A Love Letter to Nachos

Dear nachos,

There are few things in life that bring me as much joy as food. Food is nourishing, food supports my lifestyle and activities, food energizes my body and mind.

 

But not all food is nachos. And not all nachos are my nachos. Nachos are pure joy in food form. Sure, my nachos are piled high with sliced tomatoes, black olives, bell peppers, jalapeño, cilantro, and avocado, all of which are quite nourishing and healthy. My nachos also use home-cooked black beans and soy chorizo (same taste, less grease, no pigs). Even the cheese has nutritional value. In fact, the only unhealthy aspect of nachos are the chips.

Multicolor tomatoes, red bell pepper, green jalapeño, and black olives make nachos sort of nutritious.

Chips, and the genuine mountain of nachos. The absurd quantity is definitely not healthy. My nachos begin on a cookie sheet lined with foil, chips spread from end to end, and everything else layered on top. Nachos bring me more joy than the sum of its parts. Nourishment is not why every other Wednesday is nacho night.

I fully understand and appreciate (and, if I’m honest, pity) that many people have strained relationships with food. Many must see food as nutrition only, certainly not as a reward. Others are uninterested in food, seeing it only as a way to keep their bodies going. One person even told me that eating is a waste of time and it’s too bad that bodies need food. Far too many people are unskilled at making food and depend on re-heating and take-out. Some go so far as to forget to eat when they are busy or stressed. For a year and a half, I lived with someone who had such a difficult relationship with food that she ate the absolute bare minimum required to stay alive and not a molecule more.

Nacho mountain!

But to me, food is love. Eating food I love is self care. Making food is how I show love for others. One of my greatest joys is cooking and baking for others. Yes, I relish the enthusiastic praise for my food gifts, but I equally love gifting food when I don’t have the opportunity for praise. It’s a gesture of appreciation and community.

 

Food is also how I accept love from others. I have frequently told my husband that it’s his job to feed me (a task he takes seriously to ward off my hanger). I long for a dishwasher and don’t love the task of cleaning up after meals, but sitting down to a home-cooked meal he prepared makes me feel loved. Same when he buys take-out, double when he treats me to a coffee or brings home cookies from our favorite bakery. Similarly, there’s a reason we don’t get sushi take-out. Sitting at the table with friends, sharing drinks and appetizers, and swapping pieces of our rolls brings us closer together. Eating together is an act of love.

Cooking and baking are my creative outlets. I sprinkle massive flakes of finishing salt on my chocolate chip cookies to enhance the flavor of the chocolate and make them fancier. I enjoy trying new cake recipes in search of the one perfect cake, practicing my frosting skills, and experimenting with recipes to make them my own. My nachos are art. We call layering the rainbow of veggies over the baked tray "decorating". Because it is. They are as pretty to look at as they are delicious to eat. Well, almost.

"Decorated" nachos piled with avocado, cilantro, and all the other veggies.

My nachos are why I can’t order nachos anywhere else. I’m a nacho purist. Some might say I’m a snob. My food opinions are strong and unyielding, especially when it comes to something I’ve perfected. The best compliment I’ve ever received was that my food opinions are to be trusted. My nacho opinions are:

• Cheese sauce does not belong on nachos (the only cheese we use is pepper jack)
• Jalapeños should be fresh, not pickled
• Chip structure and integrity is everything (we have a Costco membership almost exclusively for the toddler-sized double-bag of tortilla chips)
• Nachos are not a vessel for hot sauce  (hot sauce it up, but don't drown them... oddly, we use sriracha)

Yet nachos are infinitely customizable. Sometimes we add sour cream. People can put meat on their nachos. Nachos can pay homage to other cultures and accommodate dietary restrictions. They're naturally gluten free! The advances in meltable vegan cheese means they can even be vegan now!

Cheesy baked nachos with black beans and soy chorizo.

I’ve written about nachos for a college paper, preached my nacho opinions to anyone who will listen (or at least humor me), invited friends to share in nacho night, and moved nacho night when other obligations have meant we would not be able to fully enjoy the experience. On nacho night I lovingly craft each chip with each ingredient for the perfect bite. I hope my last meal is nachos.

When the rest of the world has gone to utter shit, nachos are the bright light that make me forget, for an hour, that there are so many things I can't control or influence, so many wrongs I can't right, so many mistakes I've made. For that hour everything is OK because I have my nachos.

Sometimes we add sour cream to nachos if we have it.

Nachos, you are perfect and I love you.

What Thanksgiving Used To Mean

For a client, I wrote a blog post on fatty Thanksgiving foods after being inspired by one of the most disgusting food videos I've ever seen. (Blog post is here. :) )

I thought it'd be a great topic for the week before Thanksgiving, but when I was doing my research on the fattiest Thanksgiving foods, the only things showing up in search was low-cal Thanksgiving recipes. My searches for "fattiest Thanksgiving recipes" and "high calorie Thanksgiving foods" turned up articles on a lighter Thanksgiving, a low-cal Thanksgiving, and advice on how to not overdo it during the holiday. 

