LiveVegan: Veganism = Nonviolence

Chris Hedges: Call to Action - YouTube

2012-02-14T18:09:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges: Call to Action - YouTube

Chris Hedges calls us to action, to create a new political movement to replace our corrupt government and obsolete economic institutions, building on what's begun by Occupy Wall Street.

Speciesist Language and promoting discrimination in the minds of others

2012-02-14T16:24:00.006+11:00

On LiveVegan today I commented about speciesist language and on being mindful of not accidentally promoting speciesism in other’s minds.

Here is a the link to the discussion that followed if you wish to view it

It’s good to try and be mindful of our language. When we refer to other animals, it’s important not to refer to them as “it” or “creature”. It’s also good to use the word “who” in a sentence. e.g the pig who did this etc. Speciesist language —- just like racist, sexist, homophobic, cissexist language — promotes “otherization” of groups. It ultimately promotes violence.

I personally try to avoid talking about other animals with non-vegans (or avoid talking about them in general) in terms of how other animals make me feel. I may speak about the cats who share my life privately with abolitionist vegans, and I may talk with abolitionist vegans about certain animals who visit our yard and how delighted I am that they visit, but I try to avoid talking about feelings regarding animals to the non-vegan public because it often just reinforces their speciesism. I might address in a calm and hopefully skilful way a speciesist comment they make and try and help them to think about their comments differently if at all possible. And I will try and bring veganism into the conversation if possible.

But my point is, that whatever I may or may not feel about certain species of nonhuman animals is my own issue and has little to do with that individual species. For example I think snakes are very interesting individuals. We live in a rural area where a particular snake who is very deadly to humans lives. A bite from this particular snake and in 30 minutes to an hour after a bite and it’s all over. I have come across a couple of Tiger snakes on the quiet road where I walk each day, and I have mixed reactions. I have a feeling of fear for my life and I also have feelings of love, fascination and care for them. Of course they are more fearful of me than I am of them. I once privately talked with an abolitionist vegan about my experience where I almost accidentally stepped on a Tiger snake at night who was resting on side of the road where I was walking. I could have been bitten had I not noticed the snake. I would not mention this incident in front of a non-vegan because it is likely to arouse feelings of speciesism. They may react with anger or fear and they may respond by speaking hatefully about that particular animal. They may also want to kill that particular animal if they encounter them in the future. So I do my best to never speak in such a way which could promote feelings of either fetishization, or dislike or favouritism of particular species. The public are speciesist enough and we don’t need to reinforce it. :)

Of course the most important way to address our own speciesism is to stop eating, wearing and using other animals and educate others to go vegan as well.

I would like to share with you a quote by Gary L. Francione, founder of the abolitionist approach to animal rights:

“Speciesism is morally objectionable because, like racism, sexism, and heterosexism, it links personhood with an irrelevant criterion. Those who reject speciesism are committed to rejecting racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination as well.”

Chris Hedges: Occupy Draws Strength From the Powerless - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

2012-02-13T22:47:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges: Occupy Draws Strength From the Powerless - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

There is a recipe for breaking popular movements. I watched it play out over five years in the war in El Salvador. I now see these familiar patterns in the assault against the Occupy movement. It goes like this. Physically eradicate the insurgents’ logistical base of operations to disrupt communication and organization. Dry up financial and material support. Create rival organizations—the group Stand for Oakland seems to be one of these attempts—to discredit and purge the rebel leadership. Infiltrate the movement to foster internal divisions and rivalries, a tactic carried out consciously, or perhaps unconsciously, by an anonymous West Coast group known as OLAASM—Occupy Los Angeles Anti Social Media. Provoke the movement—or front groups acting in the name of the movement—to carry out actions such as vandalism and physical confrontations with the police that alienate the wider populace from the insurgency. Invent atrocities and repugnant acts supposedly carried out by the movement and plant these stories in the media. Finally, offer up a political alternative. In the war in El Salvador it was Jose Napoleon Duarte. For the Occupy movement it is someone like Van Jones. And use this “reformist” to co-opt the language of the movement and promise to promote the movement’s core aims through the electoral process.

Counterinsurgency campaigns, although they involve arms and weapons, are primarily about, in the old cliché, hearts and minds. And the tactics employed by our intelligence operatives abroad are not dissimilar to those employed by our intelligence operatives at home. These operatives are, in fact, often the same people. The state has expended external resources to break the movement. It is reasonable to assume it has expended internal resources to break the movement.

To read the rest of the blog here - Chris Hedges: Occupy Draws Strength From the Powerless - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

Adele performs "Rolling In The Deep" at the Grammys:

2012-02-13T19:44:00.000+11:00

Noam Chomsky speech: "Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours" - YouTube

2012-02-12T18:55:00.001+11:00

Noam Chomsky speech: "Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours" - YouTube

San Francisco Police Department ‘It Gets Better’ Video: LGBT Officers Release Inspiring Message (VIDEO)

2012-02-12T15:15:00.000+11:00

San Francisco Police Department ‘It Gets Better’ Video: LGBT Officers Release Inspiring Message (VIDEO) « Veganism is Nonviolence

“When It’s Cold I’d Like To Die” vocals by Kelli Scarr – Live at Sydney Opera House (2010 )

2012-02-12T13:04:00.000+11:00

Gary L. Francione “On the issue of moral theory and animal rights…” « Veganism is Nonviolence

2012-02-11T14:53:00.000+11:00

Gary L. Francione “On the issue of moral theory and animal rights…”

"On the issue of moral theory and animal rights, I regard the theory that I developed some years ago (and discussed in "Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?" and other works) as providing a sound argument and rational basis for concluding that we ought not to exploit animals (understood as all beings who are sentient). However, the theory rests on a fundamental premise that animals have moral value, a position for which I make rational arguments as well, but which cannot ultimately be "proved" any more than we can "prove" matters of human rights.

