Belated Introduction.

Hi, this is Rob Carroll. I started this blog in order to get a handle on my research project for English 201. Throughout the course, which has sped by with lightning-like speed, I've had some struggles in settling on a topic. Struggles might even understate it a bit. I've gone from; "how do dogs process reality(?)," "What contributions have primates made in the field of neuroscience (?)," "If primates were worshiped by people thousands of years before your God, then what's so great about yours?" I've run the gamut of trying to think originally for a good topic; each time falling flat. Ultimately, I settled for a reasonably safe research topic; the vegetarian diet, and ask "why is adopting vegetarian diet a better and more reasoned way to live?" Chopping away at the topic, I've decided the main consideration should be health concerns, though I won't altogether throw out the ethical concerns of the topic.
 Watching "Food Inc." really caused me to feel something inside for these poor creatures. Especially the scene in which the process of the "kill floor" was demonstrated. It was extremely upsetting to me, and as a combat vet, blood and life and suffering and death as reality of the nature of the world, is something with which I'm well acquainted. I've been trained to push feelings aside and contain them until an analysis of the present situation can be taken. Not with this. The conditions of the present situation with regard to the way these animals live short, miserable, lives; only to be mechanically executed and treated with all manner of weird juices before hitting my plate, was something that was put right in my face. It hit me as immediately as if it were shot out of a cannon.
What I'm getting at with this, is that until I was sufficiently informed about what was going on in places like this; right here in the U.S., I had a only a small idea of it-- and no visual reference to it, and therefore couldn't have cared less. I had this neolithic sort of nonchalance to meat, like a lot of people do, "Cheeseburger taste good... huge cheeseburger taste better!" "me real man... me eat bacon like real man." This attitude, this ignorance was immediately replaced by a heavier sense of shame; not only for myself, but for my species. Too busy to look, too proud to question ourselves, too afraid to even face the possibility of our errors. For the last few weeks I've been avoiding meat products; processed and unprocessed (if that even exists anymore, I wouldn't know because "I not real man, I no hunt for meat"). It has been rewarding thus far. No guilt involved either.
The American Dietetic Association, an authority on all things diet, says that vegetarians have quite a few rewards that come with making this choice, and as such they're one of my sources for my research paper. Here is a link where the pdf download of their position statement is available:

Winston J. Craig, et al. "Vegetarian Diets." 22 July 2009. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 7:50:17 Pm June. Web 2014 <http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357&terms=vegetarian%20diet>.

From older ideas to modern problems.

Some of my sources, due to the time of publication, show a glimpse into the historic outlook on the benefits of the vegetarian diet. Additional sources with whom I've been working are from much more recent days; as today the science and of much greater concern, the type of meat we regularly eat has changed tremendously. Geared only toward easy profit, such the way most things are today. Taylorism as expected,  has eventually yielded to near complete automation. The process of food production is every bit devoid of a soul, as the ones who benefit from the product sales. And to this end, what results is a lack of concern with many health implications assumed by the consumers who buy it. Processed meat is quickly produced, cheap, easy to find and easier to prepare and eat. Slaughterhouse employees, of the human type remaining, no longer have to look into the eyes of the animals which are fated to be salami and hamburger. The modern means of the dirty work being done are called "kill floors." We've seen this on the in-class documentary "Food Inc." It's only fitting that we now see directly correlated diseases like diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and colon cancer being linked to its consumption and thus the continuation of the production cycle. Processed meat is bad for more reasons than just ethical reproaches and culpability of corporate slime. It can kill a person.

Renata Micha et al, Sarah K. Wallace, Dariush Mozaffarian. "Harvard School of Public Health." 17 05 2010. Harvard School of Public Health Press Releases. 22 June 2014 <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/processed-meats-unprocessed-heart-disease-diabetes/>.

Raphaëlle L. Santarelli et al, Fabrice Pierre, Denis E. Corpet. "HAL Archives Ouvertes- France." 25 March 2008. US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. 22 June 2014 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661797/>.