What happened? Why are we now obsessed with making lighter dishes on Thanksgiving, the one day of the year we celebrate our abundance of food? It's because Thanksgiving is no longer the one day of the year we have more food than we know what to do with. We regularly over-indulge, regularly eat beyond being full, and regularly feel sick from too much food. 

Now, the internet is full of Thanksgiving recipes that teach cooks how to make the same dishes with fewer calories. Now, we're told to not put marshmallows on our sweet potatoes, skip the cream of mushroom and fried onions on the green beans, bake potatoes rather than mash them with butter and cream, and skip the bread and rolls. 

I know I'm being a bit of a hypocrite when I say this, especially since running a blog called We Should Be Fat, but I wouldn't mind going back to when giant meals were a special occasion. I wouldn't mind us, as a country, enjoying our meals for what they are, and knowing what they are. We should put some butter and cream in our mashed potatoes at Thanksgiving and enjoy them without worrying about how many miles we'll have to run to work it off, but we should be far more sensible about how we eat on a more regular basis. 

Louis C.K. says the meal is not over when he's full, it's over when he hates himself. And it's funny because it's true for a lot of us. (He also says he runs 5 miles every other day to keep up "this shitty body.") We eat, and then we keep eating until our bodies tell us we're full, and then we feel like absolute shit 20 minutes later, when those last few helpings have settled in. And it's not like we're shoveling in vegetables... we're eating meat at every meal, often with bread, followed up with sweets. And we wonder why there's an obesity crisis.

I was a supporter of Prop 37 that would have required the labeling of genetically modified foods because I saw it as a step in the right direction. We have no idea what we're eating, partially because we don't read the nutrition labels to know what actually comprises those frozen chicken nuggets and partially because a simple ingredient like corn (which is in fucking everything - go look) is comprised of a number of new chemicals that aren't listed. We're eating more, enjoying food less, and suffering because of our over abundance. Our farm animals get the vast, vast majority of our antibiotics (not because they're sick, either), we're polluting our country and other countries laugh at us because of our food habits.

If we don't go full steam ahead with every meal and regret the vast majority of what we eat, we can enjoy what we eat more and worry about it less. We can let Thanksgiving go back to what it used to be - a day to be thankful for what we have, which in this country is more often than not an abundance.

Meeting The Parents

XKCD. Always relevant.

During our road trip the boyfriend and I stayed a couple of nights in Oakland with his parents. Which meant I got to meet them. I'd actually met his dad once several months ago when he was in San Diego on business, but all that entailed was the three of us having dinner. This time we spent 40 hours with them. I'd met parents before and it was fine because I'm awesome and parents love me, but frankly it never really mattered before, and it was always very early in the relationship. I'd never cared enough to worry because by the time my past relationships were into the serious stage I was already well acquainted with the parents. This time it mattered far before I met either parent. Plus, I couldn't help but wonder if being the white girl that stole her son's heart would matter to my boyfriend's mom...

The boyfriend prepared me a bit by telling me stories and talking about how they interact with each other. And meeting his dad many months ago certainly helped. I was a little nervous because I didn't know if his parents were aware of the seriousness of our relationship and if so if that affected his mom's impression of me. And, as previously mentioned, I already cared (deeply) about this one, so being liked mattered.

Not long after we arrived, his mom showed me to my "residence," as she called it, which was a room that was better appointed than most hotel rooms. She told me, "I'm sure you and [the boyfriend] are close..." I stopped her and said I understood and expected that we would be in separate rooms (she had called my mom "very liberal" for allowing us to share a room at Thanksgiving and Easter, something she got a huge kick out of). My room had a queen size bed with my own full bath, and she placed fresh roses from her garden in a vase on the counter. It was ridiculous. I had to camp after that...

One of the most interesting aspects of the day and a half we were there was his parent's interaction. It's been a while since I've been around still-together-parents (my lady friend's parents being the only ones I know) and watching them with each other, and with their son, was... different. His parents have been together for so long that it seems they've just gotten used to being together, and worrying about their fully grown son must feel... weird. 

His mom interjected her stories with "[the boyfriend]'s father says" about the situation she was describing, like she was annoyed. Which, who knows, after being married that long maybe they are rather annoyed with each other. But there is a very clear level of respect between them, too. Every time the boyfriend's dad would forget a part of the story he was telling (where they'd eaten, who said it, what the occasion was, what day of the week...) he'd ask his wife and no matter what she was doing or if she was in the other room she'd answer in a second. They pay attention to each other, which tells me that even if they're annoyed they probably talk to each other, which has to be a step in the right direction. 

His mom was also very concerned with my diet, and it took some convincing for her to feel comfortable making dishes she thought I wouldn't eat. It is hard telling new people what I do and do not eat, and I've more or less adopted a mantra of eat-what-you're-served when in someone's home, and try to make them feel less guilty when I refuse a meat. She made red beans and rice, putting in ground turkey and hot links (I didn't know what those even were... sausage?), and it was delicious. When we stopped back to pick up the dog she had made ribs, and I asked for the red bean and rice leftovers (I've never had ribs, I think... not really any desire to try).

