be had between {strip malls full of fat people at the same ten stores and twenty chain restaurants} and {wilderness}, and we're not there.

Thanks, Axman. That was very nice of you to say. I know I'm far from perfect, but I do try to be respectful and I appreciate others who can respectfully disagree -- and especially those who are willing to treat me as an individual and not just the face of a stereotype. Since becoming a vegan, I've definitely seen the source of stereotypes on both sides and it's been very disheartening in both respects, but I realize that they are just stereotypes and need to be treated as such, not absolute truths that excuse rudeness and name calling.

Elle-it takes about 10 pounds of grain/corn/soybeans to produce one pound of meat, meaning that your argument goes out the window. Sorry. - Posted by: Shannon

Let us assume momentarily that this is true.

Would that not suggest that a human would have to eat 10 pounds of grain/corn/soybeans to gain the nutrition of one pound of meat

Also anyone else find it odd that the vegits and vegans master plan to end animal suffering it to just kill all the herd animals, and any other animals whos' habitiats need to be turned into feilds?

@Radwaste

I think I already covered here how my veganism is consistent. It is a moral decision based on *intentional* action. There is a moral difference for me between intentionally eating or otherwise exploiting animals for pleasure (i.e. taste, fashion, kicks) and indirectly and unintentionally causing harm to animals as part of daily life lived as well as I can manage it.

Important, also, in that distinction is seeing animals as "property". I believe that is morally wrong. While I believe we have a responsibility to care for the animals already here (as well as spay/neuter domesticated animals), I believe it is wrong to breed animals as property for humane use.

My veganism in itself doesn't call me to give up Walmart, etc., so long as I do my best not to intentionally exploit animals (or have them intentionally exploited for me). However, that doesn't mean that I don't care about the environment, too, and wild animals. And I certainly do try to minimize my environmental impact in a number of ways. But, if it came down to it, being vegan comes first for me, before being an environmentalist. Fortunately, that rarely seems to be much of an issue.

Of course, I'm not perfect. And I'm not expecting anyone else to be. But I think it's silly to criticize someone for doing something just because they don't do everything.

Criticize me for what I don't do, sure (though you might not want to make too many assumptions because I might surprise you). But don't criticize me for doing something you aren't even willing to do because you think it's not good enough.

@lujlp

"Would that not suggest that a human would have to eat 10 pounds of grain/corn/soybeans to gain the nutrition of one pound of meat"

Nope, that's not the case at all. "Nutrition" is sort of vague here, but if we're talking about vitamins and minerals specifically then not all of that even goes into the meat. A lot of it gets distributed to other parts of the animal, parts which most people don't eat. Some of the nutrients also get lost because the break down and some just end up being expelled because they weren't needed (or needed anymore) and couldn't be stored. For example, fiber, while great for the health of cows and humans alike, literally goes in one end and out the other. That's why we should eat plants to get fiber in our diets (or take supplements). Vitamin C is also almost impossible to get from animal products unless you're eating parts of animals that the average person doesn't eat. Plus it is easily destroyed by cooking. I'd rather have an orange than raw whale skin any day.

If we talk calories, then that's where the inefficiency shows up the best perhaps. The food that a cow eats isn't all turned into meat, or even other parts of the cow. A lot of it is "burned" as fuel for movement and bodily functions. The by-products are then expelled.

As far as general health goes, the studies are pretty consistent in showing that diets higher in plants and lower in animal products are healthier on many counts. Of course, that isn't to say that one can't eat an unbalanced vegan diet and be very unhealthy as a result, or that one can't be healthy with some animal products in one's diet, but there's definitely plenty of good reasons to eat lots of fruits and vegetables. My husband and I have certainly felt better and been doing better health-wise since going vegan, so it's no surprise to us that many people are choosing to eat a strict vegetarian diet for their own health (though I should note that *just* eating a strict vegetarian diet does not make oneself vegan, something that a lot of people misunderstand).

@NumberSix

"But seeing someone eat and enjoy an animal (cold-blooded animal though it may be) I essentially killed is kind of beautiful in a weird way. Circle of life and all that."

To each their own! Personally, I don't see anything beautiful in someone killing an animal just because it's tasty. I don't have a problem with someone doing it in a *true* survival situation, but it still wouldn't be beautiful -- anymore than a dinner with the Donner party would be "beautiful" (hey, it's still the circle of life!). But you do what you have to do to survive and I'm not going to tell anyone to starve to death.

