Monday, November 29, 2010

George Harrison is Cooler Than You

George Harrison has always been my favorite member of The Beatles.  Paul was the cute one, but I always found him to be mildly disturbing.  I'm not certain if it was his undeniably happy music that suddenly went off the rails with "Helter Skelter" (a clear sign of an impending mental breakdown) or the fact that it is now accepted knowledge that he is in fact a zombie, but something about him just never sat right with me.  Ringo seemed like a cool guy, but after hearing about some of his interviews where he professed an enjoyment of used tampons things just haven't been the same.  John Lennon - amazing as he is, is too much of a genius for my poor unworthy soul to be a fan of.  This leaves George.

George just always seemed unbearably cool.  Unlike the other members of the band his ego never seemed to impose itself too strongly.  In fact, even when George was complaining about being ignored and overlooked he did it with class and dignity.  And Eric Clapton.  Which is alright because George Harrison was probably the best part of my favorite Clapton song as well.  George Harrison just had a level of kindness and class about him that is truly unrivaled in today's day and age.

Harrison's generosity and selflessness comes through best in a story that I heard several years ago.  While Harrison was hospitalized for his final bout with throat cancer, Ringo visited him.  Ringo's daughter was at the time (as she is now) suffering from a cancerous brain tumor and after a time Ringo found himself crying to George over the predicament.  The surgery was happening the next day.  George, though he barely had the strength to sit, in all sincerity asked Ringo a single question: "Do you want me to go with you?"  That's right, George Harrison asked Ringo if he wanted him to go with him through he was virtually on his death bed.

That's just the sort of man that George was.

Thanksgiving is a travesty

It recently has been reported that Angelina Jolie doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving.  Given, it is the Daily Mail, so who knows the truth of what they're reporting.  While the story itself is unsurprising to me, as is the general idiocy of the whole events, what does surprise me is the logic behind the idea.  Thanksgiving is celebrating the genocide of Native Americans?  Really?  I don't think I've met a single Native that is insulted by Thanksgiving, being a Native myself, I certainly don't care.  I think Ms. Jolie is getting her history a little bit muddled.

Thanksgiving is traditionally celebrated as the feast of making it through the first winter.  Here are the Puritans, new settlers in the Americas, who have no clue about the local agriculture, etc.  They're cold, they're starving, they're completely unprepared - here come the Native Americans to help them through the winter.  Corn was introduced, wild turkeys were eaten, people had a better idea of what was going on.  It was a time of peace, a time of celebration, and a time of plenty compared to the 'we're so hungry we need to resort to cannabalism 'that the Puritans were previously facing.  Genocide?  It doesn't factor into Thanksgiving exactly.

If Angelina Jolie wishes to take offense to a holiday - or anyone, really, I think Columbus Day is far more appropriate.  Christopher Columbus' tale is a far more harrowing one than the Puritans.  If you read through any of the source documents, the Native American population was already decimated by the time that the Puritans arrive.  Imagine coming upon a lot of ghost settlements - that was pretty much what the Puritans were finding.  Columbus worked the Native populations of Haiti to extinction in a a search for gold, he spread syhpilis, he killed a lot of people.

The Puritans?  Not really so much. 

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Smile Dog



One of the strangest things about the internet are the stories that pop up in relation to it.  Of all the internet stories that I’ve ever heard – ranging from posting 10 comments to a youtube video to get a kiss from your crush to instant messaging 25 people with a rhyme in order to not get killed by a vengeful blind ghost – the one that has stuck with me for a long, long while was that of Smile.jpg – or better known now as… Smile.dog.

Smile.dog is a piece of what has become colloquially known as “creepypasta.”  Creepypasta is commonly a short anecdote that passes around the internet being claimed as real – what sets it apart from other anecdotes is that it is commonly accompanied by a picture or formatted in such a way as to emphasize the whole experience of reading it – much like the book House of Leaves if one thinks about it.
Smile.dog’s story consists of a classic horror set-up – an amateur writer visits the house of a lady who supposedly has a story for which he can borrow from.  Rather than speak, however, the lady has locked herself up in her room, crying and ranting about nightmares and visions and various other problems.  All of these center around a floppy disk she had been given that contain the image smile.jpg – which is smile.dog. 
Other cases of this have cropped up…

Viewing this image incites insanity, and no copy of the exact image exists on the web though likenesses of it do.  The true image of smile.jpg is recognized due to the effect it has on the viewer – that is, they wind up dead.  Attaching the file – that is, spreading the word, is the only way to save oneself from the smile.dog that appears in one’s dreams demanding to spread the word.  Some say that the original legend began with an image of the devil.