It was nice finally meeting them (well... her). We've been together for long enough and he's met my family a number of times already, so it was kind of starting to be weird that I hadn't met his mom yet. All in all it was a very pleasant day and a half, though I do have to say I feel a bit more comfortable around his dad (sorry, Boyfriend) having known him a bit more. But that might also have something to do with the distinct feeling I was being judged, and not unrightfully so, seeing as how I am dating her only child and he's clearly very into me... I just never really experienced that before. The impression I got from the parents of ex-boyfriends was more along the lines of them being happy their somewhat troublesome son had got himself a nice girl. But if there was a test this time around I think I did well enough to at least earn being called "a nice girl."

One Is Not Like The Other: Part 1

This is what's wrong.

Let's get this straight right at the beginning: animal activism does not equal veganism.

Surprisingly, it is actually possible to eat meat and animal products and still support animal rights and welfare. I know, right? Now, this will involve educating yourself on your meat and animal choices and reevaluating where your food comes from and exactly how far you're willing to go to meet yourself in the middle. But it's really not hard, especially if animal activism is important to you.

Up until my preteen years I was an avid meat eater. In a way I identified with predators (my cat and dog, the hawks and owls I watched around my house, even the way my rat ate bugs), and meat was tasty. Especially sausage. Mmmmm, sausage. My tastes have changed over the years and although I eat very limited amounts of meat now I don't like the notion that you have to be vegan in order to support animal welfare.

I come across websites that imply (or outright state) that the only way to be a real animal activist is to adopt a vegan lifestyle. While I fully support those who are vegan and sometimes wish I had the courage and tastebuds there's just no way I could do that. And that's because I love cheese. Cream cheese with salsa or cottage cheese and tomatoes for breakfast, potatoes with eggs and cheddar in a burrito, mozzarella with tomatoes and basil, grilled cheese sandwiches, pepper jack or gouda with crackers and apple slices, rice and beans with cheese... I love cheese. The only meatless things I can order when eating out have cheese. And I'm OK with that.

But here's the thing: I love animals. Animals will always be around, and not having a pet in 2008 was the most depressing time in my life. Seeing wildlife every day at the Wild Animal Park made my year in 2009, I vote for animal rights when they're on the ballot. I make choices based on how it will affect animals and their environments and choose the meats I do eat carefully. But I also love food. Like, really love food. Cooking, creating new dishes, sharing food with people, grocery shopping, and eating. I love eating. I will never be one of those skinny twigs because I love food. 

Probably 90% of my grocery shopping is done at Trader Joe's and Sprouts, which is about as local as it can get without going to a farmer's market (which is great, just a bit out of my budget for most things). I support local hunting and fishing and don't believe that eating animals is inherently wrong. It's the way we get our meat that's wrong, but that's in another post. It's also the idea that we must be eating meat for our meal to be "real"or for us to be healthy that's wrong.

Eating meat does not make a person an opponent of animal welfare just like not eating meat does not make a person a supporter of animal welfare. There are plenty of people who eat meat and support animal rights, people who want to see the way our animals are raised change, people who acknowledge their place as an omnivore who also believe animals we eat deserve a better quality of life and death. Suggesting otherwise is a little closed minded.

Palm Oil: Taking Over The World

Palm oil free and the best cookie dough in the world.

Since hearing about the damaging effects of palm oil production more than two years ago I've been checking labels trying to buy products without palm oil (besides, it's just used as a cheap shortening and I prefer real butter anyway). When I discovered some of the things I regularly bought had palm oil I stopped buying them and adjusted my eating or found an alternative product somewhere else. And when I found out that shampoos had palm oil? Well, we can relive my crushing sadness.

I shop mostly at Trader Joe's and Sprouts and most of the prepared products I buy are made directly by the companies, so I know which products are palm oil free. Fortunately, Trader Joes is pretty good about having nothing but real, genuine ingredients in their food, which makes it all the more disappointing when their freezer lunches occasionally have palm oil (I wrote them a letter). I love, love, love that Trader Joe's packaged cookie dough doesn't use palm oil because they have the best cookies and I would be devastated if I couldn't buy from there anymore. But because you never know where palm oil and its league of awful sidekicks are going to show up next, I still always check the ingredient list when buying just to be safe.

Which brings me to the point... It's become a compulsive habit to check food labels, so when I picked up a dark chocolate and unearthly delicious caramel Ghirardelli square I browsed the label. Palm oil was right there, like the fifth ingredient.

*Sigh*

It's almost not even sad anymore. It's just literally in everything. Palm oil isn't even a quality ingredient: it's used as a cheap and lower-fat butter, so why would a high quality company like Ghirardelli use it? And now that I think back on my visits to Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco, their famous ice cream sundaes use Dreyers ice cream, which I learned a couple months ago has palm kernel oil.