All moral arguments must contain a moral premise (most arguments have more than one such premise) that cannot be proved and that must be accepted in order to reason within the particular moral system or framework. In fact, the same is true of math, which relies on axioms and postulates that cannot be proved and have to be accepted in order to reason within the system, and science, which assumes the fundamentals of whatever scientific paradigm is extent at a particular historical point.

For me, certain moral propositions (such as that the infliction of pain, suffering, and death on any sentient being is, at least as a prima facie matter, morally wrong) are true in the same way that I regard any other proposition as true. And that proposition itself is a function of other views I have about nonviolence. But a rational person who had different views about moral realism could reject my views.

Rationality is about the suitability of means to ends. When we say that a person is irrational, we generally mean s/he is choosing means that are inappropriate for an end. But there is no monolithic concept of rationality that allows us to declare that particular ends are inherently irrational. Engaging in conduct that will bring about the end of the world is irrational if you do not see the extinction of life as a desirable end. But for those who think extinction is valuable, or do not care about future generations, destructive behavior may be rational.

Rationality is also about the coherence of beliefs. If I believe that if animals are sentient then we ought not to consume them and that animals are sentient, it is irrational for me to conclude that I ought to consume them.

Claims about rationality (and irrationality) are normative claims that, like moral claims, require justification. Therefore, the notion that we can get to animal rights through "science" or rationality, and that we do not need unprovable moral or normative notions, is simply false. Rationality cannot tell us what ends we should pursue or what fundamental beliefs are worth having. Those are normative matters and, like the axioms of math or the fundamentals of a scientific paradigm, cannot be proved outside the particular system." -- Gary L. Francione

Re-posted on LiveVegan.

"Religion" by Jeff Perz

2012-02-08T14:42:00.001+11:00

Our preface to Jeff Perz blog: There was a thread on one of the Facebook sites posted by an "abolitionist" concerning religion, spirituality, rationality and animal rights. The thread was deleted unfortunately after people posted many thoughtful comments. A particular person who considers himself abolitionist believes that if you are spiritual you cannot be abolitionist. This of course is flawed thinking and it's definitely not abolitionist according to the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights whose founder is Gary L. Francione. This "abolitionist" who believes spiritual people are not rational wrote:

"If you think you can support things like 'spirituality' whilst opposing rationally consistent positions like anti-racism, anti-sexism or anti-speciesism, think again."

And here is Jeff Perz's response to the promotion of this non-abolitionist position:

Jeff Perz wrote: "Regarding the existence of what is commonly referred to as "God," I am an agnostic. I regard atheism as being irrational. Just as theism requires blind faith in a positive supposition (God exists), so too does atheism require blind faith in a negative (God does not exist). In this way, both theism and atheism are irrational, as they involve belief without scientific, observation-based, proof.
After saying the above, no doubt some of you have objections that spring to mind -- which might demonstrate that my above-mentioned opinion is incorrect. I ask the reader to temporarily hold off on these objections, for I will now attempt to provide a rational justification for why the above-mentioned opinion is correct. In other words, my statements in the previous paragraph are conclusions that are derived from an empirically sound and logically valid argument. First, I ask you to watch and consider this five minute science video:

Only after watching the above video, now consider the following:

Three of my favorite epistemological assumptions of science are pointed out by philosopher David Hume:

1) The future will resemble the past. For example, the sun will rise tomorrow. Or, the law of gravity will continue to operate as we have always observed it to operate.

2) All events have a cause.
3) There is a necessary connection between cause and effect.

It is impossible for science to make any conclusions about reality without first assuming that the above three axioms are true. Yet, not only is there no scientific proof for the truth of the above three assumptions, but it is scientifically impossible to prove that they are true, whether now or at any time in the future.

I will not provide Hume's arguments here, but suffice it to say for now that they are compelling, and one can assess their merit by reading Hume directly. For the layperson, I found the following discussion of causation helpful...

David Hume, of course, is the one who most famously has shown this. Imagine, he said, I have one hundred windows in a row, and I take a hammer and hit the first 99. All of them shatter. I approach the last one. Will it shatter also when I hit it? Hume argues that you cannot know that, for there is no way of proving that the impact of the hammer caused the other windows to break. It is conceivable that some other forces or forces broke the windows at the exact time the hammer hit them. Causation, he argued, is an attribute of the [irrational] mind, by which it tries to make sense what happens in the world. But there is no way to prove beyond doubt that causality applies beyond the mind’s interpretation.

Hume’s argument is epistemological, that is, a question of how we know things. But 20th century science (in the form of quantum mechanics) itself has undermined the concept of causation (please read up on simultaneous causation and the uncertainty principle to see this).

Also, as I am writing this, the world of science has been shocked by the apparent find of a team at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) that some particles travel faster than the speed of light. One article notes,

"If things travel faster than the speed of light, A can cause B, [but] B can also cause A," Parke [head of the theoretical physics department at the U.S. government-run Fermilab near Chicago, Illinois] said. "If that happens, the concept of causality becomes ambiguous, and that would cause a great deal of trouble." >>

At this point, both philosophically and scientifically, the simple idea of causation (A causes B) is very much a working assumption that makes science possible, not the result of science itself. [Please note I am talking about the concept of causation, not examples of one thing causing another.] >>>>

Here are three more assumptions of science that cannot be scientifically proven:

4) The adequacy of language to communicate reality and truth.