@Gog

"I don't need an excuse. I eat meat because (a) my body was designed to eat it and (b) I choose to."

FYI, our bodies are a lot more like herbivores than carnivores on many counts, from our teeth to our jaws to our digestive tracts. We have definitely evolved to be omnivore's and I do believe that in some places and times our ancestors would not have survived without eating meat. However, our bodies are hardly "designed to eat it". They seem, at best, to cope with it.

Also, just because you *can* eat something, that doesn't mean that you should, whether for your own health (think fried Oreos, even vegan ones) or for moral reasons. Of course, it wouldn't matter much to me if meat-eating even to epic proportions was 100% natural and healthy and environmentally friendly. I still think it's wrong (same goes for eating eggs, drinking milk, dog fights, breeding pets, and buying leather shoes, for what it's worth).

But I think we both know that, bottom line, you do just "choose" to eat animals because you like it. And that is your choice. It's one I can understand pretty well, even, because I wasn't always vegan. Bacon is yummy, no doubt about it. But I just don't think it's a good, moral choice if you have a vegan option.

For what it's worth, it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person in my eyes (I try not to judge people too much, but when I do I certainly don't base it on one issue). But that doesn't mean that I agree with it, either. You probably wouldn't think all my choices were moral if you saw a list of them all. But I try to do what I think is right and I hope you try to do what you think is right, even if we disagree about what is "right".

"As far as the morality and ethics of not eating meat being superior to eating meat, good for you. Jesus thinks you're swell. Just super. Gold stars on your report card and an extra carob snack on Saint Swithen's Day!

why, thank you. *blushing*

Meg, you're parroting all of the "talking points" of militant veganism.

We are not "more like herbivores." We are Omnivores. We have incisors in our teeth and hydrochloric acid in our bellies - physiological features found ONLY in Omnivorous and Carnivorous species.

The land used for grazing ruminants is land that is typically not suitable for crop farming. Hillsides and steppes are all perfectly suitable for sustainable farming of cows, buffalo, goats, pigs and chickens.

Also, mono-crop agriculture is far more environmentally destructive than even CAFO feedlots.

You should seriously read Lierre Kieth's Vegetarian Myths.

She was a 20 year vegan who went omnivorous because veganism destroyed her health.

"We've got about 4 billion people too many."

Most people won't admit this. Being labeled a misanthrope is too scary!

There are some hog confinements here in Iowa - every year the Ragbrai route seems to take us past one. It's nearly intolerable - like you aren't already huffing and puffing to make it up that big hill without the stench. So it's 'Ewww! Pigs stink!' from some New Yorker. Yeah, they do, when they're forced to live in close quarters like that. They're doing it for YOU, toots, so you can eat bacon! We'd stink, too! I feel nothing but pity for any animal that has to spend its days that way.

Meg, again, you're either not reading my entire post or you're misunderstanding me. I don't kill and eat animals because they're tasty. I don't eat animals at all. And I haven't fished since I became a vegetarian (not because of that, but I haven't been a camp counselor for ten years). I have to flip the channel when someone fillets a fish or cuts up a whole chicken on the Food Network. I do not think the actual act is beautiful in any way. What I do think is beautiful is that one species directly contributes to the sustenance of another. I choose not to eat animals because meat makes me ill, but that choice is mine alone. I do not see why people want to villify those who don't make that choice, even if they don't need the meat to keep from starving to death.

We have incisors in our teeth and hydrochloric acid in our bellies - physiological features found ONLY in Omnivorous and Carnivorous species.

Beat me to it, Dave. I always wonder why people want to use the argument that "our teeth show that we're not meant to eat meat," when it is, in fact, not true. We have teeth for tearing meat and teeth for grinding plants. We have a chemical in our stomachs needed for digesting meat. Seems pretty obvious to me (admittedly a nonexpert) that humans are meant to eat plants and animals.

@NumberSix

I don't think I ever implied that you weren't a vegetarian, but if I did, I apologize for confusing you with someone else.

@NumberSix @Dave

Herbivores have incisors, too. You might want to just google that. Not sure why you'd think otherwise. And our stomach acids are much weaker than carnivores.