Oh well... Ghirardelli Square is out of the way unless I'm already in Fisherman's Wharf, so it looks like I won't be making a trip there next time. Disappointments all over. At least their brownie mix doesn't have palm oil, and the directions call for vegetable oil, so I'm still buying that. And thank goodness, because Ghirardelli brownies are hands down the best you can buy in a box.

Why I Love Chipotle

Living in San Diego, with the abundance of real, delicious and amazing Mexican food, it feels a little wrong to love Chipotle so much. It's not real Mexican food, and it really is like the Subway of Mexican cuisine, but my goodness it hits the spot. For around $6 you get a burrito that easily weighs two pounds, stuffed with fresh ingredients that you pick and choose and can see them prepare. For a little more than a dollar extra they'll give you a bag of some very yummy tortilla chips (seasoned with big bits of salt and lime!). I judge a Mexican place by its chips and Chipotle has them down.

I've loved Chipotle ever since I found out about their food purchasing habits: a significant percentage of their vegetables are purchased from local farms (about 20-30%) and so much of their meat is from naturally raised sources that when their suppliers can't meet their demands they post signs saying so. Chipotle supports the food documentary Food Inc, which is still on my Netflix queue, which leads me to believe they must not have much to hide. Ten years ago there wasn't much of a demand for sustainably raised meats, for animals to be treated humanely or for local shopping options, and now there are farmer's markets all over my city, Whole Foods is a sustainable Mecca and Chipotle and their "food with integrity" program is the leader in buying animals from real ranchers who don't use antibiotics (cue heavenly music). All, as in 100%, of Chipotle's pork is from natural ranchers (pastures, vegetarian food, letting pigs be pigs), and they're working on getting 100% of their chicken, beef and dairy from the same sources.

Chipotle also re-evaluated their menu a little while ago, now providing calorie counts next to their menu items, brown rice in addition to white and kids options. They also made the price of their salad the same as everything else to encourage salad eating.

Plus, their literature is snarky, and how can I not get behind that?

But the reason for this post? Every time I go in there when I'm feeling un-awesome they seem to pick up on it and make my day. Once I went in amazingly hung over after my worst night of drinking and a full shift the next day and got the most massive burrito and a sympathetic look from the workers who knew exactly what was up. Recently I went in on a frustrating lunch break and the cashier slipped me a mini bag of chips and a soda. It's not much, at all, but man does it make me happy. A little kindness goes a long way, and Chipotle is certainly doing it right.

Eating Dogs

Don't do a Google image search for "dog meat."

Depending on where you live, the concept of eating dogs really doesn't give people the reaction that it probably (hopefully) gives you.

However, this is not going to be a debate about eating dogs.

I came across this article on CNN a while back that was provocatively titled "What's wrong with eating dog meat?" So of course I clicked on it, because... well, that's what it was there for (so I'm a sucker). The article was written in a slightly negative tone about how animal activists complained enough to make the Korea Dog Farmers' Association cancel their dog meat festival, which was designed to showcase the upside of eating dog.

Dog meat isn't actually consumed very often in Korea, so that's not the point (China is a little bit of a different story). The point is going to be a less animal activist and a lot more English major.

First, the writer calls it ironic that animal activists claim we shouldn't eat dogs because they're companion animals even though Korea didn't have many companion dogs until very recently. That's not ironic.

Second, the writer pulls quotes from other authorities to describe the difference between Korea's pet dog population (in the city) and meat dog population (on shit farms in the country), and how the only difference between these two types of dogs is that one was born in one place and one was born in another. As soon as this quote is finished, the writer launches into a just-because-we-don't-do-it-here-doesn't-mean-it's-bad closing argument. WTF? Where did that come from?

Her last words, calling a practice bad just because it's not a worldwide practice doesn't make a very good argument, follow several (very short) paragraphs about how dog meat isn't even a popular food, how more and more Koreans are taking on pet dogs and how animal activists in Korea have effectively shut down pro-dog meat festival. Ms Emily Lodish, you do not know how to construct an argument either for or against something.

But your editor can write a damn controversial title.

Sex

Well this is just inappropriate.

I may never understand why people get so concerned about how other people have sex. It seems like everyone has an opinion on what everyone else should and should not be doing. Even corporations.

Chick-fil-A has come out against homosexuality. The restaurant chain is involved with several religious and family oriented groups (including Focus on the Family, which reminds me of Peta for kids) and has explicitly come out and said they "do not accept homosexual couples" at Chick-fil-A's charitable retreat.

But don't worry, gays, you can still order food from the restaurants. They're not going to refuse your money, after all.

And then there's the professionally religious. Bishops have warned married couples to not get too carried away by sexual pleasure, but to remember why you're having sex in the first place. And it's not because it's a way to express your love and passion for one another, unless that's just a byproduct of making babies. The article basically says "we know we said only sex outside of marriage was bad, but anal really isn't going to make babies, and that's our whole thing with the gays, so how 'bout you guys just stick to missionary?" It also describes how married couples should lead chaste lives. Not celibate, chaste. I can't help but picture those Mormon sex clothes that have small holes at the genitals so procreation can occur but you won't get a whole lot of mental stimulation from looking at your wife's naked body. 'Cause that's nasty.

