"Seagans"? Really?

The SFGate has a new blog as of today; it's called "Veganize It!" and it's written by Sabrina Modelle who proposes to spend her time veganizing recipes for readers. Modelle describes herself as having recently completed a 28-day vegan cleanse, in which she also omitted alcohol, caffeine and refined sugar.

By the beginning of March, I knew my eating habits would change drastically forever. Since I am a food writer, I adopted a six-day-a-week vegan/seagan diet with one day for research, cooking, recipe development for clients and dining at the latest and greatest. It works perfectly for me, and it feels like a nice balance for my health and the health of the planet.

Basically, instead of attempting to compartmentalize veganism according to different meals (à la Mark Bittman), Modelle does so according to different days of the week. Unsurprisingly, she also restricts her consideration of the term "vegan" to food and describes her reasons for doing whatever-it-is-that-she-is-doing as being based in concern for her own "health and the health of the planet". Somehow, non-human animals get lost in the discussion.

A so-called six-day-a-week vegan diet would be confusing enough to The SFGate's readers, since it conveys that one can be somehow logically and accurately qualify oneself as being any sort of vegan when one continues to eat -- or otherwise use -- animal products. However, Modelle's use of the word "seagan" piqued my interest (albeit in a sort of all-too-familiar stomach-churning way). A quick Google search confirmed the obvious, that "seagan" is supposed to be some sort of variation of "vegan" which includes the consumption of fishes and other sea creatures.

Before my Google search, however, I left a short comment in response to her article asking what exactly she means in describing herself as "vegan/seagan", just to get the straight dope. Her response? It confirmed my suspicions and contained an attempt, perhaps simply based on a lack of nutritional information, to justify her not even following a so-called vegan diet for those six days out of seven:

Hi Mylene,

Until recently, I was eating a six day a week vegan diet, but it became apparent that soy products were triggering my migraines. I also eat beans and seitan for protein, but many beans trigger my migraines as well. About two weeks ago, I added fish to my diet. The result being, I eat a vegan diet with some sustainable seafood for added protein a couple of times a week. Seagan is just a made up name that I’ve heard tossed around over the years during my bouts of vegetrarianism/veganism/pescatarianism/ethical omni life. I like six day a week seagan because I’m not pescatarian since I don’t eat eggs or dairy (except on my one day a week). Labels are so complicated, right?

Indeed, labels get awfully complicated. They particularly get complicated when someone attempts to co-opt one which denotes a lifestyle avoiding all animal consumption and tries to fragment it around part-time animal consumption, or the consumption of only certain animal species.

In good faith, I responded to her with the following explanation and suggestion:

I was curious, since you wrote "vegan/seagan" and vegans (by definition) avoid all forms of animal use or exploitation (i.e. food, clothing, entertainment, et al). Limiting the use of the word to food alone is problematic, but using the word "vegan" to describe a diet that involves the habitual consumption of one (or several) type(s) of animal species is certainly an incorrect use of the term. BTW, if the sole reason that you're consuming fishes and and other sea creatures is that you fear you're not getting enough protein (since you state that soy and some other legumes give you migraines), you should consider exploring other really good plant-based sources of protein like seitan, nuts/seeds (and their butters), quinoa, amaranth, oats and various other whole grain products.

Hopefully she'll consider those options instead of thinking that she needs to continue consuming animal flesh to obtain adequate dietary levels of protein. At the very least, however, I hope she'll agree that it makes sense for her to cease using the word "vegan" to describe any facet of her own personal consumption as it stands now, diet or otherwise. As any vegan who's interacted with friends, family, coworkers, food service workers (and so on) already knows, there's already more than enough confusion out there over whether vegans consume this or that animal product. Let's hope that Modelle opts to clarify things rather than muddle them further for the general public. And let's hope that she gives some serious thought to actually going vegan.

The Speciesism of So-Called 'Ethical Eating'

"But It's Better Than Nothing."

Never has a sentence left me scratching my head in confusion as much as this one, which is oft-repeated by these recent trend-hoppers who omit one or a half-dozen items from their diets and insist: "It's better than nothing!" and go on to proclaim themselves 'conscientious consumers'. These are the same folks who will list off any number of reasons they simply "cannot" be expected to do more. Take, for instance, foodie writer Alicia-Azania Jarvis and her recent article in the UK's The Independent ("My year of eating ethically") in which she goes to great lengths to a) justify the moral "sufficiency" of her decision to continue to consume animal products, although readily admitting that she is aware of the suffering this consumption entails, b) insist that taking any sort of ethical stance when it comes to the consumption of non-humans or their products inconveniences other humans and leaves you perpetually socially embarrassing yourself, and c) make it clear that omitting any animal flesh from your diet at all will lead to serious nutritional deficiencies. Surely, wringing one's fingers while trying to make strong arguments against not eating animals is not "better than nothing" for those animals?