5) The existence of numbers.

6) The laws of logic (especially the law of non-contradiction)

Now, keeping all of the above in mind, note that:

Science REQUIRES observation. In the slit experiment (see video above) observation is scientifically impossible. Now consider the assertion:

"I have faith that each separate particle does NOT go through either slit and, simultaneously, that it does go through (one, the other or both at once). This belief is not based on observed fact, so it involves faith. In part, there is faith that that the particle does NOT go through either slit.

One might object that the faith that the particle does not go through either slit, etc. is supported by the secondary observation of the target screen (i.e. the chalk board in the above video). This objection, however, fails, because it makes the first three unfounded assumptions of science, above.
So, the statement "I have faith that each separate particle does NOT go through either slit..." is logically equivalent to:

"I have faith that God does NOT exist."

As rational beings, we cannot know this for sure, and appeals to scientific observation do not help, as we have no rational or logical basis for the epistemological assumptions of science.

Or, for an even stronger example, recall from the above video, that all four of the following possibilities are in super-position with each other. In other words, these logically incompatible circumstances are all true simultaneously:

a) the one particle goes through just slit A; and

b) the one particle goes through just slit B; and

c) the one particle goes through both slits at once; and

d) the one particle goes through neither slit.

In short, the one particle is simultaneously in position X and in position not-X. This is the logical epistemological of saying "triangles simultaneously have three sides and four sides." It is the logical epistemological of saying "God simultaneously exists and does not exist."

I do not know if an electron is a particle, a wave, or both. The foundational assumptions of science -- and all the experiments that have or ever could proceed from these assumptions -- cannot shed any light on this question. So I DO NOT KNOW.

Similarly, I do not know if God exists, does not exist or simultaneously exists and does not exist, and neither science, reason nor logic is capable -- now or in the future -- of shedding any light on this. So, I am an agnostic.

Christian mystics, Jewish Kabbalahists, Muslim Sufis, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists and all the other religious traditions that seek to increase their knowledge and find the Truth about reality using the method of meditation all say that "God" (if that term is used) is like an ocean and human individuals are like drops of water in that ocean. They note that "drops" have no clearly defined boundaries. They note that, out of ignorance, most humans wrongly believe they are like ice cubes floating in the depths of the ocean.

Unlike myself, some members of each of the abovementioned religious traditions claim to have arrived at the above knowledge through experiments (similar to the scientific method) with their own minds. Moreover, they claim that the results are replicable. All one needs to do is follow their methods, and one will arrive at the same conclusion as they have. One could say the same thing about the scientific experiments that determined the gravitational constant, F = G x m1m2 / R2.

Unlike myself, members of each of the abovementioned religious traditions are not agnostic -- because their "faith" is based upon their "experiments" involving their own minds. Who am I to question their faith? Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. It does not matter, as I can still help them all go vegan. I have successfully converted a fundamentalist-hellfire-and-blood-Christian to veganism. It does not matter that his beliefs were irrational. His beliefs were based upon faith -- that is one thing. Quite another is rational belief that 1 + 1 = 2. Quite another thing is his rational belief that veganism is ethical.

When I do vegan advocacy, I do it in a completely non-secular way. When I encounter religious objections to veganism, however, I have no need to convert people to atheism. All that is required, in my successful experience, is (a) showing that veganism is not necessarily inconsistent with the person's (irrational) religious belief and (b) providing some good reasons to go vegan. This kind of advocacy is easy. One just needs to learn the arguments.

Spirituality, Rationality, and Animal Rights: Brief Reflections

2012-02-06T16:20:00.000+11:00

Spirituality, Rationality, and Animal Rights: Brief Reflections

There was a thread on one of the sites posted by an abolitionist concerning religion, spirituality, rationality and animal rights. The thread was deleted unfortunately after people posted many thoughtful comments. I am reposting a comment that was edited by Gary Francione to remove specific references to the deleted thread, and it's now offered here for people's general consideration:

Gary L. Francione: Spirituality, Rationality, and Animal Rights: Brief Reflections

You seem to think that "rationality" is some monolithic concept that dictates only one result or course of conduct. Your position is similar to that of the "Chicago School" of economics, which (more or less) maintains a monolithic concept of economic efficiency (itself based on a particular understanding of "rationality") and a moral view that normative discourse is meaningful only if informed by, and limited to, this concept of economic efficiency. For the Chicago School, morality is a matter of economic efficiency; for you, morality is a matter of rationality as expressed by "science."

Notions of rationality are relative to background assumptions. For example, although one might say that animal agriculture is irrational given that it is destroying the environment, an opponent might say that such a view assumes moral concern about the future and about future generations. If John does not care about what happens after John is no longer around, concern about the environment may very well be irrational given John's other interests. Even if John does have a moral concern about the future, John may make an argument that it is still rational to support some animal agriculture but much less than is currently conducted. Indeed, that is a position supported by many whose views are wrong in my view, but not because they are irrational given the assumptions that they make.

I believe that the theory of animal rights that I have developed provides a logically airtight, rational argument for the abolition of animal exploitation. But the argument works because of a culturally shared assumption that animals do count morally and that abolition is the only response that recognizes that moral status. If someone does not accept what Steiner refers to as the sense of kinship, or what I refer to as the principle of nonviolence (understood in this context as the notion that the infliction of pain, suffering, and death on any sentient being is, in a realist sense, morally wrong), one can very rationally remain in a post-Enlightenment world that excludes any sense of moral obligations owed directly to animals for the reasons that Steiner identifies in his work and that justifies all decisions on instrumental notions of rationality that would certainly allow for some animal exploitation even if one concluded that present levels were irrational in some broader sense.