But again, I never said that we weren't omnivores, only that overall we're much closer to herbivores than carnivores.

Anyhow, as omnivores, we have a CHOICE. That's the important part. And since we have a choice (most of us, at least), that's why it's our responsibility to make it a better choice.

@Dave

"Militant" veganism, huh? And just how do you define "militant"? I don't consider myself very militant. Kind of a live and let live person, bit of a pacifist, generally try to *not* harm others -- isn't that sort of the opposite of militant? I know some people are bit more vocal than I am, but I've yet to meet one of these "militant" vegans that everyone keeps talking about. Do they suicide bomb steakhouses or something? Or is the worst thing a (supposed) vegan has done is pie someone in the face? Of course, there are some animal rights people who do get more than a bit carried away, but a lot of them don't even seem to be vegan. Even if they are they are definitely in the minority of vegans -- which fortunately makes them a VERY small minority.

Or, are these "talking points of militant veganism" I keep repeating just, oh, I don't know, the basic argument of veganism, period? If so, then you're basically criticizing me for being vegan. O.k., you disagree with veganism, I got that, no need to bring out the "militant" card.

By the way, hillsides and steppes can be used for crop farming if necessary. People have been doing it for ages. No, it doesn't respond well to mono-crop agriculture and yes, there are many problems with mono-crop agriculture, but since when does veganism = mono-crop agriculture? And who says we even NEED to farm every last bit of land? If we'd stop turning perfectly good crop land into grazing land then we'd already feed a lot more people, if needed (not that food shortage is a huge problem here in the U.S.). In any case, that doesn't change my position that unnecessarily and intentionally harming animals for taste is bad.

And yes, I'm familiar with Kieth's work and I find her arguments poor and based on false choices (grass-fed animals vs. mono-culture crops), as well as missing the point of veganism (arguing for the environment but missing the moral argument). Sounds a bit like your arguments, since we're talking about "parroting talking points".

But to be clear, IF her spinal disorder (or whatever else she has) is diet related, then SHE destroyed her health, not veganism. One can definitely eat a healthy, balanced vegan diet but that doesn't mean that all vegans do. So, if some people don't do their homework and make sure they're eating a balanced diet (and yes, taking vegan supplements as needed) then it's no surprise that they'd have problems -- any more than it'd be a surprise when someone who ate nothing but chicken wings had health problems.

This article reminds me of a shirt I own. It says: "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three."

You can find the article that inspired the shirt as well as a link to buy one here: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Meg, it wasn't that you implied I wasn't a vegetarian. I couldn't give less of a flip about that.

To each their own! Personally, I don't see anything beautiful in someone killing an animal just because it's tasty. I don't have a problem with someone doing it in a *true* survival situation, but it still wouldn't be beautiful -- anymore than a dinner with the Donner party would be "beautiful" (hey, it's still the circle of life!). But you do what you have to do to survive and I'm not going to tell anyone to starve to death.

My point was that I don't think it's beautiful that people kill animals. Nothing about the process of killing and preparing animals is the least bit attractive. I think it's beautiful that one species directly contributes to the sustenance of another. I've heard that sentence somewhere before...oh, yes, it was in my earlier post, verbatim.

Herbivores have incisors, too. You might want to just google that. Not sure why you'd think otherwise. And our stomach acids are much weaker than carnivores.

You're right, I should have clarified when I quoted Dave's comment. Herbivores do have incisors (for tearing grass and plants), but they have poorly-developed or missing canines, which are used for weapons and tearing food apart. Since herbivores do not have them, this means that they are better used for tearing meat and herbivores use their incisors for tearing plants.
Carnivores do have about ten times the concentration of HCl in their stomachs compared to omnivores and herbivores. But you agree that humans are omnivores, so I'm not sure what your point is. We don't need highly concentrated HCl to digest all our food, as a good deal of it comes from plants. The drawback is that most of our meat must be cooked before we can properly digest it.

only that overall we're much closer to herbivores than carnivores.

Examples, please, and be specific. Also, please explain what constitutes "much closer" in terms of herbivores and carnivores. I would think all omnivores are somewhere on a spectrum.

And since we have a choice (most of us, at least), that's why it's our responsibility to make it a better choice.

