Life Without

Simple life on the plains

0 notes

I got this book recently, and I’m only a fourth of the way through it, but holy crap is it entertaining. At least for me. Little rural kid from the plains.
Anyway, it is a true, diary-style story that follows a fairly inexperienced inner city teacher who is a part of a special night-school-esque program to educate the more difficult or challenging high school kids. It’s a bit more honest and dirty than your typical, trite Dead Poets Society or Stand and Deliver tale.

I got this book recently, and I’m only a fourth of the way through it, but holy crap is it entertaining. At least for me. Little rural kid from the plains.

Anyway, it is a true, diary-style story that follows a fairly inexperienced inner city teacher who is a part of a special night-school-esque program to educate the more difficult or challenging high school kids. It’s a bit more honest and dirty than your typical, trite Dead Poets Society or Stand and Deliver tale.

Filed under books non fiction books reading list education booksfuckyeah

162 notes

bootyregrit:

gerbilkabob:

bootyregrit:

gerbilkabob:

I’m not trying to convert anyone from strongly held convictions, but in the name of an open dialog about food ethics, I would like to offer one counterpoint to this .jpg that showed up on my feed this morning.
The argument presented above assumes that the relationships between me and all animals are indistinguishable. If the object in question was a random person, and I asked you if you would have a sexual relationship with that person - “Why not? You have sex with other people, don’t you?” - you might be incredulous. I understand that the point one was making is that all animals deserve the same respect that you would give a domestic animal companion. While that is a valid argument, it removes extraneous variations of relationships and amplifies the emotion associated with devouring a loved one. Discuss. Politely. If you feel like it. 

Don’t worry. You’re in no danger of converting anyone of anything here.
What you have done is commit the logical fallacy of False Equivalence. I have no emotional connection to that dog, I don’t even know it. But I still wouldn’t eat it. 

It’s not as much about knowing that specific dog, or having a connection to any dog, in order to avoid eating it. My answer to the question of “why not?” is simple: (1) in my Western Culture, it is considered culturally inappropriate to eat domestic pets, and there is a stigma associated with doing so, and (2) the argument in the poster itself is committing false equivalence: a dog is an animal; a cow is an animal. You eat a cheeseburger, so therefore you must also be willing to eat dog. Just because both are animals, they are not necessarily the same.
I think we can provide better arguments to avoid meat than these - I’ve seen billboards of a similar vein, and I think they become a punchline for omnivores. My own friends will add, “because bacon is delicious!” without a second thought. 
Again - I’m not meaning to attack anyone, but I wanted to incorporate this into my blog, because we all eat, and therefore we should all consider our role within the ecosystem.

our ‘role; in the ecosystem is one of utter destruction. animal agriculture assures this happening.
'domestic pets' is really a meaningless term. quite a lot people keep pigs as animal companions. I had a pet sheep when I was a kid.

I agree completely, on both points. Overpopulation contributes to that destruction - even in the agriculture of grain and vegetable production, the land is pumped with artificial stimulants to try to squeeze just a bit more from the soil, leaving the ground barren and void of organic material. We’re bleeding it dry every way possible.

bootyregrit:

gerbilkabob:

bootyregrit:

gerbilkabob:

I’m not trying to convert anyone from strongly held convictions, but in the name of an open dialog about food ethics, I would like to offer one counterpoint to this .jpg that showed up on my feed this morning.

The argument presented above assumes that the relationships between me and all animals are indistinguishable. If the object in question was a random person, and I asked you if you would have a sexual relationship with that person - “Why not? You have sex with other people, don’t you?” - you might be incredulous. I understand that the point one was making is that all animals deserve the same respect that you would give a domestic animal companion. While that is a valid argument, it removes extraneous variations of relationships and amplifies the emotion associated with devouring a loved one. Discuss. Politely. If you feel like it. 

Don’t worry. You’re in no danger of converting anyone of anything here.

What you have done is commit the logical fallacy of False Equivalence. I have no emotional connection to that dog, I don’t even know it. But I still wouldn’t eat it.

