"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
Let’s talk animal rights for a bit, shall we?
Admittedly, this is a tricky one for a plethora of different and varying reasons, and one that I could write entire books about. So, where to begin….?
While it is clear that animals and humans are vastly different on a great many levels, they are also very similar on enough levels to warrant the discussion in the first place. After all, the scientist will say he tests on monkeys because they are like us, and then when asked if it is right to do so, he will say “yes” because they are NOT like us. That type of hypocrisy is not uncommon when we discuss animal rights issues with nearly anyone- not just the vivisectionist.
But first, let’s define what animal rights means to me. In my view it is the right not to be made to die and suffer by humans except in self-defense. Period. However, if you take issue with the concept of a "right" for animals, you can instead think of this position as being equivalent to the following proposition: "It is MORALLY wrong to kill animals UNNESISARILY and make them suffer except in self-defense.”
Now, let’s take this oft-discussed hypothetical conversation as an example of why I am for some form of animal rights:
Opponent of animal rights: How can you say that animals have rights? That’s ridiculous.
Proponent of animal rights: Why is it ridiculous?
Opponent: For one thing, animals can't reason. They can't be held responsible for their actions. To have rights, you must have these capacities first and foremost.
Proponent: Wait a minute. Infants can't reason in the regard you are meaning, either. Does that mean that it's open season to hunt and kill babies?
Opponent: Of course not. Infants will be able to reason someday. We must treat them as prospective rights-holders.
Proponent: But what if the infant is terminally ill and has only six months to live? What about a person who was born with part of his brain missing and has the mental capacity of a pig? What about a senile, old person? Is it OK to kill, eat, and otherwise use these people for our own ends, just as we now use pigs and cows and sheep and monkeys?
It's easy to grasp this fact if you do some introspection and ask yourself why it is morally wrong to inflict suffering on a human who can't reason. Why is it morally wrong to torture an infant? Is it because he or she has the potential to become a moral entity at some point? Now, be honest about this: Isn't it really because the infant can suffer and has an interest in NOT suffering? Isn't it because forcing the infant to suffer against his or her will violates its “rights”? Why is it immoral to use a victim of Alzheimer's for target practice? Is it because he is a member of a species whose more normal members can think conceptually and can be held responsible for their actions? Surely not. It's because he can suffer, and therefore, he has an interest in not suffering. To treat him this way against his will goes against his “rights” I am sure everyone will agree.
In essence, all of this also holds true for the monkey, the dog, the cat, or any other animal we know of for that matter. Like a human, the monkey can suffer, and he has an interest in not suffering. To force him to die and suffer needlessly, except in self-defense, violates his “rights”, as well. It's a simple matter of treating like cases alike with pure categorical logic.
Sometimes skeptics make the following objection to animal rights: “If animals have a right not to be made to suffer, doesn't it follow that we should police the wilderness and prevent predatory animals from attacking their prey?” No, this does not follow. Animals should be allowed to defend themselves, but they do not have the right to protection any more than human beings do. What the “like cases alike” argument proves is that it is immoral for moral creatures like humans to treat animals in ways we would not treat humans like except (again) in self-defense.
In truth, because animals are not moral creatures as we know it, what they do is outside the purview of our ethics system. We might as well ask whether a zebra has a “right” not to be crushed by a falling rock. Therefore, we can only concern ourselves with what WE should do and not do. Animals in the wild are on their own for all intents and purposes. At least an animal who is preyed upon in the wild has a fighting chance. It is not locked in a cage or hunted with tools he has no privy to.
Another popular objection is “animals kill and eat each other in nature, so why shouldn't we be able to do the same thing?” In other words: “If animals do it, then we can do it, too.” But that would mean that we are like the animals, and surely it would be illogical to base our moral principles on the actions of animals who can't even engage in simple moral reasoning, correct? Some animals eat their offspring. Does that mean I am morally entitled to eat my offspring, as well? This is one of the many reasons I am a vegan; we are not at the top of the proverbial food chain- we are far, far BEYOND it.
So, do animals deserve “rights” afforded to them? Perhaps not in the context of the same equal rights we are afforded in our United States Constitution, but some basic rights should indeed be in order. Perhaps the same rights infants are allowed and afforded, but not the same rights adult humans are given. Besides, in theory all suffering is immoral when inflicted upon the innocent. After all, animals have no proper voice to speak out, but that doesn’t mean we still cannot hear them cry.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
A proposal to ban the circumcision of all male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November 2011 ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a very private family matter. In fact, if the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18, and the practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. And finally, there would be no religious exemptions whatsoever.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and dangerous or even sometimes deadly. They go one step further and say parents should not be able to force the decision on a young child who cannot speak out for themselves what their wishes may or may not be.
But, don't parents do that already with a score of other issues including baptization, the foods they choose to feed their children, the places they allow them to play and with whom, etc.? After all, while I may agree with the assessment of anti-circumcision folks out there who say the practice is outdated and fairly archaic, I also have a personal aversion to banning much of anything at all myself.
