For the past 30 days I have maintained a vegetarian diet after reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. Natalie Portman wrote in The Huffington Post that "Jonathan Safran Foer's book Eating Animals changed me from a twenty-year vegetarian to a vegan activist."

Since then I have had discussions with many people about the various pros and cons of eating meat. Should I maintain a vegetarian diet?

Many shareholders are vegetarian. Some are ethical omnivores, and some are generally careless about what they eat. Is there a diet that adds value to KmikeyM? As the adage says, "you are what you eat." Should the KmikeyM enterprise be fed, if you were, by the various ill effects of modern American farming and its hormone-laden meat industry, or by the energy derived from natural photosynthesis? Food is fuel, and the machine of KmikeyM must continue to run unburdened for many years to come.

On the other hand, food is also social. The social ramifications of a limited diet can mean not sitting at the table of beef-eating titans of industry. That is a seat that offers many opportunities. On a more personal level there are meals where it might be impolite to invite a non-meater (like a pig roast, or a wing party). I myself have considered the dietary restrictions of guests when planning a small dinner party.

It may be counterproductive to consider this a dichotomous conflict of physical and social value; there may be unforeseen ill effects in either directions. For example, vegetarianism may be the norm in various circles (artistic, ecologically-conscious), or be seen as a sign of personal strength and ethical values, both superior business attributes. At the same time, a poorly-planned vegetarian diet may be detrimental to health. However, this is a brass-tacks decision and brass-tacks decisions require hard-lined arguments.

Please cast your vote at KmikeyM.com

Without getting into any ethical discussions about the relative merits of a vegetarian diet, I think that in terms increasing shareholder value this would have an overall neutral or negative impact. It is possible that this step could open up a few more vegetarian-friendly opportunities, but I believe that it would also limit or exclude participation in other events that could prove to be useful.

Therefore, I have to conclude that while it might be possible to *maintain* shareholder value while switching to a vegetarian diet, I do not see the opportunity for it to *increase* shareholder value, so I vote 'nay'.

As a side note, I would add that a low fat diet (such as that associated with a vegetarian diet) has been shown to be healthy in the long run, so I would encourage management to consider it as a way of ensuring the longevity of the enterprise. But the 'vegetarian' label should be avoided in the case of business opportunities.

As the lone vegan in my MFA program in Portland, OR (which boggles the mind, or at least MY mind), I am regularly the focus of special attention because of my diet. However, I also regularly get invited to fancy-ass dinners with fancy, high-falutin' people (mainly artists, but also the president of my college, etc.) and I will say that my diet is not really a hindrance to these situations, either in terms of being invited or actually eating a delicious thing. I would guess that these "beef-eating titans of industry" that you mention would be convening at some fancy place that would similarly cater to your dietary choices. It is true that sometimes people who eat animals feel guilty in the face of vegetarianism, but THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM, not yours! You can easily be a cool vegetarian, one who is well informed, but laid back in terms of not evangelizing.
Although I am no share-holder, I think that the "poorly-planned vegetarian diet may be detrimental to health" is your weakest argument. Obvsi, a poorly-planned animal consuming diet may be detrimental to one's health as well, just as much if not more so.

LAID BACK, HALF-LIFETIME VEGAN REPRESENTING OVER HERE!

Interestingly, the Food Section of the Oregonian today is:


Conscious carnivores, ethical butchers are changing food culture (WARNING: do not engage in the comments of OregonLive.com)

Also, wouldn't advertising vegetarianism as a business stance make KmikeyM more attractive to vegetarians, who are a fast-increasing segment of our society?

You assume that meat-eaters will remain the norm and the most powerful section of business society but I think that is changing.

However, your point is well taken. For example, if KmikeyM began advocating the "carnivore" label specifically as part of his business profile, I think many people would be grossed out, annoyed, and/or less likely to support future business endeavors from him. Perhaps the "vegetarian" specific label would be similar. Thus your opinion that leaving things as they stand (with neither label applied) would be best could be the case.

I did eat at Subway today. :(

Your letter writer details the diet that Jessica and I try to eat. It is fun, and also delicious. We mostly succeed. We have a CSA subscription. Jessica just bought and froze several pounds of beef and chicken from this cool local farmer lady. I mean, we still get things like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, which is a factory product from far away. But that's life.

Please don't ever eat at Subway.

A YES vote, on this or any proposal, can only represent a course of action. Success is never guaranteed.

Steve, the "detrimental to your health" note in Mike's proposal refers to a poorly-conducted vegetarian diet, otherwise known as the "potato chip/french fry/waffles/nacho diet."

I understand that, Claire, but I don't understand why Mike who lives in Portland and lives the life that he leads would eat any differently. If he was going to eat crappily he would already do it. Too many EASY veggie delicious tasty and good for you options in this town. It would be understandable somewhere rural or less progressive, but that argument makes no sense in this town and with Mike's life (knowledge, access to foods, friends, grocery stores, restaurants).

I concur with James, that a primarily vegetarian diet with a travel clause seems best.
Especially when travelling to Asia or developing countries.

The note about detriment to heath through poor vegetarian eating choices is simply an attempted counterpoint -- the management worried the proposal might have been too clearly biased to a "yea" vote. Some people who adopt vegetarianism come from weird food backgrounds and find that they are ill-prepared to cook vegetarian for themselves, eat wisely at restaurants, or research appropriate sources of, say, B vitamins. I have known many potato-chip vegans who eventually lapse. The statement in Mike's proposal on this subject is meant as a generality, not a specific point about Mike's probable veggie eating habits, which would certainly be quite balanced.

I know this because I wrote it.

I love "potato chip vegetarian."

also love "bacon vegetarian"

and how "bacon" has now become a prefix before any noun meant derisively, i.e. a "bacon feminist" being someone who calls themselves a feminist but who votes pro-life and doesn't think women should have jobs ("That Caitlin Flanagan, she's such a bacon feminist, I can't stand it").

demonbane --

On the issue of shareholder value, I think there's another side to consider. Keeping all options open, or trying to appeal to the widest possible market by never offending anyone is not necessarily the most effective strategy. Having strong opinions and and a strong brand that people associate with you is often better than trying to please everyone. Witness: http://wolframalpha.com/input/?i=appl+msft

I think that the association with the Portland lifestyle is a strong part of the KMikeyM brand. Therefore, anything that increases this association: biking/public transit, vegetarianism, support for local art and culture, etc. seem like a strong way to increase the brand and therefore long-term shareholder value.

We should aim for a KMikeyM that is one of the standout, un-missable parts of Portland culture, not a generic BigCo that can't be distinguished from every other offering out there.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mix/index.ssf/food-trends/locavore-learns-to-slaughter-and-butcher-his-own-p.html

Here is an image where I am reading the book that helped me make my initial decision.

I assume that by definition all vampires are cannibals.
otherwise: good points.

Tut tut. Vampires do not eat other vampires, therefore not cannibals.

Seems like you would know that, "Ghost-of-famous-vampire"!

indeed. Vampire is not a different species. Vampire is a human tragically infected with an evil that forces him to live beyond death, preying on his fellows. Vampire is just a dead, dangerous human, not a different kind of dude altogether. News flash: species can't change species. THAT'S SCIENCE.

CANNIBAL CORPSE

but if a hotdog ate a sandwich, I would call that cannibalism. There is something disturbing about it.

don't bring sandwiches into this!! dangerous territory