Is Hypocrisy "Better Than Nothing"?

While alternating between calling herself a vegetarian and a pescetarian (as well as a pescatarian), Jarvis makes it clear in her article that she feels that although there is really no justification for eating fish, she... er... has justification to do so.

The ethics of vegetarianism are far from straightforward – particularly for a hypocritical pescatarian like myself. There's no doubt that if your motivations are animal welfare-related, there's little defence: fish, as people endlessly remind me, have feelings too.

My first strand of reasoning is that it's a matter of degree. You do what you can; pescetarianism is an extension of buying all-organic or free-range-only. It's better than nothing. It's a convenient argument, but also one that I actually believe.

I suppose that one could easily agree that pescetarianism is indeed "an extension of buying all organic or free-range only" (assuming that by "organic", she is referring to animal flesh). After all, eating one species of animal is no different from eating another species. Taking an animal's life for the sake of human pleasure, whether that animal spent most of his or her life in a lake, in the ocean, in a stall or in a field is still taking a life for the sake of human pleasure. I suspect, however, that what Jarvis is trying to say is that consuming non-humans raised according to organic or free-range "standards" (i.e. "happy meat") is somehow more ethical than consuming non-humans who are not, and that consuming fish is more akin to consuming the flesh of "happy" slaughtered animals. Use is use, though, however you qualify it.

Although once upon a time I might have taken issue with a foodie's lumping in the eating of animals (i.e. fish) with vegetarianism, I think that in many ways, the time has come to shrug off that inclusion, since there is no moral distinction between eating animal secretions such as dairy and eggs and eating the flesh of others -- whether or not they spend their lives underwater. Basically, if I'm going to nitpick, I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue over the semantics of a word (i.e. "vegetarianism") that in most of its incarnations is essentially no morally different in describing one's consumption from the word "omnivore". As Jarvis, herself, points out:

[E]ating fish but not meat is no more hypocritical than eating neither but continuing to consume eggs and mass-produced milk.

She's right about that. However, does calling yourself a hypocrite really absolve you of the the problematic nature -- the inherent dishonesty -- of hypocrisy? I mean, it may show that you're not completely self-delusional (although even that's arguable), but is there really anything respectable about admitting that you're too self-important to care that you unapologetically indulge in behaviour that involves doing something you acknowledge knowing is morally problematic? Something you know involves harming other sentient creatures? People often say that ignorance is bliss; when did admitting that you know you're doing harm suddenly become worthy of earning the respect of others? When did people become convinced that admitting you've done something wrong changes that what you're doing is wrong? It doesn't.

The fallback position assumed by most who are called on this is to say that "it's better than nothing". In Jarvis' case, she dismisses the harms imposed on non-human animals with her admitted hypocritical consumption of their flesh and secretions by saying to those who make choices like hers: "[A]t least you're doing your bit for the planet."

On Martyrdom

I want to make a few things clear. First: There is no shame in taking a stand and refusing to participate in animal exploitation. Some, like the unfortunately misnamed Vegan Outreach's Matt Ball might try to convince you that authentically going vegan and actually being consistent about your everyday choices makes veganism seem too hard. Worse, you'll embarrass yourself in front of those who refuse to acknowledge the interests non-human animals have in not being used as things. Jarvis, essentially an omnivore who chooses not to eat the flesh of certain species of animals, steps forward as the spokesperson for the "social nightmare" (her words) of being either vegetarian or vegan:

Become a vegetarian, or pescetarian, or – in fact, especially – become a vegan and suddenly you find yourself Socially Awkward. As far as I was concerned, making some kind of public announcement (aside from via the informal channels of Facebook or Twitter) was not an option. It was too self-important by half and horribly embarrassing.

Obviously, though, you need to let people know – if at no other time then at least when they invite you for dinner. In the case of long-standing friends, it can all feel a bit ridiculous. "By the way," you nonchalantly add, while mentally running through all the times you have served them meat, "I'm a vegetarian these days. Um, you can un-invite me if you like." I did, once, neglect to do this.

