I have been keeping something from you--my new fav treat!
After my diagnosis with Celiac Disease, I was devastated to learn that my fav candy, licorice, is conventionally made with gluten products.
Hearing my sorrow, my very gluten-free/vegan friendly partner--let's call him my GFVFBF--sent me a box of Candy Tree licorice, which are both gluten-free and vegan.
I love them. I will admit, they do taste "healthy" and therefore, not just anyone will appreciate them (not sure that they would pass the Dylan Test). I, on the the other hand, am happy to turn in Red Vines for these organic, naturally-sweetened, naturally-colored delights. Also, they are a bit chewy, but well worth the extra jaw work.
In fact, they are so delish that, upon hearing I finished a boxful, GFVFBF sent in re-enforcements just in time for finals.
Ingredients: organic corn syrup, organic rice flour, organic rice starch, organic concentrated fruit juice (raspberry and apple), organic raspberry flavor.
“I used to think of meat in the center of the plate. Today, I am a meat reducer. This means I eat less meat and make sure that the limited meat I do eat is of the highest quality. My plate is comprised of seasonal and local vegetables with meat as an accompaniment. While this is a healthier diet, the main reason I now eat this way is because it tastes better and I feel better.” Read more
Love it.
Perhaps in time, Steve Ell's will join Steve Wynn and Bill Clinton in the "rise of the power vegans."
I thought we were getting along a little better. After all, I haven't been enraged with you since your bout with transphobia in 2009 (although this probably just means I just haven't paying any attention to the media).
But we're back to square one. I saw this ad featuring NBA scout Bonnie-JilLafflin on Ecorazzi and nearly hit the roof. I simply cannot stand when veganism or vegetarianism are pitched as weight loss plans.
Being veg is not a magic weight loss pill. And frankly, this ad is just riding the
wave of hate your body/fat phobia/loathe yourself/diet diet diet insanity that creates more insecurity than confidence.
Furthermore, being veg doesn't make a person healthy; there are plenty of unhealthy vegans/vegetarians that do not eat well-balanced meals, do not exercise, or go to town on highly-processed, high-sodium mock meats.
Health is not about weight. If you are healthy, an appropriate weight will follow. This ad is just about weight, and frankly, it undermines the ethical, environmental, and food safety implications underpinning a healthy veg lifestyle.
Hey PETA, stick with throwing paint, hosting demonstrations, and releasing undercover footage. Your posters and commercials are an embarrassment to vegans who support you--myself included.
"A jury found a transgender individual guilty of killing her roommate with a pickax Thursday...French, a transgender individual who identifies herself as a woman, was found guilty of killing Frank Johnson in 2007." Source.
If a person's gender identification does not bear a relationship to the crime that person committed, why is gender orientation relevant to the media coverage?
It isn't.
Imagine reading an article that said, "Bob Smith, a biological male with a heterosexual orientation, robbed a store." It's absurd.
Where gender identification is unrelated to the crime alleged, the only purpose in repeatedly mentioning that identity is for shock value--manifesting the writer's transphobia and/or playing on the transphobia of readers.
Perhaps the transphobia exhibited in this piece isn't blatant--perhaps it's simply implied. By calling out the "non-conforming" gender identities of trans people where their identities are unrelated to the issue at hand, the speaker reinforces an us-versus-them binary that, while more "courteous" than explicit hate speech, is equally as damaging. Frankly, the ease with which such back-handed transphobia slips into everyday "civil" discourse is much more alarming to me (thinkSimone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex).
In my humble opinion, "going green" doesn't happen in the flip of a solar-powered light switch; it's a process. But sometimes, one's "greening" seems to plateau. If you need some inspiration, here are some goodies I just pulled from Ecorazzi.
The Staple-Free Stapler.
I try and use paper clips as often as possible since they are re-usable--but this is so much cooler! You can get it on Amazon.
Biodegradable Shoes.
When I read about biodegradable shoes, I assumed said wonder shoe would be fugly. But I was wrong. Oat rocks the eco-shoe rather well, and I am eagerly awaiting a release in the United States.
I'd like to start off this post by saying that I am a huge Gaga fan, and that this blog post only applies to Born This Way in terms of the song's application to LGBTQ identity. The aim of Born This Way in affirming and empowering queer identity is not implied; lyrics include:
"No matter gay, straight or bi
lesbian, transgendered life..."
While I love Gaga's passion for equality, the assertion one is "born" queer has negative implications for LGBTQ equality. The narrative "it's not your fault, you didn't choose this, and therefore we will accept you" is the same as saying "queerness is [insert pejorative here], but because you didn't choose it--and what sane person would?--we will tolerate you."
To me, that is not equality. To me, that is not acceptance. There is nothing wrong with being queer--whether you were born "that way" or whether you chose "that way."
I am not trying to argue that a person cannot be "born" LGBTQ--I am not trying to take any one's experience or re-cast their own sexual/gendered history. Reasonable minds, however, do vary as to the nature of sexual desires and orientations, particularly more fluid orientations.