Besides, State and Federal governments should not ban something that is supported by one's religion or parent's beliefs, right? Doesn't this border on (if not step right into) a war about the constitutionality of the issue at worst, and an unnecessary if not costly battle for tax payers at best that really only effect a small percentage of people in the long run?
Ironically, circumcision is promoted in only two world wide religions, (Judaism and Islam). Most other churches and religions- like the Catholic church for instance- keep a completely neutral stance on the issue altogether. After all, only about 30% of males over the age of 15 in the world are circumcised. In fact, of that 30%- roughly 68% of these circumcised men are Muslims alone. So, is this a matter of religious discrimination?
It seems to come very close to violating one's individual rights as stated in the 1st amendment of the Constitution to me: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Still, the other side says this is a matter of keeping one safe from harm. But if that were true, then what about anti-smoking laws, or the war on drugs? Or the Patriot Act, for that matter? Those hurt (or "protect" as is the case for the Patriot Act), and even kill many more innocents than circumcision ever will.
And what about abortion? Should that be banned too, for similar reasons? What about parents who choose to get little Sally Sue's ears pierced at a young age without her consent? Is that "mutilation", as well? And what about baptization, the unhealthy foods that kids tend to eat, the dangerous places they tend to play in, and the bad influences they choose to play with as I already said above? Where does it all end? And who is to be the final authority as far as mutilation even goes, or the right of the parent to parent as they see fit for that matter?
At the end of the day this seems to me to be nothing shy of retaliation in San Francisco against extreme religious groups because of their aversion to gay marriage. After all, San Francisco is well known as the battle front for gay equality in the United States, and gay marriage is a hot button issue for many people including myself. Is this a "rainbow conspiracy" of sorts that will eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court just like the issue of gay marriage eventually will? Could this be nothing more than a clever attack on religion in the only way they seem to know how- by creating even more laws to ban things that are as close to irrelevant as possible to everyone BUT theists?
Just keep in mind, while I have a personal aversion to religion, in this case I will choose to do what Voltaire said he would do in such similar instances: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Or as is the case here: "... I will defend to the death your right to DO what you choose to do based on your constitutional right to not have the law or Congress supersede your personal religious beliefs."
Besides, like I already said, I have a problem with banning anything that (for the most part) doesn't harm another person or worse. After all, the medical benefits of circumcision are so evident that they can easily be accessed by simply Googling them. Abortion and smoking, however, don't seem to offer much in the way of a benefit to anyone at all- physically, or otherwise- and they kill many more people than a simple medical procedure ever will. So, which is it? Do we steer clear of making new laws to ban things unnecessarily, or do we ban them ALL? I suspect I know which side most people will fall on including myself.
Agree or not, this is a step in the wrong direction for this issue to take. If one truly wanted to change anything including people's minds, they should start off first by spreading the word in as many ways as possible, including petitioning doctors and hospitals to provide information to patients about the pros and cons of the procedure without looking as if they are trying to sway the argument one way or the other. The answer is never to make a new law first, and worry about the consequences later.
Frankly, the answer lies in getting rid of many of the laws we already have!
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
I need to qualify this first by saying two things up front:
First, anytime I talk about anyone with even the smallest bit of authority or power over the masses- willing to lead their sometimes blind followers to the ends of the earth- whether that idol be an actor, a preacher, a sports star, an artist or a politician- they are doing themselves a great injustice if they simply follow without first asking themselves, “Is this person truly worthy of my praise and hero status I wholly give to them.” After all, as my friend David said recently, “Sarah Palin is little more than a cult of personality in the same vain that President Obama is a cult of personality to his supporters.” Few of these people are nothing more than twisted “fans” awaiting the next American Idol contestant they’ve helped propel to stardom in hopes of watching fail in full view of the public spotlight.
Having said that, I feel that you MUST hold yourself up to the highest standard possible when you command the attention and the imagination of any number of people in the palm of your hand like these individuals do- no matter how many, or how few their supporters are. In other words, if you are a priest you probably shouldn’t molest little boys, if you are a sports star you probably shouldn’t murder innocent dogs, and if you are a homeless man who is given a chance at a new life through instant stardom, maybe you shouldn’t screw it all up by getting yourself thrown back into rehab within the first week of that new life because you have no self control.
Sure, we’re all human, I accept that, but when you wield that much power over your “flock” you simply have to be MORE than human, or choose not to be there at all to begin with. That is the price celebrities pay for their fame, and that is how we judge them in this life- like it or not. And frankly, if one can’t cope with that price, he or she should endeavor to find a new line of work that pays much, much less- figuratively AND literally.
Such is the case for celebrity politicians, as well.
But, on to my second qualification: The rabid and sometimes zealotous fans within these celebrities’ ranks (that I can only compare to each other), have the uncanny ability to often contradict reality at best, or downright lie to themselves (or each other) by making up facts to suit their cause at worst. I have yet to see anything else in modern history perhaps aside from some radical religious groups like the Westboro Baptist folks that even compare to this level of fact-twisting, blind idolatry.