The result was my only carnivorous divergence so far. At least I think it was; in the event, I decided it was best not to ask what else was in the suspiciously-bacon-y fishcakes my friend served.

So basically, according to Jarvis, it is (OMG!!!) embarrassing for people to evolve and to incorporate changes into their lives that both make them better people, and that make a difference for non-human animals? Furthermore, if you do end up with something on your plate that belonged to someone you've purportedly decided to refrain from eating, just turn a blind eye to it all and carve away? And yes, according to Jarvis, fish are plants and don't count as a "carnivorous divergence", but that's straying from my point...

Let's be Honest

We live in a society where there is a fair bit of familiarity with the concept of not eating animal products for ethical reasons. It's a bit melodramatic to present making it clear to family and friends that you've set boundaries for yourself with regards to your consumption habits as being akin to self-humiliation. I mean, we also live in a society where it's become commonplace for people to assert their food requirements with respect to their allergies and various intolerances (think peanuts, lactose, gluten -- those sorts of things). Those who cannot eat certain food items are not made to feel shame when asserting that they cannot eat those items. Why should someone be made to feel ashamed when asserting that he or she chooses to not eat those items? In Jarvis' case, I can see where there would be much confusion and much eye-rolling, since she identifies herself as both a vegetarian and an omnivore. I'd personally be feeling heaps of social awkwardness if I were Jarvis' friend and on the receiving end of this contradictory information and had to respond to her. But of course, self-flagellation and self-identification as a hypocrite somehow take care of this for Jarvis:

Fingers crossed, meanwhile, that no one finds out you eat fish. Not only have you become the difficult one at the party; the one that caused the chef all that trouble and then tried to convert the guests, but you're a hypocrite. The only solution here, I'm afraid, is full-on retaliation (see above defence of my ethical stance). Hopefully, by the time you've finished, conversation will be have been killed so thoroughly that no one will bother to argue. Or invite you out ever again. In a way, problem solved.

Maybe Jarvis could benefit from reading my blog post from this past February about how effective communication is actually how to avoid social blunders?

Shame, Shame!

Unfortunately, it's not just the fish-eating faux-vegetarians trying to lump themselves into some big ol' "animal people" family with vegans who seem bent on perpetuating the stereotype that talking to others about not using animals is socially unacceptable proselytizing. I can understand how completely emotionally twisted up inside someone like Jarvis must be; she uses animals while pretending to be making choices significantly different from any omnivore's and does so while publicly labeling herself a hypocrite. How could she not want to rip those who talk to people about not using animals a new one? She wears her speciesism like a badge of honour. What's sad, though, is when other vegans perpetuate stereotypes and try to shame their fellow-vegans into staying "in the closet".

Vegan Speciesism

I think that there needs to be acknowledgment and discussion of the fact that many of us, as vegans, are still dealing with our own speciesism. While comfortable on our own turf with our decisions not to participate in the cycle of animal exploitation, some of us are still uncertain of how--or if--that should extend outside of our own bubbles.

"It's a personal choice."

"I don't want to get laughed at."

"But I once used animals, so who am I to judge?"

The truth is that if someone at a social event asks you about your veganism, you're not left to "face the horrifyingly anti-social prospect of wittering on like some sanctimonious evangelist" -- you're answering a question. I find that sometimes the best thing to do while participating in a meal and when asked about being vegan is to keep my answers short and to the point and to suggest elaborating after the meal if the person asking is interested. It's not so much that (as Jarvis brings up) I would be afraid to put someone "off their food", but rather that people are generally less defensive hearing about why I choose to not use animals when they're not slicing into various animal parts at the time.

Let me say it again: There is no shame in taking a stand with regards to refusing to participate in animal exploitation. There is also no shame in communicating to others why it is that you refuse to participate in animal exploitation, or in talking to them about what it means to be a vegan. Given the misinformation that gets passed around by people, like Jarvis' fearmongering about nutritional deficiencies in the rest of her article (even though she consumes most animal products aside from the flesh of land mammals!) and her wishy-washiness concerning "compassionately-informed omnivorism" versus veganism, shouldn't someone be talking to non-vegans about not using other animals? Ideally someone who actually doesn't use animals?

If you won't, then who will?