What supplies the motivation to be moral may derive from many sources. You reject this and seem to think that we can objectively determine what behavior is moral based on what "science" tells us, or in light of some one conception of rationality. You seem to think that science determines morality. I disagree. You can't derive an ought from an is and many of the "is" statements are more fragile than you seem to think. Science may provide X but whether X is conducive to my well-being is something that only I can determine and to say that a particular determination is compelled by science or by some monolithic notion of rationality is only to canonize that particular understanding of rationality. The problem is that we cannot escape what you refer to as "faith" on some level.

You seem to accept that science is Truth. Go and read Kuhn, or Feyerabend, or any number of philosophers of science. Science is full of metaphysical assumptions and there is plenty of room for spiritual beliefs given those assumptions, which is why, I suppose, so many prominent scientists had some spiritual or metaphysical beliefs. They recognized that the particular prevailing paradigm explained things given the assumptions that animated the theories of the particular paradigm. But they also recognized that the truth of fundamental assumptions is in some sense relative to the particular paradigms. In response to my observation that quantum theory, which makes reality dependent on consciousness in some sense, you replied that this shows only that we don't really understand quantum theory. Maybe that's true; but maybe you are just begging the question. "Rationality"in some abstract, objective, and non-controversial sense simply cannot arbitrate that dispute in a conclusive way.

Organized religion has been the source of a great deal of misery in the world. That is beyond question. But to deny the importance of spiritual or extra-rational experiences and to claim that "science" is all that is needed for morality are equally problematic.

Finally, you seem to think that those with spiritual or religious views cannot be real abolitionists because the abolitionist perspective necessarily excludes those views. What is inconsistent with the abolitionist approach is the prejudice and violence that results from *any* belief system, whether religious or atheistic or whatever, that promotes or supports violence because the foundation of the abolitionist approach is nonviolence.

Gary Francione

"Gay and Lesbian groups can fight their own battles."

2012-02-04T16:53:00.001+11:00

Someone made a comment recently on LiveVegan that although he was not vegan or gay and although he "loved some people who were" and although he could understand why vegans stand up for animals because animals can not do it themselves, he said "Gay and Lesbian groups can fight their own battles." He was questioning our position on our page as to why we address other forms of discrimination as well as speciesism. I appreciate this comment and here is our reasoning.

On LiveVegan we promote the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights. It is correct. We address other forms of discrimination as well as speciesism on LiveVegan. We do so because if one is against speciesism, it is a logical extension of justice and nonviolence to be against racism, sexism, heterosexism and so on. We need to understand that all forms of discrimination are related and cause violence. Where we have one form of discrimination, we will have all forms.

Veganism is about the rejection of the property status of nonhumans and the recognition of their moral personhood . Veganism is relevant to every person that is using animals and that probably accounts for 99% of the population. So veganism is relevant to all of us who were not born into a vegan household and raised vegan. It is not enough to say we support vegans as if veganism is somehow "noble" and unrelated to us. The way to support and respect ethical vegans and other animals is to become an ethical vegan yourself. Veganism is relevant to every single human on the planet.

And the following quote is something we should consider next time we are about to dismiss or display indifference to a particular individual or group (human or nonhuman) who is being persecuted, exploited and oppressed:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me. "

NOTE: ["First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. The text of the quotation is usually presented roughly as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 ]

Rep Dennis Kucinich: Fact Checking the Media - Iran

2012-02-04T13:19:00.000+11:00

Fact Checking the Media - YouTube

CHRIS HEDGES: "Hope" Speech (Unedited)

2012-02-03T23:24:00.000+11:00

CHRIS HEDGES: “HOPE” SPEECH (UNEDITED) – YouTube http://bit.ly/yjKFFW Excellent speech

Chris Hedges on WorldStreams

2012-02-03T14:26:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges on WorldStreams

The World is Vegan! If You Want It - YouTube

2012-02-03T01:43:00.000+11:00

The World is Vegan! If You Want It

Letters of Note: To My Old Master

2012-02-02T17:29:00.000+11:00

Letters of Note: To My Old Master

Dayton, Ohio,

August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams's Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson.

Wha Me Eat - Macka B OFFICIAL VIDEO - YouTube (song about being vegan)

2012-02-02T10:56:00.000+11:00

Wha Me Eat - Macka B OFFICIAL VIDEO - YouTube

Being vegan, better for you, for the planet, and most importantly, it's morally right

2012-01-30T13:59:00.000+11:00

My response to someone on a environmental Facebook site. Someone tried to dismiss my ethical points about veganism and asked me had I read "The Vegetarian Myth", to which I replied:

No I haven't read the Vegetarian Myth. I have many books that are on my list but I must say that TVM is not one of them. I do know a little about it, that it makes false claims about the healthiness of a plant based diet. By the way, veganism is much more than a diet. But if we are just speaking about a plant based diet, then even the mainstream "American Dietetic Association" has stated that a balanced vegan diet is healthy and they recommend it. By the way *any* diet which is not balanced is unhealthy. The claim The Vegetarian Myth makes ( one person's claim) which is a misleading claim (if you have ever read The China Study) is that a plant based diet was to blame for her poor health and she then proceeds to promote the astonishing idea that huge amounts of animal products are healthy despite the overwhelming mainstream evidence that animal products are very obviously deleterious for one's health. The idea she also promotes that small animal farming is sustainable. Firstly, putting the moral issue aside that we have no right to exploit the vulnerable -- factory farming will never end for a few reasons and one is, the ever increasing human overpopulation. But I will talk more about factory farming later on after I make a few points.