"Our responsibility?" You are including all humans in your choice of diet? I've said this on this site before, but I have friends that I routinely eat with that actually forget that I'm a vegetarian. You know why? Because I don't tell them they should be eating like I do, and I don't whine about my diet like some vegetarians and vegans. It's no one's responsibility but my own what I eat. It's no one else's issue. I haven't even told you that you should be eating meat, because that would be hypocritical of me. It's one thing to think that everyone should only eat meat that comes from reputable, cruelty-free sources (free-range chicken and the like); it's quite another to think that everyone should give up meat entirely. You say that, as omnivores, we have a choice, but you seem to want to make it for everyone else.

Mike: I hereby sign over my share of animals to you. Enjoy.

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?

Lisa: No.

Homer: Ham?

Lisa: No.

Homer: Pork chops?

Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.

Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

"Carnivores do have about ten times the concentration of HCl in their stomachs compared to omnivores and herbivores."

Virtually all the arguments that attempt to support the idea that people ought to be vegetarian by nature by comparing human teeth & digestive systems with that of other animals overlook some enormous differences between hominids and every other critter on the planet. We use fire and create sophisticated tools....and our ancestors have been doing so for over a million years.

Our digestive system has evolved to eat _cooked_ food. And things other apex predators must do with tooth & claw, our ancestors have been doing with flint knives, scrapers and hammers. When it comes to diet, we are sui generis, and direct comparison of our teeth and stomach acid with other critters to determine what diet humans are "intended" to eat is pretty much a waste of time.

Our bodies are like herbivores?

What ARE you smoking?

Our teeth, the first thing you mention, look in the mirror. See those unique ones? Those are called canines, and they are used to rip meat from bone.

Need more evidence? Lets look at the human body itself. We are nature's ultimate super predator. Our ancestors hunted massive prey in groups, using bodies not different than our own, adult males are capable of running down deer or even horses over distances. A trained human can literally run all day long, pursuing prey until it drops from exhaustion, moreover, evidence of humans devouring other animals dates back as early as the human record itself does, indeed that is some of the best first evidence of human activity, consumption of animals and/or the existance of tools designed solely for that purpose. We are built just like predators, in such a way that we can match and surpass our prey.

We are right to place ourselves at the top of the food chain, as even 10 year old boys are capable of killing lions. Vegans, and to a lesser extent vegetarians, and in all fairness most people today, have really forgotten just what our bodies are capable of doing, largely because we don't do much of it any more in our country. Anyway, before I get off track, my point here is that we are simply not shaped as herbivores in any capacity. Omnivores certainly, creatures constantly on the move have a better shot at survival if they are not reliant upon a single source of food. But there is a reason that the hunter and the animal is painted upon cave walls, and not the carrot.

If you truly doubt this, then try living as our ancestors did for a week. No meat though. Walking endlessly on a search for food, burning calorie after calorie with constant movement, and rely solely upon the plants you come across for sustenance. Unless you wandered onto a farm during that time, what you find growing in the wild won't keep you going very well, if you should even be lucky enough to survive on such a restrictive diet. That is why nature gave humans the instinctive desire to consume the flesh of beasts.

The eating of meat is instinct, refusal to do so is a conscious choice...a choice I might add, that is both self decieving in the belief that it means less harm to animals or the environment (unless you grow food yourself on your own land), and is only even possible because of the diverse number of imports that come from around the country, providing food stuffs that would not otherwise be available, or is grown locally only because of pesticide and climate controlled environments.

In short, you can make your "moral" choice, solely because modern society makes it possible. Your "moral" choice, is entirely unnatural, and no less damaging to the environment, animal habitats, and animals themselves, than the lifestyle you avoid.

Your "moral" choice of veganism, is nothing but a modern convenience. Its your right to embrace it of course, myself I have no illusions that life in ancient times was anything but nasty, brutish, and short, and I'm happy we have all these fine options when it comes to how we eat. Hell when so much of the world goes hungry, we should count ourselves lucky to have so many options that we can actually project some morals into which choices we make.

The only thing I truly want to get across is how contrarian your lifestyle choice is to what nature actually shaped people for, and what kind of damage is actually done by your choices. No I'm not saying there is any choice that isn't destructive in any way. There is no such thing as a perfect solution...yet, but self deception renamed as a moral code is, well lets just say not good.

