I've been taking some serious flack from someone's who's opinion means a lot to me over my gamble to focus on my cookbook and not pursue other contracts or full-time work. I admit that the stress of the past six months has been extraordinary, largely from external events of which I had no control, and that it has probably cost me a relationship that meant the world to me. Despite this all, I found myself awakening this morning with re-invigorated determination that I'll find a way. The book's concept is too cool and unique (as echoed by a well-known veg'n bookbook author who I've been discussing it with for two years), and I've got to do it.
While making tea in the kitchen I happened to listen to an interview on TeeVee about a play on Broadway about Vince Lombardi that's been getting much notice. A little research led to the following two quotes that relate somewhat to how I feel, and may be helpful to many of you out there advancing your own causes or endeavoring to evolve and sustain a relationship:
"The extraordinary question Lombardi posed that day was this: “What is the meaning of love?” Yes. What is the meaning of love?
He was serious. There was a method to his madness. He explained: “Anybody can love something that is beautiful or smart or agile. But you will never know love until you can love something that isn’t beautiful, isn’t bright, or isn’t glamorous. . . . Can you accept someone for his inabilities?”
Now keep in mind, this was Lombardi, the leonine coach who also made famous the statement: "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."
According to Skoronski, the great coach then proceeded to connect the dots. Lombardi explained to the players that any of them may not regard any particular teammate as equally talented or equally capable. But a loving commitment to the team and to all the teammates would enable a better player to help a lesser player." [source]
------------ and the following fine quote:
"I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute’ nature of man or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle — victorious." --- Vince Lombardi [source]
A "Top 100 healthy twitters list" from the following blog was recently posted with one vegan blogger on it:
It's interesting to note that there is no contact information on the blog, no identification of whom runs it, and there only two posts: 100 health experts on twitter, and 100 ways to reduce health care costs (essentially links to news sources, articles, and insurance groups). Why no background information? Why no information on the organization or individuals who run the two-post blog and corresponding website?
A WHOIS search shows the domain was registered by Annie Gavin of Iowa City, Indiana. Why isn't her name on the website or blog (or anyone else's for that matter)? What's the raison d'etre? Apparently, to promote online degrees and get paid by organizations who have people inquire about their programs through her online submission form:
Sure, there are some interesting people noted on the "twitter" list, but calling them all "experts" is quite a stretch (and I've looked at some of their corresponding web sites). Maybe some of the honored will promote, er, mention, er, link to her blog/website... but do they know about her business? Do they even know who recommended them?
Regardless, we do get some wellness advice from a listed "expert:"
"Do the healthy thing and follow the Top 17 wellness tweeters. See them here..."
After all, Ms. Gavin (or rather, whomever wrote the 2 posts) recommended them, so they must all be good, healthy, happy, and knowledgable experts. Like the listed vegan blooger wellness "expert" who recently promoted Whole Food's mostly meat and dairy school lunch recipes (I'm particularly fond of the "red meat" and "protein" recipes), and created a "day's worth of energizing" recipes that had almost twice the daily fat recommended by the Feds (around five times that of the recommendations of heart disease experts Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish).
Without realizing the temporal consequences, many vegan bloggers have taken a liking to receiving free vegan food products from companies, and then promoting them, regardless of the nutritional content, and generally ignoring same. They praise and praise the products, offer giveaways, and all to drive more traffic to their blog. They usually cite product claims straight from the company's website without investigating their validity.
I've written about this many times. Most recently here, here, and here.
In correspondence with a long-term vegan online friend today (and owner of an extremely popular vegan blog), my friend pointed out that these bloggers are, in effect, promoting unhealthy (fatty, salty, sugary) junk food to the vegan community, and since they've blogged about the product, they have, in effect, provided FREE ADVERTISING FOR THIS JUNK FOOD FOREVER.
How proud they must be... a new term comes to mind to describe them: the Perpetual Vegan Shill.
Encouraging people to buy and consume excessively fatty fake cheeses, ridiculous fatty and sugar-laden candy bars, and other nutritionally useless products. And with the Internet, it's forever on their blogs. They should be totally ashamed, especially those bloggers who extoll "healthy" vegan food and "no to low fat vegan recipes" on their blogs but get all excited about giving away highly processed vegan junk food.
But wait! They'll get more free vegan products to eat and write about, and the cycle perpetuates itself.
Very very sad. Selling your vegan soul for free products by promoting vegan junk food, forever... and in return for encouraging people to eat badly, you get more free food and more hits! Is it really worth it?
IMHO, to quote John Lennon, "Instant karma's gonna get you."
[09_0911: Addendum: Wow! The Happy Shillavore has just posted another giveway of Newman's Own Chocolate Bars (only if you subscribe to her Newsletter). How weird.... a vegan chef promoting no to low-fat vegan recipes giving away free high fatty/sugary vegan candy bars (nutritional analysis and original commentary here) to stimulate site hits and Newsletter subscriptions How sad.]
It's really ironic when a superb vegan chef, who's created some marvelous no- and low-fat vegan recipes, actively promotes (and does a giveaway to drive more traffic to her site) a product that, on the surface, seems to be reasonably healthy and good, but is, in fact, far from both. However, since they sent her a free box of stuff to review, guess that's okay.
The blogger is giving away 3 "Newman's Own Premium Dark Chocolate Bars" at random to people who leave a comment on her post. They get an extra "entry" for Tweeting or Blogging about her post.
But the blogger hasn't bothered to either seek or note the nutritional breakdown of these junk bars (hey! they're ORGANIC... that MUST be good). So let's take a peek at the Nutritional Analysis of one of these puppies
(Newman's own doesn't bother to provide the RDA percentages at their
1) FAT: 28 grams of fat (that's double toover the total recommended per day by the guys who've reversed heart disease, Ornish and Esselstyn), and about half recommended per day by the Feds. It's also 16 grams of saturated fat, and that's 100% of the total daily saturated fat (a heart disease promoter) recommended for women by the Feds.
