text:
Idaho Wrecker Sales is one of the world's leading tow truck dealers. We specialize in building the highest quality, new, used, and custom-built tow trucks in the industry. Many other dealers say that they are the best in the industry, but we have the actual awards to prove it! No other towing equipment dealer has won more awards or received more patents for towing related products than us. Our passion for the towing industry is reflected in the custom tow trucks we sell. When you buy from Idaho Wrecker Sales, you are buying the highest quality tow trucks, with the latest technology. We truly want you to enjoy the process and get exactly what you want in a wrecker or carrier. Idaho Wrecker Sales will deliver and will never let you down. We have a large selection of new, used, and custom-built tow trucks for sale. When it comes to finding a used tow truck for sale, you can count on us to give you the truth about a truck's condition. Our inventory has all gone through our IWS Quality Check process so you can buy with confidence.
Due to continued product improvement and changes in supply, design, and production equipment, colors, material specifications, prices, and model availability are subject to change without notice. Some photography may show optional items.


text:
New Vision
New Vision, located in Rockford, Illinois, proudly serves the eye-care needs of patients in Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin. We specialize in cataract surgery, LASIK, corneal surgery and glaucoma management. We also offer routine and diabetic eye exams along with contact lens services. Retina and cosmetic eye care are also available.
Our optical shop offers personalized service and designer frames.
We look forward to providing you with compassionate care and educating you regarding the health of your eyes.
Dr. Eric Ericson is a Rockford native and a founding partner of New Vision Laser Center. He was born and raised locally and graduated from Rockford West High School. He is a comprehensive ophthalmologist providing glaucoma care and cataract surgery with more than 30 years of eye health care experience in Rockford.
Dr. Mitul Vakharia is a cornea specialist and partner at New Vision Laser Center. He performs advanced cataract surgery with toric and multifocal intraocular lenses as well as corneal surgery and LASIK surgery.
Dr. Natalya Romaniv is a comprehensive ophthalmologist who specializes in cataract surgery. She is a skilled cataract surgeon who uses the latest phacoemulsification techniques for cataract surgery, and offers both toric and multifocal intraocular lens implants to reduce dependence on glasses after surgery.
"I chose New Vision Laser Center and Dr. Vakharia because he was excellent and answered all my questions and reassured me. My eyes were horrible and I could not see six inches in front of my face. I am so happy to see 20/20 with no contacts or glasses."
- Shellie
Dr. Vakharia and a group of surgeons travelled to Haiti in mid-May to perform surgeries on indigent patients.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You are posting a comment about...
Summer Reading Program Ending - One Million Minutes Read!
The children participating in the Library's Summer Reading Program have reported reading more than one million minutes this summer. Way to go!
The final day to turn in your reading cards is Saturday, August 17th. Be sure to have all your reading cards finished by that date.


text:
Axis press center is designed to meet the needs of the media and people seeking the latest press releases. You will find the event calendar, information about Axis in social media and much more media related material among the media resources. At the press center you can also find information about your local press center and Axis global media contacts.
Local press centers
If you have press related questions regarding any of Axis regional areas, please contact your local press center.Find local press center
Media resources
Among the Axis media resources we have gathered all media-related materials.Discover our media resources
Global media resources
Björn Hallerborn
PR & Corporate Communications Manager
Phone: +46 46 272 18 00
Direct: +46 46 272 34 97
Fax: +46 46 13 61 30
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Follow RFF News on your cell phone. Text follow rff to 40404 you will receive txt messages with RFF News
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Remember that from the very first reports from Portland, someone mentioned that "they were being sent" to Seattle?If the Frats really misplaced their passports and recovered them ASAP the same morning of the Moscow-Frankfurt-Portland flight they could have come in the following flights through SEATTLE, NOT IN TIME FOR THE FINISH LINE, but in time for the confessional:10:10 am Depart Moscow (SVO)Arrive Portland (PDX) 4:50 pm SundayDuration: 17hr 40mn Aeroflot-Russian Airlines 229 Northwest 33 / 5186 Connect in Amsterdam (AMS), Seattle (SEA)They might have come through Seattle and maybe an extra crew was sent from Portland to Seattle to meet them at SEA-TAC, hence someone mentioning "they were sent to Seattle". This makes sense for the Frats's 6PM sighting... as decoys.Of course this all means that I am betting on the Frats' elimination in leg 10, due to their slowness, inabilities, immaturity and of course, the speedbump... and maybe a U-turn when-where they felt comfortable to leave their passports?
they did look very relaxed in their Portland confessional at the mansion, not dirty or anything, AND they were talking about how many mistakes they have made....
Ok, I doubt this is gona help with anything excpt maybe a time, but remember a while ago we had that photo of Andrew searching the hedges? Could be of use I guess.How I see it, Andrew and Dan are eliminated this episode. They were seen in Portland by that witness who said "they certainly were not running". So unless they survive this leg and just give up at the end, I'd go with them getting eliminated.
Quote from: Michael on November 25, 2008, 04:22:04 PMthey did look very relaxed in their Portland confessional at the mansion, not dirty or anything, AND they were talking about how many mistakes they have made....Yea they were relaxed talking about mistakes becuase according to spoilers they were way way behind the first teams into Portland. They prob make another mistake in the finals. And considering how late the spoiler says they were, they could even get interviewed the next day.
The roped off area.......a "penalty box" for not finishing a roadblock or taking wrong kind of transportation?
Looks like a match and real close to the pit stop too.
ty ty for the info.. the wrap party in masscow might have been for the crew?? jmo i use to work in tv station, we did not have wrap partys for our shows but the crews wrk realy hard and there might have been 2 wrap partys one for the crew and one for the racers and talent phillanater..
I think Phil would be alone or maybe with one asst, but the rest would be on other flights, so they arrive in Portland earlier than the racers, and probably coming from a domestic airport like NYC or Chicago.
I am sorry. I didn't mean to imply he would be on a private jet. I meant that he would be going commerical. He just would be traveling alone or possibly with one asst. He would have to leave after the last team to arrive at the mat and with Dandrew......who knows when that will be. I was thinking it would have to be later in the evening....after 6 pm to even leave the pit stop to head to the airport in Moscow.
Page created in 0.122 seconds with 33 queries.


text:
Of course not. It's never her fault.
Two weeks after everyone else, People.com is finally acknowledging that Lindsay Lohan's Ungaro debut was the total sh-ts. When asked about her sucky runway styles, Lilo blamed it on "coming in so late and having not that much time to do a whole collection."
So her genius was thwarted by poor time management. Ungaro should have hired her earlier, right?
As for those tit stickers that were ultimately universally reviled, in typical Lilo fashion, she skirted responsibility for that too.
"I wasn't aware of the nipple tassels on the girls until they were walking out. I am going back to Paris for the next collection….I am learning. It's already in January. I thought it was in March."
Well sh-t, that bodes well. She doesn't even know when it's time to get back to work.
What's work?
Work is hanging another bitch out to dry. Which is exactly what she's done here. She has sold out Ungaro's head designer Estella Archs. They are supposed to be co-visionaries and yet each and every one of Lilo's statements begins with "I".
You can argue that she deserves sympathy for being an addict. She may have crossed your sad smut line a long time ago. But this lack of accountability, this habit of not owning anything, of blaming everyone else, this is a symptom of celebrity. And this will still persist when and if she gets clean.
They are taught that they are special. They are taught that criticism stems from jealousy. They are taught that they are better than everyone else.
Lilo isn't the problem. You are the problem. The paps are the problem. The tabloids are the problem. And Samantha Ronson's family is the problem.
She's back to her crack tweets again. Early this morning, wired up and f-cked up, she decided to hop on Twitter to rage at Samantha Ronson. Samantha Ronson has officially "unfollowed" Lindsay which means she's cut her loose. Encore. So Lindsay decided to announce it to the world.
She called Samantha weak for listening to her friends and family. She hates on the Ronson family for hating on her. She outs Samantha for staying with her in Singapore. And then, naturally, she goes for full drama when she writes that she took the "biggest chance of my life" when they fell in love.
I could live off her tweets for the smutty sensation.
Unfortunately, she quickly pulled them all down…but not before they were screencapped. Click here to read them.
This is Lilo in New York shopping yesterday followed by a night of clubbing. I don't know where her mother is. She doesn't either.
Meanwhile Ronson is in LA. Was spotted leaving a restaurant.
Photos from Flynetonline.com and Doug Meszler/Splashnewsonline.com and DAVID KRIEGER/Bauergriffinonline.com
Of course not. It's never her fault.


text:
In what might perhaps be poetic justice, vultures circle over another who fed off of the dead. The Daily News reported yesterday of the encroaching death of Fred Phelps, who rose to infamy with his hate-cult the Westboro Baptist Church by picketing funerals, rubbing acid into the fresh wounds of the bereaved to draw spectacle to his own brand of radical homophobia.
Phelps first came into the public's consciousness in 1998 when he picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the twenty-one year old boy killed in Laramie, Wyoming, the victim of "gay bashing" so severe that the beaten and tortured body of Shepard that was left by his murderers was famously mistaken for a scarecrow by the cyclist who found him.
Despite an outcry of love and support for Shepard around the globe, Phelps and his family attended the funeral and as Shepard was laid to rest, cameras zoomed in on the words, "God Hates Fags!" and "Matt in Hell!" and upon the elder church leader's face, where it has remained ever since.
There's been a lot of speculation about the nature of Phelp's homophobia –questions about why he is so fixated on the sexual practices of those he professes not to understand. There's a lot of prose to get caught up in in the New Testament. To focus on gay sex, and to blame it for the downgrade of all humanity, veers beyond the extreme and into psychological territory. It leads me to believe that Phelps is a closeted homosexual, projecting his self-hatred on the world. Some believe that he was a victim of sexual abuse as a child, and that his pent up hatred stems from the shame and emotional damage that it caused.
Kerry Lauerman, former Editor-in-Chief of Salon Media Group and current Co-Founder and CEO of The Dodo wrote a feature on Phelps for Mother Jones a decade ago. On a recent Facebook post, Lauerman speculated that he "might just be nuts." During his interaction with Phelps, he noted "one odd detail that always stuck with me is how he completely freaked out when he thought I'd asked him if he ever had a gay experience (I'd actually asked whether he'd ever known anyone who was gay). As years have gone on, and it's become so clear how many of the worst homophobes — the Roy Cohns, George Rekers, the countless ministers caught with their pants down — were closeted gay men crazed by self-hate and/or fear, I often think back to that Phelps freakout and wonder if it wasn't a pretty clear tell."
