John C. Wright Gets to Say Who Is and Who Is Not Brilliant

I copied and pasted my previous post verbatim to the comments of Marc Barnes' hilarious article about Vegans for Meat Catholics for Choice President Jon O'Brien's piece on the Huffington Post which my previous post was an all-too-easy parody of (50 internets if you can diagram that sentence including this parenthetical remark). I checked back today to find that, not only had it been voted the top comment, but a hero of this blog had also commented on it!

Nobody Gets to Say Who Is and Who Is Not Vegan

Hugh Jass
President, Vegans for Meat

My organization, Vegans for Meat was the subject of a bizarre attack from the United States Vegan Council (USVC) this week.

Ms. Cary Ann Schmaltz, the director of media relations for the USVC, took to her blog in a pathetic attempt to discredit VFM as a legitimate voice for vegans in the United States. She expressed concern that "sleepy editors" or "inexperienced journalists" would be taken in by us, simply because we describe ourselves as vegans. She said that we are not vegans and we don't know veganism. Schmaltz is sadly wrong on both counts. Any cursory visit to VFM's website will give a reader the opportunity to learn more about vegan practices and healthy eating than would a visit to many other vegan websites. And as to my veganism, perhaps I'll send her copy of my last grocery store receipt, though I doubt she'd be appeased.

But this is not just about VFM. It's about Schmaltz presenting herself as the arbiter of who's a vegan. It's kind of like letting the Tea Party decide who's American, isn't it? Just like them, Schmaltz doesn't let the facts get in the way of her message. With her ham-fisted blog, Schmaltz insults the hundreds of groups and millions of vegans who choose to remain vegan while raising legitimate voices in support of eating meat.

Her appeal to guarding the "brand" of veganism is simply crass. Veganism is not Apple or Google, global corporations that zealously police the use of their brand, siccing corporate lawyers on anybody who dares use their name in vain. The USVC's brand control over individuals ends the minute a person begins eating. From that point forward, we have the right -- and the responsibility -- to speak as vegans on matters of health, including those that involve meat, eggs, and other animal products. Understandably, this makes Schmaltz and her bosses nervous because all too often, the leaders of the USVC haven't said or done the right thing on these issues.

We base our support for eating meat on the long-standing traditions within veganism. We are part of the great majority who believe that the teaching on the primacy of appetite means that every individual must follow his or her own taste buds -- and respect the rights of others to do the same. As vegans we take seriously our obligations to know and thoughtfully consider vegan practices. And in coming to our positions on eating meat, animal products and other issues we have done so, and continue to do so. We didn't make this up. We've got vegetarians, carnivores, omnivores and millions of vegans on our side.

As somebody intimately familiar with the ways of veganism, Ms. Cary Ann knows that nobody gets to say who is and who is not a vegan. Not the cooks, not the chefs, and not the food critics. One is a vegan after eating a vegetable. Period. She might have her own opinions about who is a healthy vegan or an unhealthy vegan, but her claims that we aren't vegans need some fact-checking.

The good ma'am may be jealous of the media attention we get. She may be upset at the quality of our arguments. She may find the statistics that we use disconcerting. I would, if I were her, as they show that the positions taken by the USVC have been resoundingly rejected by ordinary vegans. But it's interesting that she chose not to, or more likely couldn't, address the basis of our arguments. So she resorts to demonizing us. 

Ms. Cary Ann's rant was addressed to the new public editor at the New York Times, Maggie Sullen. It seems that she thinks that a senior editor at the Times will be intimidated into ignoring the legitimate and widely supported arguments of those who are not granted the USVC's blessing. We know that we speak for the majority of vegans. And we are happy to continue to forge our path, knowing that it is one that will be well-traveled by our fellow vegans for meat.

As to Ms. Sullen, and her many fine colleagues in the Fourth Estate, I am pretty sure they know that if they want the USVC's opinion on something, they can give Ms. Cary Ann a call. But when they want to know what vegans think, they know to call somebody else. VFM will always be happy to take that call.

It's almost painful how little I had to change. Arguably this version makes more sense.

Best. Prayer. Ever.

Came across this today on a comment on Catholic Memes:

Oremus.
Benedic, Domine, creaturam istam cerevisiae, quam ex adipe frumenti producere dignatus es: ut sit remedium salutare humano generi, et praesta per invocationem nominis tui sancti; ut, quicumque ex ea biberint, sanitatem corpus et animae tutelam percipiant. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Which means, in the vernacular:

Bless, + O Lord, this creature beer, which thou hast deigned to produce from the fat of grain: that it may be a salutary remedy to the human race, and grant through the invocation of thy holy name; that, whoever shall drink it, may gain health in body and peace in soul. Through Christ our Lord.

 Amen, and bottoms up!

The Baby Cycle

Based upon the Murloc's suggestion that we should have another baby so we can use up the leftover box of newborn-sized diapers. Plagiarized from XKCD #140: Delicious.