And while every one of these individuals has the right to distort facts as they see fit under our 1st amendment of the United States Constitution, it also makes those of us who actually value truth and honor above all else see them in the worst possible light there is. They’ve done this to themselves, after all, and as the old saying goes, “The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his own deception, and who chooses to lie with sincerity.” If we start to believe our own hype, and stop questioning “with boldness even the existence of God” we might as well put our hand at the level of our eyes, as they say, and believe what we are simply told with blind rhetoric and ignorance as our only guide.
Which brings me to Sarah Palin.
There are three things by which I personally judge people- family, friend, or celebrity alike. The first is: is this person willfully ignorant? Now, I don’t mean school smart vs. street smart, or outright stupid because you live-in-a-trailer-park-in-Kansas dumb. I am talking about the type of person that even with the overwhelming majority of fact via proof and evidence for something set before them, they still choose not to believe in it because they simply don’t want to. I mean, for crying out loud- you have to be a real special kind of lady to believe that Jesus walked with the dinosaurs like Sarah Palin does!
And furthermore, let’s just get this part out of the way since I am sure you are expecting it anyway? Sarah Palin, beyond politics and hype and rhetoric and cult of personality, is simply not capable of true, sincere interaction with the media, other politicians or the American people at all. One doesn’t have to go much further to discover that truth past how she chose not to answer ANY question posed to her during the Vice Presidential debate with then Senator Joe Biden, instead saying things like, “I don’t think Imma gonna answer that, but I will tell you about ‘X, Y & Z!’” Or, the infamous interview with Katie Couric where she couldn’t name a single thing that she reads for news.
Now, I’m not implying that the woman is illiterate, but if you can’t name so much as a comic book that you read…. Well, I’m just sayin’.
After all, just because you invoke the name of the almighty demigod, Ronald Reagan, or say “God bless America” or “Maverick” enough times doesn’t make you a bright individual who will ever be capable of being a competent president. Likewise, just because our current president has schooling under his belt that would make mine look like pre-schooling for retarded squirrels, doesn’t mean he truly understands the American people or the basic tenants of our way of life as a nation, either. Or, for that matter, a folksy, born again Christian like George W. Bush doesn’t equal a man capable of stringing two sentences together to make a coherent thought whatsoever.
Still, the beauty of our country is that any idiot can vie for public office and win. Sadly, it seems, more times than not we find and elect those idiots over the other. Such is another concern I have with Sarah Palin. Where was she found, by whom and why?
The reason in my mind that Sarah Palin was introduced to the American people as John McCain’s running mate in 2008 was a simple one: Barack Obama was young, black and a theoretical political outsider. John McCain was well-known, had been in politics for many, many years and was by all accounts much older and “whiter” than his opponent. Enter Sarah Palin.
Palin was young, fresh, new, attractive, and most importantly, she was a woman. There had to be something to offset all the proposed negatives against McCain as the American people saw it in order to compete with The Messiah: The Count Barackula, Barack Obama. To anyone critically thinking about politics and the election, this was an obvious ploy. Albeit, a ploy we were all eagerly willing to ignore because we knew what lie ahead of us should Obama be elected.
But there was also one more thing Sarah Palin had that we all had hoped would help get John McCain elected: she was much more “conservative” in comparison to Obama’s extreme liberalism, or John McCain’s centrist persona. Surly, this would help counter-balance voter’s concerns as well as rally the Republican base, while making the playing field a little bit more even in the process.
Alas, that was not to be the case. The more Sarah Palin spoke, the more it was painfully obvious that she was there strictly for her youth and feminism, and not for what she actually brought to the table as a leader. In clearer words, she simply wasn’t yet ready for prime time.
After all, some people have “it”, and some people don’t. Sarah Palin I am sure has a lot to offer some people in some capacity- but a high profile public office position is not that thing. And it never will be.
This is painfully clear by the fact that she quit her job as Alaska Governor shortly after failing to become the Vice President of the United States of America. Which is my number two thing by which I judge people I know, or know of: Are you a quitter?
Now, I don’t mean in order to raise the bar in your own personal life or to become a better person in general, but the type who quits something simply because they didn’t win another thing and their ego won’t allow them to continue on, or because they didn’t like something about another person they found out about well into that relationship. This could be applied in marriages, in friendships, as an employer, or in Sarah Palin’s case.
After all, just because you found out that a person you knew for 24 years is an atheist after many years of friendship doesn’t mean you throw them aside like a sack of moldy, old potatoes. Or, if you find out your son is gay, or your spouse snores- that is no reason to end any relationship on a whim.
Sure, I understand that we all have a threshold for some kind of tolerance in some shape or another, and we all have that one or two things we would never forgive in another person- but sometimes it just isn’t warranted to “quit” someone when they truly believe in you. Judge them harshly, yes. Even punish them. But, never, ever quit them. And, I’m not talking the average individual here, either.
The Alaskan people believed in Sarah Palin for better or worse, otherwise they never would have voted for her in the first place. But yet, she quit them like someone would leave a dog behind because their new apartment wasn’t big enough for them. That is just unacceptable in my world.
If you invest in someone (or a great many someones like Palin did), and they rely on you to do the job they elected you to do- you don’t just quit them. This wasn’t McDonalds or some part-time census worker position- this was as the Governor of the largest state in the union who hung her constituents out to dry because she didn’t win in 2008. Not cool.