It came out later that Matthew Shepard's killer was gay as well.
We could point to the hypocrisy and get busy designing our own picket signs to carry at his funeral. The Facebook posts I've seen so far say, "God Hates Phelps!" But that would be wrong. And hateful. And exactly what he would want.
George Takei, actor, gay rights advocate and most recently, social media personality stated on Facebook:
"I take no solace or joy in this man's passing. We will not dance upon his grave, nor stand vigil at his funeral holding "God Hates Freds" signs, tempting as it may be.He was a tormented soul, who tormented so many. Hate never wins out in the end. It instead goes always to its lonely, dusty end."
I think the world will soon lose a tortured soul, someone whose prejudices and fears became so encompassing that they will live on as his legacy. His tombstone might read: Here lies another so married to his righteousness that it clouded out any humanity.
How sad for him.
As for the rest of us, we move forward, opening ourselves up to cracks in the certainties of our opinions. Through those cracks, we might consider the scope of where we have been wrong. It takes bravery to look there, to study our own psyches for doubt or uncertainty where once there was none.
Light is painful when it first touches your eyes.
No, I won't dance on this man's grave. Instead, let's try to leave ourselves open to our own prejudices and fears to discover deeper connections, to let our own humanity shine through.
Let that be our legacy.


text:
Nina Planck, author (her very good book, Real Food, is out next month in paperback) and former vegan, politely assails the practice of not eating animal products in "Death by Veganism." It's from the NYTimes op-ed pages, so she's appropriately constrained. I wish she'd put it more strongly. Something like, Veganism is a colossal arrogance, a refusal to admit to our own nature, a denial of our humanity. Sometimes it kills people. And it's not very much fun, besides.
The Arrogance of Veganism
by Michael Ruhlman | May 21, 2007 | Uncategorized | 98 comments
98 Comments
Derrick Schneider on May 21, 2007 at 10:01 am
"a refusal to admit to our own nature, a denial of our humanity"
Do you mean that on an evolutionary level, we're omnivores? Because we're lots of things on a biological level that culture has, or can, overcome. Democracy? Racial/sexual equality? Clothes? Those are all at odds with our biological roots. And I think most biologists would argue that we're not designed to eat as much meat as we do, at least here in the U.S., so isn't eating too much meat a "refusal to admit our own nature"? Maybe that hyperbolic phrase isn't your best podium.
If a person wants to eat vegan food, it's no skin off my nose, though they're unlikely to get an invite to dinner at our house. If they foist that belief onto other people, like say their newborn infants, then it's a problem, just as with any pushing of belief systems (says someone who pushes for sustainable agriculture). But people flagellate themselves for all kinds of things; veganism is just part of that.Reply
ruhlman on May 21, 2007 at 10:24 am
Peter Singer practices veganism and philosophizes about with intelligence and elegance. Anything but arrogance in fact.
Yes, I meant because by nature we are omnivores. Does that mean we shouldn't change? We seem to be bellicose by nature as well–does this mean we should accept war and not strive for peace? Of course not.
My hyperbole, if you want to call it that, is less a reaction to veganism, which I find moronic (Singer's hugely compelling arguments notwithstanding), than a reaction to humans' regrettable tendency to think we're above other creatures, that because we have opposable thumbs and the ability to reflect on our own consciousness and that of others, we are somehow above the caste of animals. We are not but our arrogance, more than any other of our traits, will be the end of us.Reply
Claudia on May 21, 2007 at 10:44 am
Verily, Michael – as Pollan clearly illucidates in The Omnivore's Dilemma, the human body has specifically evolved so that it MUST have sustenance from both meat and plant groups – it was hardwired into our survival mechanism hundreds of thousands of years ago. Of course, hand in hand with that, I support a more humane (and healthier) way of getting that meat to the table. (Glad to read you've been recently refueled by a pint of two or malted milk ball ice cream!)Reply
minvervah on May 21, 2007 at 10:54 am
I disagree with the arrogance of any way of eating. Whether that's being an arrogant vegan who tries to make everyone around her feel bad for eating animal products or the utter conceit of consuming an omnivorous diet of inhumanely raised, non-sustainable food.
Rather than castigate one group of eaters, let's embrace what we as passionate eaters have in common — a love of taste, craft and life.Reply
david on May 21, 2007 at 11:08 am
Once, a long time ago, I was enjoying a very hearty breakfast with some friends at a very nice eatery in La Jolla, Ca. A group sat at the next table and when our breakfast was served, one of the people at the other table said something about how disgusting meat eaters were. I merely picked up a small bit of the beef from my plate and said, "My ancestors did not claw their way to the top of the food chain for me to eat grass," and proceeded to finish my breakfast. There were no comments from the other table.Reply
Derrick Schneider on May 21, 2007 at 11:56 am
Of course we agree about veganism, but I think it's wrong to call "denial of humanity" on a cultural override of a biological impluse. Culture and society and the beliefs that accompany them are as much a part of being human as anything else.
I don't agree with a vegan's particular choices, and I think the vegan parents should be held accountable for their child's death–manslaughter and child abuse at least–because then their beliefs directly led to someone else's harm. But if a person wants to go all vegan on their own body, it's their choice.Reply
latenac on May 21, 2007 at 12:15 pm
My husband has a friend who is a vegan. His friend admitted that anyone who tells you they're a vegan for health reasons is lying. It takes a lot of work to be a vegan and you need supplements to make it work.
Since then I've had discussion with other vegans who do claim it's healthier and when I point out the supplementing issue, they claimed they don't supplement. They drink soy milk fortified with stuff but somehow that doesn't mean supplementing. So the conversation ended there.
While it is hyperbole to claim veganism goes against nature it does have a ring of truth. You are giving up your place in the food chain for a diet that you can't get completely from nature. And that's fine with me if you're a consenting adult but Nina Planck is right, don't force kids to do it.Reply
t-scape on May 21, 2007 at 3:00 pm
The arrogance that I see in veganism (and please bear with me, for I know that my explanation will be lacking) is more related towards the fact that it is both pricey and unrealistically difficult to maintain. There's something "status-symbol-y" about it to me. Yes, yes, I know that just because other people can't afford to eat a certain way that it doesn't mean no one should eat that way. I eat at restaurants that some people in this world can't afford. My point is that eating vegan goes a lot further than eating at a certain type of restaurant every now and then, or deciding that you don't like broccoli and just not eating it…it's about how you feed yourself on a daily basis. Sometimes I cringe seeing people go so far and omit so much from their daily diets when there are so, so many who simply want to eat. And in the end, it's pretty clear that eating vegan is not really what your body needs – if it were, it wouldn't be necessary to fortify products or depend on supplements for adequate nutrition. Vegetarianism doesn't seem quite so extreme to me, probably becuase it doesn't eliminate as many foods as veganism does and seems to take into account that the body does have certain needs that animal products meet, and meet well. So i guess it's not about choosing to omit certain foods, it's more the extreme amount of foods that are omitted that I find kind of appalling.
Subjecting babies and children to a vegan diet is a hairy subject because here is where many vegan parents may insist that this diet is good for you, no matter what. So, if most vegans feel that veganism is healthy for them, and the right or ethical way to eat, then it would follow that they'd believe it would be good and ethical for their children too. I just see a big fat stalemate regarding this issue. And what irks me the most is that it is a stalemate borne out of believing that an artificial and contrived diet is automatically better just because you omit all possible animal products. If you don't do adequate research for how you choose to eat, then fine – but when children are involved, then it's a different story.Reply
RussH on May 21, 2007 at 3:03 pm
All I know is my ancestors clawed their way to the top of the food chain, and I'm not about to let them down…Reply
Angrytoxicologist on May 21, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Totally agree with Michael. It's unnatural and unhealthy and I'm glad to hear people saying it.
For a bit more about why the whole soy thing for kids is unhealthy, see my website.
Sorry for the promotion but as a father, cook, and public health professional, this has hit all the buttons and has me really pissed off.
sorcha on May 21, 2007 at 3:36 pm
As has been said, if an adult wants to be a vegan, that's their thing. More meat for me, as the controversial billboard says. The ones who bug me are the ones who get self-righteous about it. Oh, yeah, and the ones who are clueless enough to kill their kids with it. That too.Reply
sorcha on May 21, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Angry T, what about kids who are allergic to milk? My nephew had, and still has in a milder form, a painful milk allergy as a kid. Back then rice milk was the substitute most available, and it's what he still drinks, but with soy being so prominent it's becoming the replacement of choice for kids with milk allergies/lactose intolerance. I see quite a bit of it at our school.Reply
sorcha on May 21, 2007 at 3:39 pm
David, I look at it this way – if a cow could eat me, it totally would. We're just lucky we evolved sharper teeth and opposable thumbs first.Reply
sorcha on May 21, 2007 at 3:41 pm
God, I'm spamming a lot today. Apologies; I'm in short attention span mode, I guess.
Anyway. T-scape, I've known and known of people who had their *pets* on vegan diets. A friend of mine once got righteously reamed by her roommate for giving roommate's cats tuna and thus disrupting their vegan existence.Reply
gb500 on May 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Sorcha, you've obviously never heard the song 'Cows with Guns" — worth a Google search.Reply
Tana on May 21, 2007 at 3:47 pm
"If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat."
I have to think there is something mentally wrong with the convicted parents. Seriously more than a lack of education and far beyond arrogance. And God love Ms. Nina Planck for writing as she did. I'd love to see stronger words, too, but at least she wrote something.Reply
veron on May 21, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I have no problem with vegans as long as they do not push their beliefs on me…Reply
Maya on May 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm
No one has the right to comment on how anyone else eats. Meat eaters and vegans alike need to learn manners.
I was a vegetarian for 20 years and I'm proud that I never once commented on anyone else's diets (unless I was with veggiehead friends and we complemented each other).
Yet people who ate meat were constantly attacking me. "I bet you think I'm evil for eating meat, right?" To which I would reply, "I don't have the right to tell you what to put in your body".