I don't know if you are aware that we torture and murder 56 billion nonhuman animals for our pleasure each year and a further 1,140,000 sea animals are tortured and murdered every 30 seconds for our pleasure. 40,000 chickens are tortured and murdered for our pleasure every 30 seconds. This is great violence. I invite you to watch a free online documentary "Earthlings" http://www.earthlings.com/ and then read this small pamphlet http://www.veganpamphlet.com/ . Then we can discuss how you feel about our animal use after that.

To the environmental aspects of animal use. Animal use industry is an environmental ecological nightmare. World Watch institute (report 2009) reveals http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 that 51% (not 18%) of greenhouse gases are from animal use industries and their by products. That is a staggering amount of destruction and you will not hear this from governments, or green groups. But not only is it morally unjustifiable to use animals for our pleasure which is what 99% of animal use is ( for our gustatory pleasure) -- but it is destroying the planet and causing diseases, famine, refugee crisis, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest (no. 1 cause of rainforest destruction) and so on. I couldn't list all the problems that stem from this there are so many. Moreover there would be so much more food if there was no animal industry because animals consume huge amounts of grain, soy and so on and huge amounts of water. It takes 1000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk. There would be vast amounts of agricultural land free to grow crops which are taken up by the animal use industry.

The fact is, we do not need animal products at all for our health. The fact is, we have no rights to enslave and murder sentient beings just because they are from a different species, just as we have no more right to persecute and kill beings from a different race, a different sexual orientation, a different gender and so on. Species, race, sexual orientation, sex are irrelevant criterion as to whether these individuals belong to the moral community. We exploit and kill nonhumans -- the vulnerable -- on the most horrific unimaginable scale ever seen in the planet's history.

There will NEVER be peace while we are eating, wearing and using other animals. There will never be peace while we are participating in this great violence and allowing others to do our dirty work for us -- torturing and killing other animals for our pleasure. And that is why we must be go vegan as a species. It's very easy to be vegan. It's better for our health, for the planet, but most importantly, it's the morally right and just thing to do.

Anyone who is interested in veganism, I invite you to join our page LiveVegan. It has close to 9000 members. Veganism is a rejection of the property status of nonhumans and a recognition that they belong to the moral community. Nonhuman animals deserve at least one right -- the right not to be used as property and veganism is the step to taking that right seriously. Veganism is not a "sacrifice" because we have no right to use them in the first place. Veganism is profound and a joy. Here is our page http://www.facebook.com/livevegan and if you are interested in becoming vegan, please start here http://www.bostonvegan.org/

Please view the links I've provided and we can discuss it further. Thanks for your time. :)

Chris Hedges: Thank You for Standing Up - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

2012-01-27T17:24:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges: Thank You for Standing Up - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

Dethrone the Corporate State by Chris Hedges « Dandelion Salad

2012-01-24T00:34:00.000+11:00

Dethrone the Corporate State by Chris Hedges « Dandelion Salad

“The first principles, of course, were nonviolence and non-property destruction,” he said. “We don’t accept violent language. When you’re violent you undermine everything. If the protesters in [Manhattan’s] Union Square, who were pepper-sprayed, had been throwing something at the police, you would not have had the movement. It was because they were nonviolent and didn’t react when they were being pepper-sprayed that the movement grew. At UC Davis, when those cops just walked down the line and sprayed, the nonviolent reaction by those kids was fantastic.”

"I do not know how long it will take to dethrone the corporate state, but I do know it is a dead and terminal system of power. As the global economy deteriorates and climate change causes greater disruptions, these corporations will be increasingly discredited. I know the iron grip of corporations over our lives will, eventually, be broken. The corporate state will, like all wounded animals, lash out with a blind fury, which is why I suspect we have been given the National Defense Authorization Act, which permits the military to arrest and hold U.S. citizens without due process. It will increase pressure to become crueler and more callous at the base of the columns it depends on for survival. And eventually it will break. No one knows how long this will take. It could be months, years, maybe even a decade, although the massive assault by the fossil fuel industry on the ecosystem will probably force a popular response sooner than we expect. The only question is how much damage these corporations will be permitted to inflict." Chris Hedges

Hunger Is a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’, says Jean Ziegler by Siv O’Neall « Dandelion Salad

2012-01-22T21:53:00.000+11:00

Hunger Is a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’, says Jean Ziegler by Siv O’Neall « Dandelion Salad
FAIR USE NOTICE

Hunger Is a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’, says Jean Ziegler by Siv O’Neall

Posted on January 22, 2012 by dandelionsalad

by Siv O’Neall
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Axisoflogic.com
Lyon, France
Jan. 19, 2012

Image by Dandelion Salad via Flickr

“Every five seconds, a child under 10 dies of hunger. – Thirty-five million people die each year from hunger or its immediate aftermath. – One billion people are permanently and severely malnourished and the situation is becoming increasingly catastrophic.” (Jean Ziegler)

In his latest book Mass Destruction – the Geopolitics of Hunger, Jean Ziegler[1] talks about the current state of the world and the neoliberal politics of starvation of the poor, which has led to a crisis situation amounting to calculated murder. What we are witnessing today is the worst hunger crisis in human history is. And it is all because of human greed, colossal mismanagement for profit.