The Most Outstanding Article that I Couldn't Possibly Use

My research paper is heavily geared toward the health aspects involved with giving up meat as sustenance.
I plan on incorporating at least one or two sources to give some play to the ethical concerns, and in search of these, I found it difficult to find information that wasn't sourced from animal rights groups which have an agenda-driven interest in people becoming vegans for the groups' reasons. However I did find a phenomenal article on the BBC website, written from the vegetarian side of the argument, and giving asserted perspectives from deontological, utilitarian,consequentialist and virtue ethics.

The rub of it, there was absolutely no information that I could find about the author, when it was written, who to credit etc. It was just floating there.

Here's a link to it. It was a great read for anyone who enjoys philosophy and ethics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/eating_1.shtml

More Streamlined topic with a Wealth of Sources

The latest and greatest on the research paper is that the topic is now set. It's going to be about the vegetarian diet, and the health aspects of such. I found some very compelling (and some very old) literature to make a case for the benefits of abandoning a flesh-diet. This is just to put an historical context to the way people though about vegetarian diets with regard to health.

I found an article written in 1857 by which gives a rather enthusiastic approach to adhering to a meatless diet. The claims made in this piece really sells the idea of a vegetarian diet as something that is great for a person's health. It hits on longevity, physical and mental strength and endurance, and the freedom of being burdened by life-ending diseases. 

 The next piece was about a study done in Brussels in 1907, which actually studied the effect of vegetarian 

diets on muscular endurance. The findings of the study were positively in favor of vegetarians over those 

test subjects who ate meat in their diets. There was little difference found in strength, but it was no contest 

where endurance was concerned the vegetarian subjects where observed to have three times the muscular 

endurance of their counterparts.

Forster, T. "Inquiry into the Average Longevity of Vegetarians, Compared with that of Persons who Live on 

a Mixed Diet." October 1857. jstor.org. 21 06 2014 .web.<http://www.jstor.org/stable/41134790>.

Fisher, Irving. "Diet and Endurance at Brussels." Science. New Series. Vol 26. No. 669 (Oct.25, 1907): 561-563.

 

Taking Shape

With hardly a moment to spare, we've finally settled on a topic for the paper. The question central to the topic is: "Is a Vegetarian Lifestyle the Right Way to Live?" I'm going to approach the topic as an argument in itself, divided into three portions. First will be a lifestyle/preference portion. Next the debate will move to the ethics of the way our livestock is treated before it meets its end. And finally the debate will focus on the health considerations which should be considered between the meat and vegetarian diets. Both sides of the argument, meat-eater and vegetarian, will be represented. As a way to initiate and maintain the flow of the argument, at least for the lifestyle and preference portion, I'll present a claim from one side or the other which is reasonably out-of-order, but are still readily accepted by people who want to be validated in their choice in dietary content--without doing much thinking about the reasons for their choices.

For example, and this isn't necessarily one that will wind up on the paper, is the way that meat products are advertised as symbols that demonstrate gender strength. Picture your run-of-the-mill, dumb, burger chain commercial for some hypothetical product like the "gargantuan burger" a six-patty, mayo slathered, bacon laden, jalapeno detonation, with an ounce of extreme potato chips under the top bun.

Of course, a burger this caliber could only appeal to the manliest of manly men; so naturally the model they hire to take an ever-so-dramatic, slow-motion bite of this monstrosity has to be a six-foot-four, blond guy, with a three-inch-beard and a huge neck exploding forth from the collar of a tattered old football jersey. As if eating a greasy mass of processed meat, cheese, bread and toppings is suddenly the equivalent of climbing to the summit of some alpine mountain, to spend a year by oneself hurling boulders down the slope and reading a well-worn book of viking poetry.

