Ah yes, the factory farm, that cruelest of human inventions, is coming into the view of the mainstream American, however sleepy, apathetic, fat, stupid, and ignorant he may be.
In this video, Bill calls on IHOP to stop using eggs raised in battery cages, and to instead start using "cage free" (which aren't really cage free, but they're a big improvement) eggs instead. Way to go Bill.
If you happen to need a primmer on how the food you eat is produced (shouldn't we all kinda know that?), might I suggest the new movie, Food, Inc. You'll love it.
I invite you to be on the right side of history in this, one of the greatest ethical issues of our time.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
It's worse than we thought
.
.
Blackwater. (hint: you have to click the link to understand this post.)
So this is what W. meant when he said we're on a "crusade". He meant it in the most literal way possible. It wasn't just the most spectacularly stupid oratorical blunder of the century; it was exactly what he meant.
I mean, I deplore, and yet I am comfortable with, the Cheney brand of pure evil, because it is a rational evil. But the fact that in the modern age, our government really teamed up with a psychopathic, genocidal, "crusader", has my brain a bit scrambled. We gave the dude like a billion dollars, for crying out loud.
I wonder if history will record the true abysmal depth of the George W. Bush disaster. How did a nation like ours go so horribly astray? Certainly, it is a period that should distinguish itself in the annals of monumental screw-ups.
.
Blackwater. (hint: you have to click the link to understand this post.)
So this is what W. meant when he said we're on a "crusade". He meant it in the most literal way possible. It wasn't just the most spectacularly stupid oratorical blunder of the century; it was exactly what he meant.
I mean, I deplore, and yet I am comfortable with, the Cheney brand of pure evil, because it is a rational evil. But the fact that in the modern age, our government really teamed up with a psychopathic, genocidal, "crusader", has my brain a bit scrambled. We gave the dude like a billion dollars, for crying out loud.
I wonder if history will record the true abysmal depth of the George W. Bush disaster. How did a nation like ours go so horribly astray? Certainly, it is a period that should distinguish itself in the annals of monumental screw-ups.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Ninjas
I am, at heart, a peace-loving person. But sometimes, circumstances call for decisive action.
For example, yesterday, as I was doing some work near a sidewalk in Avondale, a man and his dog came walking by. The dog, startled by me, pulled out of his collar, and the man just started wailing on him. Totally involuntarily, I told the guy to stop what he was doing. He spun around and looked at me, dumbfounded, and then said, "It's called discipline". I said, "It is called animal cruelty and it is illegal, you fucking bastard!" He then told me to mind my own business, to which I responded, "The welfare of my canine bretheren IS my business!", at which point he threw a punch at me, which I deflected with ninja-like quickness, and then, in self-defense, I laid his sorry ass out on the pavement and took his dog which is now free to a good home.
Actually, that's what I wish had happened. What actually happened was after he said, "It's called discipline", I suggested he get a nice book on dog training (none of which would suggest ever hitting a dog), to which he responded, "I've raised several dogs", and turned to walk away. I meekly called after him, "I wish you would consider being kinder to your dog".
Hitting dogs is like hitting children: It is always wrong, and never helpful.
Since then, I can't help thinking about what an abysmal scumbag that guy was and how I could have handled the situation better. What I think is most important is that I did something. I didn't just stand there and countenance a blatant act of cruelty. But it occurs to me that I have. I can think of times in my life when I watched someone I knew mistreat a dog and didn't say anything. I have listened to racial jokes and gay jokes and laughed, though not in recent history. (Though I do still sometimes use the recently controversial phrase, "That's so gay", for which I am rightly admonished by a gay friend. But its just such a good phrase, and I don't use it to describe anything stereotypically homosexual. In fact, I often use it to describe things that are distinctly un-stereotypically homosexual, like auto racing or pro wrestling, for example. The best way I can describe my use of the phrase is to describe something that is actually pretty silly, but is taken way too seriously by a group of people. Isn't that how most people use the phrase? I'd gladly stop saying it if I could come up with a way to express an equivalent idea. Any ideas? My, but do I digress.)