It’s not as much about knowing that specific dog, or having a connection to any dog, in order to avoid eating it. My answer to the question of “why not?” is simple: (1) in my Western Culture, it is considered culturally inappropriate to eat domestic pets, and there is a stigma associated with doing so, and (2) the argument in the poster itself is committing false equivalence: a dog is an animal; a cow is an animal. You eat a cheeseburger, so therefore you must also be willing to eat dog. Just because both are animals, they are not necessarily the same.

I think we can provide better arguments to avoid meat than these - I’ve seen billboards of a similar vein, and I think they become a punchline for omnivores. My own friends will add, “because bacon is delicious!” without a second thought. 

Again - I’m not meaning to attack anyone, but I wanted to incorporate this into my blog, because we all eat, and therefore we should all consider our role within the ecosystem.

our ‘role; in the ecosystem is one of utter destruction. animal agriculture assures this happening.

'domestic pets' is really a meaningless term. quite a lot people keep pigs as animal companions. I had a pet sheep when I was a kid.

I agree completely, on both points. Overpopulation contributes to that destruction - even in the agriculture of grain and vegetable production, the land is pumped with artificial stimulants to try to squeeze just a bit more from the soil, leaving the ground barren and void of organic material. We’re bleeding it dry every way possible.

(Source: vegansonplanetearth)

162 notes

bootyregrit:

gerbilkabob:

I’m not trying to convert anyone from strongly held convictions, but in the name of an open dialog about food ethics, I would like to offer one counterpoint to this .jpg that showed up on my feed this morning.
The argument presented above assumes that the relationships between me and all animals are indistinguishable. If the object in question was a random person, and I asked you if you would have a sexual relationship with that person - “Why not? You have sex with other people, don’t you?” - you might be incredulous. I understand that the point one was making is that all animals deserve the same respect that you would give a domestic animal companion. While that is a valid argument, it removes extraneous variations of relationships and amplifies the emotion associated with devouring a loved one. Discuss. Politely. If you feel like it. 

Don’t worry. You’re in no danger of converting anyone of anything here.
What you have done is commit the logical fallacy of False Equivalence. I have no emotional connection to that dog, I don’t even know it. But I still wouldn’t eat it. 

It’s not as much about knowing that specific dog, or having a connection to any dog, in order to avoid eating it. My answer to the question of “why not?” is simple: (1) in my Western Culture, it is considered culturally inappropriate to eat domestic pets, and there is a stigma associated with doing so, and (2) the argument in the poster itself is committing false equivalence: a dog is an animal; a cow is an animal. You eat a cheeseburger, so therefore you must also be willing to eat dog. Just because both are animals, they are not necessarily the same.
I think we can provide better arguments to avoid meat than these - I’ve seen billboards of a similar vein, and I think they become a punchline for omnivores. My own friends will add, “because bacon is delicious!” without a second thought. 
Again - I’m not meaning to attack anyone, but I wanted to incorporate this into my blog, because we all eat, and therefore we should all consider our role within the ecosystem.

bootyregrit:

gerbilkabob:

I’m not trying to convert anyone from strongly held convictions, but in the name of an open dialog about food ethics, I would like to offer one counterpoint to this .jpg that showed up on my feed this morning.

The argument presented above assumes that the relationships between me and all animals are indistinguishable. If the object in question was a random person, and I asked you if you would have a sexual relationship with that person - “Why not? You have sex with other people, don’t you?” - you might be incredulous. I understand that the point one was making is that all animals deserve the same respect that you would give a domestic animal companion. While that is a valid argument, it removes extraneous variations of relationships and amplifies the emotion associated with devouring a loved one. Discuss. Politely. If you feel like it. 

Don’t worry. You’re in no danger of converting anyone of anything here.

What you have done is commit the logical fallacy of False Equivalence. I have no emotional connection to that dog, I don’t even know it. But I still wouldn’t eat it.

It’s not as much about knowing that specific dog, or having a connection to any dog, in order to avoid eating it. My answer to the question of “why not?” is simple: (1) in my Western Culture, it is considered culturally inappropriate to eat domestic pets, and there is a stigma associated with doing so, and (2) the argument in the poster itself is committing false equivalence: a dog is an animal; a cow is an animal. You eat a cheeseburger, so therefore you must also be willing to eat dog. Just because both are animals, they are not necessarily the same.