As for parents who make their children eat vegan or vegetarian, they need regular visits from social services until they shape up.Reply
Maya on May 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Scorcha, yes cats fall victim to veggie diets quite often. Heart damage and blindness. Not pretty.
New info is hinting that even fish may be harmful to cats – it contains thiaminase, is an allergen in many cats and may cause hyperthyroid disease. My cats are off it permanently.Reply
cathelou on May 21, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Fanatics are always troubling–and that goes for meat-eaters as well as vegans. When I was in exile in Madison, Wisconsin, Land of the Terminally Earnest, I started eating more meat just because the surrounding vegan/vegetarian landscape was becoming unbearable (except for the brats and beer.)
Still . . . we could do with eating less meat in this country. Jokes about "loving animals because they're delicious aside," we have become immune to the fact that when we eat meat, we consume something that was once a living, feeling creature. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. But the more plastic-wrapped chicken parts and hamburger we gobble up, the less connected we are to our food. Plus many wonderful heirloom vegetables are being buried beneath an avalanche of mass-produced, tasteless carrots, celery, and potatoes. Plus there's all the grain you have to use to feed the cattle, and the horrible working conditions of slaughterhouses, and the damage to the environment to grow the grain, and worst of all–it TASTES BAD.
Whew! Gettin' fanatical there all of a sudden. Better go get me a steak.Reply
cathelou on May 21, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Fanatics are always troubling–and that goes for meat-eaters as well as vegans. When I was in exile in Madison, Wisconsin, Land of the Terminally Earnest, I started eating more meat just because the surrounding vegan/vegetarian landscape was becoming unbearable (except for the brats and beer.)
Still . . . we could do with eating less meat in this country. Jokes about "loving animals because they're delicious aside," we have become immune to the fact that when we eat meat, we consume something that was once a living, feeling creature. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. But the more plastic-wrapped chicken parts and hamburger we gobble up, the less connected we are to our food. Plus many wonderful heirloom vegetables are being buried beneath an avalanche of mass-produced, tasteless carrots, celery, and potatoes. Plus there's all the grain you have to use to feed the cattle, and the horrible working conditions of slaughterhouses, and the damage to the environment to grow the grain, and worst of all–it TASTES BAD.
Whew! Gettin' fanatical there all of a sudden. Better go get me a steak.Reply
cathelou on May 21, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Oh dear. I have no idea how I double-posted. Many apologies.
And while I'm posting again: Maya, you are right on! And right about cats too–they are carnivores, not omnivores, and can't survive on a vegetarian diet.Reply
clarkehead on May 21, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Stepping all over my free speech is one thing. You can even censor what I watch on TV a bit, and I won't get too pissed off. But don't ever tell me what I should or should not eat. You start censoring what's on my dinner table, and you've got a big fight on your hands.
What's up with this country anyway? Has it gotten this bad where we have to stick our noses in other people's shopping carts and start debating them on what they're putting in their bodies? It's called "free will." Let it happen.
This is why the French (and the rest of Europe) laugh at us.Reply
Maya on May 21, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Sorcha, sorry 'bout the misspelling!
Cathelou, you read my mind. What I worry about is that people won't consider moderation.
*If EVERYONE (adults) just ate vegan / veggie / organic once a week, all animal suffering would be reduced and the environment would be much healthier.
Ruhlman has said it many times, support local farmers. Don't be intimidated by the "vegan" label on the restaurant menu. It doesn't mean you're switching to a religion.
Now more than ever with organic food and wheat-free and vegan products in health food stores and local farms, the food is no longer like cardboard. It's often delicious.Reply
t-scape on May 21, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Man, it seems that Europeans laugh at us about way too much stuff. They laugh at how we eat, how we dress, how we think, what we choose to talk about…Maybe they need to mind their own business and allow Americans their free will?Reply
Nick on May 21, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Me…I love animals……..(they're delicious).
There's a pasty looking 7 y.o. girl at my daughters school who's hippie parents have brainwashed the cruelty aspect into her. Whenever I see her I feel sorry for her. Worst of all, we had to make some 'vegetarian' snacks for my daughters birthday a few weeks ago because she couldn't eat the sausage rolls I made! Pissed me off!
My auntie is vegetarian. She doesn't discuss it though. We don't discuss it. There's no point, she's happy – we're happy. She cooks a mean veggie lasagna which we all devour when we visit.
My 18 month old daughter gets a rash around her mouth & chin when she drinks milk. We now give her soy and she's fine. We'll gradually introduce milk to get her back on track.Reply
Conrad on May 21, 2007 at 6:50 pm
We can all be comfortable with the possibility that Vegan's brains, like the koala (as state in The Omnivores Dilema), will shrink due to their food choices. Making them less than the rest of us.Reply
chris on May 21, 2007 at 9:33 pm
First off on the article – I think this was a good article and point of view coming from a former Vegan. The parents of the kids should be sent away and there should be more education in the Vegan community about making these choices for kids, it's stupidity.
On the comments – not one person asks why people are vegans or vegetarians on these comments or discussses them – they just say stupid Sh** like "Me…I love animals……..(they're delicious)." (sorry man) – I was a lacto vegetarian for about 8 years, but I didn't give up meat to be a vegetarian or be part of a club – it was a boycott on the "factory farming" that goes on in this country. If people dug a little deeper into where their food comes from in the U.S., you wouldn't be eating it either – and you should – why don't you know where that pork is from? You can make the argument about eating organic meat, but the free range stuff just isn't in the everyday meal – be it out to dinner, processed, etc. It would be a different story if we were all close to family farms and could take a cut of their livestock like back in the day – I would probably eat meat if that was the case, well its not.
So up to the present day – for the past eight or so years I have been living right next to the ocean, so I now eat all sorts of seafood b/c I know where it comes from, I can actually catch it, and it is not being raised in some cage somewhere for profit – it swims around the Atlantic or crawls around in the mud…naturally. I'm actually able to catch it myself..just like they used to raise cattle and kill it for the family consumption.
I'm going on a rant, but whatever…So what do they do in Italy? Do people inland eat seafood? No, they eat what is close by and what is grown in the region. If you have good pastures, raise meat, but they are not going import the seafood from the coast into their region…why, cause that doesn't make sense.
I think if you dug a bit deeper with your fellow veggie, you might learn a thing or two – and maybe not jump to conclusions about they are hippy this or farmy that…in fact I got interested in vegetarianism and the boycott through the punk scene. Some food for thought…Reply
faustianbargain on May 21, 2007 at 11:22 pm
derrick, it is sad to hear that you wont be able to break bread with someone who doesnt share your food choices even if they shared other important things with you.
maya, thiaminase doesnt occur in cooked fish. thiaminase attacks the thiamine in food and when pet food is cooked at high heat(as most commercial pet food are…there is a new zealand brand that sells pet food cooked at lower temperatures and combines lamb with fish..but then again, i wouldnt recommend lamb for dogs as some of them tend to turn allergic, but thats another subject), thiaminase is destroyed. most nutrients are destroyed in commercial pet food anyways and are generally added back in the form of supplements.it is not a good idea to feed cats fish scraps or too much raw fish, however. i have worked with a colony of ferals that were mostly fed rice and fish..and the predominantly fish diet lead to eye infections among other nutritional deficiencies.Reply
Maya on May 21, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Exactly, Chris! When I was in college I was subject to really nasty comments. When people noticed what I was eating, they would start up on me:
"What about all those poor plants you're killing?"
"Oh, that's why you're so scrawny. I thought you had cancer or something."
"You're a vegetarian? You know, I shot a rabbit just last week."
I enjoy talking about the benefits of organic and local foods, and like Chris said, in Italy they're not wasting their breath on these issues because the overall lifestyle is more moderate and based on family-style and local dining, not factory farming. Well said, Chris.Reply
Maya on May 21, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Fautsian! Hey, come visit my new blog, okay? I lost your email!Reply
Thanks for the info – does that include wet food? What about the thyroid issue?
Heidi on May 22, 2007 at 12:38 am
I'm not sure highlighting extreme examples of malnutrition and neglect and then turning it into a vegan issue is helpful. The judge in this case said the child died because the child was starved – this could have (and does) happen to negligent non-vegan parents.
Coming back to a more central conversation point (the one between vegetarians and non-vegetarians), people on both sides of the vegetarian debate have much to learn from each other, and much to accomplish together. It is easy to point fingers at extreme cases as referenced in the Times op-ed and then (as some do) casually dismiss all non-meat eaters as arrogant, brainwashed hippies…. Predictably (as seen in some of the comments up above) this is almost always followed up with a meat-eater rally cry of some sort – which to be frank, doesn't exactly set the tone for much of an open dialogue or exchange of ideas.
Jennie/Tikka on May 22, 2007 at 12:59 am
Hmmmm, to post or not to post, that is the question?
Whether tis nobler to admit to carnivorism, or to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous veganism….I'm not sure what to say.
First off – I disagree with Ruhlman. Animals are below us. Look at the human brain and its various components, and then count how many of those components are missing in animals. It is highly debatable that they share the same sort of sense of being that humans do. They lack a great deal of capacity for thought. That's not to say that animals don't deserve kindness and consideration as living creatures…they do; but not too much. To humanize them is also going to an extreme.
Both extremes are unhealthy – too much meat or no meat at all.
And lastly, (I've said this before) I've rarely met a vegetarian/vegan who wasn't in some way covering up some intense sense of guilt. In fact, its the first thing I look for when someone tells me they don't eat animal products – what they've done wrong and why they are compensating for it. And it does tend to go hand-in-hand with self-righteousness/hypocrisy. Combinations of ethics like, "Okay well yes, I'm cheating on my spouse who's a complete angel – but I haven't eaten meat in 6 years and that proves I'm really a nice person despite the opposite evidence" is the kind of moral relativsm I hear frequently from vegetarians.
Extreme eating (either direction) is almost always the sign of an extreme mindset. Balance is always the right answer.