What is it, then, about smile.dog that sticks with the reader?  Reading it late at night in the dark and alone… seeing the haunting image of the original(?) or at least close to the original image..  it incites a sort of morbid hypnosis that makes one want to believe in it in a way.  Why not torture oneself for a little and believe an urban legend for the shear adrenaline rush it produces?

Why not spread the word a little, oneself?  After all, how much hurt could it do?

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Meat-Eating and Michael Vick

Militant Vegetarianism is troubling.

While there is no denying that vegetarianism is a healthy choice – consuming vegetables and fruits is a good thing – what it accomplishes is nothing that an increased intake of fruits and vegetables and decreased intake of red meats would accomplish.  The diet then, is something that should be taken for other reasons – primarily moral or political.  Morally, people often choose vegetarianism due to the fact they care about animals and don’t want them to die simply to produce food.  Politically, it can protest the disagreeable parts of the meatpacking industry (whether treatment of animals, treatment of humans, etc.)  Vegetarianism isn’t so much a diet choice as it is a statement, and I kind of take issue to that.

Vegetarianism is something that I tried for a while.  I am not currently practicing it, though my diet rarely contains much meat anyway.  I don’t like the taste of some meats, and it isn’t something I particularly crave, so I prefer lighter foods.  It’s a personal choice and says nothing about how I feel about animals (I adore them), or the meatpacking industry (I don’t take very much issue with it currently.)  If change is to be made in how we as a country/species/etc. view animals and view meat-eating it needs to be done for good reason and not just because animals are “like us.”  They are like us biologically in many ways, but in many ways they also are not – and they are NOT neurologically identical to us or even close.

The reason for this post is that recently I heard someone comparing meat-eaters to Michael Vick.  When someone buys and consumes meat, they are ordering the death of a creature to sustain them.  Similarly, Michael Vick killed dogs knowingly and with intent.  I disagree with this comparison, and I disagree with it for several reasons.  Yes, both situations involve the death of an animal; one involves the intentional slaughter for entertainment, the other the intentional slaughter for nourishment: there is a difference.

Slaughterhouses have to conform to high standards of care for the animals that they process.  McDonalds, for instance, buys beef from slaughterhouses that conform for a 98% humane standard.  If any place is found to fall below that high standard, they are given a week to fix the problem before going on once more.  Raise the bar any higher, and you are going to be putting a lot of people out of work and running into even more issues.

The animals at slaughterhouses, in spite of the PETA videos, are often treated extremely well.  Highly stressed animals are not going to be healthy, and healthy animals produce a good deal more meat than unhealthy ones.  It is poor business practice to brutally abuse creatures that are later going to be processed into meat that has to meet standards of care.  A single bruise on a cow can ruin the meat in that area.  The last thing slaughterhouses want to do is lose money.

Meanwhile, dog fighting rings are very different.  These places mutilate their animals (they commonly dock tails and slice the lips off of their dogs so as to create a permanently aggressive display to avoid the dog from being social.)  The dogs tend to be kept malnourished to a certain extent so as to produce even more territorial behavior in the sight of food – compare this to the very well-fed cattle.

Dog-fighting is just that – dogs fighting.  The cattle are kept social, they are kept happy.  The dogs are kept solitary until released to kill and cannibalize the other dogs.  In Vick’s case, the dogs that were losing were finally killed via hanging – a slow suffocating death.  Compare this to the shots that kill the cattle, a painless and quick death unless messed up.. and too many mess ups and the place goes out of business.  In dog-fighting, that isn’t the case at all.

Meat-eaters are in no way condoning the death of animals for entertainment.  They are condoning the humane slaughter so as to nourish themselves.  It’s a dietary choice, and a dietary choice that unfairly receives too much criticism.  Us meat-eaters, we are not brutal murderers and sociopaths.  We are just people doing what we need to to stay healthy, more often than not, and in the meantime are keeping thousands upon thousands of people employed.  Stop comparing us to the real monsters, and crack down a bit more on them.