I Won’t Vote for Mitt Romney Cause He Was Mean to His Dog

Did you know that Mitt Romney’s lil doggie Seamus got sick once when the Romney family was on vacay? That’s rough. It sucks to get sick when you have a 12 hour car ride home. You would hope, in this situation that your family would make you feel comfortable not, say, strap you in a crate to the roof of your car. For 12 hours. When they got home poor Seamus ran away to Canada. Shocking.

Is it dumb that this is a deal breaker for me?

Full disclosure: I wasn’t going to vote for him anyways. But, this is black and white cruelty, isn’t it? I think it says something about the kind of person you are if you think this is an okay thing to do. You don’t err on the side of empathy or dignity. You make decisions about dealing with things that are hard to deal with by keeping them out of sight and out of mind.

Cruelty just seems so weak to me. You aren’t dealing with the issue in front of you, you’re avoiding it with anger and keeping it at a distance. I want someone that’s going to do things that are difficult if they are a better solution.

Oh, and here’s a pic of Obama and his dog:

Photo via David Axelrod’s Twitter

Pros and Cons of Being a Vegetarian

Pros:

  • Not implicit in murder
  • Get to feel ethically superior to meat-eaters
  • Have a niche/indie/hipster interest that you can default to talking about at cocktail parties (or whatever the hipster equivalent is)
  • Peter Singer might RT you
  • Might get your own naked PETA ad
  • Can pick up other vegetarians via common interest
  • Get to have highbrow philosophical discussions and hug it out re: ethical vegetarianism
  • Not associated with embarrassing dumbass meat eaters like Jessica Simpson

Cons:

  • Bad skin and dull hair
  • Vitamin deficiency
  • Buffalo wings deficiency
  • Probably seem like an asshole
  • Break grandma’s heart when you don’t eat her casserole
  • "Under ‘cons’ did you put steak?" —the other lolz doll as we were writing this
  • Feel ethically inferior to vegans ;(
  • Have to eat unpronounceable things like ‘tempeh’ and ‘cassein’
  • Associated with embarrassing harshwavers like Carrie Underwood
  • What are you going to eat at a gas station?
In Defense of Sarah Palin, or Whatever.

The jig is up, you have to know now that this blog is based in Minneapolis. Why is this relevant? Because I’m eating some venison sticks made from a deer my dad shot while reading the viral opinion piece writer Aaron Sorkin wrote for HuffPo and getting kind of annoyed at his logic/defensive about hunting, actually.

I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it’s hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don’t think it is, and here’s why.

Like 95% of the people I know, I don’t have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don’t relish the idea of torturing animals. I don’t enjoy the fact that they’re dead and I certainly don’t want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn’t do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.

I’m sorry, but the meat we all eat comes from animals who were tortured their entire lives. Lots of people, Sorkin + Lolz Dollz included, eat meat/wear leather/etc even though they know this system is fucked. But Sorkin boasts about his apathy and claims that his actions are more moral than Palin’s because he doesn’t like that animals die and he doesn’t kill them himself. There are plenty of reasons for me to hate Sarah Palin, but I think shooting a wild caribou a few times a year with purposeful intent is a lot more ethical than the way I consume meat.

If you go to McDonald’s and buy a Big Mac, you are spending maybe $3 on some mystery meat from cows that were tortured in various awful ways for prolonged amounts of time, likely their entire life. But the way our food system is set up, you don’t have to think about it. You’re eating ‘cheeseburger’ not ‘cow’. On the other hand, hunters purposefully kill single individuals leaving large populations untouched.  Running free in the wild and then getting shot/clubbed and dying almost immediately sounds a hell of a lot better than getting raised in a pen not even large enough to move around in, drugged, then tortured, and probably not even killed before your meat is harvested. 

Sure, not all hunters kill animals to responsibly use their parts, and yes, sometimes animals ‘get away’ wounded and don’t die, which causes suffering. But at the very least, hunters are faced with the killing of an animal and typically (unless they’re poachers, in which case they’re exempt from this whole defense) understand and respect the moderation, reasonableness, and restraint necessary to justifiably kill an animal. (Three characteristics which could never, ever describe factory farming.)