The only vegans I feel are exceptions to this rule are the ones who are culturally that way – like my Indian friends who don't eat meat because it wasn't offered growing up and therefore never developed a taste for it.Reply
Evelyn on May 22, 2007 at 6:40 am
I don't understand what it is about veganism that makes some omnivores so angry. I'm a vegan and I'm not out to convert the world; I just want my choices to be respected like everyone else does. Articles like "Death by Veganism" distort the truth to try to make scapegoats out of vegans. Crown Shakur did not die from veganism, he died from starvation. Just leave us vegans alone; we are doing what we think is best for this world and we don't deserve all this rancor!Reply
ruhlman on May 22, 2007 at 8:44 am
First, of course we have a right to comment on what other people eat.
No individual should be ridiculed or hurt for eating the way they want to. But you can and should satarize, criticize, even ridicule a philosophy of eating that deserves it.
With the single and singular exception of Peter Singer, every justification of veganism has struck me as fatuous. At best. And more often harmful. Forcing a vegan diet on pets is hilarious. If only Saturday Night Live could come up with concepts like that.
And those vegans who think they're casting a vote against factory farming–well, they're not. The way to do that is to actively eat meat that's been raised humanely and well. Being a vegan is worse than not voting in the election. Being vegan is anti-animal, potentially harmful to the animals we raise for food.
I don't know why vegetarianism got mixed into this stew. I have no issues with vegetarianism. Some of my best friends are vegetarian!Reply
t-scape on May 22, 2007 at 11:59 am
Vegetarianism is a different animal (sorry, no pun intended, really) than veganism.
Why can't we discuss eating habits? I'm not sure why this topic is such a sacred cow (oh my god! I'm killing me!); I can understand not lliking to feel attacked over your choices, but discussion is not a bad thing. Discussion doesn't mean people are being nosy. By that line of thought, we should shy away from talking about anything other than ourselves. And as much as I like to talk about myself, I can still understand that even I would be bored after a while if that's all I dared talk about, so as not to seem nosy.Reply
majikgodss on May 22, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I am working on a PhD in Animal Science. If some of you were right, and all it takes for people to become a vegan is for them to see a "factory farm" or meat packing plant, every grad student I know would at least be a vegetarian. I don't know of a single one in the three schools I've worked on graduate degrees.
It's easy to speak out against what you've only seen in a PETA video.Reply
Jennie/Tikka on May 22, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Well, I will offer this – my cat is vegetarian by choice….he refuses all meat we offer him (including table scraps).
Go figure. Siamese. 😉Reply
faustianbargain on May 22, 2007 at 1:05 pm
arrogance lies amongst those who think that veganism is an abomination.
tell me ruhlman and others..what is wrong with including supplements after making a decision to lead a vegan lifestyle? are vaccinations and antibiotics against human nature too? damned if they do and damned if they dont' no? if they dont supplement what is obviously not a completely healthy diet plan, they are irresponsible and if they do in order to live a personal philosophy, they are going against nature.Reply
Jennie/Tikka on May 22, 2007 at 1:12 pm
In a nutshell:
Veganism is a conclusion based on entirely false premises.
Not a single founding rationale is accurate.Reply
faustianbargain on May 22, 2007 at 1:12 pm
jennie/tikka, that is indeed unusual. is he an outdoor cat? maybe he hunts?
anyways..a friend has a halfbreed wild cat(looked like a kitten at age 12 and is still alive at 15…has two teeth, but still alive and healthy) from south africa that loves to eat fruit. go figure!Reply
faustianbargain on May 22, 2007 at 1:13 pm
jennie/tikka, regardless, it is still a choice. if personal choices are fortified by rationality and logic, there is no need to attack it.Reply
Jennie/Tikka on May 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Faustian – he likes to hunt the birds in the yard….but he has yet to attack one. He just likes to chase them.
Seriously, I offered him some absolutely beautiful fresh halibut the other night (probably $25 bucks worth) and he wouldn't go near it.
He does like salmon, sometimes…but gets a bit weird after he eats it (he actually did a BACKFLIP). 😀Reply
Jennie/Tikka on May 22, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Faustian – that's not an attack. Everybody, I believe, does and lives in the manner they NEED to, for their own psyches. I mean no attack. It is what you need right now.
But the reason(s) its needed is often (not always) attached to something else – its like the fever that goes with a flu.Reply
faustianbargain on May 22, 2007 at 1:31 pm
well..i am sure he is sneaking in lizards or humming birds when you are not looking..:) if you are feeding the cat dry food, there shouldnt be a problem.
the thing with cats is that they have something called 'jacobson's organ'(at the back of their nose, i think?) and it has to do with their sense of smell. nobody really knows what it does, but supposedly it is responsible for cats being fussy eaters. the jacobson's organ gets the cat 'hooked' or addicted to a particular smell of food. only hunger and starvation will force a cat to try a new food! thats why some cats wont even tolerate different brands of wet/dry cat food. cats raised only on canned wet food/dry food wont always take to raw meat/cooked meat/fish! i have had outdoor cats that would hunt outside and supped at home only on curd rice and hardboiled eggs(ours was a strictly traditional indian vegetarian household…but my grandmother made an exception for the cats with the eggs).Reply
Jennie/Tikka on May 22, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Faustian – ya know, if I did go some spectrum of vegetarian, I'd eat nothing but Indian food. It takes the pain out of losing meat! 🙂Reply
faustianbargain on May 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm
jennie/tikka: and you wont find me disagreeing with you there..:)Reply
latenac on May 22, 2007 at 2:26 pm
tell me ruhlman and others..what is wrong with including supplements after making a decision to lead a vegan lifestyle?
There's nothing wrong with it. I think the argument that I as an omnivore tend to make is that veganism isn't natural, it's not a diet we were meant to live on in fact we can't be sustained on a natural vegan diet that doesn't include supplements.
I hear a lot of vegans talk about how healthy a vegan diet is and it actually isn't unless you take supplements for certain nutrients. Which is fine if that's what you want to do but don't try to make the argument to me, at least, that it's a natural, healthy diet.
Factory farming videos, etc only make me want to campaign for a better life for animals, not stop eating them. And be more conscious of what I'm eating and where it came from. Fortunately my CSA has happily raised pigs, cattle, chickens and lambs for sale. I can't help but wonder what would happen to all of these species if everyone became vegan. Some vegans I know don't even want manure used on the veggies they eat.Reply
faustianbargain on May 22, 2007 at 2:42 pm
by that argument, latenac, a meat based diet isnt complete either! no diet is really a 'perfect diet'! there are atkins folks and then there are vegans. both of them need supplements. and then there are those who are inbetween. what is so unnatural about it?
if someone lives a healthy life..according to them/their lifestyle/needs… on a vegan diet…with or without supplements…than the diet has achieved it's purpose. unless you are forcefed tofu or bacon, why all this acrimony? cant we all get along?
i am a vegetarian most of the time. i do eat meat with extreme reservations. but i will not deny meat for anyone at my table. nor will i turn down an invitation to dine with meat eaters. it makes me sad that were i an avowed vegan or vegetarian, i will not have a place at some tables. now..that may be natural, but its plain wrong.Reply
latenac on May 22, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I personally think we're meant to be omnivores and eat a wide ranging diet but that has little to do with my point.
My point is as I stated vegans that I have met go on and on about how healthy and natural a vegan diet is. I don't consider having to take manufactured supplements natural. That's just me and maybe some others. You can't get a complete diet through veganism without taking some of these unnatural supplements. In my book that doesn't make it a natural diet. Nor is Atkins imho either.
To me, veganism is more of a political statement than a natural health diet. And that's fine I'm not averse to political statements.
I've never had a vegan at my table mainly b/c I know so few. But I'd certainly invite one. It's only the fake allergy people who are really just picky eaters I don't invite.
I don't care if a vegan diet makes you happy or an Atkins one or whatever. I'm not criticizing that. I'm only criticizing the claim that it's a natural, healthy diet. That's all. No more no less. I would say the same thing about the polar opposite Atkins diet too.Reply
ah-ha on May 22, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Tony Bourdain has a great section in a Cook's Tour about a meal he had with some Vegan's in Berkeley right after he had returned from a trip to Cambodia.Reply
t-scape on May 22, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Eating mainly meat is just as aritificial of a diet. Severely restricting what you eat will leave you with some sort of nutritional deficiency. But if your diet is varied, you are likely not forced to *rely* on supplements for your actual nutritional needs. Arguing that "a meat based diet is not complete either" (note the "either") just reinforces the point that focusing your food intake so severely is not going to nourish you adequately, no matter what it actually is that you're ingesting/omitting.
I actually think there is indeed a perfect diet – or at least something very close to it. It includes a variety of fresh vegetables, legumes, nuts, "healthy" fats, etc – and yes, animal products. But the foods themselves are not the only element to a person's diet. How you choose the food, how you cook it, and how much of it you eat is just as important.Reply
NvG on May 22, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Ruhlman, WTF?! Yes, it's bad to feed neonates soy and whatever. Baaad. Bad, bad vegan parents. Agreed. Vegan cats? Bad idea. Check, check, and check. However, consenting adults who want to avoid all animal products? None of your business. I DON'T LIKE MEAT. It's a texture thing, first, and second, I just happen to like plant matter better. Also, as someone who cooks for fun and relaxation, I enjoy finding new ways to prepare grains and greens. BIG DEAL.
The hyperbolic stereotypical pasty-faced-sanctimonious-vegetarian is as hackneyed an image as it is old. It's also bullshit. If the very fact that vegans/vegetarians exist offends your tender sensibilities, all you need to do is steer a wide berth around us. We won't mind.
You want to eat cattle? Fine. You're welcome to my share. Just leave me alone with my beans and cantaloupe. Direct your outrage elsewhere.
You know, I love your books; I generally really enjoy your writing. But this post made me roll my eyes so hard in their sockets that I swear to god they're stuck there.
(Where the hell's the vodka?)Reply
Maya on May 22, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Ruhlman, I stand corrected and I agree, we should have a dialogue on what we eat. Obviously it's important and fun to talk about. Respectful, of course.
I respectfully disagree that eating humanely raised animals is better than veganism. That's like saying that buying a hybrid is better for the environment than riding a bike.
I support my local farmer. I buy fruits and vegetables and dairy from them. If farmer wants to raise humanely treated animals, it still takes up land and has an impact on the environment. The land is better off as a protected wildlife area.
