Search Lobsterland

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Lobsters are Buddies



It's as if she knew. When Em was maybe three years old, I made a comment about eating lobsters, and she insisted that you couldn't eat lobsters. Why?

'Lobsters are buddies,' she said. 'They live in the water.'

Target had a lobster pond, and she liked to go check them out. It's logical: Why don't we sell pets in the same section of the store as food? I even have a friend who bought an enormous frog at a Chinese market as a pet. The Chinese market guy could not believe they'd spend $8 on a frog and not eat him.

Couldn't I take the lobster out of the tank, boil him alive, then eat him?

'NO! Lobsters are buddies.'

Aside from the obvious cannibalistic thing (and I remember reading somewhere that lobsters tend to cannibalism, that if you don't rubber band their claws, they'll eat each other in the lobster pond at target), the kosher laws have always been a mystery to me.

I mean, everyone has foods they prefer not to eat. My list is pretty short, but what on earth is it about shellfish? I tend to think that these primitive codes have a basis in survival. It's probably not very economical to raise pigs in Palestine, and if it uses more resources than it yields, it'd stand to reason that custom would proscribe eating pork. Without the kosher law, some guy would get rich and eat pork as a status symbol, something like that. As opposed to merely owning slaves, which wasn't against the rules. Or have several simultaneous wives ages thirteen to seventeen. Creepy, but not scripturally banned. Go figure.

Some of the combination things, I don't know, maybe mixing dairy and meat (isn't that one of the rules) had to do with sanitation, a situation that in that time and context invited food poisoning. Dunno. Maybe it's all irrational and arbitrary. Unaccountable would say all relgion is irrational and arbitrary. In fact, it's an article of faith with him...the irony!

But shrimp? What the hell? Did the Levites have some sort of insight into the cholesterol content? Did they just know that if Jews figured out how to make Cajun Angels (shrimp wrapped in bacon, grilled with butter and barbecue spices) that they'd have to figure out how to set up a cardiology practice in a nomadic desert dwelling society? Maybe it was only once the Jewish Homeland of New York City was established that cardiology for fun and profit came into play.

Uh-oh, the Thought Police are getting ready to ram the door. I just made a comment some would claim was anti-Semitic. But I adore New York City. I'd move there in a heartbeat if Frau Lobster didn't detest the place. And I want one of those hats I saw the Hassidim wear. What do you call those hats? And is it some sort of cultural affront for a Goy to don one of those hats? Not that it'd necessarily stop me, but if it's offensive, I'd like to at least know.

And the withdrawal from the 'settlements,' that's an amazing bit of progress, and from a regime that I didn't think was capable of anything but more attrocities against Palestinians. I've suggested before that the best way to peacefully resolve Palestine is to give Israel a new location: Nevada. Then pull all foreign aid to the Zionist regime and give the Israelis airpane tickets. I suggested Nevada because it's a dessert and the Mormons next door could give them a good example of how to run a theocracy that isn't so Apartheidy. And there's plenty of room in Nevada.

And I have to wonder how different the century might be if the early Zionists in favor of Uganda as a homeland had won. It was a real consideration. It couldn't have turned out any worse than what's happened with Palestine.

But this New York thing: what better way to gentrify the Bronx than to bring millions of Israeli Jews in? Take the shittiest neighborhoods in NYC, I guarantee you the average Israeli Settler has seen tougher. In a couple of years, it'd be like Manhattan.

The other great thing about New York is assimilation isn't just optional, it's practically impossible. How the hell do you 'assimilate' into 8,000,000 people from 12,000,000 cultures?

3 comments:

j_ay said...

Unaccountable would say all relgion is irrational and arbitrary. In fact, it's an article of faith with him...the irony!

It might be ironic if it wasn’t pure bullshit.
Logic, which is what it is, has very little (read as “nothing”) to do with faith.
If anything, *your* modern day ideals seem to be just a rallying defense that you _used_ to be a staunch “atheist” and _used_ to believe in abortion. Your about-face is far more inline with, say, born-again or a faith-based thinking.
For me, I just consider my eyes have always been open. I’m willing to change my mind but my knowledge of the world, basic-to-advanced-sciences and my observations will not be swayed by non-logical leaps i.e. “faith”.

Chixulub said...

I'm a lapsed atheist, it's true. I suppose I'm still one in the sense that I don't have a theology, a specific religion I believe in. I had to rib you, because your refusal to accept the limits of rational thought amounts to a faith in reason. This was my own faith for so long, I even used to state my atheism in 'faith' terms: the conviction that there is no supernatural, that was my faith. Now I doubt that along with all the other religions.