Couldn't find the picture I wanted, so there's this. Also, there's a lot of mormon gay porn out there.

The bishop goes so far as to call pleasure a byproduct of sex:

"Though pleasure may be present, some acts are a misuse of sex when they fall short of what God intended."

Oh yeah? If God intended pleasure to be a mere byproduct of sex why would He have created an organ that does nothing but give sexual pleasure? Plus, certain foreplay acts make sex more enjoyable for each person and make the whole making babies part even better. How do we know God didn't intend that? Lastly, how is a bishop, a supposedly celibate and single individual, giving sex advice to married couples? Giving sex advice is hard enough (well, giving real sex advice is hard, not the bullshit opinions everyone and their mom seem to give out), and it has to be near impossible if you've never experienced it, especially as a married man.

I wish people would just leave others well enough alone. If someone is looking for help or advice he or she will seek it out. The rest of us don't need to go giving our 2 cents to anyone within ear shot. That's my 2 cents, anyway.

*I love the shout-out to Fark.

100% Real Chicken!

This is in your chicken.

Go to a fast food restaurant. Or drive around and check out billboards. Or just turn on the TV and watch some commercials. I guarantee you'll be promised 100% real chicken. Or real cheese. Or real beef. Real food. At restaurants.

Am I the only one who thinks it's silly that restaurants feel the need to advertise that they sell real food? Are the ones that advertise real meat implying that the ones that don't are selling fake meat? Is there any chance that we're eating fake food products? If there isn't any chance of that, why would some restaurants advertise that they sell real food?

This is a scary thought. The thought is made more scary having just finished The Jungle. That is a scary book, especially because it's all real. Sinclair went undercover in a Chicago slaughterhouse in order to write the book. He got a job, toiled as a worthless cog, saw the insides of the meat industry, and wrote so the rest of the world could understand. And understand they did. Well, kind of. The Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act were passed, which was a step in the right direction, but his goal was a bit loftier. He wanted to expose the lies of America for what they were: lure people with the promise of wealth and the American Dream and crush their hopes for a decent existence. But that book was written waaaaay back in 1906, over 100 years ago. No way food is still produced the same way, especially after all the regulations we have now.

Right?

That's what I'm not sure of. Sure, sausage isn't made from the scraps of beef on the slaughterhouse floor anymore (I think...), but would we be proud of how our meat is made? Probably not. A new report came out showing the amount of antibiotics in the livestock we eat: an insane 80% of all antibiotics consumed in the United States is consumed by livestock. Americans only consume 20% of all antibiotics in the country. But if we feed our animals all these drugs, aren't we consuming them in the end when we eat the animals?

And what does 100% real mean???

Turns out I'm not the only one asking this question. There's a Facebook page wondering what McDonald's served us before if now they're serving us "100% real" chicken. It seems that the more I learn about the food I eat the more questions I have. Now I understand why there are people who only eat "dead" plants (like, apples that fell from the tree on their own accord) and why there are people who will spend 4 times the regular cost of produce for organic. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, a way to eat food responsibly and healthfully without going into debt. It seems the search for answers continues.

Eating Animals: A Review

This guy knows what's up. And so do I.

I've embarked on a mission. Since middle school I've restricted my meat intake, cutting out cows, pigs, sheep (not that I ever even ate sheep) and fish (but I didn't even like fish anyway). Then I discovered I really liked fish and kept my meat-eating to fish and poultry. Then I more or less discovered (rediscovered? remembered? acknowledged?) the pain and suffering most poultry endures to become food, so I decided to (mostly) stick to free range birds and sustainable fish. Then I discovered how expensive it is to eat animals and by default became a vegetarian-when-alonekind of person who ate chicken and fish when someone else was doing the grocery shopping.

Then I read Foer's book, Eating Animals. I learned cows are treated the best of any animal we eat (which is still awful), pigs are treated better than they used to (which is still awful), and birds and fish suffer the worst (which is awful). Which is interesting because I and probably others restricted our diets to poultry because we figured cows were too... human... to eat. Chickens are birds and fish are fish, and they're much further removed evolutionarily from us mammals. But as Foer rightfully points out, they still feel pain and their ethical regulations are kind of nonexistent, with stuffed bird cages stacked one on top of the other and fish left hanging on hooks for hours at best. So when you look at it that way, the best thing to do is to be a vegetarian.

Actually, the best thing to do is to be vegan, but that takes resources unavailable to many people. And, let's face it, I'm not giving up cheese.

As Foer mentions several times throughout his book, what you eat is a choice. You choose to order chicken or beef or fish or no meat at all. Every meal is a choice, and every time you choose meat you support the meat industry, like it or not. Foer, obviously, chooses to be a vegetarian and to raise his young son vegetarian.