(by the by, I wasn't intending to imply YOU personally are so sanctimonious, I was refering to people I've actually known face to face in the past, I should have been clear on that point, my fault)

Meg, I've always wondered, what do committed vegans do about pest control? Mice? Roaches?

@NumberSix

""Our responsibility?" You are including all humans in your choice of diet?"

To clarify, I believe that whenever we have the privilege of just about ANY choice that we have a responsibility to make the best one we know how to based on our knowledge, our capabilities, and our conscience. Choosing what to eat is no different. And yes, of course, ideally I'd like to see everyone go vegan -- and that is not just a diet choice, fyi. Why wouldn't I since I think that's more moral? But of course I'm realistic and don't see that happening in my lifetime -- though some people have really surprised me. Still, I'm not going to go around ripping hamburgers out of people's mouths. For the most part, I'm content to just live my life the best I can and hope that I set a good example. It usually only when people take a stab at vegans that I speak out so much, mostly in the attempt to clear up misinformation and misperceptions, and that happens with almost surprisingly regularity these days.

Now, for the herbivore/omnivore/carnivore debate here...

@Robert

Again, we're omnivores. I don't debate that. But compared to carnivores our canines are...well...kind of pathetic. They really aren't that different from the teeth of some herbivores and calling them "canines" is, well, kind of funny to me. But, it should be pointed out that canine animals themselves come from an omnivore family along with bears. And while wild dogs do mostly eat meat, dogs are perfectly find on a vegan diet (but not usually cats, who are obligate carnivores). And dogs, like bears, will eat just about anything edible you put in front of them.

Also, if you look to our primate cousins the chimps you'll find even longer canines, this despite the fact that they do not use them to tear a lot of meat at all. The teeth are used for defense (like between males sparring) and for tearing open fruit. Of course they do eat some meat, but it's about 3% of their diet. Now, think about how the average American's diet would be different if it were only 3% meat.

As far as other differences, the longer digestive track, that are jaws are capable of grinding food back and forth, our molars, weaker stomach acid, our lack of claws. These seem to indicate that while, thanks to our ingenuity, that we can and do eat meat, that it's not meant to be our primary food and that a diet of large amounts of meat and low amounts of plant material is more of a survival diet than a healthy one (not to mention that societies with the most meat consumption tend to live shorter lives than those that eat more plants). And, indeed, we can usually live without it pretty easily today.

So, my position is that if we can (and most of us can), then we should. And yes, I do feel lucky to have the privilege of choice. I understand very well that was not always the case -- and still isn't the case in some areas. But I believe choices come with a responsibility. And we don't have to follow what we think nature "shaped" us for. In many cases we shouldn't. There are many things that are perfectly natural that we (generally speaking) don't consider moral, such as rape.

Fyi, I'm also quite familiar with wild plants, particularly the ones in my local area (as they are often quite tasty and I like free food). Wild tubers were a great source of calories to ancient man (and modern man still enjoys a variety of high calorie tubers). Learning how to cook foods not only enabled us to eat more meat, it also enabled us to eat more tubers.

As far as "contrarian", how natural is most people's diets in the U.S.? But I don't see a problem in unnatural diets per se, I see a problem in immoral, unhealthy ones. I'm fine with being "contrarian". There are a lot of things that are "normal" that I want no part of and I'm glad for A LOT of modern conveniences despite the fact that some of my friends probably see me as "the primitivist" in the group (yes, I know the irony, and I'm under no illusion that my lifestyle is very primitive, just in comparison to theirs). Show me what damage I do that's so great so that I can avoid it. Is it greater than the average American's? I know no diet is without drawbacks, but I'd wager it's a lot less. I can't say for certainty that no animals were harmed to get me my lunch yesterday, but roots and greens were all hand-foraged. That vegetable oil, though...well, it's a killer. Should have just steamed it, I guess.