My point is, a lot of the nonsense that is shown in advertisements carry over into the culture in real-life, and there are quite a few people who really think that some of these ridiculous notions, which were only meant to sell fast food, speak some truth about who they choose to be as individuals. Even on the smallest level, any acceptance of this, should be countered with some reasoning. On the other hand, if it's manly to eat copious amounts of meat, it's obviously not an exercise of free will and a product of rational thought for a man to choose a vegetarian diet, but merely a case of a boy who used to like wearing his mommy's shoes. That kind of thing.

I probably wont spend a lot of time giving play to these kinds of misconceptions, I don't want to spend hours at a time spinning my tires in the mud because I mistakenly felt the right approach was to attempt the socratic method on myself and my sources. I'm just playing with ideas to find out what will work. The next post will be about some of the sources I've found.

Ideas running thin.

Another one bites the dust. Three proposals and not one was satisfactory. My grades are in the toilet and I'm totally fried. I just don't know what it is about this that I'm not understanding and the rest of the class is. This wasn't supposed to happen. Anyway, let's shift mindsets and figure out a new topic before it's really too late.

It should be obscure, but not too obscure. It should be narrow, but not too narrow. It should be neutral, but argumentative. It should be a topic of interest.  It should have a question at its core. I should be able to find enough sources on it for which to do a 1500 word literature review i.e. a diet research paper. It should be 3000 words long in its final form.

Squirrels: Crucial to the Ecosystem or Worthless Vagabonds?
Why are Bears Suddenly Migrating to Western New York?
How Much More Polluted Can the World's Oceans Become Before Everything Inhabiting It Dies?

And the Lord Said... "A-booga-booga-booga... Ah-ah-ah!"

I've finally figured out what my professors for this summer sesh want from me. They want me to bang my head against the wall until it loses its round shape, my mouth hangs open on the right side and dribbles, and so that I can no longer control my bodily functions in public. Kidding. That isn't what they want from me, but thankfully, I figured out  a sweet topic for my research paper.

I like, no, I love primates, apes, monkeys, whatever their distinctions or designations. They're hilarious. I've always had this fantasy of having a pet chimp; in fact Dane Cook stole part of it and put it on one of his albums. Since since I can't sue him, I might as well let whoever reads this in on it. I would have this pet chimp, and I'd dress him up in a little Karate uniform so we could fight. I would take him out and let him eat ice cream, and all the women we meet would fall in love with him, and thus they would also fall in love with me by proxy. God what a great little daydream. But through a clustering exercise an idea hit me, and by chasing a few leads on the internet, I learned that Dane Cook and I aren't the only ones who think primates are really cool. As it turns out, there are several cultures from different parts of the world that have worshipped our furry friends as deities (some still do). Archaeological excavations have proved that primate worship has been evident in at several ancient civilizations.

I'm still chasing down leads, but this promises to be a very interesting project. More to come.

Names and Faces

For educational purposes, the immediate theme of this blog is related to animals. So tonight, in a dubious sort of compliance with the rules, I want to say a few words about a rodent. The topic of this post is one that cuts very deep, and has had me seething for about three days. It has derailed my brain-train on its track of focus, and I think that by getting this out in the open it's going to help the inner-me tremendously with getting my mind back on the goals that I've set for this summer. But before I explain any more, I need to guide whomever reads this on a short trip down memory lane. It won't take long, but it's necessary, so that I can frame this in the proper context.

Of all the rooms in my memory palace, the one that I know most intimately, is my aid station in Mosul. In the blink of the eye, I can be right there. I can smell the air in the room. I can taste the dust. I can feel the floor beneath my feet. I can hear the whirring motor of the full size, glass door pepsi refrigerator, where I kept my rip its; near-beers, vaccines and cold compresses. I can see my desk; my shelves fully stocked with all different types of oral and topical medicines; my talon II walk kits stacked in a dusty pile against the wall, and I can see the two straight pole litters; placed on top of their stands like a dirt poor doctor's exam tables. I know every centimeter of this space. I had filing cabinets too.