Omnivorism as the New Vegetarianism

I guess that there's only so far down a slippery slope someone can push an issue or an idea. Once you get to that point, it's sometimes easiest to cry uncle and go on your way and effect change where things haven't been left a heaping mess. This morning, Prof. Gary L. Francione tweeted a story from the BBC's online News Magazine ("The Rise of the Non-Veggie Vegetarian") -- the sort of article that leaves you walking away with sore eyes (i.e. after you've rolled them so damn much). The article focuses, for the most part, on what one friend often calls 'pesky-tarians'--that strange breed of purportedly ethical eater that insists on self-labeling as 'vegetarian'.

The article points out that Britain's Vegetarian Society, "the custodian of British vegetarianism since 1847", defines a vegetarian as someone who "does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacean, or slaughter byproducts" and then goes on to explain the justifications those who eat fish give for doing so. In some cases, eating fish is defended for health reasons (and the article counters this by clarifying that "some nutritional benefits of eating oily fish can be gained" from eating substances like nuts and seeds). In other cases, those who cling to the vegetarian label, yet choose to eat fish, do so because they attribute less ethical weight or worth to fish, even though according to Revd Prof Andrew Linzey, director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics:

"There is ample evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals that mammals experience not just pain, but also mental suffering including fear, anticipation, foreboding, anxiety, stress, terror and trauma."

"The case for fish isn't so strong, but scientific evidence at least shows that they experience pain and fear. Anyone who wants to avoid causing pain should give up eating fish."

Of course, many will also point out or acknowledge that the "cuteness factor" has a lot to do with attitudes towards fish. Neither furry nor cuddly, they don't evoke the same reactions as wide-eyed calves or of fuzzy lambs teetering on shaky legs.

While the article does provide quotes and explanations of why, by definition, eating animals is not vegetarian, and although it clarifies how health and ethical arguments touted by some as justifying the eating of fish are more or less bunk, it continues to use the term "fish-eating vegetarians" to describe those who eat fish. Then it slips into an exploration of the words that have come and gone to describe these non-vegetarians who seek to associate themselves with vegetarianism. The word 'pescetarian', one that's been used to define omnivores who eschew all flesh other than that of fish, is described as being somewhat out of fashion; the newer term 'flexitarian' (which, let's face it, really just means 'omnivore') is brought up as the up-and-coming label to use for non-vegetarians who want to be identified with vegetarianism. The article goes on to describe 'meat avoiders' and 'meat reducers' and asserts that "one of the reasons it's so hard to assess the level of vegetarianism is because of the multiple definitions of the term."

The truth is that strong arguments have been made that the term 'vegetarian' as it is now commonly understood (i.e. as describing one who refrains from eating animal flesh, while still eating and / or otherwise using animal products) does not reflect a lifestyle that differs in any significant moral way from omnivorism. So one could ask if it's even worth the bother to concern oneself over whether we now have so-called "fish-eating vegetarians". Is it really even all that relevant, since there's no moral distinction to be made between the consumption of animal flesh or of animal excretions? It seems to me that the issue at hand, with regards to terminology, should be to keep what's clear and consistent from being conflated with this whole heap of confusion from ongoing attempts to co-opt the term 'vegetarian'.

Perhaps it's time for vegans to stop concerning ourselves with the variations involved in the dietary choices of those who are on the path to veganism or who've stalled along the way to reach a plateau they feel is "good enough". Instead of arguing over whether or not we should commend people for shuffling out this or that product and worrying over the watering down of the term 'vegetarian', our focus--particularly for vegan abolitionists--should remain to deliver the clear and consistent message that all animal exploitation needs to be abolished and that the only truly ethical lifestyle choice one can make when it comes to our consideration of nonhuman animals is to go vegan and to remove oneself altogether from the cycle of slavery and slaughter of nonhumans. Think about it.

'Plant-Based' Fail!

Or could it just be that mainstream media is picking up on the fact that there's no significant ethical difference between vegetarianism and omnivorism? From this story on a so-called vegetarian society's monthly potluck (and according to the "vegetarian" group's coordinator):

Members brought dishes fit for all types of plant-based diets, including vegan (no dairy products), pescetarian (plant and fish products only) and fruitarian (fruits and nuts only), Dyches said.

So, since when are fish plant-based?

Avoid the confusion and go vegan!

More Misrepresentations of Veganism in the Media

Canada's The National Post has recently started running a weekly piece in its food section called "A Meatless Proposal". It's about two sisters who move in together, one a "meat-loving gastronome" and the other a supposed "vegan who's just 'not into food'". The piece is written by the omnivorous sister who decides to "show her [vegan sister] how to like food, even if it means cooking vegan". So what about this token vegan sister?