Anyhow, thanks for implying that I'm not sanctimonious, I guess? I can deal with just "contrarian", lol. I do hope that I don't come of as too sanctimonious. I really do understand that not everyone has the choices I do and I also don't see this as the only issue to judge people by (so, no, I don't think I'm a superior human being to all the non-vegans out there, but I am trying to be a better person today than I was yesterday and so on in many ways). It does hurt, though, when people make blanket statements about vegans that are, well, meant to be insults. I hope I've dispelled some stereotypes here, but if I haven't I still hope that people won't judge all vegans based on me (either way) because I am just an individual and, goodness knows, there are A LOT of vegans who disagree with me about A LOT of different things. The broadness of the vegan political spectrum has been especially surprising to me considering how strong the stereotype is that we're all liberal hippies or something -- not so, it turns out.

@lujlp

Thanks for the comic relief! I was just rewatching that episode the other night, showing it to my husband since he's only seen a few Simpson's episodes. I loved that episode even before I went vegan. I used to have a .wav file of that exchange on an old personal website of mine. I guess I always knew I'd end up as a vegetarian, lol!

@Amy, everyone

Finally, I just want to say thanks for having what has been a pretty good discussion here and remarkably civil. Thanks for not moderating/censoring my comments. I've had some really bad experiences since becoming vegan with just...well, really nasty hostility, online and offline, too. They say the hardest part of going vegan is interacting with other people and I've certainly seen why (and no, one doesn't have to be an in-your-face "meat is murder" kind of vegan to feel the backlash).

Recently a post of mine in a thread on veganism was censored by a blogger and grossly mischaracterized and I was called very nasty names that I won't repeat -- all for, apparently, calling the author of the blog a blogger (after she herself called herself a blogger and no it wasn't an insult as I've been a blogger and have nothing against bloggers). I hope that I have been respectful here considering that we obviously share many different opinions on the subject.

Anyhow, it's refreshing to find a group of people online who are willing to hear me out and not just personally attack me. Thanks!

I know a vegitarian(who eats fish), sees them as a hygine issue.

Though she did buy glue traps, as they were not a 'creul' as the snap traps.

You should hve seen the look of horror on her face when I asked how it was more humane to trap mice on a sheet of glue for them to starve to death while attempting to gnaw off stuck limbs, as opposed to a trap that sattered their entire bodies killing them instantly

Meg, keep in mind that the biggest reason why meat is only a tiny part of the chimpanzee diet is because chimpanzees are lousy hunters. Our human ancestors, on the other hand, were fantastically good hunters, as Robert pointed out. They were so good at it, and it came so naturally to them, that they successfully competed with the likes of saber-tooth tigers, cave lions & dire wolves for the very top of the food chain & the biggest of big game.

Gorillas subsist on an all-plant diet, but they pay a very high price for it. The leaves & other plant matter that surround them in the jungle are so low in digestible nutrients that gorillas are forced to spend most of their waking hours eating. If our ancestors had to do that, they would never have become human in the first place. The essential role of the hunt in our biological & cultural evolution (think cave paintings, bone & ivory artwork, etc) can't be dismissed.

I'm Canadian. Canada's boreal forest is part of the biggest forest on earth, wrapping all the way around the top of the planet. A vegan who got lost in the middle of that forest even in summer (never mind winter) would have hardly a chance in hell of finding enough edible vegetation to keep from starving. That's just to emphasize the point that most of the planet's plant matter is indigestible, toxic, or very low in nutrients. Try eating a tree! Or grazing on a field of grass.

I'm not arguing with your personal choice, just saying that you're on thin ice if you're claiming that the only reason people eat meat is because they can.

@lujlp

By definition, vegetarians don't eat fish. So, at best you have a friend who claims to be a vegetarian -- for what reason, I don't know, but it seems pretty conflicted to me. Maybe your friend things that the label "vegetarian" is just so cool, I don't know, but then I've never claimed to get people like that. So, no, I'm not surprised that she'd have some rather hypocritical or just illogical beliefs.

Personally, I'd use a humane trap in that situation and check it often, but the best thing to do -- when and as possible -- is to work on prevention of pest problems by sealing holes and not leaving food out where they can get to it. If all else fails, though, and it comes down to them or my food, I have no moral problem killing pests like bugs. I consider food preservation a necessity and killing bugs is not something that I do for the "pleasure" of it.

But generally I do try to spare their lives as possible, particularly those that don't intend to feed off of me. My husband has been watering the beginning of a wasp's nest to discourage them from nesting on our door (looks like it has worked, too) and today I was able to help a gnat find its way out. This may seem silly to some people but I personally find it a good exercise in compassion and being merciful is its own reward.