After all, it wasn’t to run for a higher office in our great nation that she left. And it wasn’t to spend time with her family like she had tried to tell us at first. After all, the first thing she did was abandon her family to gallivant across the country to hock her new book. And then, she got a cushy new job on Fox News as a contributor, and finally as a reality TV star. This woman is nothing shy of a narcissistic egotist of the highest degree. It’s all about her.
Again, if a person wants to better their situation or themselves by obtaining a new job, or even a new relationship- fine- I don’t fault them. That is their right. But like I already said, this wasn’t just any job, and she told us all something that simply wasn’t true.
Which brings me to my number three thing by which I have a tendency to judge people for – right or wrong: hypocrisy. If you want to lie, good for you- I just hope you’re good at it and don’t get caught. But don’t try to blow smoke in my face and tell me it’s pixie dust later. That just makes you an hypocrite. And I LOATHE hypocrisy!
For instance, remember when El Presidente, Senor Obama- towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance on Jay Leno in 2008, talked about how he’d gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley?
“I bowled a 129”, the president said.
“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.
It’s “like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said.
Yeah, guess who flipped her proverbial wig over that one? If you said “The mother of Down’s Syndrome baby, Trig- Sarah Palin” you win the prize. But it was her defense of Rush Limbaugh as obvious “satire” later that same week for saying even worse tripe about special needs folks that made her the hypocrite.
“But, isn’t she at least the constitutional conservative like she claims to be?” Not even close!
If one is a TRUE constitutional conservative, you would- even in the face of your personal feelings and better judgment- be for the burning of the United States Flag, for the rights of individuals to erect any building they choose to in America, and support the right of EVERYONE to speak out peacefully in any way they choose to regardless of your personal bias. But not Sarah Palin.
She supported the proposed amendment to the constitution to make flag burning illegal. But like Vietnam veteran Richard Savage said,
“…. Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself.”
Sarah Palin damns the constitution in favor of her personal opinion, but yet, she does this instead:
Then, she said on her Twitter account of the controversial Mosque at Ground Zero being built, "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing."
Yet, regardless of your position, if you are a strict constitutionalist you would NEVER propose to tell people they shouldn’t build a religious structure, no matter how ill-advised and disrespectful it may seem to you.
And finally, recently in response to a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a the Westboro Baptists I mentioned earlier that demonstrates at military funerals she said (also on Twitter), “Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square.” She later explained that she was trying to say she was making a point about a double standard on free speech, not that the group shouldn’t have the right to protest. Too late, Mrs. Palin- you are clearly no constitutionalist, so stop pretending to be.
But beyond all of that, she is supremely (and unnecessarily) divisive within her own party. Recently in front of an Alaskan backdrop of grandiose mountains and a lakeside view she found time to tweak a fellow Republican, dismiss the president, and scold a top-rated Fox News talk show host all in one interview.
Palin opened by questioning New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's toughness and attacking President Barack Obama for naivete. After that, she preached about cutting various government programs to Bill O'Reilly before advising him not to interrupt her ever again even though the show was called The O’Reilly Factor, not The Sarah Show. All in a night's work for the ego which is Palin.
"… With all due respect to Governor Christie, you know he has no choice but to cut budgets because he's broke, his state is broke. What courage really is, is in the face of having a surplus when you have opportunity to spend, spend, spend other people's money, and you still choose to rein in government to let the private sector soar,” she said.
“And, by the way,” she finished with a flourish, “that’s what I did here [in Alaska].”
By popular demand, it really IS “The Sarah Show”!
This doesn’t make her look tough or like a rebel by attacking all of these people in the way she did- it just makes her look petty and narcissistic. After all, to say that of a fellow republican potential presidential candidate is just beyond the pale. What would your precious Ronald Reagan say about choosing to break his 11th Commandment of not speaking ill of a fellow Republican? Who is this former Governor of a state with a whopping grand total of 630,000 residents to speak of courage in office when the first thing she did when the going got tough was QUIT!?
And, don’t even get me started on “Crib-Note-Gate”!
Or, the anti-Semitic “blood libel” comments she made after the tragic shooting of Arizona Rep., Gabrielle Giffords.
Or, for that matter, giving that last speech the very same morning Arizona was to have a service honoring the memory for those that lost their lives that day in order to put the focus squarely on her once more. Have I mentioned anything about Sarah Palin’s planetoid-sized ego yet???
In short, Sarah Palin is a canker to the Right. Her ‘scripted reality’ better serves her ridiculous TV show, and not that of public office. She is practically bereft of anything to say but parroting what others have already said before her, or seizing what seems to be the ‘topic of the day’ and expounding on it. She doesn’t really have any original thoughts of her own volition and when publicly dared to have an original thought by the media she falls flat on her face nearly every single time.
Besides, what has Sarah Palin done for the public good since she just gave up and quit on her Governorship? Aside from splitting conservatives in two, it has been all about Sarah Palin- all of the time. Nothing good has been done for anyone else but the Palin family. Well, except for maybe that white trash, ex-potential, son-in-law that knocked up one of the Palin kids (… and, not the retarded one. Well, not the REALLY retarded one.) He got a sweet gig out of it by being well known now for doing just that.