If everyone went vegan, the farm animals would eventually stop being bred. I'm not a vegan, but I know that they are indeed doing a favor to the earth and the animals.Reply
Maya on May 22, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Jennie, my goodness. By whose definition are animals "below" us?? I don't mean to comment on any particular religion, but that depends on your beliefs.
If you are agnostic or simply believe that we were "spawned" from the earth, animals are above us. We are the only animal on earth that does not contribute to the wellbeing of the ecosystem of the very planet upon which we live.
Bees pollenate food that keeps us alive; beavers create wetlands and purify the water that keeps us alive; if all animals perished, we would perish as well. "Above" us are the beings to whom we owe our very existence.
If you want to talk about talents and abilities, who can survive better in the forest; a baby bear, or one of us sorry saps (those of us with no survival experience) who would die of thirst within a few days of being lost in an unfamiliar wild area? That talent is far more impressive than our ability to sit on our butts and type all day.
And if you want to discuss brain science, you should know that parts of the brain that old sciences deemed "useless" or "primitive" are now being discovered to be very significant indeed. If you want to argue otherwise, I can crack open my neuroscience textbook.
And I'm not trying to be a wench. Generally I enjoy your posts and overwhelmingly agree with you. 🙂Reply
Bob delG on May 22, 2007 at 5:33 pm
You could not have gotten a bigger rise out of the polis if you had inveighed against the arrogance of some religious group.
t-scape on May 22, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Bob delG….goes to show you how seriously people take their food! Do not criticize the belief system I have adopted in order to save my soul for eternity, and do not criticize what I chow down on. 😉Reply
gb500 on May 22, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Ah, and then there's the Rapture — a win-win situation.Reply
ruhlman on May 22, 2007 at 6:56 pm
NvG, a vodka drinker! figures!
(and there are vegans and there are vegetarians, not vegans/vegetarians)
bob, just tryin to keep the conversation lively!Reply
Jennie/Tikka on May 22, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Maya –
Let's just put it this way, the day a cow can do something besides chew cud, make milk, and more cattle – is the day I'll concede its equal to me (and that I shouldn't grill it with a side of carmelized onions. 🙂
Human beings contribute far more than animals ever will. Which goat will come up with the next great breakthrough in physics? Which giraffe will perform CPR when called upon? Which camel will write the next "La Boheme?" Does a rabbit answer 9-1-1? And then can they drive an ambulance to your house to save your life?
Crack open that neuroscience textbook and let's look at the cerebral cortex – mainly, how little of it exists in animals. Without it there is little to no thought. The rest of the brain is dedicated to mere reaction and information processing coming in from the senses. That's not the same as processing free thought or emotion.
Animals may have a few skills but those skills don't include math, reading, writing, singing, performance art, painting, the sciences, cooking, medicine geology, etc., etc., etc. I suppose some among us would consider locating truffles a major contribution to welfare, but I could do without them just fine.
No disrespect, Maya – but this has nothing to do with religion. Culture and civilzation are the products of human beings – not animals.
If I let my dogs loose to fend for themselves they'd probably do just fine for a while….but its because of me that they have regular cooked meals, a cozy bed by the fireplace my spouse built, someone to prevent them from running into traffic, and medical treatment that their human vet provides.
My black lab Roxxy eats poo out of the cat's litter box….that's NOT a sign of intelligence! 😀Reply
fuck you on May 22, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Ruhlman — you are an ass. The 'vegan' parents were ignorant shits who found a lawyer to blame a belief system for their failings.
Thank god you were not on the jury. You're enough of a sucker that you probably would have acquitted them.
I love your books and normally love your blog, but you sound like a naif. This case was not about veganism. It was about criminally negligent homicide. No vegan I have ever met would refrain from breastfeeding a child, and Nina Planck is a fucking moron for overlooking the fact that those tasty cold-water fish get their DHA from algae, which actually synthesize the LCFAs.
Victor Herbert, the bullshit artist who popularized the notion that B12 was impossible to obtain in a vegan diet, overlooked the fact that algae also synthesize cyanocobalamin. Ignorant vegans are no better than ignorant carnivores, by the way.
I eat meat. But I don't lap up bullshit. I suggest the same to you.Reply
Nick on May 22, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Chris, most punks I know eat broken glass, live chicken heads or cobra hearts?!?
Sorry to you and anyone else if you take my comments about brainwashing hippies & pasty faced kids personally.
My beef (pardon the pun) is with the over-opinionated new age f'wits feeding their kids inaccurate lies and zero nutrition cardboard.Reply
faustianbargain on May 22, 2007 at 8:35 pm
jennie/tikka said: "My black lab Roxxy eats poo out of the cat's litter box….that's NOT a sign of intelligence! :D"
lass(or lad?), all i have to say to you is, "ask not at whom the chimp smirks – he smirks at you."
intelligence is misunderstood.Reply
Thomas H. Ptacek on May 22, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Maya: who would survive better, alone in the forest floor: a pitiful, helpless baby human, or the mighty fish?Reply
Maya on May 22, 2007 at 11:29 pm
😉 Ha – Thomas, great question! Does the mighty fish know how to build an aquarium?
I must congratulate Ruhlman for creating a lively discussion between vegans and meat eaters without virtual firespitting. That's one hell of an achievement.
Have you ever read the PETA blog? NASTY! And most of them are all on the same side!!
Great blog, R.Reply
rockandroller on May 23, 2007 at 7:58 am
I just wanted to pipe up and say stop picking on hippies! 🙂 Not all of us are vegetarians or vegans. In fact, in many of the 60s communes, they foraged and ate ALL kinds of food, including road kill if that was all that was available. They're more like Native Americans than vegans. I'm both a proud hippie and a proud omnivore.Reply
ruhlman on May 23, 2007 at 8:14 am
thanks, maya, appreciate it. that, ultimately, is the point here.
I'm a libertarian and would stand on the vegans' side if some legislator tried to tell them they couldn't eat the way they chose. no matter how wrongheaded.
lively discourse keeps the lines open.Reply
rikku on May 23, 2007 at 8:16 am
i think u cannot be starting a book about veganism mentioning some stupid parents who were too ignorant to be able to feed their child. the vegan issue is much bigger.Reply
if considering only the nutrition aspect:
is this book taking into account all the s**t that goes into meat and dairy products in terms of antibiotics, hormones, artificial colours etc..etc.. ??
is that ANY HEALTHY these days? sorry i'd rather be vegan.
is this book taking into account the horrific situation in intensive farms??
Can people eat normally knowing what happens to animals everyday?
Sorry, i'd rather be vegan.
and here's a question:
All mammals are fed milk by their own mother until they dont need it anymore and then the mother stops producing it. This includes HUMANS..who, for some unknown reason keep drinking it until they die, but not human milk. they force ANOTHER animal to produce milk for them!! is it not nonsense??
JunkyPOS on May 23, 2007 at 8:37 am
"If I let my dogs loose to fend for themselves they'd probably do just fine for a while….but its because of me that they have regular cooked meals,…"
Wow!!!…you regularly "cook" your dogs meals??? Nice!! What about the cat???Reply
Ron S on May 23, 2007 at 10:20 am
I am a firm believer that you are never truly happy in your life until you become comfortable with your personal level of hipocrisy.
So, I say to everyone here, just relax and take it easy.
Think about yourself and how you are acting as you slag vegans who preach to others how their lifestyle is correct and "fair" to the animals. It is a point of view you do not agree with…but is it the point of view you have the big issue with or the fact that they are preaching it. If it is the latter, then you have some self reflection to take care of before you comment too much more.
Making comments on the health issues of being vegan are one thing, but attacking the values of those who make this decision are another.
Take a second and reflect on yourself. Are you happy with your personal level of hipocrisy? If so, admit that you are a hipocrite. You are bitching about someone pushing their values on others, yet you are taking the time to do exactly the same thing.
If you can't admit that you are a hipocrite then you are just white noise to me. Someone who is complaining about a certain behavior by demonstrating exactly that behavior themselves.
I don't like vegans who try and push their ways on others. I don't like being made to feel bad about what I eat. I therefore do not push my omnivore values on vegans and vegetarians.
So…complain all you want about pushy vegans, just don't be pushy omnivores.
That is…unless you are comfortable with your personal level of hipocrisy…then more power to you…hipocrite.Reply
rockandroller on May 23, 2007 at 11:57 am
FYI, it's "hypocrisy" with a "y" from the Greek for hypokrisis or play-acting. I only chastise vegans who can't spell. Joke!!Reply
Ron S on May 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Bad spelling and lack of a spell check are my achilles heel.
t-scape on May 23, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I don't know….some people presented their opinions more forcefully than others, but what I see here is a discussion – not hypocrisy. Are we (the general we, not necessarily the participants of this discussion) pushing our beliefs on others just by arguing differing points?Reply
Bob delG on May 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm
It is interesting to wonder what would happen to animal populations if vegans took control of the government and made meat eating illegal. I suppose for a while large herds would continue to exist until people got tired of feeding them. But perhaps the government would levy a animal-husbandry tax to support them and hand off responsibility to the USDA.
Doubtless a bunch would become feral and live out it the wild. It's not difficult to imagine cattle roaming the range like buffalo. Certainly pigs would adapt quickly to a feral lifestyle.
Such a scenario would not be unwelcome to those of us who, whipped up by our genetically programed lust for blood, wanted to refine our hunting skills on something a bit more exciting than a soy bean plant.
Hmmm…maybe this vegan thing is not a half-bad idea? Of course, if vegans ever came to power they'd probably ban guns and fishing rods, but what the hell. No one is ever going to be able to legislate effectively against sharpened sticks and rocks.Reply
Steve on May 23, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Bob, I would pay good money to see you take down a feral pig with a sharpened stick and a rock. Especially if you cooked it for me afterwards.Reply
Tags on May 23, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Funny you should mention that…
Jennie/Tikka on May 23, 2007 at 3:15 pm
junky: I've been cooking for them since that problem with the melamine in the dog food started (didn't want to take any chances with our pooches). Nothing fancy – just doggy meatloaf (ground beef, rice made with chicken stock, eggs, and a smattering of herbs de Provence).
The cat won't go for it! The only thing he'll eat (besides his dry food) is smoked salmon…and he gets weird after that!Reply
NvG on May 23, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Ruhlman, a libertarian. It figures!