Professor Ziegler deals in detail with the various causes of the current worldwide hunger disaster, which could have been avoided. This crisis is not determined by fate – or, to use Ziegler’s own word – ‘La famine n’est pas une fatalité’. The world could perfectly well provide food for 12 million people, almost the double of the present population of 7 million.

So what made this murderous situation possible where thousands of people are dying (37,000 every day) from lack of food and clean water? La famine n’est pas une fatalité. It could have been avoided. It should not be happening.

The agroindustry is killing off small farmers – some countries are fighting back

The goals of the ‘cold monsters’ (les monstres froids) of the agroindustry, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill and Bunge, et al. is to suck the life out of small farmers all over the world, especially in Africa and southern Asia.

The exceptional development that is taking place today in Latin America is liberating it from the grip of neoliberalism. This can only emphasize the point that the horrible famine that is seen in Africa and south Asia should never have happened. Latin America is forcefully fighting against dependency on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO) – the three horsemen of the Apocalypse, in Jean Ziegler’s own words.

Redistribution of land from large estates with huge tracts of uncultivated areas to small farmers has proven extremely effective in raising the standard of living, in helping the poorest of the poor in several Latin American countries. These countries have wrenched themselves free from the killer treaties like NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA[2], created exclusively for rich North America to take over the natural resources in the southern hemisphere.

The United States is intimately tied in with the Transnational Corporations (TNC) and they are firmly determined to end up owning the world. The way they proceed is to first take over the valuable commodities everywhere, in Latin America as well as in Africa and now also in India. Let us not forget that Latin America used to be quite naturally counted on as the backyard of the U.S. The leftist liberation movements to the south of its borders have been a bad blow to the deeply rooted feelings of superiority and selfrighteousness that Americans have always taken for granted.

Latin American countries have now created trade treaties of their own, like MERCOSUR and ALBA. However, It remains to be seen how well MERCOSUR will be able to stand up to U.S. imperialism.

Organized hunger has been made the order of the day, without any visible protest

It was done step by step, in the deepest secrecy, since the Main-Stream Media (MSM) did not even touch on the subject, if they knew about it at all. And all the time we were thinking: ‘There must be a way back. This can not go on.’ And then it went on. And it got worse. And worse.

The transnational corporations essentially own the western governments and they are running the world for the profit of their own cabal, and for profit alone.

The small farmers, the subsistence farmers who produced enough food to provide for their families and for selling at the market for a modest income, are being ruined, by careful planning.

The Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse of organized hunger, the supra-state organizations IMF, The World Bank and the WTO carry out the wishes of the major food companies. The major three are Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Bunge. These cold monsters are able to fix the prices of food through the powers they have given themselves as cartels or monopolies.

The small farmers in Africa and elsewhere needed help to go on with their hard work to support their families and to produce food for the country. Droughts, military conflicts, political crises, natural catastrophes, man-made emergency situations, all these contributed to recurrent food crises.

IMF was ready to extend big loans, BUT with strings attached. Structural adjustment programs would follow and the people were the victims.[3] There was now less money for the governments to spend on education, health care, food aid to the desperately poor, infrastructure – and the list goes on. Unemployment and poverty increased and new loans were needed, if only to pay off the interest on the old loans to the tiger sharks, ‘les requins tigres’ – Jean Ziegler’s term. Now the third world countries are enslaved in a vicious spiral of debts.

There is of course also disastrous corruption among the leaders of the countries in need that prevents the money from many well-intentioned NGOs from getting into the right hands.

To add to the many problems small farmers are faced with, there is also the other product of Western greed – big companies buying up land for huge plantations whenever the farmers are forced to sell at a ridiculously low price. And so those former poor but proud subsistence farmers are now forced to work for a pittance for the big landlords who, instead of producing food to feed the native people, grow cotton, green beans, coffee, tea, cocoa, peanuts and other crops to sell to the rich countries. And these foods for the wealthy are often produced by small children, severely exploited by cruel farmers. Slave labor conditions are the rule.

Jean Ziegler points out in ‘Destruction massive’, p.327

“The ideologues of the World Bank are infinitely more dangerous than the sad marketing agents Bolloré, Vilgrain (French investors in Africa) and company. With hundreds of millions of dollars of credits and subsidies, the World Bank funds the theft of arable land in Africa, Asia, Latin America.”

Food has to be imported – all for the profit of the big corporations. Poor people can not afford buying imported food at artificially high prices. Children go hungry, pregnant mothers are undernourished and so their babies are born with what can be called birth defects. Very importantly, their brains are insufficiently developed and this deficiency can never be recovered. A large number of the infants die before the age of two.

Malnutrition is rampant and it causes unimaginably horrible diseases, such as noma, which is far less known than the killer diseases such as malaria, dysentery, cholera, tuberculosis, diphtheria and other infectious diseases. Noma is not an infectious disease but it has been proven that it is due to severe and chronic malnutrition.[4]

For the United States and their mercenary organizations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO the UN declaration of the Universal Right to Food[5] has no importance whatsoever. It is very simply ignored.

Attempts by global structures to make the right to food a human right

The ‘United Nations’ is a term that appeared for the first time in 1941. It was tied to the combat against hunger. The World War was raging and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met on the battleship USS-Augusta in the Atlantic off Newfoundland. What came out of that meeting was the first major attempt to create a document declaring the basic freedoms of man, including Freedom from want and Freedom from fear.

“US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941, in an address known as the Four Freedoms speech proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy:

1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear

His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional US Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment, and endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view of foreign policy.