After all, not too long ago she publicly made a promise. She essentially said, “If I become a distraction from the conservative cause I won’t run for President.” Well, what does anyone (except Sarah Palin it seems) think she has been for the nearly the last three years? She has been a distraction from the very beginning of her fifteen minutes of fame, so much so, that she has managed to knead and stretch that 15 minutes into three very long years.
Every time the Sarah Palin gravy train starts to run low on steam and slow down, there she is again showing up on talk shows, attacking fellow conservatives, starting a new reality TV show about Alaska, releasing yet another book about how great she is, or dragging her daughter through the mud behind her on another, separate reality show… perhaps, about dancing? All eyes and ears are on Sarah, all of the time. And that’s the way she likes it.
But, the time is up. She needs to proverbially ‘shit or get off the pot’. Put up or shut up. Do for America a heckuva lot more, and do for Sarah Palin and the Palin clan a heckuva lot less. She’s milking the cash cow for every last drop, which is fine if she makes her intentions to do so clear instead of leading America around by their collective noses like she has been doing since losing to Barack Obama and Joe Biden over 3 years ago.
The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is a self-serving blight on an otherwise potentially exciting conservative landscape, and its future. She is in essence a self-serving distraction to win the White House in 2012 through and through. And she needs to simply just go away. Far, far away!
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
What better way to celebrate Tax Day than by there being less of me to tax! After all, if the government is going to tax everything in my life including the food I eat, why not make sure I am beholden to them for as little as possible!? Take that, Big Government!
Well, okay, so it isn't THAT simple, and neither was my weight loss for the last 10 weeks.
I have never struggled with my weight. In fact, most people who knew me when I was younger said I was 'too skinny', or needed to 'gain more weight'. Then, something strange happened- I turned 30 years old, and it was all downhill from there! Now, at the ripe old age of 34 years old, I have gained over 50 lbs. in 4 short years.
I became complacent, I was sedentary and had virtually no motivation to exercise at all, plus I really liked food!!! The worse for me, the better. A large Cheese Lover's, stuffed crust pizza with a 32 oz soda and a fistful of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups twice a week? Bring it on! Like I said, I have never struggled with weight loss until now, and I have ate virtually the very same thing for years. I am a vegetarian, and I always thought it strange whenever I would see an overweight person with my same eating habits standing front of me. I just didn't know how it was possible to be "that" vegetarian! Imagine my surprise when I became one of them, and saw my double chin staring back at me in the mirror one day.
I have been a vegetarian for more than half of my life, and I simply took it for granted that I was healthy. But, make no mistake about it, just because you don't eat meat doesn't mean you are in shape. Take my diet for example:
Lots of processed food-stuffs: check!
Hardly any fiber in those foods: check!
Virtually zero whole fruits or vegetables in my vegetarian diet: check!
Tons of sugary drinks and desserts all day long: check!
More candy than an entire pint-sized army could get on a busy Halloween night: DOUBLE, AND TRIPLE CHECK!!!
Add all of that together in a big ol' ball flabby flesh, mixed with old age and hardly any exercise, and you have a very unhealthy me.
But one day it all changed.
I remember going to a motivational speaker with family members when I was about 12 or 13 years old, who spoke at great length about addiction-- including food addiction. He said something that always stuck with me: "If you don't like something about yourself- change it! It's really that simple, no matter what other people tell you."
Nearly 20 years later, I pulled that little kernel of advice out of my proverbial closet, and tried it on for size.
I looked in the mirror, and simply didn't like what was staring back at me- so, I changed it. After all, I have always had the lion's share of willpower. I don't consume alcohol, I don't smoke, I have never done a recreational drug in my life, I don't even drink anything with caffeine and like I already said, I am a vegetarian of most of my life. But somehow that didn't stop me from one day gaining an unhealthy amount of weight in a very short period of time. So, I changed it.
I said one day that it was time for a change, I made those changes, I stuck to my guns, I saw it through, and I am a much better 'me' than I have been in a very, very long time. In fact, I feel that I am a better man today for so many reasons, and I am just getting better daily. Sure, I make mistakes (sometimes I still make some very BIG mistakes), but I am the best 'me' that I have ever been in my whole life. I like me today, and I can't wait to be an even better me tomorrow. After all, I am not the man I am because of the mistakes I have made, or because of the times I turned right when I should have turned left. I am the man I am because it is who I choose to be, not who I have become.
But how did I do it aside from merely deciding to do it one day? I had help and support from my amazing and loving wife, Celeste. She was my support system, and my cheerleader every day through all of this. I am so thankful for her help to make the journey so much easier, and I couldn’t have done it without her.
But that wasn't it. I also made it a point to exercise every day. Not hardcore exercise, mind you because that would surely back fire on me, but light cardio for 20-30 minutes a day. The kind that Richard Simmons would endorse! The fun kind, that keeps you motivated each and every day.
Plus, I simply ate less food, and less high calorie foods. Actually, I ate healthier in general, consumed a lot more fiber-rich foods, drank much more water daily, ate whole fruits and fresh vegetables, less processed junk food, hardly any sodium went on my plate, and virtually no sugar to speak of whatsoever entered my body. Plus, my own willpower and the support from others to make it all happen in the day's end.