"Vegan/vegetarian:" good to know you can forgive plant eaters as long as they ingest a heapin side of animal fixins. (or maybe just a heapin side of an animal.)
Also, keep your grubby carnivorous paws off my vodka.Reply
Bob delG on May 23, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Okay, enough fooling around (by me that is).
Michael, I've done a bit of digging on the subject of vegan and vegetarian diets and whether or not they are appropriate for infants. And what I found is that if the diet is well planned it is possible to raise a healthy child without feeding it animal products.
I cannot speak to the idea that doing so is or is not arrogant, but according to the American Dietetic Association (http://tinyurl.com/2g8f2n) and the American Academy of Pediatrics
(http://tinyurl.com/2hbumg) it can be done. You can raise a healthy infant on a vegan diet.
So I'm going to have to say that Nina Plank and her editor have got some splainin' to do. That title "Death by Veganism" seems like a bald-faced attempt to capitalize on anti-vegan public sentiment while the thesis of the piece, itself seems just plain wrong.
That baby did not die because it was given a vegatarian diet, but because it's parents did not feed it properly. This is a story about child abuse, not the intrinsic insufficiency of an infant diet that is limited to plants.Reply
faustianbargain on May 23, 2007 at 6:23 pm
on pregnancy and the vegan diet> http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/veganpregnancy.htm
mcdougall reply to nytimes>
on nina planck:
Nina Planck does not have any formal training in nutritional sciences.
She has identified the source of her assumptions about the nutritional health of a vegan diet on babies as originating from comments made by one family medical practitioner based on anecdotal observations from his vegan and vegetarian clients.
she says in her website:
"Today a correspondent asked me to disclose whether I am paid by the meat, dairy, fish, or egg industry. Good question. I am not. I'm an independent food writer and I study the work of scientists and nutritionists."
meanwhile, she also says..
"Some readers asked about my sources. Among many sources for this piece, I interviewed a family practitioner who treats many vegetarian and vegan families."
enough said.Reply
Bob delG on May 23, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Perhaps you, like I, suspect that Plank was writing from her gut and not listening to her brain?
I'm no fan of veganism, but most of my objections are personal and have no obvious basis in science.
So, I cannot in good faith condemn the practice of rejecting food derived from animals on anything other than aesthetic grounds.
If someone chooses to feed their family without including animal products, and they do the hard work of making sure that there is a proper balance of nutrients and enough calories to keep them healthy and vigorous, then on what grounds could any fair minided person object?Reply
faustianbargain on May 23, 2007 at 9:30 pm
bob dG, and I think there are other reasons too. she just had a baby and she did mention that she is an ex-vegan. her enthusiasm to criticise vegan child rearing could be because of her deep seated insecurities(fair enough, but its going a little too far to say that vegans kill their babies as if they are not fit enough to raise children..true. there are a lot of of reasons certain people who shouldnt be procreating and being vegan isnt one of them) about a vegan diet when she decided to give it up.
her business interests are also closely related to farms and animal products(granted..farmers markets are mostly about produce, but her involvement as an investor with farmtochef express cannot afford a vegan stance.) am i being overly critical? probably. why not? after all, this woman just called vegans baby killers and got published in nytimes.
my objections stem from personal experiences. raised in a third world country, i know first hand how difficult it is for poor families to raise healthy children without animal products. and they do it pretty well too. and while not denying their humanity too!! how is that for a miracle?
what spells as supreme arrogance to me is someone sitting in the comfort of their home…in one of the richest countries of the world… and declaring that not consuming animal products is a denial of humanity. such pronouncements enrage me and i think such statements are spectacularly ignorant, unkind and particularly perverse given how embracing said humanity based on ingesting animal product has resulted in a undernourished and morbidly obese society…in more ways than one.Reply
Jen on May 24, 2007 at 10:19 am
there is nothing wrong with taking supplements, but there is something wrong with considering a vegan diet as being somehow superior to a BALANCED diet that includes meat and/or meat products. the fact that vegans must (MUST) take supplements in order to maintain their health proves how difficult it is to eliminate not just meat but any meat products (milk, eggs) from a human's diet. for people using the argument "eating all meat is just as bad as no meat"..well, way to state the obvious. the key is balance. i don't possibly see how you can justify eliminating breast milk from a baby's diet. to the commenter who thinks "all land should be a protected wildlife reserve"..think carefully about what you mean when you say this…whether it is realistic, whether you know what you're talking about. also, i'm pretty sure that in 3rd world countries where ppl cannot afford meat, that they would never deny their children meat or meat products (or breastmilk!) should the opportunity arise.Reply
Queenofthegrid on May 24, 2007 at 10:43 am
I don't so much have a problem with vegans, any more than I have with carnivores. My only problem is when either camp starts railing against the other about the superiority of their respective food choices. I'm an omnivore and proud of it, and there is veal in my refrigerator right now! So sue me. That said, I think it is truly bizarre when I see bags of vegan and vegeterian cat and dog food. That's wrong. Those animals are meant to eat meat. Period. It cannot be healthy for them to be denied the foods they were clearly meant to eat. That's animal cruelty!Reply
Gee on May 24, 2007 at 11:44 am
Man, I hate The Vegans. They are essentially food fundamentalists. Great post!Reply
Claudia on May 24, 2007 at 12:12 pm
No need to "hate" vegans, Gee – and no need for them to hate carnivores/omnivores, as long as neither tries to jam their respective food philosophies down the others' respective throats. I'm a diehard carnivore myself, but serve vegetarian dishes at the dinner table, and try to respect my nieces' vegetarian (not vegan) beliefs – but only till they start lecturing. Then I insist they respect mine (which is also the majority of the family's). I don't let them get attacked because they believe eating meat is cruel to animals, but on the other hand, I won't tolerate proselytizing at dinner, or I WILL go hunting for the BBQ sauce.Reply
Danina on May 24, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Proselytizing….shudder… Why do we equate dietary choices and religion so closely? Back in my vegetarian days, I never pushed it on anybody. It was just my personal preference and I could have cared less what anybody else did, that is, until my son was born and my appalled parents started sneaking him meat. As far as the Shakurs – abuse and/or stupidity? There are no soy baby formulas that are totally vegan, but as any vegan resource will tell you, if you're not breastfeeding, never, never, never try to make your own formula or substitute plain soy milk.Reply
faustianbargain on May 24, 2007 at 2:03 pm
jen: who says that breastmilk is not part of vegan child rearing? where are you getting this from?
i was appalled to read this entry(http://www.megnut.com/2007/05/is-human-breast-milk-vegan#c) by blogger megnut. "is human breast milk vegan"? even non vegans would find the question ridiculous. the only observation i could make was that megnut claims to have been an almost-vegan…as does nina planck who says she was a vegan before she got pregnant. it seems to me that some people embrace an alternate lifestyle without learning fully about it and when they quit that after the obvious disappointments, some of them set out to paint the entire lifestyle and it's proponents in bad colours. the sentiment that is shared by planck, megnut..and even ed levine at serious eats seems to be that vegans are not fit to procreate or be parents. out of nowhere(and not from learned, dedicated, practicing vegans themselves), a rumour sprouts that vegans dont breastfeed and confusion abounds. maybe we ought to think, investigate before passing judgement on who should and shouldnt raise babies?
secondly, i am from a third world country. we were always denied meat. thats a first hand report for you.
vegans never deny their children breastmilk. once again, too much anti vegan propoganda spreading out there is spreading misinformation.
queenofthegrid: i agree re cats. but dogs dont always need meat. i am not sure about vegan diets, but dogs can survive on vegetarian diets. apparently, this is especially true for certain breeds of dogs that can lose hair because of allergies.
claudia: good for you. anyone who lectures anyone else how to live their personal lives deserve a rebuttal.
and finally, i believe that there are two vegan approved soy based baby formula. soy milk and fruit juice is not vegan approved for infants. half knowledge is dangerous.Reply
Claudia on May 24, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Just to clarify things re: the couple that Nina cites in the death of their vegan diet-fed child –
Apparently, there is more to it than whether the parents just fed their baby a vegan diet. The mother never went for a baby check up of any kind while she was pregnant, and gave birth at home – without any medical aid whatsoever – in the bath tub. Now, while I understand their have been plenty of women who have "freebirthed" without incident, I don't know that any of those aficionados did so without EVER having a baby check while pregnant, and I don't want to ignite a firestorm about whether freebirth is a good idea . . . that's not my point. My point is, the parents are now being looked at as at least negligent, if not abusive, not because they fed their kid a vegan diet, but because they apparently did so without doing their homework or without the guidance of an ob/gyn or pediatrician. This story has generated some buzz here in NYC (and is not the first of its kind to make headlines).
Of course, there are plenty of children around the world who have quite obviously made it through infancy on a vegan diet to a healthy adulthood, and there are plenty of babies who have been born at home without the benefit of a doctor, nurse, midwife or "doula". (When I was child, living in Asia, there were still women who gave birth in the fields while they worked – not that I'd personally endorse that!)
I think, in the case of these particular vegan parents, that it was not so much a case of abuse or willful neglect as it is simple ignorance – they did not bother to work with a pediatrician as to how much food, what kind and what supplements were needed to simultaneously adhere to a vegan diet while giving their baby enough nutrients to survive – never mind thrive. You can't just scale down an adult vegan diet to baby size, and I believe that was the mistake made here.
So, before we get too "het up" decrying vegan parents who put newborns on a vegan diet, I think we have to keep in mind that there are other elements to this particular story that Nina Planck did not address – such as pre-natal care, etc. – and that Nina herself might have had an axe to grind. As to "vegan" dogs and cats? Well, again, in Asia, when people do not have much (or any) meat, their dogs and cats don't, either, and seem to survive just fine. (My cats, however, eat meat because I do – and demand steak and/or BBQ sauce, too, if they get scraps. I blame myself . . . !)Reply
Skawt on May 24, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Salad is what food eats.
I just wish I had a spray can with the delightful scent of bacon cooking. Vegan or not, everyone salivates when that aroma is present.Reply
Claudia on May 24, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Oh, now I'm just disappointed in you, Skawt – an olofactory dude like you, with a jones for the odiferous, and you DON'T even have a home "bacon mister"?!! (Don't think I've forgotten your speculation a few months ago on Bourdain, nubeck jackets and Eau de Warthog (!)) Forgot? Oh, no, no, no, my "scentsitive" friend – not for one moment!