That being said, this post is purely political. In a world of equality, it would not matter whether you were forced by some sort of innate inclination or freely chose to love someone of your own sex. But, in a world rampant with homophobia, the argument "accept me because I can't help that I'm queer" continues to posit queerness as less than heterosexuality.
I will say, I don't hear many members of the LGBTQ community pitching that argument--but that is the rationale I have heard time and time again from numerous "allies." I think it's about time we set the record straight: it's okay to choose.
Some people say that in a romance, passion eventually dies. To all those people, I would just like to say that Greenpeace still makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside--especially this huge Costco victory.
Thanks to pressure from Greenpeace and over 100,000 Greenpeace grassroots activists, Costco has publicly announced that it will:
Somewhere in my top ten list of life priorities is dessert. Because I know I have Sticky Fingers (which rocks the gf/v) in DC, and Babycakes in LA (thankfully I'll be moving back there soon...), I did not quiver in fear of losing cupcakes, cakes, cupcakes, or cupcakes.
I was, however, dreadfully mourning the loss of life priority number eleven: pita chips. What in the world could be equally as scrum-diddly-umptious in the chip department?
Well, ladies, gents, gender-benders, and the gender-transcending, the verdict is in: Lundberg Rice Chips trump pita chips any day of the week. Even if we were to call the flavor and crunchiness a tie--what could be more delicious to the gluten-intolerant than not being in pain?
Please note that Rice Chips come in several flavors: Sesame & Seaweed, Fiesta Lime, Santa Fe BBQ, and Original Sea Salt. For better or for worse, I am a monogamist and cannot bring myself to cheat on Original Sea Salt and try other flavors. But I will keep you posted.
I've been meaning to get off Cliff bars for a while, mainly because all that yumminess comes with a lot of extra sodium and processing. Now that I'm transitioning to GF, I'm re-vamping my dietary regimen altogether (I am also on a super miserable 10 day asthma detox that excludes caffeine, gum, and sweets other than fruits/agave...I'm too cranky to talk about it right now).
I like protein bars because I can only eat nuts/trail mix for so long--gotta keep it spicy. One of these days I'll get down the more eco-friendly route of homemade protein bars. That day is not today, or any time in the next couple weeks.
So here's what I'm working with: Raw Revolution and Pure bars.
If I had to pick a winner off the bat, it would be Raw Revolution. Other flavors include chocolate coconut and chocolate raspberry--an essential for the choco craving, GF loathing vegan. The Raw Revolution chocolate flavors are def better than the Pure chocolate flavor.
BUT, having said that, the apple flavor of Pure rocks the house. I intend on eating mainly Raw Revolution with a few apple Pure bars here and there to mix it up.
Note that there are non-choco flavors of Raw Revolution available--but why would I pick those out before all of the variations of chocolate? In terms of convenience, however, Pure bars are available at Trader Joes (whereas I've only seen Raw Revolution at Whole Foods).
What's so amazing about these bars? Take a look!
These bars are like an ideal partner--so NOT full of crap.
As a side not, a few years ago I had to take a breather from raw bars when I overdosed on them abroad (needed to pack easy sustenance). Happy to be back on raw protein bars, I am wary that I may need to occasionally switch in a non-raw, GF/V protein bar. Will keep you posted on how that one goes.
At least from my perspective, the biggest talking point regarding GMOs is a sort of panic that mutant plants will take over the earth. While cross-contamination is a legitimate concern particularly impacting conventional and organic farmers, I believe it is second to a bigger issue.
If you're a long-time reader, you may be surprised that I am less up-in-arms over cross-contamination than you might expect. This past summer, I had the opportunity to discuss GMO crops with a scientist/attorney (rare combo) from a liberal non-profit. He made a valid point: natural selection favors only those traits which make a given species better suited for survival. With regard to GMO crops generally, however, one must take action for the "benefit" of the GMO plant to be conferred.
For example, Monsanto crops that are genetically modified to survive heavy dosages of herbicide (RoundUp Ready) only confer a benefit if and when the crops are sprayed with Monsanto. Thus, these plants are not better suited or more likely to survive in the wild than their non-GMO counterparts. Note that this is not the case with all genetically engineered plants. Take the GE eucalyptus created by ArboGen. Already considered an invasive species, the cold-tolerant GE eucalyptus has some serious environmental implications--particularly because these thirsty suckers minimize groundwater, rendering their environments highly flammable.
In sum, the issue of GMOs and cross-contamination warrants serious consideration (particularly when GMOs like the ArboGen eucalyptus may be released for a field trial without an appropriate Environmental Impact Statement)--but it's not my number one source of acid reflux.
My number one concern is that when a crop is engineered to be resistant to chemicals, farmers who normally use such chemicals sparingly and as needed are now incentivized to douse their crops in toxins; better to immerse your crops frequently than sparingly, risking crop failure. I think the Organic Consumers Association does a great job of underscoring the concern of herbicide abuse and rallying activists--but the organization really undermines its own legitimacy when it uses terminology like "merchant of death" to describe Monsanto. In this case, the facts speak for themselves.