So when Sorkin says that Sarah Palin is worse than Joe McDonald’s Customer because she enjoys killing animals I have to disagree. If animals are going to die one way or the other (not arguing that this ought to be the case, just operating under Sorkin’s assumption), shouldn’t we all be happy when a sentient animal is able to live freely and is then killed without prolonged suffering by someone who has come to terms with the act they are committing? It seems crazy to say that you are better for turning a blind eye to the animal suffering that happens for your benefit than facing it head on?

An action doesn’t become moral just because you have the luxury of forgetting that it’s happening, just as the politicians who decide to go to war aren’t morally absolved just because it is soldiers, not themselves, who do the actual killing. In fact, I have more respect for the soldiers because they know the true cost of what we are doing.

Quite frankly, I’d rather be a humane murderer than an accessory to torture bragging about how I’m so civilized because I can pay people to do my dirty work.

Sarah Palin clubs a halibut, you’re an accessory to turkey murder, we all feel bad about ourselves.

Was gonna blog something about this article, was gonna channel Peter Singer/ride the PETAwave and say some shit about how “if you’re mad about this then you shouldn’t eat Thanksgiving dinner WUDDUP NOW HYPOCRITE.”  But it’s fucking Thanksgiving.  I don’t feel like being such a dick. 

So maybe just, like… don’t personally club your turkey and read that Singer article while you’re digesting to clear your karma and we’re all good.

Eve Ensler is the PETA of Feminism (this is a bad thing)

Eve Ensler is the author of The Vagina Monologues. 

Years ago when I was a young lil lolz doll, a boy I <3ed asked me to go to a performance of The Vagina Monologues. This should have been a great day as I had previously been concerned that the bro was kind of sexist. So we went, and I hoped our lil liberal <3s would make a connection. Instead it was an awful, uncomfortable experience. 

It was garish. I felt uncomfortable with the way parts of my body were being described, and because it was feminists who were doing the describing, I also felt like a baby for not wanting to talk about my ‘cunt’. The production was focused on shocking and shaming me into agreement (because if you’re a true feminist you agree—see the “No True Scotsman" fallacy), rather than prompting dialogue or initiating change on these issues.

I don’t think Eve Ensler is as concerned with making a change as she is with being viewed as someone who wants to make a change. Here’s why:

1. It’s a gimmick.

Ensler’s gimmick is using words like ‘cunt’ and ‘pussy’ liberally. She chose to turn the vernacular term ‘vday’ from referring to Valentine’s Day, a day celebrating romantic love between two people, to a day where she and her folllowers monologue at people about all of their sexual problems and misgivings (unless of course that sex is between two women). 

2. It’s specifically meant to be self-congratulatory (only).

She isn’t lobbying for policies that would make us equal, she isn’t creating programs for victims of abuse, she’s ‘raising awareness’ through her writing. 

Problem is, changing people’s minds takes a little bit of humility.

You can’t attack someone and at the same time convince them. Furthermore, describing female genitalia in a way meant to illicit shock and discomfort does less for promoting equality than it does for explicitly reinforcing the ‘other-ness’ of womanhood.  Great, just what we need.

3. It’s anti-intellectual.

It shames, rather than welcomes, dissention. I can tell you this is the single biggest red flag that something is amiss. I’ve blogged about it before.

I compare Ensler to PETA because they both represent worthy causes, but both seem more concerned with the drama, sensationalism, and infamy generated by their extreme liberal, minority views than with actually ‘making a difference’.  I’m left wondering if either PETA or Ensler would be happy to have the view they represent assimilated into the mainstream, or if they’d be disappointed that the shock value and ‘causeyness’ of their campaign had diminished.  

PETA has long been critiqued for their grandstanding and stunts, and I think the same criticism can be levied against Ensler.  I say this because I think if changing views and treatment of women worldwide was more than a secondary concern, she would be producing something called ‘Male and Female Sexual Dialogues’, not ‘The Vagina Monologue’.

This may be helpful in getting more people to think about violence against women and even donate to worthy causes. However, based on the play itself, I can’t imagine these sentiments splintering from ‘raising awareness’ into something that’s actually helpful.