V.egetarians' E.nvy G.oes A.nother N.otch

I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians. If that's what you want to do with your life, I say good luck and Godspeed. The following is NOT meant to be a rant against vegetarians. If anything, what I'm about to say helps them assert their identity even more.


Food: Real

Well, that being said, let me get one quick complaint out of the way first. Whenever you eat with vegetarians, you always have to go their way. You have to get the vegetarian appetizer, the vegetarian pizza, whatever. You always have to bend to THEIR ideas about food and right and wrong, even in the most casual situation. Plus, there's nothing worse than a lecture about why YOU should be a vegetarian. Could there be another situation that more makes you want to kill yourself? As if, after hearing their self-righeous drivel, you will say "You're right! I've been wrong all along! Bacon really tastes BAD!" I hope, for their sake, no well-meaning vegetarian proselytizes to a group of animals. It will be the worst animal slaughter in history.

What I want to say concerns the "imitation real food" trend of late. Fake bacon, fake turkey, fake burgers, etc. This proves that vegetarians want to be like the mainstream of society, i.e., omnivores. On some level, besides jealousy, they know what they are doing puts them in sort of a kooky box. They don't want to be seen as "those nutty vegetarians", despite the fact that the choice is solely theirs. That's why their "bacon" assumes the form of real bacon, their "burgers" look like real burgers, and every other fake food they have churned out of their fraud factories resembles - physically resembles - food made from animals.

I can't help but wonder why they choose to do it this way. They could obviously make the food look like anything. If, hypothetically, hamburger patties were blue and star-shaped, fake vegetarian burgers would be blue and star-shaped. If bacon, in the real world, was yellow and square, fake bacon would be yellow and square. The meat versions are the originals. They came first. The manufactured vegetarian versions are the imitations. They came second.


Food: ????

The fact that the makers of the fake versions of the food chose to put their twisted mockeries of bacon and hamburgers into the same size and shape as the originals shows that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be vegetarians and hold on to their moral superiority, and also eat "bacon", "turkey", "hamburgers", etc.

The consumers of this fraudulent material also seem to have no problem with the resemblance to the foods they are copying. They want to say "hey look! I'm eating a hamburger!" It's not a hamburger. It's a LIE!!!!

My question is, if they have the power to make their imitations look any way they want - which they clearly do - why not make the food look DIFFERENT from the originals? Why not show a little creativity? You want to be a vegetarian, you want to have your own little niche, you want to be original, different, your own sector of life just for you, you want to be in control when vegetarians and non-vegetarians eat out together in a mixed setting...well then prove it. Stop aping the food styles of those who you deem to be morally below you.
Aren't I right? Why go down in the moral sewer with us meateaters in any way, shape or form?
But, at any cost, you must have your "hamburgers" and "hot dogs" made out of God-knows-what.

I say, vegetarians, assert your independence. Don't be like meateaters at all. Stop imitating what we eat. This may sound a bit silly, but...make up your own food! Stop using ours, that WE invented, as your template. All the while scolding us with your other hand.

I believe God made us meateaters because meat tastes good, it doesn't make us sick to eat, it has proteins and other benefits, and we have incisors and other sharp teeth to handle it. The DAY meat stops tasting good, I will stop eating it. Or, if it converts to fake meat.

Media Arrogance and Childishness is Actually Dangerous!

The arrogance of the democrats and liberals is actually dangerous to us all. They are INVESTED in defeat in Iraq. Because even though they voted to send our troops there, they are now saying the war is lost. After they sent them there, they are bleeding away all their resources. THAT should be a crime. Not all of course, I'm specifically talking about scumbags like John Murtha and Harry Reid, and their mouthpieces like the repellant Keith Olbermann (more on him later). They had all the same information as President Bush about the reasons for the war, and now they call HIM a "liar". And they've been pounding this drum of "defeat, defeat" for so long, they will look like fools if (or should I say WHEN) we succeed. Thusly, their own conceited, vain, elite arrogance is more important to them than the lives of our brave soldiers and the success of the mission. Just disgusting. If it was in a novel or movie, you'd never believe it, thinking it too impossible that they could be so self-centered and blind. Their selfish attitudes do nothing except give aid and comfort to the enemy (I'm pretty sure that IS a crime - yet they somehow believe BUSH is the bad guy, some nuts even believing that he should be impeached!), thinking that if they just hold out for ONE MORE DAY, they may be able to carry on, possibly even succeed (I'm just telling you what they must be thinking). I mean, it saves them time, money and effort when our side is the one that is not all together, and even within the USA, certain factions are undermining the troops.