However, there was one more thing (I won't lie) that motivated me to lose the weight which a lot of people will find off-putting, and I am sorry in advance, but it gave me the strength to be the better 'me' I already spoke of. And it is my ego. I just didn't want to be 'that person' anymore. I wanted to wear nice clothes that fit me comfortably. I didn't want to suck in my stomach every day of my life for fear of someone making fun of my waistline. The bottom line is, I was embarrassed. And that was all the motivation I really needed when it was all said and done.
Now, I know what a lot of you will say at this point. "Be happy with who you are." "No one can make you feel bad, but you." "You have a handsome face." And while those words have power, it wasn't good enough for me. The fact is, I was not happy with who I was, not just esthetically, but physically. I was short of breath just walking down the street. I napped long naps every day. I had the first signs of diabetes creeping into my world, and I simply didn't want to shorten my life because it was just starting to get good! After all, the hard truth is that the majority of overweight people not only have a multitude of health problems as they age and gain even more weight over time, but they die much sooner than physically healthy individuals who eat right and exercise daily. And I'm not ready to go quite yet!!!
But, now for the hard part. This is a life style choice- not just a temporary one- but a forever one. I know I am capable of weight gain now- and I never want it back again- so, I need to make this my life from here on out. And so, I have. Perhaps not as strict as when I was trying to lose the weight in the first place, but a life style change, nonetheless. That is what I choose. That is who I choose to be. And that's a good enough 'me' to be.
First day of diet: Feb. 1st, 2011
Current day of diet: April 15th, 2011
Beginning weight: 211.6 lbs
Current weight: 170 lbs (UPDATE! As of May, 9th I am officially 160 lbs!!!)
Beginning shirt size: XXL (Tight)
Current shirt size: M (Comfy!)
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
One of the most common statements from the Religious Right in America is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a bald-faced lie at best. The men responsible for building the foundation of this United States had little use for Christianity, and many were even strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were mostly Deists who did not believe in the divinity of Christ or the word of the bible as being the one, true word.
Thus, there is no freedom of religion if there is also no freedom FROM religion. There are some who claim that the United States of America was founded and based on Christian faith and principles, and they would do (and have already done) everything in their power to change the actual history of this great Nation. While it is true that some of the Founding Fathers considered themselves Protestant most were likely Deist or even Unitarian, this did not mean that they forced their beliefs onto anyone like we attempt to do today. In fact, quite the opposite.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
No reference to God. No reference to Jesus. No reference to Christianity. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once. This is simply NOT a Christian nation no matter how hard some people try to explain otherwise.
Indeed, according to Article 11 of the Treaty between Tripoli and the United States, written in 1796, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” And, according to Phillip Schaff in his 1888 book Church and State in the United States, “Separation secures religious thought, speech, and action. Religion is voluntary and cannot be forced. The United States furnishes the first example in the history of a government deliberately depriving itself of all legislative control of religion.”
A few Christian fundamentalists today attempt to convince us to return to the "Christianity" of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." The Founding Fathers, as well, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although, while they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion in government.
Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is an historical document, not a constitutional one. And as I have already said, "The words 'Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God' are never mentioned in the Constitution."
So, let's stop censoring or ignoring the portion of the populace (by some estimates, 20% of the population) that doesn't believe in a higher being- and who apparently know American history better than anyone else on the right. Furthermore, it shouldn't be impossible for an atheist to hold public office, but in some areas of the country it is still illegal for one to even run. Let's agree that separation of church and state does not seek to take away our religious liberties, and in fact does a great deal of good FOR religious and non-religious people alike. After all, in 1872 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that, “The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority."
When this country was founded, it's founding fathers were mostly slave owners. Women weren't allowed to hold public office nor could they even vote. Women were even forced to wear several layers of clothing, dared not even expose so much as an ankle lest she be thought of in a lesser light, and even kept their heads covered in public.
The point is, since the founding of this country, mankind has grown exponentially ethically and morally, and religion has played virtually no part in that growth. If you base your religion on the Christian Bible then it would be fair to say that you would prefer that we still had slavery today since in Leviticus God gives instruction on how slaves are property to be inherited. It is also clear that in the Bible women are absolutely less valuable than men and are not to be given equal treatment.
Examples of this are vast and numerous, including when Lot, in order to spare the angels of God from having to be sodomized by the towns men, offered instead his two virgin daughters for them to "do as ye will". So if you really want to get back to the "Christian Nation" that you believe the founding fathers meant it to be, then it would stand to reason, as a "Christian Nation" we should bring back slavery, burn "witches", repeal woman's rights, and in order to save higher beings from the degradation of public sodomy, sacrifice our very children to their boss or pay the price forever?... Or have we EVOLVED past the backward thinking that this is indeed a "Christian Nation"?