GMOs are a tricky issue because different kinds of GMOs present different issues. It's difficult to inherently write them off as "good" or "bad." What we really need is a nuanced discussion and a flexible regulatory scheme. Don't hold your breath.
Thankfully, I have escaped the District of Columbia and have been chowing down on the much-missed vegan delights of Los Angeles. I hit up Hugo's in West Hollywood and and my eyes lit up when I saw vegan mac n cheese as a special. As you may know, I have really struggled to find adequate vegan mac n cheese. The only one I like is sadly frozen and so I try to limit it as much as possible given the law school schedule (Amy's Vegan Rice Macaroni & Cheeze).
Enter Hugo's. First, note that the mac n cheese is a special, and is therefore not a permanent feature of the menu. Second, note that it is not conventional mac n cheese. In fact, I would characterize it as more of a casserole. Not only was it poppin' with mushrooms and peas, the dish came covered in fried onions. yummmmm.
Dreading going back to the District and its lame plant-based foods.
(excuse the lack of organization...it's law school finals...)
As soon as I saw the cover of the magazine, I knew that Psychology Today's piece, "The Truth About Beauty" would annoy me. And I was correct. The author, Amy Alkon, makes several ridiculous claims and drastically over-simplifies issues of women and self-image.
The basic premise of the article is, "it would be nice if inner beauty triumphed over outer appearance, but men are designed to care about packaging over content...the only way to get ahead in life and love is to accept the not-so-pretty facts about looks."
The summary on the title page is enough to make me want to rip my hair out. Aside from the fact that this statement assumes heterosexuality and that sexual orientation is fixed throughout one's lifetime, the snazzy little synopsis also assumes one monolithic definition of "getting ahead." Naturally, the author never defines what "getting ahead is"--but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something in the form of marrying a rich man and reproducing (since the author is also coming from an evolutionary biology perspective, and clearly, under that lens, that's all we women could ever want).
Shocker: all women are different, despite some sweeping mainstream generalizations. Depending on what the end goal is, most women consciously or subconsciously decide at the margin whether continue and to what degree to pursue "beauty." That's right--we each conduct our own cost-benefit analysis. Yes, I could forgo this dessert and most desserts in general to look like [insert under-weight celebrity here], but the cost of lost joy is OR is not worth it. For different women, the cost at the margin might be more or less than others, e.g., if you live in L.A., your "ideal weight" or "look" might be less realistic or less attainable than some non-urban center.
What is more, not all of us with a vagina a) have a heteronormative female gender performance; b) desire to marry a man; c) desire to marry a man who subscribes to the western idealized cultural script of masculinity; d) is sexually attracted to men; or e) ever wants to reproduce.
But fine--let's be nice. Let's at least get through the cover page and into the article. BOOM--all it takes is one paragraph: "Welcome to Uglytopia--the world reimagined as a place where it's the content of a woman's character, not her push-up bra, that puts her on the cover of Maxim."
Ms. Alkon, first of all, some women strive for goals other than landing on the cover of Maxim. Further, I doubt there is any reasonable person that believes mainstream society does not value looks. However, women are entitled to non-conform altogether, or to non-conform to whatever degree they so desire, and to seek a partner who non-conforms to a similar length. I am also sure women who do not engage in any self-grooming are aware that their compatible partner will most likely not be a typical mainstream hetero male. If said woman desires this sort of mainstream man, then, at the margin, I am sure she would do her eyebrows more and ditch the moo moo.
Moving along, the author also states that "Americans are so conflicted and dishonest about the power of beauty..." What? Are you serious? Where have you been living? Please view Exhibit A below (hat tip to e.k.):
Don't worry, the over-generalizations keep going. The author also insists on a singular definition of "feminism." Newsflash: there are multiple different types of feminisms. While the author, who refers to "feminist sob sisters" is trying to convey a brand of feminism that urges male/female equality in a strict sense, other brands of feminism, like cultural feminism, emphasize that men and women are different, and that those differences are commendable.
I also find it interesting that the author can chalk superficiality off to evolutionary biology, but then also dedicate a paragraph to explaining how ideals of beauty differ from culture to culture....meaning that, although deeply ingrained, these standards are arbitrary and reasonably transcend-able. (My mind goes back to a story I read of a man dating an under-weight woman, and the joy he took in later falling in love with a fuller-figured woman who loved life, pasta, and was not afraid to occupy space. When his ex said, "I didn't know you like fat girls," he responded, "I like happy girls").
After writing a very extreme article, seemingly positing a bi-polar perspective of "ugly" versus "beautiful," the author tosses in a sentence about moderation at the end: "...we, too, need to understand that a healthy approach to beauty is neither pretending it's unnecessary or unimportant nor making it important beyond all else."
This leads me to believe that, in a feeble attempt to make a splash and say something avant-garde, the author hid a more temperate message behind an extreme narrative. While the magazine somewhat off-sets this by including a small blurb article called "Can You Be Too Beautiful?" this article focuses on how pretty women are disadvantaged in job interviews. Neither article discusses the possible ramifications of "beauty" on self-identity and self-esteem.
Dear readers,