These filing cabinets were filled with lists; numbers; names, and tasks. In fact they still are, and I still use them. I use them to store faces, places, experiences, birthdays, shopping lists, and even emotions sometimes. The things that I store in that room today, are finally getting some air, and it's because I'm remembering all the people who I'm never going to see again. There are people in there who I miss terribly; most of them living, and a few who are not. When we were all together, in Desperado Troop, I knew every single one of their names, and they all knew me just the same. Whenever they had a weird pain in the knee bothering them; they'd come see me. When they were due for shots; they came to see me. Something really heavy on their minds that they needed to talk it out; they'd come talk to me. If they wanted to hang out at the aid for a few minutes to shoot the breeze, and get out of the sun, they knew where to go. We rolled out of the gate together, and we all came back together. I think you get the point by now.

I open the door to this section of the palace, and they're all still in there; just hanging out. The memories of this room allow me to commune with them, and I do, at some point every day. Another memory I seem to have hung on to, was being at my desk week-after-week, and I'd crack open the Army Times.
Not giving a damn about any of the articles, ads, and news; I'd flip straight to the back of the publication each time-- where the KIAs and MIAs were listed; mostly to check on my old buddies from Basic and AIT. Nothing was more dreaded than seeing a name that I recognized listed on that page. I clearly remember the feeling; the same every time; a heaviness on my heart when I read Bowe Bergdahl's name listed as MIA. I recognized his name well from over the course of time. There weren't any rumors about him that had made it to my neck of the woods. There was no twisted back-story behind his disappearance. As far as I, or anyone else around me knew; he was a PFC, who had the abysmal luck of being captured by the enemy while on patrol in the Stan.

The Army does not leave its people behind. American POWs are something of a sacred entity to the people in the ranks. Little did we know in the Iraqi theatre; that this little MF shipped all of his personal property home, shot off a few e-mails about his inclinations and intention to desert his post, and he slipped out in the dead of night; into the arms of the enemy. Deserter, defector, traitor. Six guys died in four different IED dets, except SSG Curtiss, in the search for this rat. Their names were 2Lt Daryn Andrews; SSG Clayton Bowen; SSG Kurt Curtiss; SSG Michael Murphy; PFC Morris Walker, and PFC Matthew Martinek. The worst part about this is that Bergdahl probably doesn't even give a F%@&, and the lives these men mean nothing to him. These people are dead, and he may as well have placed the IEDs himself. They haven't yet officially released the number of troopers who became casualties due to the secondary, and tertiary effects of his desertion, but there is a full-bird Colonel who told Bill O'Reilly that the number is fourteen.

And what do you know! There are political implications for Washington; the kind that leave a shroud over the whole truth of things-- lest it come out to threaten the comfort of the political bastards who play with the lives of real people on both sides of the fight. A fight that many believe, including myself, was bungled into; mishandled during, and is grievously in need of redress after its uncertain conclusion. Not a damn soul with less than an eight or nine digit figure in his or her bank account knows when (or if) that will be. But from what I'm hearing as far as Bergdahl is concerned, while there may be some minor consequence for his actions, he's such a political darling at the moment for the administration; that he may not be punished at all. After all, think about all the hell that he's been through over the years. 





http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/col-david-hunt-we-lost-14-soldiers-searching-for-deserter-bergdahl-video/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/we-lost-soldiers-in-the-hunt-for-bergdahl-a-guy-who-walked-off-in-the-dead-of-night.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/pentagon-to-look-into-allegations-soldiers-killed-effort-to-recover-bergdahl/

Blogging With Intrinsic Motivation

          Often it is the case with me, and one of much consternation; that when I'm presented with an assignment; it will likely be met with such anxiety and indolence, that I go through something similar to the "five stages of grief." The bright side to this, is that I always end up at the acceptance stage. For this reason, it didn't take very long to get the sense that Alex Reid; in his essay Why Blog? Searching For Writing On the Web; was speaking directly to the kind of person that I am.