Most people don't even realize that the phrase one Nation "Under God" was not in the Pledge of Allegiance or the majority of our currency until AFTER June 14, 1954, right in the midst of the McCarthy hysteria. The reasons are obvious and glaring as to why this would occur at this time. A time that we were morally, if not literally at "war" with communism. After all, by making sure that the "godless" communists knew that we were diametrically opposite them in every way- including by convincing ourselves that our founding was that of a god-fearing "Christian" nation- we would show superiority over them and win in the day's end the world's adoration and respect.
I am not now, nor have I ever advocated the abolition of Christianity or even religion in our country. I respect any person's faith, just as I would hope you would respect my lack of it. All I ask is that people realize the truth of our founding as a nation, stop trying to fundamentally change the very fabric of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to suit their purposes and ideological bent, and leave government out of our personal everyday lives. Worship in the way you choose to, but ask not the government to join you in this exercise, or its people that choose not to, as well.
That's all I ask. That's all our framers ever asked. That's all our Constitution asks of you. After all, this is not a "Christian Nation", it is a CONSTITUTIONAL one!
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
Every once in a while a person comes along that sets the collective minds and hearts of everyday people on fire with pure inspiration and thoughts of a better world through their very actions and words and deeds. If only more people were like them, what a wonderful world we would live in. Take for instance this:
“What would Jesus do”? Now, it’s pretty well known that I am not a very religious person at all and would never be caught dead wearing this tacky piece of Christian kitsch around my wrist, but it’s the thought that counts in this instance. After all, to aspire to be better than you already are is a very noble act, indeed. Sometimes we just need guidance and physical reminders from other people and things to live in the best way possible ourselves.
Besides, from every account we have heard, this was a man who could lead you by example whether you’re a Christian or not- or for that matter, whether you even believe him to be the actual son of God or not. A rebel who fought persecution and "big government" without ever brandishing so much as a closed fist against those who would harm him or the ones he loved. Someone who preached love and kindness and tolerance and duty above all else. Someone who said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” In essence, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That can’t be all that bad of a way to live your life.
After all, the "Golden Rule" is a rule for all of us to hunger for in this day and age. I know I would do good to follow that advice more often than not in my everyday life- we all could. Therefore, it’s no wonder why Jesus Christ is a hero to so many people- Christian or not- and why they choose to live their lives by his words, and his actions, and his deeds. After all, whether half of what was said about him was fact or fiction (or somewhere in between), it goes without saying that even if he wasn’t the man we believe him to be- that isn’t the most important thing. Even if some or all of what was said about him was embellished or even a flat out lie, and the words weren’t even his own- does it really matter in the day’s end if it encourages people to be better people in their own personal everyday lives?
We all need heroes, after all. In a world like this. Today of all days- we need heroes. Fact or fictional.
Take for instance, one of my personal heroes: Wonder Woman.
Yes, we all know she is a completely fictional creation, but does it really even matter? We can all learn something from the heroism and heroics that is Wonder Woman. WWWWD? "What would Wonder Woman do?"
This woman, created at a time when women didn’t dare step foot out of the kitchen, let alone any closer than no more than 4 feet behind their husbands- stood toe to toe with villains of every shape and size that some men wouldn’t even fight for fear of being beat to very inches of their lives. This woman, front and center in the heat of battle, with her head held high- fighting (not behind), but right along side the likes of Superman and Batman and the Justice Society of America. This woman, who could fight the most powerful man on Earth to a standstill, and on a good day- even kick his ass!... all without the use of kryptonite.
Wonder Woman wasn’t just a hero for women, but for men, and children, and anyone else who is thought of as lesser by virtue of who they are- but yet, who overcame it despite the overwhelming odds stacked against them. A hero who is tough as nails, but drop dead gorgeous, too! Someone who didn’t let the fact that she was a warrior stop her from being feminine without being a feminist. Someone who was a born fighter by her very birthright who used violence always as a last option, and rather preferred to stand for peace in "man’s world of war". Someone who recognized the greatness of our country even though she was not a born or natural citizen of America. An Ambassador. Someone who admired the United States and her ideals so much that she donned the colors of our flag and the very symbol of our freedom on her breastplate.
This is a woman who used- not a sword, or a gun, or even a rock to throw at her adversaries- but instead, a bright and shining golden lasso to subdue her enemies, if not enlighten them, as well. A symbol of hope to compel them to truth, justice and to simply be better people. An Amazon Princess who only fought when she needed to fight. A person so steeped in myth, and honor, and history who fought her very nature to be the person she needed to be in our world today. She was more than a fighter- she was a survivor! A person who knew that she was more than the person she was born to be, or the person she had become over these many years- but, she was the person she CHOSE to be... and that person was a hero!
That’s inspiration right there. That’s someone to be more like if you ask me. Someone whose head is always held high, and who never allows any man or woman to force her to be lesser than who she knows in her heart she isn't.
We could all do worse than have fictional heroes like Wonder Woman, or even Jesus Christ to aspire to be more like. We could have no heroes at all.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres
Recently, according to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's masterpiece "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the "n" word… and when I say “n” word I don’t mean “nachos”.
But the real question is, “why”?