The media is the same way. They are invested in defeat as well, for no other reason than, should defeat occur (God forbid), that will simply reinforce what they've been pushing for years (interesting how it hasn't happened yet.) -- Once-great papers like the New York Times are now nothing more than a bunch of second-graders burning to say "I told you so". If it were socially acceptable, The headline would read "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". Instead of being fair and balanced, the Times is just a liberal mouthpiece, whose stories in every section only reinforce the liberal attitudes of its owners and operators. That's not a NEWS paper. That's just a one-sided rag.Yes, you've made it perfectly clear that you want Obama to win. So much so, you've minimized his flaws and scandals, and when there are none about John McCain, you've MADE THEM UP! That is boldfaced one-sidedness. They're not even TRYING to hide it anymore. I'm pretty sure that's not the job of an institution that claims to be fair. I guess the WHOLE truth isn't "fit to print". No wonder it has lost all that money and its stock price has plummeted. I guess preaching to the converted only gives you half an audience.

On TV, if you classify MSNBC as "TV", you've got Keith Olbermann, a one-note, humorless dispenser of snarky Bush-bashing (big surprise) comments. He always has this annoying little smirk on his face, like he is so much better and wiser than his material. That is clearly not the case. For some strange reason, I'm guessing just to be different, the camera always seems a bit too close to his face. That may be different, but it's certainly not better. I mean, I don't know whose decision it was that we should all be CLOSER to Keith Olbermann's face, but the cameraman might want to think about dialing it back a few notches. He is quite the hunk, but still...
And what gives HIM the right to deem who is the "worst person in the world"? Who is HE exactly, anyway? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! (he apparently believes this is such a witty concept, it is also the name of his book.) Funny how the people he deems to be the "worst in the world" are always either Republicans or somehow involved with Fox News. (Disgustingly, even the promos for the show are laughably pathetic: "We're going to make fun of Bill O'Reilly, Coming up next!"...O'Reilly has NEVER ONCE mentioned Olbermann on his show. EVER! Yet Olbermann's entire career is predicated on O'Reilly-bashing. I believe that's what you call "sour grapes".)
My explanation here is purely psychological. He, and the rest of MSNBC, are angry, and, dare I say, bitter, that Fox News is successful and they aren't. So this childish vitriol comes out. We mustn't be jealous when our fellow networks become successful. This is a hallmark of a desperate, lesser mind. So...I see a theme developing. Those in the media are AGAIN overgrown children, forever stuck in the schoolyard: "Billy got an A on his test and I got a D. I hate Billy!" seems to be the working credo of MSNBC. (And what a success it is! Most people don't know the network exists.)

I would also submit that all this hatred of President Bush and his constant bashing is media-driven. Those "elites" in the media hate Bush, so, in their insecure, short-sighted arrogance, they want everyone else in the world to hate him too. Think about it. If you have control of all the media outlets, you can present the notion that Bush is bad. If that's what you choose to put out there, it is hard to escape, because there is a lot of media and a lot of demand for it. If it is what you are constantly fed, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and somewhere along the line it becomes "truth".
Think of it this way: take away all the media in the world and their constant drumbeat of Bush-bashing. Would there be such a negative public outlook of him? I think not. I'm not saying he's perfect -- far from it -- but I doubt we'd be surrounded by this insane, baseless HATRED of the man. I suppose after the Times gave away those CIA secrets, they weren't satisfied, so they must fan the flames of what they themselves started.

I wonder if the weasels at the Times and MSNBC and all the other corrupt media outlets have ever THOUGHT OF, much less personally thanked, even one of the brave soldiers who are sacrificing everything for our freedom. Even the media's freedom to bash Bush and the war! Somehow, I doubt it.