I think we should all resolve to stand up a little more to address little things in our world that we want to change. I'm going to start by tracking down that guy and "disciplining" him a bit.
For example, yesterday, as I was doing some work near a sidewalk in Avondale, a man and his dog came walking by. The dog, startled by me, pulled out of his collar, and the man just started wailing on him. Totally involuntarily, I told the guy to stop what he was doing. He spun around and looked at me, dumbfounded, and then said, "It's called discipline". I said, "It is called animal cruelty and it is illegal, you fucking bastard!" He then told me to mind my own business, to which I responded, "The welfare of my canine bretheren IS my business!", at which point he threw a punch at me, which I deflected with ninja-like quickness, and then, in self-defense, I laid his sorry ass out on the pavement and took his dog which is now free to a good home.
Actually, that's what I wish had happened. What actually happened was after he said, "It's called discipline", I suggested he get a nice book on dog training (none of which would suggest ever hitting a dog), to which he responded, "I've raised several dogs", and turned to walk away. I meekly called after him, "I wish you would consider being kinder to your dog".
Hitting dogs is like hitting children: It is always wrong, and never helpful.
Since then, I can't help thinking about what an abysmal scumbag that guy was and how I could have handled the situation better. What I think is most important is that I did something. I didn't just stand there and countenance a blatant act of cruelty. But it occurs to me that I have. I can think of times in my life when I watched someone I knew mistreat a dog and didn't say anything. I have listened to racial jokes and gay jokes and laughed, though not in recent history. (Though I do still sometimes use the recently controversial phrase, "That's so gay", for which I am rightly admonished by a gay friend. But its just such a good phrase, and I don't use it to describe anything stereotypically homosexual. In fact, I often use it to describe things that are distinctly un-stereotypically homosexual, like auto racing or pro wrestling, for example. The best way I can describe my use of the phrase is to describe something that is actually pretty silly, but is taken way too seriously by a group of people. Isn't that how most people use the phrase? I'd gladly stop saying it if I could come up with a way to express an equivalent idea. Any ideas? My, but do I digress.)
I think we should all resolve to stand up a little more to address little things in our world that we want to change. I'm going to start by tracking down that guy and "disciplining" him a bit.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Why I hate Saxby
I received the following reply from Saxby Chambliss regarding my e-mail to him urging him to support federal legislation which would include the GLBT community under hate crime law:
Dear Mr. C:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on hate crime legislation. I appreciate hearing your concerns on this matter.
There is little evidence that indicates that violent crimes motivated by "hate" go unpunished in the United States. Most states already have criminal laws that prohibit the anti-social behavior addressed by hate crime legislation - including laws against murder, rape, arson, assault, and battery.
I oppose the creation of Federal hate crime legislation for a variety of reasons. First, I do not believe the Federal government should interfere with the criminal laws already on the books in our states. Second, many hate crime bills attempt to establish a "protected class" of crime victims who would receive special protection under the law. And finally, we already have laws to prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes. Those people guilty of violent crimes against anyone should be prosecuted under existing law.
An open response to Saxby:
Why Saxby did you feel the need to put the word hate in quotations? Do actions based on prejudice, bigotry, or a misguided interpretation of ones holy scripture not count as hate to you? Do you not consider actions taken by Muslim extremists against women or Christians or Americans as directed by hate? Or, do you not want statements you have made to be considered provocations of hate crime that you could be prosecuted for? For example, your remarks made during a November 19, 2001 meeting with emergency responders in Valdosta, Georgia, where you said that they should "turn the sheriff loose and arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line". Or because, in 2002, Ralph Reed praised the Confederate flag in radio adds which helped you to defeat Max Clealand? Maybe you don't want "protected classes" because you don't want certain classes of people to have any protection from violence or words that incite violence.
Saxby, did you realise that crimes committed due to sexual orientation were double of those committed due to race in Georgia in 2007? If there are twice as many and you don't think there should be federal laws to reinforce and help pay to prosecute these crimes, are you also against the federal laws pertaining to hate crimes based on race? Should the federal government not enact ANY law that has already been addressed by any state? While we do have a federal system, that separates the duties and rights of the federal and state governments, your arguments are sounding more like those from a politician from GA in 1860, than those from a GA politician in 2009.
