Eating at the Fair

The Minnesota State Fair is something like a vegetarian paradise. I do not say it is a vegan paradise (though there are options around), I do not say it is a healthy eater's paradise (though if you made the effort, you could eat healthy), and I certainly don't say it is an animal rights advocate's paradise (in fact the exploitation of animals is displayed and celebrated).

But one of the laments of vegetarians when out and about is limited options. You can find yourself in situations where your options are very limited (I've been in restaurants for social reasons where my choices were pretty much between two appetizers). The outlandish variety of food available at the State Fair includes an outlandish variety of vegetarian-friendly food.

My recommendation for fair eating is to find somebody you can share food with. This allows you a much greater variety of foods to eat without completely gorging yourself and without completely ungorging your wallet.

this blog is the best* *source: this blog

Have you seen that commercial for a Dutch Boy paint that apparently eliminates odors? The commercial claims that 64% of people fail to notice odors in their own home. If you look at the fine print on the commercial, you'll find the source of that statistic: Dutch Boy Paints.

I'm a little curious first about the method Dutch Boy used to determine this. Did they send in a group of people to smell a house, have that group arrive at a (somewhat subjective) consensus about the nature of the odor, then ask the owner of the house whether he/she smells anything? I'm also a little suspicious of the 64% number since, oh, that works out to 16 out of 25 people. Could Dutch Boy provide some more data on how they arrived at this number? Exactly how large was the sample size?

Either way, to sell paint, Dutch Boy cites a statistic, then cites itself as the source of that statistic. Well done.

On the end of August

For many, the end of August is the end of something. But I feel the sense of new things beginning. It signals the beginning of a new academic year, which I still have enthusiasm for: it feels fresh and exciting. It signals the beginning of a new football season, which is of course a thrill. And it signals the turning of the season, the beginning of Autumn weather, which I also like.

At the end of August I don't feel a sense of ending; I feel the rush of something new beginning.

On "Bridezillas"

I've never really cared much for Reality Television, but recently I've started to see the appeal. And here it is:

You get to watch irrational people behaving irrationally.

That's it: that's the pleasure. Most of reality TV is still, to me, pretty boring. But when irrational people start behaving against all reason, reacting to events without any sense of proportion or sense, then that's fun to watch. Perhaps I'm an overly reasonable person, because I can't help being amazed and entertained by the unreasonable words and actions of unreasonable people (as long as they have the distance of television). And I don't consider that a guilty pleasure, because in this life, the only pleasures we should feel guilty about are those that harm others.

However, I'm not sure I should enjoy watching Bridezillas. Certainly, I get to watch irrational people behaving irrationally. But I'm very interested in gender representations in popular culture, and I think this show may perpetuate several negative stereotypes of women, specifically:

Women are overbearing shrews who domineer their husbands.

Women are selfish narcissists caring only for themselves and their desires.

Women are overemotional and react to minor setbacks with either yelling or tears.

That actually makes me feel a little guilty. I may be watching a sexist show that asks its audience to laugh at stereotypical portrayals of women behaving badly.

On Necessity and Animal Consumption

In a New York Times conversation, Gail Collins brings up the suffering of pigs on factory farms. Ross Douthat responds:

"I’m a unapologetic species-ist: I reject Peter Singer and all his works."

Since Douthat claims to be a speciesist, it is difficult to argue the morality of our treatment of animals with him.* I can, however, argue with his logic. He writes:

"I would leave a thousand pigs to die in conditions of absolute misery to save a single human infant."

OK, that’s what one would expect from a speciesist. However, how many pigs would Douthat let die for one human being’s pleasure? Because when we talk about animal consumption in the modern developed world, that’s what we’re talking about. Individuals don’t eat meat to survive, but because they think the flesh of dead animals tastes good. When we’re talking about animals consumption, we’re not measuring the life of an animal against the life of a human. We’re measuring the life of an animal against the pleasure of a human. If you choose to eat meat, your pleasure is more important to you than the life of an animal.

Douthat also claims to be "susceptible" to arguments like that of

"an American farmer, which defends modern agriculture on the grounds of human welfare: 'We have to farm "industrially,"' he writes, if we hope 'to feed the world.'"

According to Marc Bekoff in Animals Matter,

"It takes about 16 pounds of grain to make a pound of beef."

Bekoff also writes that

"it takes about nine acres of farmland a year to produce the meat that one person eats. By comparison, a person who does not eat meat can be supported by only half an acre necessary to grow plant food for a year. Twenty vegetarians could live for a year on the amount of grains needed to provide meat for just one meat eater!"

Even if you dispute Bekoff's specific numbers, you can recognize the logic: it doesn't make sense to use land and resources to create food to filter it through animals to create less food. If your concern is actually to feed the world, then it is more efficient to feed the world plants.

Douthat justifies poor treatment of animals on the grounds that human life is more valuable than animal life (or more specifically, that the value of human life is absolute and the value of animal life is not). His defense of poor treatment of animals is a familiar switch 'em change-o: instead of making an argument defending killing animals for pleasure, he makes an argument defending killing animals for necessity. In doing so, he hasn't actually addressed Collins' claim that

"We should channel some of our concern for dogs and cats toward factory farms that keep masses of animals in a state of permanent discomfort until they’re slaughtered."

He just thinks he has.

*Though I might ask a question about the morality of our treatment of other humans. Douthat writes

"I think that the value of animal lives is contingent and the value of human lives absolute."

Can a war supporter really claim that the value human life is absolute? War always makes life contingent, relative. The war supporter claims that one group of people or type of people can be killed for the sake of something else. There’s really no getting around this: the logic of war says that there are some reasons for which some people may be killed (and modern warfare often means the people being killed are civilians). Doesn't the claim that "the value of human lives is absolute" contradict the support of a war, which claims that there is sometimes reason enough to take human life (even the claim that killing in war will save other lives denies the absolute value of human life, because the lives of some are measured against the lives of others)?

Brett Favre!

I've been blogging the hell out of the Vikings' new quarterback at Pacifist Viking.

FREAK! HIPPIE! FREAK! GET A HAIRCUT! FREAK!

According to Victoria Lowe at Yahoo!,

"Unless you're living a seriously alternative lifestyle, you've probably been communicating via text for a while now."