Letters to the Editor
Laurel962
Published Letters: 486 Editor's Choice: 37
-
It's a religion
[Read the article: My vegan friend insists I justify myself]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's face it, veganism (and to some degree vegetarianism) is a RELIGION more so than simply a way of eating, complete with proselytizing the unconverted.
This is no different than preaching at people for any religion, including the Pentecostal. If the "friend" in this letter were a born-again Christian, railing at the LW about how he should accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior, the posts here would have an entirely different tone, with a great deal less acceptance and less lecturing.
I had it from both ends, as my late father converted to 7th Day Adventism at the age of 66, and over the next couple of years to complete veganism. Of course, he was called by God to try and convert the rest of his (Reform Jewish) family to his new found ways, which included the same sort of exhortions the "friend" is doing here to the LW: lecturing, demanding that the LW "defend" his beliefs (which are indefensible, of course), and laying into the LW about all the awful things that will happen to him, the planet, etc. because of his meat eating (i.e., or lack of the right "religion").
Whatever the reason, this kind of badgering is rude, inhumane and decent tolerant human beings do not engage in it. Eat whatever it is you want to eat, and then shut up about it.
BTW: this is an excellent rule for all religions -- believe what you want and then shut up about it -- and if applied, leads to peace and prosperity.
As for myself, I believe that human beings are omnivores, designed to eat both meat and vegetables, and to try to do anything else simply won't work. That doesn't mean that I don't feel that present day farming techniques can be barbaric and cruel, and need modernizing -- they do. But turning meat into a "forbidden" shameful food will only be counterproductive, like prohibition.
I also know a very substantial number of women, including teens and young girls, who use a claim of "vegetarianism" or veganism, to defend what is clearly a kind of anorexia. Even more otherwise normal women don't eat meat (or eat very little) because of a fear of that it is "too fattening". These feelings about what it or isn't fattening are even more powerful and behavior-influencing than feelings of compassion for farm animals, and I believe they are behind a great deal of ranting on this subject in general.
I also have to concur with the poster who states that the vast majority of vegan/vegetarians are urban dwellers, living within short distances of various organic health food stores, and almost NEVER farmers or hunters, or had any exposure to real animals (besides dogs and cats), and their opinons and outlook on such animals is strictly of the "Charlotte's Web" school of thought -- that animals are "cute" and should be pets. This is terribly unrealistic and kind of sad, actually, and it always makes me wonder: in a perfect vegan world, what is the plan for the millions of head of cattle and milk cows out there? Would they be pets? Would they be in "zoos"? Because they won't just magically disappear if people stop eating meat!
-
28,000 square feet is the problem, not his hair
[Read the article: I saw John Edwards in the shampoo aisle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks to siraluce for making my point before me, which is that John Edwards moved from a 15,000 square foot house to a brand new 28,000 square foot house (that has a home theatre and two stages and about a zillion bathrooms) just since the last elections. That really doesn't smack of someone who has the slightest understanding of the American public, or even any consciousness that he's going to get zinged for this ultra-extravagance by pundits like Coulter -- gee, he just about bent over for that.
Is he a bad person? Of course not. Aren't other candidates, or office holders, just as wealthy and indulgent, if not more? Absolutely.
But image and appearance count for a lot. What this really says is that the only people, on either side of the issues, who can run for office these days are the mega-wealthy, who have no earthly idea of how ordinary Americans live, in our pathetic 1500 square foot shacks.
The mega-wealthy (like the extreme left and the extreme right) have far more in common with each other, despite "party allegiances", than they do with anyone of ordinary income. In my humble opinion, that's been the problem with this nation for a couple generations -- we have handed over any role in politics, even at the level of congressperson, to ONLY the mega-wealthy, because running for office requires huge amounts of money that no average person who remotely hope to obtain.
I am sure Mr. Edwards didn't blink about a $400 haircut, because in the kind of circles he moves in, a $400 hairdo is quite normal, and not particularly expensive. And that's the problem, not his individual haircut or the $400, but the utter lack of realization that the rest of us don't spent $400 on haircuts in a year (in my personal case, a lifetime) and that more than 20 families could live in his mega-McMansion, with loads of room leftover! That we can't even figure out what a family of five people could do with almost 6000 square feet of room PER PERSON (do his kids each have a bedroom the size of a ballroom, complete with four bathrooms? their own movie theatre? gym? swimming pool?)
Imagine a US government run by ordinary people, who are not wealthy and who are not necessarily lawyers. Imagine what kind of world we would have.
Next question.