I think we can provide better arguments to avoid meat than these - I’ve seen billboards of a similar vein, and I think they become a punchline for omnivores. My own friends will add, “because bacon is delicious!” without a second thought. 

Again - I’m not meaning to attack anyone, but I wanted to incorporate this into my blog, because we all eat, and therefore we should all consider our role within the ecosystem.

(Source: vegansonplanetearth)

0 notes

Police Drop Charges Against A 16-Year-Old They Charged With Murder

This particular instance highlights problems with eyewitness reports and lineup identifications.

Because this high schooler vaguely matched a description (read: young black male) and had the same first name (Patrick - very rare indeed) as a possible suspect, he was taken into custody. A witness, when shown Patrick’s photograph, did not recognize him; he has alibis, and there is a video of him being in a convenience store miles from the crime.

Upon his arrest, he was expelled from school (Good work guys. Jail can’t keep him out of your institution, but a proper bureaucratic expelling will.)

After evidence proving his innocence was presented, he was released from custody, but is still considered a suspect. The Las Vegas police department indicated that they are looking for more evidence against him, and if such a thing would happen to surface, he would be detained.

Filed under this is america stop criminal justice

162 notes

I’m not trying to convert anyone from strongly held convictions, but in the name of an open dialog about food ethics, I would like to offer one counterpoint to this .jpg that showed up on my feed this morning.
The argument presented above assumes that the relationships between me and all animals are indistinguishable. If the object in question was a random person, and I asked you if you would have a sexual relationship with that person - “Why not? You have sex with other people, don’t you?” - you might be incredulous. I understand that the point one was making is that all animals deserve the same respect that you would give a domestic animal companion. While that is a valid argument, it removes extraneous variations of relationships and amplifies the emotion associated with devouring a loved one. Discuss. Politely. If you feel like it. 

I’m not trying to convert anyone from strongly held convictions, but in the name of an open dialog about food ethics, I would like to offer one counterpoint to this .jpg that showed up on my feed this morning.

The argument presented above assumes that the relationships between me and all animals are indistinguishable. If the object in question was a random person, and I asked you if you would have a sexual relationship with that person - “Why not? You have sex with other people, don’t you?” - you might be incredulous. I understand that the point one was making is that all animals deserve the same respect that you would give a domestic animal companion. While that is a valid argument, it removes extraneous variations of relationships and amplifies the emotion associated with devouring a loved one. Discuss. Politely. If you feel like it. 

(Source: vegansonplanetearth, via bootyregrit)

0 notes

I am an Idiot

So. Jerusalem artichokes. Good thing or the greatest thing?

As far as gardening goes, sunchokes are a total no-brainer. If a wild sunflower will grow in your area, you’re already set. You plant a small rhizome in the ground (a nub of root that, in this case, looks much like ginger) and it produces sunflowers throughout the summer. Different varieties produce different sizes of flowers and different heights of plants.

The chokes serve a secondary purpose of tilling up your soil. As the tubers spawn throughout the ground, it loosens the top layers of your soil. The plant is pretty resilient to heat, drought, pests, and disease. The grasshoppers were horrible in my area this year, and they stripped the sunchokes of all flowers and nearly all foliage. On the bright side: with no flowers, the plants worked overtime, producing a ridiculous amount of delicious tubers.

The variety I planted is typically ready to harvest at the beginning of October, and with small nubs visible above ground, I dug in, mentally preparing for the glorious bumper crop that lies below.

"So exactly why are you an idiot?” you might be asking yourself.

Well, Steve, I’ll tell you. See, I thought these things were analogous to a potato, complete with a shelf life. Wrong. So naive. After harvesting 3/4ths of the crop, which came from 4 small seed tubers and amounted to 4 pounds of sunchokes, I brought them inside, cooked up two handfuls in a delightful soup, and wrapped the others in newspaper. I put them in my “root cellar” (a shitty little side room on the north side of the hovel that stays significantly cooler year round than the rest of the house). The next morning, they were sad, soggy, mushy, and deteriorating. To the point of no salvage.