From The Atlantic Charter which was an outcome of the meeting on the USS-Augusta, articles 4 and 6 state:

“Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;
…
“Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;” (Destruction massive, pp. 139-140)

Jean Ziegler talks about the origin of the world food programs, p. 201:

FAO [the Food and Agriculture Organization] and the World Food Programme (WFP) are the big and beautiful legacy of Josué de Castro.[6] These two institutions are threatened with ruin.

They were born, as we have seen, when the great awakening of consciousness took place in Europe that was emerging from the night of fascism: the FAO in 1945, the WFP in 1963.

The sad fate of those two organizations, however, is that they were both rendered fairly helpless when the current economic crisis took hold of the world. The mandate of the WFP is precisely to eliminate hunger and poverty in the world, but with a severely reduced budget, how were they going to reach their goal?

Jean Ziegler writes (p. 216):

“On October 22, 2008, the 17 heads of state and government from the euro zone countries gathered at the Palais de l’Elysée in Paris. At 6 o’clock, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy appeared on the front steps of the palace, in front of the press. They declared to the reporters: “We have to free 1,700 billion to remobilize the interbank lending and to raise the floor of auto-financing of the banks by 3 to 5%.” Before the end of the year 2008, subsidies from the countries in the euro zone for emergency food aid decreased by almost 50 %. The WFP budget was about $ 6 billion. It fell in 2009 to $ 3.2 billion.
…
“For 2011, WFP evaluates its minimal needs to $ 7 billion. Until early December 2010, they had received $ 2.7 billion. This loss in revenues has had dramatic consequences.”

Jean Ziegler goes on to say:

“For the United States and its mercenary organizations – the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank – the right to food is an aberration. To them, there are no human rights except civil and political.

“Behind the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the Washington government and its traditional allies, appear of course the huge private transcontinental companies. The increasing control these transcontinental corporations exert on vast sectors of food production and trade have of course significantly affected the exercise of the right to food.” (Destruction massive, p. 155)

Food for fuel

Another highly important factor in the increasingly catastrophic problem of hunger in the world is of course the use of food for fuel, which has been dealt with in some detail in the essay ‘Food for fuel, a sure way of creating a hunger crisis’ By Jean Ziegler and Siv O’Neall.

It is of course perfectly clear to anybody who thinks with his brain, that growing sugar cane, wheat, corn or other food crops in huge plantations for the use of making ethanol for energy, first of all takes land away from small farmers and, secondly, ruins useful food to put gasoline in SUVs that we don’t really need.

In addition to this obvious truth, there is the crucial fact that the making of ethanol uses up more energy than it produces. It also gives off an enormous amount of carbon dioxide in the process.

Explosive increase in food prices beginning in 2007

The stage is open to the real tiger sharks, the financial speculators. Without the slightest shade of a moral conscience, they speculate on the value of a harvest, on land value, on currencies. Is it going up or down? In either case, they win, since they always hedge their bets. The noxious ‘futures trading’ has opened up the commodity market to conscience-free sharks who care only for the fast buck. These men are not dealing in any real product. They don’t sell or buy grain or anything whatever. They just speculate in the fate of these commodities, land, currencies. They do not deal in any goods. They are only speculators.

The prices of corn, rice and wheat are literally exploding because of market speculation on the basic commodities. This is the Market neoliberalism that was once made out to be the self-regulating force of the Free Market.

The governments can well see the abyss that is open in front of them, but they obediently bail out the banks when the gamblers cause a total breakdown and the banks go bankrupt.

Jean Ziegler writes (p. 78):

The speculative madness of the predators of the globalized financial capital has cost Western industrial states in 2008-2009, $ 8,900 billion in all. Western states have in particular paid trillions of dollars to bail out delinquent bankers.

Neoliberals claim that no regulations are needed, because the market is regulating itself. That way they are free to speculate, to trade indefinitely and, in many cases, without even paying capital gains taxes, without any insight or any rules. There are of course also the tax-free havens where speculators can gamble with their billions without the slightest insight or taxation.

The whole point is to the neoliberal sharks that the rich must get richer and the poor must be made powerless. The numbers of the poor have been increasing drastically ever since the beginning of neoliberalism in the eighties (exploratory beginnings in Latin America already in the seventies, with catastrophic results). Poor people are made to be so invisible, so voiceless that they can be totally disregarded. Which is precisely the goal of neoliberalism.

Conclusion

It is mind-blowing how the world can have come to a situation where it is being run by hungry sharks with no understanding of how the world economy can function in a rational way. The gamblers follow no rules whatsoever, except profit, and humanitarian considerations have no place in this casino.

What Jean Ziegler is doing in such an expert way in his latest book is denouncing the monstrosities of the world we live in, using his typical forceful style, with his trademark of genuine human empathy. He is explaining how we got to be where we are and what has to be done to remedy the gross negligence of human rights.

We can no more sit lethargically in our comfortable homes, watching the blatant propaganda that is fed to us through the Main-Stream Media, listening to the biased reports about the U.S. wars that are fought, so they tell us, in the name of freedom and democracy. The truth is that the wars are fought to make huge profits for the arms industries and all the big corporations. Take over lands and nations by war or by insidious so-called ‘aid’ that ensnares the nations in a net of debts that it is impossible to get out of.

After reading Jean Ziegler’s book, one is convinced that the time has come to act on what we know to be the truth. The West is corrupt to the gills and, if we the people are too lethargic, ignorant or frightened to do something NOW, then the pillars of the world will crumble. And that will be the end.