@Martin

"...you're on thin ice if you're claiming that the only reason people eat meat is because they can."

Where did I claim that? I think I've made it very clear that people in many places and times have relied on meat (and other animal products) as a survival food -- and that's not something I have a big issue with. I'm not asking anyone to starve themselves. I think it's silly to judge people's choices when they don't have any (unless you count dying a choice). It's better to work towards giving them more choices -- and showing them what choices they do have. I try to do both. For example, it is astounding to me how many people believe that they MUST have dairy foods to be healthy. The dairy industry must love that!

My issue is with people who do have choices, know their choices, and decide to intentionally and knowingly kill or otherwise harm animals for pleasure, whether that's for taste, fashion, or entertainment. Interestingly, I don't see a lot of people directly questioning that (and maybe that is something we just have to agree to disagree about). They seem to be more interested in questioning claims that I have not made. But that's getting kind of old, to be honest.

"We've got about 4 billion people too many."

Every one of them thinks the unnecessary ones are somebody else.

On a related note, I'm perfectly willing to give up Al Gore's carbon footprint.

Meg: I also don't understand people who claim to be vegetarian eating fish. I've asked people before, and apparently it's a cold-blooded vs. warm-blooded issue. Which I think is code for "I only refuse to eat cuddly animals." Fish is still an animal that must be dead before eating, which is all the definition I need. I've also met people who call themselves vegetarians who I've seen eat chicken. They tell me they just don't eat red meat. I tell them that they're not vegetarians. The title of "vegetarian" certainly has more clout than it did twenty years ago, when anyone who said they were one was automatically put into the "aging hippie" camp. People who love to claim labels for themselves amuse me. You certainly don't seem to be one of those who tout themselves as vegan because it's trendy. You have well thought-out opinions and reasons to support your choices, which is more than I can say about many vegetarians/vegans on the internet. And what I like about this particular blog is that you have to be pretty egregiously awful in your posts to get deleted here. How awful that it happened to you on another site just because someone disagreed with you. Someone obviously afraid of healthy debate.

Thanks, NumberSix!

Yes, I find it quite amusing as well, in a sad way. It sort of reminds me of those kids who were wearing Che Guevara shirts a few years back because they were super trendy. And yeah, I'm sure a few did know who he was, but none of the ones I asked had a clue!

Funny that vegetarianism is suddenly trendy! I guess that's not a bad thing, but when people water down definitions it gets annoying -- especially when being presented with vegetarian/vegan food that isn't because, "Well, my niece is vegetarian and SHE eats chicken!" Ugh! And it's one thing to have to explain what "vegan" means, it's another thing to have to explain it AND try to undo all the misconceptions (like about it just being a diet or it not having much if anything to do with animal exploitation).

You're so right about the cute and cuddly part! My husband and I were talking recently about "dolphin-safe" tuna. Umm...it wasn't very safe for the tuna! And people who have no problem with wearing cow skin protesting people (usually women) wearing fox fur just...well...it does seem pretty hypocritical.

My husband and I also joke that veganism is trendy because of me. No, I don't really think I have that much control over things, but I have this weird habit of doing things that are usually pretty "out there" by most accounts and then a few months later they're trendy. Like, pre-vegan, we got chickens and not backyard chickens is THE thing and we're seeing them a lot around here. Heck, we have neighbors with EMUS! It even happens with clothes, lol. I'd look and look for some non-trend item and then next seen I'd be sick of it and it'd be trendy. I'm running out of ways to be weird and contrarian ;)

What's good on fish? Anything that makes it not taste like fish. -Jim Gaffigan

Would a vegan eat pot brownies? Chocolate=plant, flour=plant, sugar=plant, vegetable oil=plant, butter=animal, milk=animal, yeast=bacteria.

I'd really like to know the answer to this. Or maybe someone could ask Jodie Foster, didn't she go to Vega in Contact?