Newman's Own Dark Secret: that chocolate bar is a very effective fat/saturated fat/sugar delivery vehicle for inviting heart disease, let alone, obesity and diabetes...Even ONE high fat meal is tough on your arteries. Such a gracious giveaway... giving people a chance to win a free chocolate bar, and ultimately, giving three people a greater chance for heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
However, to keep getting vegan freebies, one must not worry about all that fat/sugar stuff. It's someone else's decision to eat the stuff... all that matters is promoting more blog traffic to get more freebies, which will, in turn, promote more blog traffic! An endless cycle...
But then hey, a free organic heart attack is better than one that's not, right?
"A steam-powered, biomass-eating military robot being designed for the Pentagon is a vegetarian, its maker says.
Technology Inc.'s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot — that's
right, "EATR" — "can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in
the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well
as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy
fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when
suitable," reads the company's Web site. But, contrary to reports, including one that appeared on FOXNews.com, the EATR will not eat animal or human remains.... “If it’s not on the menu, it’s not going to eat it,” Finkelstein [Cybernetics "Expert"] said..."
"...The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced..."
[Frackin' wonderful... a "vegan" robot... must be part of the "Forever War" effort... Full article here and below. Gotta wonder how much DARPA money will go into "feeding" this stupid project instead of people.]
A derivative of rendered fat from cattle, sheep, and horses. Just boil it down and mix with ammonium (NH4). After a series of chemical pit stops, out comes a quaternary ammonium compound, or quat—a
positive ion in which the hydrogen is replaced by long-chain organic
molecules. Quats effectively coat your clothing with lipids, making the
fibers soft to the touch. These fats also make fabric a bit less
absorbent—don't use on towels or cloth diapers—and the positive charge
neutralizes static electricity. There are a few other quats in Downy,
with easily pronounceable names like 1-methyl-1-tallowamidoethyl-2
Also known by the catchy moniker 5-chloro-2-methyl-3-isothiazolone.
So much animal fat in one place serves as a perfect medium for
microbes. Without powerful antimicrobials like isothiazolones, April
Fresh would quickly turn into August Rancid."
[For the full list and article, go here or below. Of course, these additional "fun facts" are not included in Downy's official "Fabric Softener Facts" which is an unlinkable Flash "page."]
It's absurd, but true... you can read about this amazing (and somewhat disturbing) graphic used as a placemat at Burger King here. Click on the image to see a larger version (and tks to boingboing.net for, ahem, pointing this out...).
"...You may wonder how words can amount to a terrorist act in the land of
the free and home of the outspoken. It is not widely known, but
Congress recently passed legislation called the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act (AETA), which can be used to prosecute civil disobedience
and speech as “domestic terrorism” when an animal-related business
loses profits and property. The Act also protects corporations that
pollute and destroy the environment.... If you think you
may want to use your free speech someday to criticize something,
anything, then you had better be very concerned.
...What are the parameters of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and who
could be tangled in its web, slapped with prison time and branded a
terrorist? Could Oprah Winfrey--the beloved and successful talk show
host--and her former vegetarian guest, Howard Lyman, be prosecuted as
terrorists if they were to repeat anti-beef comments made to Winfrey’s
15 million viewers in 1996?... If Winfrey and Lyman were to make these comments today, and viewers hit
the streets, embarking upon civil disobedience, vandalism, even
breaking into factory farms and rescuing frightened death row cows from
slaughter, could the pair be held liable as AETA conspirators? It is
But nothing this extreme needs to occur because the penalty section of
the AETA explicitly states that a person can violate the law and go to
prison even if there is no property damage, no loss of profits, no fear
to any persons, and no injuries. In other words, if Lyman were to say
to Winfrey, “Gee, I hope someone rescues those poor tortured, cows
before slaughter,” his comment could be interpreted as a violation of
the AETA, more specifically as a “conspiracy to interfere with the
operations of an animal enterprise.” "
[Very very edited from the superb and thoughtful essay, "Are Your the Terrorist Next Door?" by Dr. Charlotte Laws at her blog and below. Be concerned. Learn more at: http://www.noaeta.org]
"...rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) is a genetically engineered,
potent variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows.
Manufactured by Monsanto, it is sold to dairy farmers under the trade
name POSILAC. Injection of this hormone forces cows to increase their
milk production by about 10%. Monsanto has stated that about one third
of dairy cows are in herds where the hormone is used. Monsanto, supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), insist
that rBGH milk is indistinguishable from natural milk, and that it is
safe for consumers. This is blatantly false: rBGH makes cows sick.
Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including
mastitis, on its Posilac label.
*rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to the mastitis commonly induced
by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis. *rBGH milk is
chemically, and nutritionally different than natural milk. *Milk from
cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of
which are absorbed through the gut into the blood. *rBGH milk is
supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), which
is readily absorbed through the gut. *Excess levels of IGF-1 have been
incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. IGF-1
blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.
*rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy
farms. *rBGH enriches Monsanto, while posing dangers, without any
benefits, to consumers, especially in view of the current national
surplus of milk.
Of still greater concern, based on 37 published scientific studies as
detailed in the book, excess levels of IGF-1 in rBGH milk pose major
risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers."
[From the press release for the new book, "What's in Your Milk?" by Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, here and below. Perhaps the Yahoo vegetarian_group moderator, Donna, who routinely edits out (without telling anyone) negative comments about milk, cheese, and eggs in posts to her group, should get a copy. BTW: at Epstein's website you can also learn about the UN, European countries, and Canada banning US milk and the use of rBGH.]