Some people would likely point to the hurtful nature and origin of the term, and the intent of its use, but isn’t it still historical in context, and shouldn’t we always endeavor to make history as accurate as possible? Besides, don’t we have the “right“ to say it if we want to? After all, do we look to censor our public school history books, as well; or for that matter our bibles, holy books, and dictionaries because they also contain words and concepts that some people may find offensive?
Perhaps it is the context of the word, or who wrote them.
If you think that, you couldn’t be more wrong.
Mark Twain was very precise in his verbiage- he knew EXACTLY what he was saying, and more importantly, he knew WHY he was saying it. He used the word because it made people uncomfortable to use it even back then, and frankly, it was simply commonplace to use the term at that point in history. Therefore, he used it to be historically AND intellectually truthful. After all, sometimes harsh language is the only thing some people understand in order to start any kind of dialog at all.
So, having said that, was Twain a racist for the use of the word over 200 times in the novel, or was it something more? After all, it does SEEM a little bit excessive by our standards today.
A little known history that was just uncovered at Yale University found that he paid for at least one black person to attend that University’s Law School and for another black person to attend a southern university to become a minister. That clearly isn’t the actions of a racist if you ask me.
In fact, I think there are very few folks (at least in America today) that are TRUE racists at all. There are some, yes, but I think you have to look very hard to find those individuals who aren't simply "soft bigots" or just being ironic. I think we all agree that racism at it’s core is a very, very ugly thing, and I am sure we would know it if we really saw it in action today.
Still, I was approached with the notion that this will actually allow the book back into school libraries because (as most people already know) “Huck Finn” is one of the most banned books around right now. If this happens, will it increase readership and availability into the hands of children everywhere to be able to enjoy the same story that I grew up with? Or, is it an attempt to pacify a small minority of people who think they know what’s best for us all, and who want to change what we know as “true history”? If it is the former, great! But, I am not so sure that it is.
Honestly, I can't personally see any other motivation other than the unnecessary censorship of a brilliant piece of literature myself. But, then again, censorship is one of my (seemingly many) hot button issues these days. And as Voltaire put it, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”
Or, for that matter, like our 1st President of the United States of America said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
And that is how I live my life.
Sure, you may not live your life as such, but I do. And if there is a choice between censoring history because a few people are made uncomfortable by some of its content, or allowing it to be available to those who choose to seek it out, untarnished… well, I know which side of the debate I fall on. My personal opinion is, rather than shielding people from the truth and from history, we should allow them access to untainted accounts (whether it be from a history book or a great American novel like “Huck Finn”) to determine for themselves what life truly was like.
Of course, I may be blinded by the blatant censorship of one of my very favorite books, by my very favorite author of all time.
… But, now to the important part: The United States Constitution. The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens, that is true — but only from restriction by Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment and state legislatures, as well). But does that mean it is all-encompassing? Not quite- there are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and often is suppressed.
For example, freedom of speech can be restricted in a work place. Employers (right or wrong) can restrict your right to speak in the office about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about “Desperate Housewives” if they choose to. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments for the most part. For that matter, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press clause- however, no newsstand MUST carry every paper against its owners' wishes.
And then, of course there’s libel, defamation of character, and yelling “bomb!” in a crowded New York City airport. Some forms of speech just simply are not allowed- even in America.
In other words, the 1st Amendment applies to the Federal Government DICTATING how we think and talk to each other, but not how WE think and talk to each other. It also does not dictate which religion we endorse or do not endorse as a Nation. Congress has no authority over us in that regard, but we do have the ability to create local and state laws as individuals and employers if we see fit to do so with the overall understanding that the Constitution ultimately has the final say in the day’s end. After all, we are a land based on constitutional law, not politically correct, religious or personal interpretation of the law.
Having said that, NewSouth Books' does have the "right" to change Twain's masterpiece because this work was published before January 1, 1923, and is thus in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. But the question is, "should they change it?" That is a question that could (and likely will) be debated for many years to come.
Either way, I will say this much- because we are all individuals who have had different experiences over the course of our own lifetimes, we see many things (obviously) much different from one another- for better or worse. My good AND my bad experiences have shaped my world view today- just like I am sure yours did you, and hers did her, and his did his, and anyone else's did theirs.
It's true, I can't walk in your shoes and I don't know what you've been through in life- but, frankly, I’m not so sure I even want to know, either- I have enough of my own bad experiences to live with. I am simply as honest as I can be- I can empathize, but that's about it. Likewise, some of my experiences would seem foreign to you because you wouldn't know how to react if they happened in your life.
Still, having said all of that, I also feel that it doesn't even truly matter if we completely understand one another in this life- all that matters is that we don't kill each other, or intentionally harm one other BECAUSE we're different. Besides, even though I am a product of what my experiences have made me- I am also who I am today because it is who I CHOOSE to be, not who I’ve become.
After all, we all have a thin skin about something even though we try all day long to tell ourselves and each other otherwise. When it’s all said and done, what is most important is the old adage of being true to yourself. That's all there really is, and that's all that ever really matters.
… So, after all of that, do we have the “right” or even the duty to censor ourselves, each other, or history because some people’s experiences allow for a more amplified feeling that they are offended by what we do or what we say to them because of that thin skin? That answer, at least, is a simple one for me: “Fuck no, nigga’!”