As I said in the previous paragraph, hate crime law does not only make hate crimes a federal offence, but it provides federal financial help in prosecuting these crimes. After Matthew Shepard's killing, the jurisdiction in Wyoming which prosecuted those responsible for his murder had to lay off 5 police officers after the trail concluded because the cost of the trail was more than they could afford. Saxby, are you saying that the state of GA should be forced to lower the police presence, making ALL Georgians more vulnerable to ALL crime because you do not want to allow federal money to be used to prosecute these kinds of crime? If so, then shame on you.
Oh yeah... Sarah Palin endorsed him too. That in itself should have been enough!
If you would like to contact Saxby about this, go here
If you are interested in these issues and would like to see more ways to help, please visit my site here
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Michelle's garden irks mega agri-conglomerates
I think it's just awesome that Michelle Obama has decided to implement a garden at the White House. Further, as it is the ultimate manifestation of a philosophy of local consumption, I think that everyone who has enough space and some sun should grow food. It's good for your carbon footprint and good for your tummy. But also, I think that the more people touch dirt the better. It is, after all, the stuff of which we are made, from whence we have come, and to which we shall return. We need to acquaint ourselves more intimately with it. It is a known fact that people who loose contact with the soil slowly go crazy and exhibit bizarre behaviors such as purchasing antibacterial soaps and becoming preoccupied with Brangolina. They also may begin to flatulate explosively.
Well of course, the Obama garden will be sans chemicals. Predictably, this fact has the panties of mega agribusiness all in a wad. The Mid America Croplife Association (MACA), which is basically a PR group for chemical producers like Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont, has circulated an open letter to the Obamas encouraging them to use "Crop Protection Products", otherwise known as pesticides, in their garden. In a preface circulated with the letter, the representative from MACA says, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made Janet Braun, CropLife Ambassador Coordinator and I shudder."
What sleazebags! There might be an argument to be made that, at least presently, chemicals need to play a legitimate role in food production, but their use is unsustainable. And to suggest that any home gardener should refrain from using non-chemical methods is ridiculous and deplorable.
Corporations strip individuals of morality, by design.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Salami
The results of a massive new study of the health consequences of red meat consumption are making headlines right now. The study shows that those who eat an average of 4 ounces of red meat per day have an increased risk of "dying from all causes, and specifically from cancer or heart disease."
The study goes on to conclude that "The chance of men dying of cardiovascular disease would have decreased 11 per cent - and 21 per cent for women", and that there is a "much greater risk" of cancer deaths in men and women who consume red meat regularly.
The study also showed that those who eat more white meat had a decreased risk of death compared to those who eat more red meat. This lead the researchers to conclude that "people should not shun meat altogether because there are some nutritional benefits and its consumption has played an important role in the evolution of our species."
Why? It has been shown that those on a meatless diet have a 15% decreased rate of mortality compared to those who eat meat occasionally. Why then would the researchers not recommend a meatless diet? I guess maybe they just didn't want to freak everybody out, or draw the ire of the meat industry. I dunno.
But besides the health consequences, meat consumption, especially factory farm produced meat, is clearly not ethical, but the contribution of meat production to global climate change can't be overstated. If everyone stopped eating meat today, it would result in a greater reduction in greenhouse gases than if everyone stopped driving cars today. This fact was glaringly omitted from Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
I guess maybe Al didn't want to freak everybody out.
The study goes on to conclude that "The chance of men dying of cardiovascular disease would have decreased 11 per cent - and 21 per cent for women", and that there is a "much greater risk" of cancer deaths in men and women who consume red meat regularly.
The study also showed that those who eat more white meat had a decreased risk of death compared to those who eat more red meat. This lead the researchers to conclude that "people should not shun meat altogether because there are some nutritional benefits and its consumption has played an important role in the evolution of our species."
Why? It has been shown that those on a meatless diet have a 15% decreased rate of mortality compared to those who eat meat occasionally. Why then would the researchers not recommend a meatless diet? I guess maybe they just didn't want to freak everybody out, or draw the ire of the meat industry. I dunno.