     I didn't find any of the content within the numerous pages to be dry; nor did any of those familiar thought traps slither into my consciousness while reading it. By thought traps, I'm referring to that little black dot in the back of my mind; that whispers things like; "this is boring-- you're wasting your time."Each time the little black dot repeats itself; it grows a little bigger. Before long, my being stifled transforms into a vegetative trance, and the little black dot-- with its unceasing mantra-- becomes a whirling black hole; which sucks the wrinkles out of my brain until it's totally smooth.

          When Reid made the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, and explained how blogging offers pure freedom to experience writing based on things that inspire them to practice; he delivered a powerful alternative to giving the thought traps their way. I think that written language is a thing of the highest beauty. I also think about what a fortunate circumstance it is to have inherited English as my primary language. I suspect that the shocking erosion of skill with the use of written English in the U.S. is not caused by some dark illuminati conspiracy; one which aims to dumb everyone down for social control purposes. The infinitely more probable explanation, and infinitely less idiotic, is the individual's struggle against the little black dot in his or her head.

     Causation and correlation being two different kettles of fish; there are indeed apparent societal factors which contribute to the volume of the wretched sounds of internal discouragement from writing practice. For one, it doesn't help to be arrogant; always boasting about the fact that one has learned the difference between your and you're; thus feeling just enough superiority over the peer network to justify the discontinuation of learning, and moving on to more fun and worthwhile things -- like drinking heavily and arguing about politics. If there really were such thing as grammar police on facebook; it would probably be the most corrupt department that the English speaking world has ever known.

          Another cultural factor which further separates both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations from the art of reading and writing; is the fact that gadgets have taken such a dominant role in our lives. Our technology has risen to such a height that it is no longer a means of communication between people. It is an end in itself now. Our technology is our communication, and many if not most people these days feel lost without it. Without their devices people feel muted, disconnected and lacking; when in reality they haven't been as free and connected to the world around them in years. Great ideas and stories are swept away by the sheer speed of it all; as the ability to slowly absorb the stories and ideas is no longer thought of as useful. We now read things as fragments; comments; blurbs; headlines; tweets, and yelps. It's no wonder so many people leave most of their thinking up to the big boys on tv. It's a shame--space exploration could've been a really interesting part of our lives by now.

     For as much as I wish things could go back to the way they were in the analog era, I know that it's over. I can see no better way of reclaiming at least some percentage of what has been lost than through blogging. In a way, blogging is a direct defiance of this high-tech hangover of ours. It utilizes the same technology not as an end, but as a means of facilitating literacy. Thoughts can once more be shared, and processed slowly by others. Reasoned responses take the place of "likes," and "lol"s, and if one wants to play the funny man who always has a wisecrack against a skilled blogger; then it would be a good idea for that person to bring their A- game. Personally, I would really love to be able to witness Immanuel Kant and David Hume argue about metaphysics in a blog; responding to each other in real time.

And so, while I was apprehensive at first about blogging; reading Alex Reid's essay has changed my mind. I'm even feeling excited about getting started on it. My primary goal for starting this blog is to stay current with it, and revisit it every day. I hope to be as excited about blogging my thoughts and ideas in a month from now as I am today. There are a number of things I would change if I could, but much of it can't be. Knowing this is to know that the connection between extrinsic motivators, and writing is not likely to be made -- at least not anytime soon. It will all be okay if I can grasp and hold on to the idea that the reward for this undertaking is not merely something for me to put in my pocket. The reward is to earn a skill to put into my mind, and with it, I will enhance my life to something of greater quality. BLOG!

Response: Dogs Are People Too

          Far be it from me to put too hard a knock on the rational thoughts of rational people. Animal rights advocates; people who opine in the New York Times letters to the editor; even professors of neuroeconomics are all worthy of having their opinions considered, and they're all A-okay with me. I've read each perspective offered in this assignment, and I find each to have its own merit; being correct in some ways, and I dare say a bit silly in others. It is still very unclear to me why it's imperative to apply legal "personhood" status to a dog.