But here's where I disagree with him: though he never once wrote that the goal of his book was for everyone to become vegetarian, he did say those in the know about the animal industry have a responsibility to inform others of the meaning of their choice. Which means you should inform your friends and family that their turkey sandwich is the end product of hundreds of thousands of birds suffering cruel torture their whole, short lives until dying a slow and painful death, and that's to say nothing of the toxins and bacteria found in the meat. The biggest problem with that plan, though, is it's a surefire way to lose friends and alienate people. And then what good are you to the vegetarian mission if everyone you know thinks you're crazy?

Where I do agree with Foer is that every time you eat you influence others. I believe that is a stronger method of conversion, even if just for one meal, than scaring your tablemates with horror stories of factory farms. When others see your delicious vegetarian meal (creamy mushroom risotto, for example... mmmmm) they'll be more apt to think they ought to give that a try next time. But if you're sitting at the table with a salad and everyone else ordered a juicy steak, telling them the pain and suffering that cow endured right before they take their first bites isn't going to win anyone over.

I think I can sum up America's problem with meat consumption in one sentence: we believe that we have to have some sort of meat on the plate or it's not a complete meal. (For example, bacon and eggs at breakfast, turkey sandwich at lunch, meat sauce on pasta, and pepperoni on pizza.) When we have a vegetarian meal we think we're being so healthy or giving up so much, when we really aren't. The picture below is what I ate while typing this paragraph.

Yum.

A black bean, corn and onion mix, spooned onto a tortilla with melted cheese, and topped with bell peppers, tomatoes and spinach. I served myself with a side of mango salsa and tortilla chips, and I felt very satisfied.

And speaking of myself (because, after all, this is my blog and I am writing about my own little mission for truth), I made the decision to not make a decision. Ta da! I've read one book on the subject and there are hundreds more equally full of good information. I know what my conscience tells me, but I know what my reality is. For the time being, at least until I can read some more books, I'm going to be as vegetarian as possible. It's actually very easy to be vegetarian: meat is just too expensive to buy regularly anyway, and vegetarian dishes from restaurants are almost always as good or better (vegetarian burrito from Chipotle FTW!). My biggest hurdle is cooking with friends. Most of my friends enjoy eating meat and because I'm not skilled in the cooking-vegetarian-dishes-that-meat-eaters-would-love field I give up easily. I'm comfortable enough buying fish that the EDF says are sustainable or eating fish my friends caught themselves (my lady and I make BOMB fish tacos), I'll still put chicken in my enchiladas until I figure out a good meat-free alternative and I'll still eat eggs (which I'll do my best to buy ethically). My homework includes reading The Omnivore's Dilemma (for funzies I'm re-reading The Jungle while I'm in between researching), experimenting with new recipes and shopping for ethical animal products. It will be a process, but it's been an interest of mine for more than a decade, and one I feel compelled to research until I'm satisfied with my personal answer.

Eating Animals

I kind of have a hard time eating guys like this.

As you may have noticed to the left, I'm reading a book called Eating Animals. Eating Animals is a book I've wanted to read for a long time now for it's frank journalistic look at what eating animals means for us, for animals, and for the planet. The author has had a on-again off-again relationship with eating meat, often being a vegetarian who had bacon on Sundays and on burgers. The book is not, so far at least, an evangelical vegetarian piece. It proposes an honest look at our meat industries, doing research too involved to do on a smaller scale and too unbiased for Peta or other animal welfare groups. The author, Jonathan Safran Foer, is someone who really likes the idea of vegetarianism but also really likes how meat tastes. When his first son was born he realized that he would have to make decisions about food for him, and he decided he couldn't do that without knowing what that meant.

The first few chapters talked almost exclusively about tuna. I read those chapters while eating a tuna melt. The second time I sat down to read I was eating a banana with peanut butter. The third time I ate black bean and corn tacos. I feel I'm going to find it more difficult to eat meat as I read this book, an issue Safran Foer discusses. He points out that the automatic assumption we make when reading about meat, even when we see the title Eating Animals, is that it must be against the meat industry for its inhumane practices, and if that's the automatic assumption made by the majority of the people, what does that tell us? It tells us that we already know the meat industry is wrong, that even if eating meat isn't wrong in itself, that how we treat and kill the animals we do eat is wrong.

One of the reasons I like Safran Foer (so far) is his inquisitive manner and understanding way of writing. He likes meat. It tastes good. He gets that. He just also gets the importance of not supporting the way we obtain our meat. To him, supporting something he believes in is worth ignoring his cravings. He's not out there to convert you- just to provide any reader with the information they need to make a decision 3 times a day. If you make the decision to eat meat, fine. But here are the facts anyway.

Peta, take note. The whole "chickens are people, too" campaign doesn't work. Mostly because chickens aren't people.

Why I Hate The McDonalds Smoothie Commercial

Why so serious?

I already don't like McDonalds, but having to listen to crappy radio commercials makes me like it less. Their fruit smoothie commercial, however, is the worst in a while. Here's why:

The ticking: I get it's meant to simulate how a working mother might feel going through her rushed and hectic day, but all it does is make me anxious, like I'm late for something. Since it's a radio commercial, I'm probably listening to it in the car, which means I'm probably at work, which means I'm already anxious. Thanks for adding to my stress, McDonalds.