Everyon makes that mistake sterling, Vega has no life its justa hub in the galaxys wormhole system

People have choices, but the earth's arable land is finite. When a forest is cut down or a grassland is plowed to grow organic crops, irreplaceable habitat for wild animals is lost. It's lost just as surely as if that forest or field was paved over & turned into a subdivision. And the animals that lived there will suffer & die in huge numbers. They can't just saunter off to some other habitat, not on a planet with 6 billion + people, and not when whatever wild habitat remains is fully occupied by it's own resident wildlife. I've had more than one vegan tell me that people who don't hunt their own meat are cowardly hypocrites who put the suffering of animals out of sight & out of mind because they get others to do their dirty work for them. It never occurs to them that they are guilty of the same thing when they ignore the suffering & death of animals displaced by cropland. And no, that suffering & death is not "indirect" or "unintentional". Clearing farmland is very direct, very intentional, and has brutal consequences.

As I see it, the ethical conundrum for the 21st century is this: Somehow, we have to provide enough food for a population rapidly growing toward 8 or 9 billion, while at the same time preserving as much of whatever wildlife habitat remains as possible. Anything that helps us in this regard is good. Don't forget why so many animals were domesticated by our Stone Age ancestors in the first place - because of the efficiency that they made possible. Cows ate grass, goats & pigs ate thorns & twigs or just about anything, converting it into nutritious, protein-rich meat. When people discovered that domesticated animals could turn the indigestible into the delicious, our species took a huge step forward. Making use of this way in which natural but unpalatable vegetation can be converted into high-quality food for people ought to be considered as part of the solution to our agricultural dilemma.

Heck, we have neighbors with EMUS!

The people who live across the street from me have emus. My house is on the outside of my neighborhood and my bedroom faces the highway with their house directly across the street. I have come to the conclusion that emus may be one of the more annoying species on the planet. I have no idea why they have them, because they don't have enough to be raising for meat. I think they just like animals, because they have a few horses and a donkey that also do nothing for them commercially. The donkey will bray (or whatever it is donkeys do) about 2 a.m., which sets the emus off to honking, which makes the donkey go even more crazy. Luckily it's not prolonged, but I'm in the worst area of my subdivision to hear the braying and honking.

Emu tastes all right, but buffalo tastes delicious

Ground meat is the crap not god enough to steaks.

Its the harder muscle rom around joints and chunks of fat for filler.

Quite frankly I can bearly stomach store bought meat or eggs ater raisng my own livestock

Hmmm, maybe fresh, but the buffalo burgers at Trader Joe's taste like homeless people's feet.

Not having eaten a homeless person's feet, I'll take your word on that.

"But there is a reason that the hunter and the animal is painted upon cave walls, and not the carrot."

Marvelous idea.

Is there a correlation between {vegetarian} and {denial of human predator status}?

There don't seem to be very many carnivores clamoring for clemency for murderers, not many vegetarian police officers, etc.

How many vegetarians get concealed carry firearms permits, or advanced self-defense training?

How many started as vegetarians because they hate themselves, or making the hard choices, even symbolically?

Now, I'm not talking about diet. You want to know what you should be eating, just get old enough to see a proctologist and he'll explain things with a knowing smile: you don't eat enough vegetables, don't drink enough water, far too much sugar, and that's the major reason you feel like hell, have 'roids, are too fat and develop gastric distress of all kinds. It's the same thing Amy's guy Taube says. That part is simple. I want to know about the psyche.

You're out of food. There's a chicken outside. Gonna die first?

I may skew your sample, Rad, but if you scroll up and read my comments on this thread (and a couple others), you'll see my stance on vegetarianism: I don't like meat. I don't know if I'm in the majority or minority when compared to other vegetarians, but I don't live a "vegetarian lifestyle," nor do I have any interest in doing so. Frankly, the people who tell me I should get on my nerves. Oddly enough, I've been preached to by people who I have eaten with who didn't notice I was a vegetarian. My mom said recently that I was born a vegetarian, because I hated the meat baby foods and it was always a struggle to get me to eat meat when I was a kid. You could put nearly any vegetable in front of me and I'd eat it (I was the only kid in my elementary school who admitted liking Brussels sprouts), but I never liked eating meat. Mine is not a symbolic gesture, nor really a gesture of any kind. It's a taste preference.

How many started as vegetarians because they hate themselves, or making the hard choices, even symbolically?

Oft wondered that myself. Maybe some people can't handle the responsibility that comes with being at the top of the food chain.

Luckily the long nightmare known as the Grandmole administration is almost at a end.
However, the damage caused by her will linger and the Detroit voting base will give us another of her ilk.