But besides the health consequences, meat consumption, especially factory farm produced meat, is clearly not ethical, but the contribution of meat production to global climate change can't be overstated. If everyone stopped eating meat today, it would result in a greater reduction in greenhouse gases than if everyone stopped driving cars today. This fact was glaringly omitted from Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
I guess maybe Al didn't want to freak everybody out.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
So far, so good...
I couldn't be more pleased with Obama's first 48 hours. It could be argued that Obama did more in 48 hours to restore America's image in the world than Bush did in 8 years to destroy it.
In a sweeping repudiation of the worst human rights abuses of the Bush administration, Obama issued three executive orders and an executive directive yesterday. These actions accomplish a number of key objectives: 1) close the illegal detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, 2) limit interrogation methods to those described in the Army field manual, effectively banning torture, 3) halt extraordinary renditions of detainees to countries that torture.
Following the signing of the orders, Obama said at a press conference, “I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture”. This seems to be in accord with his assertion that, “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”.
What the Bush administration failed to understand is that there are security costs associated with becoming an international pariah by brazenly and rampantly committing the worst kinds of human rights abuses, and that there are security benefits associated with maintaining a legitimate moral standing in the world.
Regardless of how you feel about Obama’s economic policies, etc., the fact that he has so quickly and decisively acted to begin to dismantle the damage done by Bush is more than enough to warrant his election. That America’s moral standing has been so totally diminished was the most pressing issue facing the nation at this point. Obama’s priorities are correctly placed.
This was not an occasion that called for hesitancy. On the contrary, the most effective actions that Obama could take at this point are making a clear, decisive, broad, and immediate condemnation of the illegal practices that have drawn the ire and contempt of the international community. This was not an occasion for bi-partisan decorum.
Obama must now address the Bush administration's domestic Constitutional crimes: the dismantling of domestic civil rights enacted by the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Doing so would certainly fall in line with his “False Choice” doctrine.
The sooner the better.
In a sweeping repudiation of the worst human rights abuses of the Bush administration, Obama issued three executive orders and an executive directive yesterday. These actions accomplish a number of key objectives: 1) close the illegal detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, 2) limit interrogation methods to those described in the Army field manual, effectively banning torture, 3) halt extraordinary renditions of detainees to countries that torture.
Following the signing of the orders, Obama said at a press conference, “I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture”. This seems to be in accord with his assertion that, “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”.
What the Bush administration failed to understand is that there are security costs associated with becoming an international pariah by brazenly and rampantly committing the worst kinds of human rights abuses, and that there are security benefits associated with maintaining a legitimate moral standing in the world.
Regardless of how you feel about Obama’s economic policies, etc., the fact that he has so quickly and decisively acted to begin to dismantle the damage done by Bush is more than enough to warrant his election. That America’s moral standing has been so totally diminished was the most pressing issue facing the nation at this point. Obama’s priorities are correctly placed.
This was not an occasion that called for hesitancy. On the contrary, the most effective actions that Obama could take at this point are making a clear, decisive, broad, and immediate condemnation of the illegal practices that have drawn the ire and contempt of the international community. This was not an occasion for bi-partisan decorum.
Obama must now address the Bush administration's domestic Constitutional crimes: the dismantling of domestic civil rights enacted by the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Doing so would certainly fall in line with his “False Choice” doctrine.
The sooner the better.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Vindication!
Barack Obama has just selected retired General Eric Shinseki to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, an organization with quite a lot on its plate at this time.
Shinseki is most well-known for clashing with Rumsfeld over the number of troops that would be required to secure the peace in a post-war Iraq. The following is from his address to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?
GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --
SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?
GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about posthostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence.
Paul Wolfowitz called this assertion "wildly off the mark", and Rumfeld quietly forced the General from involvement in the Iraq war, eventually precipitating his retirement.
It is now generally accepted by Military officials that Shinseki was right.
Props to Obama for this not-so-subtle nod to Shinseki's Vindication. Let's hope he can do some much-needed good for Veterans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)