So the lesson here, dear reader, is to grow sunchokes because they are a great way to get hearty food with little to no effort, but harvest them right before you use them. Leave them in the ground. If you must harvest ahead of time, wrap them in tea towels and put them in the veggie drawer of your fridge. Or an actual root cellar.

Good thing there’s enough in the ground to make better life decisions next year. 

Filed under gardening Heirloom Gardening grow food real food harvest no till diary lessons hippy garden

0 notes

Sunchokes

The plot where I started 4 small nubs of White Fuseau Sunchokes last fall has been transformed. While watering a few days ago, I noticed some chokes pushing through the topsoil. Yesterday, I decided to harvest a few of the visible chokes - it was like opening the lid of a treasure box. There, visible down deep into the soil was a bumper crop of tubers. 

So I harvested quite a few. And I cleaned them and roasted them last night for supper. Unbelievable. Very agreeable taste and texture. *swoon*

Filed under jerusalem artichoke sunchokes wild food heirloom gardening grow food diy vegetarian gardening

0 notes

Killeen: Prosecutor Will Seek Death Penalty In Police Officer’s Death

It disturbs me that this write-up takes much effort to describe the victims’ families and backgrounds, but fails to mention much about the actual reason for the raid, or how the officers were actually shot. Did the shooter have a family at home that he, too, was trying to protect?

Filed under justice information media

39,085 notes

the-matsuoka-life:

hammerspaced:

operativesurprise:

bigbootsandscaryeyes:

sammiwolfe:

fleshcircus:

thats the worst shit only because my mom basically always thought I was being a little bitch when I’d complain that it still hurts your eyes

WAIT I THOUGHT IT MEANT THAT IF YOU GOT IT IN YOUR EYES IT WOULDN’T BURN (no crying)
ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IT’S SAYING NO RIPPING?
*FLIPS TABLES* THIS IS WHY THE ENGLISH WRITTEN LANGUAGE IS CONFUSING AS FUCK I AM SO SORRY NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS.

Why doesn’t it say fucking anti tangle?!

I JUST MADE BOTH MY PARENTS READ THIS I AM SO ANGRY
THEY ARE ANGRY
WE JUST HAD AN ARGUMENT ABOUT ‘TIER’ ‘TEAR’ AND ‘TEAR’
THEY THOUGHT IT MEANT NO CRYING TOO
I AM SO ANGRY

I think most kids/parents in America at the time thought it meant no tears(crying) and ESPECIALLY because it said “No tears!”, referencing crying, in the godsdamned commercial!!

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDFING I PUT THIS SHIT IN MY EYES TOO


There is distinctly an image of a teardrop on this bottle. In two places. explain yourself, JOHNSON & JOHNSON

the-matsuoka-life:

hammerspaced:

operativesurprise:

bigbootsandscaryeyes:

sammiwolfe:

fleshcircus:

thats the worst shit only because my mom basically always thought I was being a little bitch when I’d complain that it still hurts your eyes

WAIT I THOUGHT IT MEANT THAT IF YOU GOT IT IN YOUR EYES IT WOULDN’T BURN (no crying)

ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IT’S SAYING NO RIPPING?

*FLIPS TABLES* THIS IS WHY THE ENGLISH WRITTEN LANGUAGE IS CONFUSING AS FUCK I AM SO SORRY NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS.

Why doesn’t it say fucking anti tangle?!

I JUST MADE BOTH MY PARENTS READ THIS I AM SO ANGRY

THEY ARE ANGRY

WE JUST HAD AN ARGUMENT ABOUT ‘TIER’ ‘TEAR’ AND ‘TEAR’

THEY THOUGHT IT MEANT NO CRYING TOO

I AM SO ANGRY

I think most kids/parents in America at the time thought it meant no tears(crying) and ESPECIALLY because it said “No tears!”, referencing crying, in the godsdamned commercial!!

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDFING I PUT THIS SHIT IN MY EYES TOO

There is distinctly an image of a teardrop on this bottle. In two places. explain yourself, JOHNSON & JOHNSON

(Source: zozososoxoxo, via anarchists-for-big-government)