Skawt on May 26, 2007 at 4:20 am
You've given me a great idea: Clothing made from bacon. When it gets warm out and you're hungry, eat your jacket.
I'll take a Smoked Maple 42 Regular.Reply
sorcha on May 27, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Skawt, Archie McPhee (http://www.mcphee.com) was offering a bacon-scented suit for a while. Just scented, alas, not the real thing. But they do offer a staggering array of bacon-related novelties.Reply
Claudia on May 27, 2007 at 7:03 pm
OMG, Sorcha, that's too funny! (Except in 90 degree heat, of course!)Reply
maria on June 4, 2007 at 1:34 am
Jennie/Tikka said, "My black lab Roxxy eats poo out of the cat's litter box….that's NOT a sign of intelligence! :D"
BTW, did you know that many feedlot-raised cows end up eating some of their own manure mixed in with their feed? Apparently, it helps cut down on costs. In the end, as you are getting vitamins from the food the cow has eaten and synthesized, so, too, are you also getting that poo.
Ruhlman said, "I don't know why vegetarianism got mixed into this stew. I have no issues with vegetarianism. Some of my best friends are vegetarian!"
I'm curious, why do you have so much more disdain for vegans than for vegetarians?Reply
Jessica on June 11, 2007 at 10:30 am
Maria, cattle in feedlots don't eat their own manure. You can't feed ruminant by-products back to ruminants.Reply
xEL VEGANOx on October 22, 2008 at 5:03 am
GO VEGAN! For Your self, animals, and earth.
And it's all not an arrogance.
xEL VEGANOxReply
Tariename on January 16, 2009 at 11:16 pm
In fact, the whole arena of computer training can be so intimidating that it is good to take your time in selecting what courses you are wanting to take.Reply
<a href="http://olref.300mb.info/index.html">laptop pc ibm pc</a>


text:
Oh Ann Romney, I just don't know what to say. I'm so sorry. In the competition that is the candidate's wife speech, Michelle Obama obliterated you at the DNC Convention last night. I hear she even did her own writing! As MSNBC's Alex Wagner tweeted last night, "First Lady to Ann Romney: 'I will take your pasta & tunafish in a basement, and raise you a car with rusted holes & a dumpster coffee table.'"
But this is not a competition over who struggled more as a young couple. What stood out to me was how Ann Romney and Michelle Obama each spoke about their experiences as women and mothers and exactly how well their husbands understand their struggles. To hear Ann Romney tell it at the RNC Convention, you'd think Mitt Romney idealizes motherhood without caring much about the specifics -- or truly appreciating how hard she works. Michelle Obama's speech, on the other hand, describes a man who is deeply aware of and empathetic to the challenges and work mothers face.
"Tonight I want to talk with you about love," Ann said. "I want to talk to you about that love so deep only a mother can fathom it -- the love we have for our children and our children's children." We didn't hear much beyond that about what Ann's love for her own children and grandchildren means to her in specifics, though. From there she talks about the struggles middle-class families are facing right now.
"And if you listen carefully, you'll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men. It's how it is, isn't it?" Naturally, the women in the audience loved this. "You're the ones who always have to do a little more." But while Ann mentions women working harder to earn "the respect you deserve at work," she also says she doesn't think men really understand that there's not a woman in America "who really expects her life to be easy."
More from The Stir: Michelle Obama's Electrifying DNC Speech: 8 Most Inspiring Quotes (VIDEO)
Yikes -- did Ann just reveal more about Romney there than she meant to? Because what I'm picturing now is a Mitt who just never got how hard his wife works, who put motherhood on a pedestal but was ultimately not very empathetic about Ann's struggles as a mother. "That's fine," Ann says like a martyr. I don't agree. I think that empathy deficit says everything that's wrong about Romney's candidacy.
Michelle Obama talked about being a mom, too -- America's "mom-in-chief." She made jokes about being a working mom who was so tired that on her dates with Barack they had to choose between dinner or a movie because she was too tired for both.
But she was at her best when she focused on the women who raised her and Barack. They both grew up with families who didn't have much money "but who had given us something far more valuable -- their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice, and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves."
To Ann Romney's vague statement that women have to work harder than men, laboring in mute acceptance, Michelle talks about Barack's single mother struggling to pay bills. She tells us about his secretary grandmother, who watched as men she trained were promoted over her. Michelle does not think "that's fine." She thinks it's unacceptable, especially for moms trying to support a family. So that's why she mentions Barack signing the Lily Ledbetter Act demanding equal pay for equal work.
You see, men can understand how women work harder. And they can do something about it. That's a difference that matters to me. "For Barack, these issues aren't political -- they're personal." Moms need a president who actually sees and values the work moms do in specifics. Not in some bland, "you moms are so important" kind of way that results in exactly zero policies that support us. We're smarter -- and more valuable -- than that.
What did you think about the differing ways Michelle Obama and Ann Romney talked about motherhood?
Image via CafeMom Studios


text:
Category Archives: News
Drunk Zombies
Storage Warfare – PC Version
We are looking into creating a PC version of Storage Warfare! We want to include multiplayer and all kinds of fresh content! Stay posted!
Fantasy Football Guide 2013
We are proud to announce the release of our newest app, Fantasy Football Guide 2013 for Android!
"Are you ready to dominate your Fantasy Football league this season? With this app you will be one step ahead of your competition!
Featuring over 120 individual player breakdowns with draft advice, why waste your money on one of those expensive Fantasy Football magazines? This app is all you will need to draft a Championship caliber team."
Storage Warfare for Windows Phone[Update]
Storage Warfare for Windows Phone has been submitted and should be live and on the marketplace very soon! I will keep everyone updated!
Storage Warfare for Windows Phone!
It has been a few months since we posted an update, but we have been busy at work on our largest game ever, which we will be revealing soon!
But we wanted to let everyone know that in addition to the Xbox Live version of Storage Warfare, which has done great for us, we are also releasing a Windows Phone version!
Screen shots and more info to come within the next 48 hours!
Storage Warfare: Gold Edition
We have been soooooooooooooooooo busy here at 24KT Studios. I have not updated the website as much as I would like to. But I do want to announce to anyone who doesn't know yet, that Storage Warfare: Gold Edition has been released!
Storage Warfare: Gold Edition is a combination of the original Storage Warfare, along with Jersey Beach and Gamblers Paradise. The Gold Edition has over 150 different units to bid on and 75 different items.
Be sure to check it out – Storage Warfare: Gold Edition


text:
Group Claims Hacked Subscriber Database Of NY Newspaper Which Published Gun Permit Map
" The Lower Hudson Journal News, a Gannett newspaper, caused controversy when it published a map of names and addresses of gun permit holders, and announced that it planned to do so again. The plan for further publication may be in doubt as a neighboring county just announced it was denying the Journal News access to its gun permit database.
In protest, bloggers posted the home addresses and telephone numbers of Journal News editors and staff. Also cirulating was the personal and family contact information for the Chairwoman of Gannett.
The Journal News has hired armed guards for its offices, according to Politico, because of threats. "
" One of the tweets (not imaged here) provided a link to a page with this message:
lohud.com was hacked by 2nd amendment supporters in response to the posting of sensitive gun owner information. This database contains user email, name, username, password, name, phone number and address of ~10,000 lohud.com users
Feel free to make maps of Lohud users with this data "


text:
Quote:why did I snap?
Quote:Was I in the right?
Quote:Any insights?
Quote:My friends are too biased for me to ask.
Quote: The reason I just sat and took it was because I came from a very violent home and my experience with violence was that others who were bigger and stronger would escalate it until the weapons came out. Nothing was ever settled with a scrap. It was a fight to the death (or 'til the cops came!). So, I didn't want this sort of thing happening at school either.
Quote: You'll get there as well. I actually am surprised at your age; from your well-composed posts throughout the forum I thought you were older
Quote: that shows maturity beyond your age
Quote:you understand Shakespear, huh? something of a pervert, isn't he?
Variety of stun gun devices for your protection
Pepper Spray
Worry about your family when you're not around? Visit us today
to protect everything you value.
Accurate information on the ancient martial traditions of the Japanese
Protect yourself and loved ones from CRIME with the latest C2 Taser
citizen model. Very effective.


text:
I'm having a problem with classes and calling methods. I only know I have a problem at this point because Eclipse told me so. I've gone over it and over it and I just can't see what I did wrong here. Then again, I really don't know what I'm looking for. Here's the first class and call the the method in the second class. I'm trying to get an ArrayList<> I created passed into another method in a child class.
And here's the child class and relevent methods:package testP; import javax.swing.*; import java.awt.event.*; import java.awt.*; import java.io.*; import java.util.*; public class Test extends JFrame implements ActionListener { private JButton enterQ, startTest, startOver, startTestOver, nextQuestion; private JPanel buttonPanel; private JTextArea showQuestions, showAnswers, showCAnswers; private JTextField enterQuestions, enterAnswers; public ArrayList<String> questions[], corAnswers[], uAnswers[]; public Test() { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e){ String command=e.getActionCommand(); if(command.equals("Enter Question")) { String newQuestion=enterQuestions.getText(); String newAnswer=enterAnswers.getText(); addQ(newQuestion); addA(newAnswer); } } }


text:
Maurice Raymond was a French Canadian painter. Born at St-Henri, on the isle of Montréal, he attended the Montreal School of Fine Arts between 1930 and 1936. He also spent a year in the United States, before returning to become a teacher at the same school he attended. He remained active as a teacher until 1977, and has set up a School of Fine Arts at the University of Quebec in Montréal.
Besides working as a fine artist and teacher, Maurice Raymond made several illustrations for the newspaper La Province, and illustrated a comic adaptation of 'La Campagne Canadienne', based on the novel by Adélard Dugré. The strip was a commission of the Association Catholique des Voyageurs de Commerce, who printed several comics that propagated nationalist French-Canadian ideals. 'La Campagne Canadienne' appeared in the Ottawa paper Le Droit, and later in Ave Maria magazine in 1943. He also made several murals.