For Emily, a vegetarian diet wasn’t a choice made for ethics or taste; she is simply uncomfortable with the thought of eating meat. “I consciously deny myself something I enjoy,” she said, by way of explanation. “It’s sort of masochistic.” She also, however, doesn’t eat cheese — with the bizarre exception of Parmesan — because she simply doesn’t like it. I know. Mind-boggling.

Although she's described as a "vegetarian" in this particular quote from the piece, it's made clear in the article's introduction that Emily is a "vegan". Yet, her veganism is presented as having nothing to do with ethics but everything to do with self-deprivation. Her veganism also has a Parmesan cheese exception (and apparently egg and anchovy exceptions, given the bacon-free Caesar salad she is mentioned as having recently eaten). My guess is that there's some bandwagon-hopping going on. At the very least, it's obvious that neither the article's writer nor her supposed sister has any idea of what veganism entails. It's a shame that this confusion and misrepresentation will be presented weekly in a major Canadian newspaper.

Vegan Before Six Turns Into "Vegan at Lunchtime"

I really wish that Mark Bittman would just get over his obsession with clinging to the word 'vegan'. I really do. A few weeks ago, I wrote about his public proclamation that his mostly plant-based (i.e. omnivorous) diet had led to his supposed protein deficiency. In today's "Bitten", Mr. Needs-To-Get-a-Dictionary slippery sloped himself into what he describes as yet another type of veganism. Yes, folks: Once upon a time, according to Mark Bittman, you could be a "vegan before six". Today, according to Mark Bittman, a meal that includes animal-based ingredients can be called "almost-vegan". And why fish sauce? "I swear it made the dish – though it would have been okay without it," he wrote. Throwing in a teaspoon of a substance derived from dead animals just for the sake of your tastebuds is about as "almost vegan" as having a chicken's leg with rice and a salad. It sounds as if he's well on his way to soon living out the VBM (vegan between meals) scenario Mary Martin presented in a recent satirical post on her blog.

The truth is that (as Martin points out as well), veganism isn't just about diet. It's ridiculous to call yourself a vegan every single time you put something into your mouth that isn't animal-derived. As Prof. Gary Francione states on his Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach website:

Veganism is not merely a matter of diet; it is a moral and political commitment to abolition on the individual level and extends not only to matters of food, but to clothing and other products, and to other personal actions and choices. It is important to recognize that just as an abolitionist with respect to human slavery cannot continue to be a slaveowner, an abolitionist with respect to animal slavery cannot continue to consume or use animal flesh or animal products.

Veganism is also a commitment to nonviolence and it is imperative that the animal rights movement be a movement of peace and nonviolence.

So why is an omni foodie like Mark Bittman, who demonstrates over and over again that he has no concern whatsoever about the plight and enslavement of animals--why is he so obsessed with clinging to a word that stands for the complete opposite of what he represents? Oh, to be a fly on the wall of one of his therapy sessions. Just once and either before or after six. I'm not picky.

(ETA: The answer to my question via Prof. Francione's blog post "In Defense of Bittman".)

Dribs and Drabs in the Media

It's not surprising to find yet another article like this that classifies fish eating as a type of vegetarianism (calling it "pesco-vegetarianism"). It's also no surprise that its author discusses the supposed dangers of vitamin and mineral deficiencies in any diet lacking animal flesh (or other animal products), or that the author describes vegans as "sometimes" consuming honey. The mangling of such stuff in the media has become quite commonplace.

What did catch my eye, however, was that in an article about eschewing the eating of animals, the only reasons given that anybody would choose to do so are "eco- and health-friendly reasons". No mention of ethics. No mention of concerns for animal rights, or even of concerns for animal suffering. It felt like the strangest compartmentalization. Has it really come to this?

A New Vegan Cookbook (Just Not Really Vegan)

Cookbook author and herbalist Pat Crocker is currently promoting her recent book The Vegan Cook's Bible. I found myself ending up with a somewhat furrowed brow as I read this bit about it via The Canadian Press. In it, Crocker emphasizes that she's "not a strict vegetarian or vegan", but "regularly enjoys [...] dairy products [and] includes a small amount of organic lamb, chicken, beef and fish in her diet once or twice a week". Now, there's no hard and fast rule anywhere that vegan cookbook authors need to be vegan. I mean, even Bryant Terry, whose Vegan Soul Kitchen is all the rage these days in online vegan discussion groups was pretty forthright about his less than enthusiastic take on veganism. In a recent interview with Mother Jones, for instance, he stated that he doesn't "advocate any particular diet for anyone" and "think [s] that's a very personal decision that people have to make".