The voice: The woman's voice was chosen perfectly. It sounds like it belongs to a woman who is not only raising a family but working full-time, and doing it with a perky and upbeat attitude, no less. Bite me, perky perfect housewife. I'm not raising a family or even working full-time and I'm not perky or upbeat half the time. So this woman is superwoman, doing everything she's expected to and with a happy face. And if you drink McDonalds fruit smoothies you can be too!

The boss: She has to compliment her boss's haircut as soon as she gets to the office. So her boss is a woman, which conveys a progressive America. However, the commercial also conveys she must compliment her female boss's new haircut if she wants to get anywhere, just like she'd need to blow her male boss if she wants to get anywhere. Or maybe this woman thinks that by complimenting her boss's haircut she'll have an edge over the men in the office, who likely won't notice or compliment it if they did. Either way, way to work for progression in America, McDonalds.

The job: So the woman gets in to work and barely checks her e-mail before she starts to slow down. Really? Was the haircut complimenting a little tiring, dear? I get she's supposed to be a busy working mother (she spent all morning making sure Janie has her book report, after all) but she should be able to get past 10am without a pick me up.

The pitch: The woman acts like getting a new fruit smoothie from McDonalds is the smartest thing she's done all day. She's not just reenergized, she's HAPPY! OMG IT HAS REAL FRUIT THIS IS SO EXCITING!

The return to work: The rest of her work day is all fun time play now that she's had a smoothie from McDonalds. She's sitting at her desk, giggling like an idiot and e-mailing ridiculous photos and youtube videos on company time and equipment. Oh, and if you're ROTFLOL at work you'll probably attract attention, and then all that hair complimenting you did earlier will go right out the door. And if you're not ROTFLOL then you shouldn't say you're ROTFLOL.

The couch: It's 5pm, no one bug mommy on the couch after a hard day at work. So, lady, all your time with your children was in the morning? Now you're not making dinner or helping them with their book reports or spending quality time with them? You've had a rough day getting the kids to school, sipping a smoothie and e-mailing pictures so now you deserve to veg out on the couch? Some supermom.

The text message: Oh wait, you were going to veg out on the couch all night (after all, you deserve it for being a hard working mom!) but Rachel texted you for girls night out. At fucking McDonalds. So, girls night out is now when you spontaneously leave your kids at home to go sit on tiny uncomfortable red and yellow plastic chairs and watch other people's kids run around like animals and play in the ball pit? Really? You don't go to, I don't know, maybe a relaxed wine bar? Or coffee shop? You'd really rather go to McDonalds for girls night out and watch other people's kids run amok? Do you also go to a cubicle farm on your vacations from work?

Lame. And beyond irritating.

Gluten-Free Is Silly

I've heard (perfectly healthy) people (who can regularly tolerate gluten) talk about how cutting gluten from their diets has made them less lethargic or crabby, but I wonder what's really causing the difference. It could be that they're just eating less, or eating more vegetables, or cutting back on fat and salt, or exercising more, or just experiencing a placebo effect. Tons of people who aren't normally affected by gluten have decided that gluten is the devil and must be avoided at all costs. Look around in the grocery store: gluten-free brownies, gluten-free pizza crust, even gluten-free bread!

Granted, if you have celiac disease you probably don't want to die... but this isn't about that 1% of the American population, it's about the rest being silly. My dad's girlfriend is all about gluten-free; when my sisters were living with them they complained about there never being any food around. While there was always food around, it was either raw vegetables or gluten-free (not exactly easy to prepare on the run and not exactly tasty). They complained gluten-free pancakes didn't taste good, and I scoffed at them and suggested they suck it up for the free food. While I was visiting I made some Trader Joe's gluten-free brownies, thinking if it's from Trader Joe's it must taste good. Not true! That pan of brownies sat there all weekend... no one, not even my dad or his girlfriend, ate them (highly uncharacteristic of my dad to refuse brownies).

Don't search for images of food when you're hungry or craving sweets.

Which leads me to the word of the day: uncharacteristic. Except for those with celiac disease, people are generally fine with eating gluten. True, it's a relatively recent thing for our bodies to learn to accept in terms of intestinal evolution, but you may have noticed humans are pretty hardy little buggers; if we've been A-OK with it for the last 10,000 years, why has the last year or so been so tough on our little tummies? Because it hasn't! We're just fine with eating gluten, but celebrities and fad diets have told us otherwise and now a quarter of US adults are buying everything gluten-free.

But there's a giant glitch: gluten is a naturally occurring protein in wheat, barley and rye. You know what else comes from wheat, barley and rye? BEER. True, there are gluten-free beers available, but just try going into your regular bar or restaurant and ordering one. I would love to see someone order a gluten-free pizza crust ($5 extra) and a Bud Light. How silly.