text:
Judging Favorably Saves a Life
Answering a frantic knock on his door, the man renowned for his hospitality discovered a young man who identified himself as a deserter from the Russian army seeking refuge for the night. Ignoring the danger involved in aiding such a fugitive he gave him a bed for the night.
When morning came the young man was gone. Also missing were all the valuables of the family. Circumstances seemed to point to the deserter as the culprit and the family urged the host to report the incident to the local police.
He refused to believe that his guest was guilty and simply swallowed his loss. Some time later a local Jew who had been taken into temporary police custody overheard a conversation between some non-Jewish prisoners about how they had pulled off such a successful robbery in the home of the generous host. This was reported to the police and to the host whose faith was vindicated.
Years later this host was serving as a shochet in South America when he was approached by a stranger who identified himself as his erstwhile guest. When he discovered that there had been a robbery and that he might be suspected, he fled in order to avoid a police investigation that could lead to a firing squad for desertion. A favorable judgment on the part of the host had saved his life.


text:
|This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to WikiFur style and standards.
For specifics, check the edit history and talk page. Consult the Furry Book of Style for editing help.
Bunjie Fustăchio is a 3D artist/modeler, virtual developer, furry, and blogger who used to go by the online handle Bunjie.
He was a furry Second Life mentor known as roger.blackhawk up until December 11, 2009 when Linden Lab purged all official mentor associations with their company. After which he moved to an account named steampunk.gears where he spent his in-world time at Daz Island as an active virtual developer on behalf of Darlisa Riggs a tech writer who managed the DAZ estate in-world for DAZ3D®, his work focused on developing a Virtual University, a new mall and various scripted projects to push DAZ Island to a focal point for in-world learning & mesh.
Late in 2010 Daz Island lost funding and was closed down though briefly moved to Opensim under the grid name DazLife.
2006 - 2014[edit]
2006 - 2007[edit]
Bunjie came to Second Life around 2006 using throw away accounts, he created his main account on the 8/5/2006 with the name Roger Blackhawk, after suffering in game Drama he created a new account on 1st of December 2007 called SteamPunk Gears, and took Steam as his Fursona name, though he now goes by the name Bunjie.
Since 2006 hes been a reclusive fur within the second life version of the fandom, and in-active within the general population of furry websites for over the last four years, he trys to maintain development of his fursona and incorporate his interests in anthropomorphics and steampunk culture into his back story, he's held a long standing passive interest in these cultures long before discovering the main stream furrie and steampunk community's through Second Life.
2008 - 2009[edit]
Around 2008-2009, he published mild comments to which a group of trolls on it's last death throws took offence, and overwhelmed his blog[1] with second life script traffic, used as a demonstration to scare other furrys within Second Life that they were still active and capable of causing mischief, in reality there was only one PN left who was struggling to maintain his reputation after he had taken over the leadership, but after experiencing a tirade of abuse from Corsi Mousehold who was misinformed and perceived him as a personal threat to his land and business as well as the PN in general, should his one blog post fire them up into attacking other furries, he was threatened with permanent banishment from every furry website, and in-world location should he ever speak to them again.
Since the aforementioned verbal abuse which was against the backdrop of what amounted to little more than one post at Furportal his old blog that was to be his window into the second life furry fandom as he explored it, and what he considers nothing more than a mild good bye joke to a known group he'd experienced on many occasion's..
2010 - 2011[edit]
Around late 2010, during the confusion as the new CEO of Second Life Rod Humble took over from Philip Linden, Bunjie took over two twitter accounts of the names Rod Humble and Rod Linden before Linden Lab had a chance to setup the accounts. He used "Rod Linden" as a parody account to launch a tirade at Linden Lab and their residents in order to smoke out the new CEO who had requested no contact during the Public Relations notice posted weeks earlier, which some residents felt was an insult because they'd waited so long.
Known as "The great rod humble twitter metagame", the primary account became a focus of a part of Second Life community, via tweets, re-tweets and in world whispers while the new CEO secretly setup his old account [2] before following the account in his name and finding the humor in it was pleased that residents we're willing and ready to talk to him, both parody and Rodviks official account was mildly maintained in order to indoctrinate the new CEO into the ways and issues of Second Life residents, within the hope he would take over his official account names and maintain active communications with residents.
The issue came to a head when Bunjie realised that Rodvik would continue to use the monkier he prefers to go by rather than his personal name, which Bunjie felt was strange considering the new CEO was a professional and went by his real name, Bunjie wiped the accounts in order to let the new CEO to gain twitter experience first hand without interruption's.
He is currently inactive in Second Life and working within a private open simulator, that goes by the name The Furpunk Workshop which he is developing as a work space to complete and expand his 3D and project portfolio's at furpunk before moving onto more main stream professional 3D applications.
Bunjies Fustachios fursona is a Rabbit-Lion-hybrid anthro-robotic augmentationist entertainer. He has dark red mechanical eyes and shoulder-length red hair.
"Get Your Fur on!", "Spread The Rainbow", ".tel me who's a furry?"
- ↑ March 2009, Will Nomadic Furs Nest In Metaplace, Article at Alphaville Herald.
- ↑ December 2010, The Great Rod Humble Twitter Metagame, Article at Alphaville Herald.


text:
Wednesday, October 20
Got Soft Apples? Make Apple-Maple Walnut Breakfast Quinoa
Is there anything more disappointing in October than biting into what you think will be a crisp, snappy apple only to have your teeth sink into mushy flesh? What do you do? Continue to eat it not to be wasteful, or toss it aside for something else?
Neither. Don't eat something you don't enjoy. You'll only be unsatisfied and crave something more. If you can, don't toss it either. Use it in something where the texture of the apple isn't critical, like applesauce. Or add it diced and cooked to oatmeal, quinoa, or barley for a delicious hot breakfast.
This Apple-Maple Walnut Breakfast Quinoa is a protein-rich, filling breakfast alternative to oatmeal. Plus, when you bake the apples on the stovetop, the scent of freshly baked apple pie will float in the air. How can a day not be good when you start it off with warm, soothing, spiced apples?
Seeing as I bought six apples from the same farmer, I've likely got five more softies in my fridge. I don't feel like having quinoa for breakfast tomorrow, so I'll be saying hello to homemade applesauce later today.
Apple-Maple Walnut Breakfast Quinoa
Makes 2 servings
Printable recipe.
1/2 cup dry quinoa
1 cup water
2 teaspoons butter
1 medium apple of your choice, diced with skins on
1- 1 1/2 tablespoons chopped walnuts
1/8 teaspoon apple pie spice
a pinch of salt
1 tablespoon pure maple syrup
1. In a small, heavy bottomed sauce pan, bring water and quinoa to a boil for 2 minutes. Lower to a simmer and cover for about 15 minutes, or until the quinoa has absorbed the water, puffs up, and turns translucent. If the water has evaporated before the quinoa is cooked, just add a bit more water. Quinoa should maintain a slight crunch when cooked.
2. In a small skillet over medium heat, melt butter. Add apples and cook 2 minutes, or until softened and lightly browned. Add walnuts, apple pie spice, and salt. Cook 1 minute more. Add to quinoa and stir.
3. Divide quinoa into two bowls, and drizzle with maple syrup. Serve hot.
Here are more breakfast recipes with apples you might enjoy:
Apple and Granola Scones recipe from Baking Bites
Pumpkin Apple Pancakes recipe from Halfed Baked
Breakfast Apple Granola Crisp recipe from Stylish Cuisine
Whole Grain Sour Cream Apple Muffins recipe from Pinch My Salt
Baked French Toast with Apples recipe from Confessions of a Foodie
Old-Fashioned Spiced Apple Streusel Muffins recipe from Food Blogga
Homemade Cranberry, Raisin, and Walnut Applesauce recipe from Food Blogga
13 comments:
- Jessica @ How Sweet said...
What a delicious way to use quinoa! It is by far one of my favorite grains. I just love it.
- October 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM
- RamblingTart said...
What a lovely way to use up softies, Susan. :-) They are SO disappointing! Thankfully we've got splendid ones in Washington right now. So crisp and juicy and fabulous. Love the looks of this porridge though! :-)
- October 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM
- Priya Suresh said...
Wat a droolworthy and healthy quinoa, fabulous breakfast to start a day..
Priya's Easy N Tasty Recipes
- October 20, 2010 at 10:56 AM
- Ms. Bake-it said...
This sounds great! I found some soft apples in my pantry this morning and was going to toss them into muffins but I will use one of them for this recipe.
~ Tracy
- October 20, 2010 at 11:22 AM
- Roxan said...
I should totally make this. ... Honeycrisp apples are my FAVORITE and they are in season right now, but they're expensive so my husband picked up other apples over the weekend and i'm so annoyed! They're totally soggy and nowhere as delicious or crispy as honeycrisp apples. I've been refusing to eat them. But I'd eat it in this breakfast quinoa!
- October 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM
- Unknown said...
I still have yet to try a sweeter quinoa, thanks for sharing.
- October 20, 2010 at 2:30 PM
- The Food Hunter said...
I've just recently been turned on to Quinoa and I love apples...so I can't wait to make this. Hopefully this weekend.
- October 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Yes, I have about six of those apples left over. Sounds like a great breakfast idea, otherwise I will have to throw the apples out, because nobody really likes to eat them.
- October 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM
- Michelle @ Find Your Balance said...
Breakfast quinoa rules. It's great when I leftovers from dinner bc it reheats so quickly.
- October 21, 2010 at 6:10 AM
- Eve Fox said...
mmmm, that looks delicious! I've never made anything sweet with it and am gonna try it ASAP. What is it about quinoa that is so addictive?
- October 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM
- Holly Keegan said...
Apple pie spice. That's what was missing when I tried something like this last week. I used plenty of cinnamon, but had I read your recipe first I would have gone apple pie spice instead. I did use a mixture of both red and white quinoa though which was pretty. :)
- October 23, 2010 at 12:04 PM
I love quinoa for breakfast! I'm so happy the weather's finally cooling off... I'll be trying this soon!
- October 23, 2010 at 6:12 PM
I just decided I need an alternative to oatmeal and thought a porridge of a different kind was needed, and poof I found it. This recipe satisfies many nutritional angles too.
- October 3, 2011 at 7:23 PM