Forensics

I totally feel like a detective! Wanna know why? Well, shut up I'm gonna tell you anyways.

So I was on the Ford website—because I've got a great offer from a really honest-looking gypsy on two slightly-used but sturdy little boys and was looking for a good way to blow the cash— and was checking out the 360º view of the 2013 Mustang (officially the hottest Mustang ever). This went from ogling the car to noticing the details in the background of the picture (the black guy's hand moves onto the table for one shot) to noticing all the other discernible cars in the background are Fords (an Expedition, an Escape, and an older Mustang, plus a couple pick-ups, and what could be a Taurus). Finally, I began wondering "where was this picture taken?"

Hmmm... this sounds like a problem for Forensic Investigation Man!

The derpier cousin of "doesn't-understand-the-world-around-him man".

The Hunger Games

Well, I might as well turn this blog into an archive of my comments on other sites. I recently (as in, five minutes ago) commented on a Video Game/Entertainment website's forums about the Hunger Games and thought I could expand on what I had said a bit more here. I write, after all, not for your benefit, but because it's cathartic for me; it helps me develop my thoughts into something tangible and releases the roiling pressure of the ideas imprisoned in my head.

So, the question posed on the forum was "what did you think of The Hunger Games?" The emotion bubbling under the surface of my thoughts since I caught it on Blu-ray, like, the day after release (thanks, Netflix!) was that I hated the movie. Not because it was bad, but because, I realized, it was true. Every bit of it was true. In fact, I nominate The Hunger Games as Exhibit B for the argument that something can be, in every sense, counter-factual and at the same time be, in every sense, entirely true.

So how was it a true story?

Archiving

This post is mainly an archive for myself, in case I ever remember that one thing I wrote (remember that one thing?) and I want to reference back to it, but I can't find it in my archives because Blogger's search is so awful and oh, that's right, I didn't write it on my blog but in the comments of another blog and oh gosh, I have no idea which blog it was and have no idea how to find it and am I really going to have to search the entire internet for it hey this is boring let's play WoW.

DEAR FUTURE SELF: YOU DIDN'T WRITE THAT COMMENT HERE. IT WAS ON BAD CATHOLIC. (Bad Catholic, of course, being the blog of Marc Barnes, that Alma Mater-attending kid whose wit and wisdom I want to have when I grow up, and who is described by this blog's other favorite writer as "wise beyond his 18 years upon this earth.")

Anywho, since I'm archiving this in a public place, I might as well let you in on the joke so you can follow along.

Marc recently wrote a piece against the heretic Christina Pesoli (whose last name is at the very bottom of the last name uncanny valley), who wrote at HuffPo about why she was hoping for a schism. In the comments, one well-intentioned but clueless commentor wrote the following:

I wonder if you have ever had a moment to sit back and think about exactly what it would feel like to be a woman in the Catholic church. Like a man, you have two vocational options: marriage or service (or single life, but that never feels like a real choice). Let's follow your life path if you choose marriage: you hope to find someone who believes the same things you do, but for goodness sake you better attract him in a holy way! Feminine but not slutty. Sexy but modest. Pretty, but don't try so hard ok? Then when you find him, despite whatever place you are in your own career, you have to immediately start making babies. I mean, you don't HAVE to, but shouldn't a good wife "take care" of her husband? Then here you are, five years later with 3 children and suddenly you can't work anymore and your whole life is consumed with diapers and other peoples laundry and you better LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S YOUR VOCATION. So you spend your entire adulthood taking care of other people, not once getting a chance to follow one of your own passions or interests, coupled with a constant guilt for being so selfish as to even have a personal passion, that you must not be very good at the Catholic thing. Over and over. Oh woman please, stop complaining, WE "VALUE" YOU so you better deal with all the ****, literal and figurative. Isn't being a woman fun? Doesn't motherhood fulfill you totally? 

Or you could opt to go the other direction and skip the babies to serve the poor as a nun. Then, when you have spent 60 years of your life serving the poor, suddenly the Vatican, the leaders of the Church you love so much, start accusing you of not loving Jesus enough because you are "ignoring" something you thought best to stay out of, it seemed like other people were taking care of it. 

Let's say you are a smart Catholic woman and you think the Church should do something differently. The minute you open your mouth you will be labeled a radical feminist and ridiculed from your brothers and sisters in Christ. 

The Vatican called those who challenged the practice of indulgences in the Middle Ages heretics. We have come to understand.. they were probably right. What good is our 2000 year tradition if we don't learn and grow? Not all traditions are good, (like the problem of reassigning abusive priests and covering up their crimes), so stop drawing on "tradition" and stop name calling the minute someone says, "maybe we need to rethink birth control." 

I go to mass because that's where I meet Jesus. It takes a lot of mental energy to forget about people like you and the woman fearing Vatican leadership, and remember that the Sacrament is what it's all about. No matter how much you **** me off. The one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic church is the Church that brings people closer to Christ. Even women.