Anne Frank

Just finished reading (re-reading?) Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl. Anne Frank had to be the most intelligent 14-year old girl in the world. She was insanely smart for her age, well wise beyond her years, and so articulate and able to easily express the most basic feelings that people have struggled their whole lives to express. It's a huge shame on our species that she had to die at the hands of an evil, racist authority.

Anne was in hiding in a warehouse with her family and 4 others for over 2 years during World War II. During that time they did not leave the warehouse, did not breathe fresh air, came close to starvation, came close to discovery multiple times, and had restrictions on when they could run water, use the toilet and even get up and move around. Their lives depended on extreme secrecy and security measures. Annes only solace throughout this whole ordeal was her dependency on the privacy of her diary. She wrote about quarrels between the tenants, being chastised by her parents, her longing for her friends, her lack of anyone to confide in (except her diary, which she named "Kitty"), the goings on in the world, being terrorized by air raids, the pains their friends took to bring them food, their near starvation... all before age 14, young Anne experienced and documented a life none of us can imagine. And she took it all in stride: every so often when she became depressed, Anne would bring herself back out of it by remembering how lucky she was to be in hiding when her friends suffered unimaginable fates in the outside. Starving, alone and terrified for 2 years, Anne pulled her own chin up, even when the adults couldn't do so.

In her diary she wrote about her dreams for the future, after the war. She saw the life of her mother and knew that was not for her. She wanted

"to have something besides a husband and children to devote myself to... to be useful or bring enjoyment to all people, even those I’ve never met. I want to go on living even after my death!"

Oh, Anne. You have no idea.

Unsurprisingly enough, this part of her book resonated with me. I've looooong known that the housewife life is so not for me. Granted, I'm glad my mom did it, and I don't think less of women my age who want to do it, I just couldn't do it or even imagine doing it. Anne had considered having her diary published and wanted to become a journalist. She also laughed at herself, wondering who would ever read the dumb whinings of a teenage girl. In the mid 1940s, Anne started to struggle with the notion of doing things differently. It was expected that a good Jewish girl would marry and have children, but Anne wanted more. Things aren't so different now.

Sixty-plus years later, women are still expected to marry and have children. It's more acceptable to also have a career (or hobby or part-time job or volunteer) but the question of getting married and having children is ever present. Telling a curious asker that you have a husband and child(ren) doesn't require further discussion. Telling a curious asker that you have a cool job prompts questions of who you're dating and if you want to have his kids. Having a job is not an acceptable answer unless you also are at least engaged.

What is it about the older generations that want us to bear our own children and become a family so badly? Why is it not OK to skip that step in life? We are not animals in the sense that we bear young every year in order to ensure the survival of our species, and since it's such a HUGE deal to raise even one kid in this world why is it not acceptable to opt out?

Answer: They sacrificed happiness and freedom for the good of the younger generations and now it's our turn to do the same. People who marry young are, for the most part, viewed as more mature and responsible than those who marry late. We equate marriage with maturity and the later you do it the less responsible and more selfish you are. I suppose it could be said that marriage can force a couple to become more mature and responsible, and that having kids forces people to make decisions for the best of the child rather than what sounds fun, but is that really the path we want most people to take? Force someone, in the midst of learning to handle life, to become something completely different? This will only force people to suppress certain feelings until something happens (like divorce or the kids growing up) to make those feelings resurface. And now we have rampant 40- and 50-somethings back on the dating scene trying to just be happy. Maybe if they'd had the opportunity to do what made them happy in their 20s they'd have made better life decisions and wouldn't need to deal with the sudden resurfacing of emotions not dealt with in decades.

A New York Times article ponders the state of the twenty-somethings. Because we obviously have a problem if we're not graduating, finding a life-long job and partner, marrying and popping out kids ASAP. The article is very long winded and goes into the psychology of 20-somethings (including brain development and cultural expectations) but it also spends a few pages discussing if "emerging adulthood" should be the newest recognized developmental stage in life, which I'm not really interested in. Do we really need to recognize it as a stage? Can't we just settle with a continuous cycle of the older generation criticizing the younger generation for being different?

My mom has been unhappy with her job (and state of being, really) for the better part of a decade. She tried taking classes at community college but couldn't finish a whole semester. Her job offers stability, health insurance and a flexible schedule. She tells me she made sacrifices in order to obtain those things, for the kids, and suggests that maybe it's time I do the same. But why should I? I have no need to make those kinds of sacrifices. Sure, it'd be nice to have health insurance, but I'm young and in good health, so it's not something I'm willing to sacrifice happiness at work for. I'm 24 and living on my own, supporting myself fully, and am not looking forward to marriage or children. This is the time to deal with the issues my parent's generation ignored for the sake of starting a family, and dammit I'm gonna take my sweet ass time.

So, Anne, your thoughts are just as relevant and resonating in women, at least this woman, today as they were in the forties. I'm just glad the privacy of your diary allowed for the kind of frank opinion that is absent in most other books. And, of course, I'm excited to see you live on decades and decades after your death, untimely as it was.