          When I look at my American-bulldog/boxer, Sheena, as I am at this very moment; I do indeed see more than a dog; a mutt; an object. She has been a loyal and true friend to me -- often when no friends of my own species were to be found. I would even go so far as to nominally award her the title of "family member." She is a good girl. I cannot, however, connect "personhood" with her. Personhood is not relative across species. It is reserved for human beings. Humans are possessors of the human essence; that is to say, we possess "humanness," or defining characteristics of the animal of which we are.

          Conversely; canines, i.e. dogs have an essence, or "dogness" entirely of their own. This "dogness" is something unique to their species, as personhood is to ours. Suppose one day you, or I, or anyone else decided to tear our clothes off; get down on all fours, and never again utter a word recognizable to the human ear. Suppose having done this, we decide to hang out only with other dogs; howling; barking; whining in a high pitch, and these would be our only means of communication. Would this make either of us dogs? There is no judge; in any appellate who would bring down her gavel and declare: "This man is a dog! Court is adjourned."

          No rational judge would rule in favor rule in favor of granting "dogness" to a human; whatever that would en-tail. This is not to say that within our exceedingly weird times that it would be shocking, or even... too far-fetched, to imagine some nut from Florida, or California, attempting to convince the court of his new found "dogness." Take about thirty seconds to picture what that scene would look like; Some weird naked guy in front of the bench panting; drooling all over his lawyer's shiny oxfords. I would even go out on a limb to guess that there would be people who would take the guy seriously, society being how it is, and all. All kidding aside, a dog can no more be a person, than a person can be a dog.

          I also wonder why some humans are prepared to offer such latitude as "personhood" to all dogs, but don't lift a finger to help themselves, or others who are already supposed to possess this so-called status. It seems far more logical to figure out what a person's rights actually are; than to waste more time and resources on new legislation which may feel great for emotion's sake, but pragmatically accomplishes very little. Changing the way we label something; while being utterly unable to change the essence of the thing, is a complete waste of time. Not only that, but it's also pretty insulting when we live in a society that considers itself to have such robust freedom of thought; only to be commanded to think along the lines of someone else's dictates (especially when the decrees are fallacies in themselves). I'll spare you from making metaphors that go further than trying to talk into a banana, and trying to eat the phone; though my argument is as simply premised, and inferred as such. 

          My purpose is not to assert that [Dr.] Berns' study is a sham. I'm certain that of Callie, and eleven other dogs-- when placed in an MRI machine, their caudates lit right up like christmas trees in response to certain physical cues. To me this in itself is remarkable; considering that I can barely persuade my dog to stay in the bathtub. While I'm sure his findings were exciting to see, I think what Berns considers to be "evidence" is quite sketchy at best. I also think that his so-called "inescapable conclusion" that "dogs are people too;" is merely an appeal to emotion, and also an appeal to popularity; as there are many folks out there who love their pets more than they could ever love another human being. For Berns' conclusion to be categorically true of all dogs; the paradox of Hempel's Raven must be considered; i.e. all ravens are black, and all non-black things are non-ravens. To prove the validity of his claim, it would require the study of quite a few more dogs than twelve; over the course of quite a few more months than twenty four. Such a task would actually require the use of a magical genie, and the study of all dogs; everywhere in the universe.

And so, if there is anything that this article proves, it is that [Dr.] Berns loves dogs. He loves dogs so much; he seeks to find evidence to assign a new definition to the species with regard to how we all view, think, and speak of dogs. If his research really proved what he had intended; it would be front page news everywhere on planet Earth. It would not have been buried in the opinion section of the New York Times. Alas, dogs are dogs; people are people, but what really brings both species together-- is the birthright of not being treated as mere objects by anyone, anywhere, ever. 

Link to the original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

Readers' responses:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/is-fido-a-person-under-the-fur.html