It still disappointed me, though, to read Crocker's assertions that "cooking without dairy is really difficult" and that "vegans have lost a certain sense of mouth feel and what tastes good and their palates have become accustomed to a pretty bland diet". Cooking without dairy isn't difficult and to assert that vegans have become accustomed to a bland diet is nuts and perpetuates the whole myth that veganism involves a sort of ascetic diet where deprivation rules the day. Whether she really buys into this or is just bullshitting to try to emphasize how super ridiculously tasty her own recipes are compared to the rest of what's out there, we may never know.

I don't have a copy of the book, but this review of it by Roseann Marulli on the SuperVegan site pretty much helped cement my suspicions of it being anything but a bona fide vegan cook's bible. According to the review, in a section of the book on substitutes for white sugar, Crocker suggests using honey. More problematic, though, is that Crocker includes a section on health called the Healthy Body Systems in which she repeatedly advocates the consumption of fish. In a supposedly vegan cookbook. When Marulli asked Crocker about this, Crocker responded by insisting that "'the fact that vegans don't eat fish does not change the fact that fish is an excellent source of, for example, omega3 fatty acids'".

It's one thing to debate the degree to which vegan ethics or politics should be emphasized in vegan cookbooks (and this is something I'd like to wrap my head around down the road in another blog post). On the other hand, to write a book that one feels compelled to call The Vegan Cook's Bible and then fill it with recommendations to eat fish? Um, no. I don't think so, Pat. I'll pass on this one, and hope that other vegans get this heads up before they decide whether to do so, as well.

Vegaquarian?

In a heated anti-vegetarian discussion on some forum in the world wide interwebs, someone brought up the term "vegaquarian" as the latest trendy label for someone who eats fish, but doesn't eat mammals. The person in question referred to himself as a vegetarian who eats fish and added that he likes the label "vegaquarian", which is purportedly becoming more commonplace. It's already in the Urban Dictionary. So what does that make an antiquarian, I wonder?

Vegetarianism in the news

I stumbled upon an article about a chef who'll be a guest on today's Oprah for a sandwich cookoff where three chefs will be paired with three Oprah fans. The chef was planning on making some sort of lobster, crab and cow concoction until...

...when Stone met the fan he would be paired with, she uttered four words that changed everything.

"She came up to me and said 'So, I'm a vegetarian'," he says. "I was like, 'Oh great. Just great,' and went right back to the drawing board."

After a brief moment of panic, Stone and his helper got to work, planning, shopping for and cooking an elaborate meal.

"We ended up doing a trio," he says. "A cocktail, a crab cake sandwich that was like a mini burger and a falafel. Thankfully, her doctor had said she should eat more protein, so she was willing to try some crab."

Yet another incidence of mainstream media presenting the eating of fish (or other water-dwelling critters) as vegetarian-friendly, as well as another perpetuation of the protein myth (i.e. that vegetarians don't get enough)... I'm irked. Sorta. I wonder if any of this will come up in the show.

And then while reading the New York Times...

Yes. Yes, Nicholas D. Kristof, it does indeed seem like ''soggy sentimentality'' and ''hypocrisy'' that you pretend to support animal rights, when in the same breath you assert that you enjoy devouring them. It's like someone asserting that he stands up for women's rights, even though he slaps his wife and daughters around at home and then -- whimsically -- shrugs off his doing so by blaming it on his upbringing. I mean, c'mon?

How many vegetarians are there in the U.S.? The Vegetarian Times finds out.

A recent Vegetarian Times poll's results were released today. It looks like 3.2 percent of U.S. adults (roughly 7.3 million) are self-proclaimed vegetarians. Only 0.5 percent of US adults (i.e. around a million) self-identify as vegans. A 2003 Vegetarian Resource Group Harris Interactive survey showed results of 2.8 percent. But of course there's always room for statistical error, so it's not necessarily indicative of an increase.

By ''vegetarian'', both of these polls refer to people who at the very least don't eat beef, pork, poultry, fish (or any other animal flesh). I've been flabbergasted at the number of people I encounter these days who self-identify as vegetarians although they consume fish. Fish aren't furry and cuddly, but they're still animals, and if you eat them, you're not a vegetarian. Just like, if you eat cows, you're not a vegetarian. It's pretty straightforward.