Which makes me truly a man without a country because hardcore atheists such as my friend in Switzerland think I'm falling for the lie of religion; my religiously zealous friends think I'm just being stubborn or obtuse for not embracing their religion; my new age type friends don't understand why I don't cobble together a custom religion like they did. Building a mystery types who wear Thor's Hammer necklaces and think Al Crowley was a pretty sharp fellow, but are also fascinated by Sufi mysticism.

I've seen it said ad nausem that if you don't believe in something you'll believe anything, and the aforementioned new age types would seem to bear that out. But I seem to manifest a sort of weird opposite of this: because I can buy the Intelligent Design arguments based on what I know of science (and I'll admit, that's less than you, but you might be surprised at how much microbiology, water chemistry, and apiology I've covered). But that has done zip to convince me of the legitimacy of any given religion. The best I can reckon is some are more plausible than others: Hindus, Buddhists, Xtians, Jews, Muslims, I have to say those large-ish and relatively old religions strike me as more likely than the O.T.O., B'Hais, Moonies, Mormons and grab-bag new age types. More likely, but not necessarily convincing, and I guess if I'm damned, it will be for the sin of indifference. IF there's an afterlife.

Because what I know of science does point to a creator, but just because this creator would be vastly superior to humans, I see no reason to believe that implies immortality, omniscience, or omnipresence. The drone who mates with the the queen is the father of a colony he never sees. He gives it all up for being the one bee who gets laid.

So the creator of life as we know it could be one of Francis Crick's alien friends as easily as it could be Jehovah. And in either case, he could be long since dead.

For that matter, who's to say there's not a hierachy of creators? I could see where, just as food chains are built of predators, maybe there are destroyers who correlate with creators. Maybe we'll all just suddenly unexist with no warning. Or maybe there's rival creators, and we'll be mashed up and made into some other creator's project. Hell, maybe creators murder each other in fits of jealousy...

j_ay said...

I had to rib you, because your refusal to accept the limits of rational thought amounts to a faith in reason.

ok, that’s a bit better, but I still can’t go for it. I see very little “reason” to most of what goes on in the world. But I accept it under the parameters that we have established. The English alphabet has 26 letters, cuz it was made that way. Same with the science world (elements, etc).
As I’ve stated before, if the big I Am wants to come out of the sky, cool – but I’ll be very unimpressed.

I even used to state my atheism in 'faith' terms: the conviction that there is no supernatural, that was my faith.

I don’t make such statements. To say “there is no god” (for example) gives credence to “god”.
To me, simply the _idea_ of a god (existing, that is) is insane.
No “faith” behind it.


Which makes me truly a man without a country because hardcore atheists such as my friend in Switzerland

See above.
No “ists” please.

think I'm falling for the lie of religion; my religiously zealous friends think I'm just being stubborn or obtuse for not embracing their religion;…

All in all, unless they are really ticked off you’re not ‘one of us’, they really shouldn’t care.
And that’s another thing about “faith”; I have no faith in anything, let alone people, and can’t necessarily see any benefit to this current generation(s) all of a sudden waking up (literally) tomorrow haven shed the insipid beliefs in boogiemen.
They’ll still be a hateful, *very* stupid lot.
Somewhere along the line of our, um, evolution, we fucked up.

(and I'll admit, that's less than you, but you might be surprised at how much microbiology, water chemistry, and apiology I've covered).

Probably not surprised. That’s one of the great things about your crustacean self: you do your homework. And that’s why disagreements with you are interesting. If Behe’s book ‘won you over’, good for you (and as with the ‘homework’ comment, while I’ve never asked, I’d take a guess you looked at some of the books citing the opposite of Behe (Dennett, Dawkins, Pinker), as being swayed by just one book is, well, a bit too typical.

As long as you are content with your feelings. And from what little I know you, I think you’ll give the girls enough room of their own to come to their own assumptions.
The bottom line is it _does_ seem evident that believing in something makes one a bit…happier.

IF there's an afterlife.

I hope to hell not. Once was enough…or to bring some humour into this, to quote Woody Allen, “Does that mean I have to sit through the Ice Capades again?”

The drone who mates with the the queen is the father of a colony he never sees. He gives it all up for being the one bee who gets laid.

Sure. Happens all over nature. Praying Mantis, some spider species I can’t recall where the male is like 1/1000th the size of the female.
Stuff exactly like that, if there is a “creator” that could come up with such ideas as that; the “mating” system of salmon, etc, then its just too big for me.
And I can’t be thinking I’m _supposed_ to dwell on it.

For that matter, who's to say there's not a hierachy of creators?

That’s another thing I’ve always said (we probably lose a lot via ‘virtual conversation’), working the night shift with nurses, a few of them bible thumpers, got some pretty wild conversations going.
_If_ one is going to wax on about a “god”, the idea of *just one* is all the more ludicrous than the initial belief.
We may just damn well be an abandoned, failed experiment.