Notes:

[1] ‘Destruction massive – Géopolitique de la faim’ published in October 2011 ; Éditions du Seuil ; Jean Ziegler, a former professor of sociology at the University of Geneva and the Sorbonne, Paris, is member of the UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee with an expertise on economic, social and cultural rights. For the period 2000-2008, Jean Ziegler was the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. In March 2008, Jean Ziegler was elected Member of the UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee. One year later, the Human Rights Council decided, by acclamation, to re-elect Jean Ziegler as a member of the Advisory Committee, a post he will now hold until 2012. In August 2009, the members of the Advisory Committee elected Jean Ziegler as Vice-President of the forum.

[2] NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement; CAFTA = Central America Free Trade Agreement; FTAA = Free Trade Area of the Americas

[3] A study by Oxfam (Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) which has become famous showed that wherever the IMF applied a structural adjustment plan during the decade 1990-2000, millions of more people were thrown into the abyss of hunger. Jean Ziegler: Destruction massive; p.179

[4] For the horribly disfiguring and ultimately deadly disease called noma see ‘NOMA – The Face of Poverty’, By Siv O’Neall and the UN report ‘The tragedy of Noma’ by Mr. Jean Ziegler, Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee.

[5] On December 10, 1948, the 64 members of the UN unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It recognises in Article 25 that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food

[6] This Brazilian doctor and physiologist (1908 – 1973) to whom Jean Ziegler devotes two entire chapters in Destruction Massive, was an ardent fighter for the right to food, starting with his homeland in the Nordeste region of Brazil. When his book Geografia da fome (Geography of hunger) was published in 1946, de Castro already had a long career behind him. He became a world famous fighter for the right to food, and in particular he had studied the effects of undernourishment and child malnutrition. He fled from Brazil to Paris in 1964 because of the barbaric military dictatorship that ravaged Brazil from 1964 to 1985. Geografia da fome has been translated into 26 languages.

Translation of excerpts from Jean Ziegler’s latest book ‘Destruction massive – Géopolitique de la faim‘ by Siv O’Neall.

see

Food for fuel – a sure way of creating a hunger crisis by Jean Ziegler and Siv O’Neall

Jean Ziegler: “The cannibal world order” Translated by Siv O’Neall

NOMA – The Face of Poverty By Siv O’Neall

Jean Ziegler: Hatred of the West – interview with BASTA! Translated By Siv O’Neall

The need to protect the internet from 'astroturfing' grows ever more urgent | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

2012-01-22T11:47:00.000+11:00

The need to protect the internet from 'astroturfing' grows ever more urgent | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The Sad Story of Fish

2012-01-22T11:25:00.000+11:00

The Sad Story of Fish

Chris Hedges "Death of the Liberal Class" at The Sanctuary for Independent Media 10-17-10 - YouTube

2012-01-18T14:55:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges "Death of the Liberal Class" at The Sanctuary for Independent Media 10-17-10 - YouTube

Cornel West Chris Hedges talk Education - YouTube

2012-01-17T22:16:00.000+11:00

Cornel West Chris Hedges talk Education - YouTube

SPECIAL: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in His Own Words

2012-01-17T02:27:00.000+11:00

SPECIAL: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in His Own Words

Noam Chomsky - As Humankind Heads Toward the Cliff - YouTube

2012-01-16T11:00:00.000+11:00

Noam Chomsky - As Humankind Heads Toward the Cliff - YouTube

Chris Hedges is Right About Pretty Much Everything | assailedteacher

2012-01-16T10:38:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges is Right About Pretty Much Everything

Alarming Discussion with Professor Noam Chomsky Regarding Our Nation and World - YouTube

2012-01-15T22:50:00.000+11:00

Alarming Discussion with Professor Noam Chomsky Regarding Our Nation and World - YouTube

The Paradigm Shift Requires Clarity About the Moral Baseline: Veganism

2012-01-10T10:26:00.000+11:00

The Paradigm Shift Requires Clarity About the Moral Baseline: Veganism | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

On moral relativism « the vegan pensieve by Maya Shlayen

2012-01-10T10:25:00.000+11:00

On moral relativism « the vegan pensieve

On moral relativism

“I’m actually pretty sick of people uncritically buying into the fatuous New Age edict of “thou shalt not judge”, which dishonestly or confusedly conflates judgment of actions with judgment of people…

The “don’t judge” injunction is usually just a knee-jerk way of trying to shut down any kind of discussion which is too confronting. It attempts to divert attention to shaming the person who is pointing out a moral wrong, such as animal use, rather than confront the moral wrong itself. When we stop making judgments about right and wrong actions, we are really in deep trouble and have totally lost out moral compass. Some behaviours are simply *better*, morally, than others. If this fact happens to upset the comfort zone of people who wish to persist in a stage of stunted moral relativism, so what? A moral life isn’t about being comfortable. Veganism as a moral choice really is *better* than animal use. If that statement makes you feel uncomfortable, perhaps there’s good reason to feel uncomfortable, i.e. maybe that’s the voice of conscience and should be heeded.

The very idea of “thou shalt not judge” is itself a judgement! It’s saying that no judgments are allowed except for my judgement that you should not judge. It’s very controlling and repressive. Moral relativism breaks down instantly when any individual is confronted with the threat or actuality of harm to themselves or those they love. Then, there’s no doubt in their minds that some behaviours should be condemned absolutely as wrong. And… no-one, not even the most committed moral relativist or New-Ager, thinks that rape, assault or murder is ever OK when it comes to humans. So to try to justify these things for non-humans on the basis of non-judgmentalism is just speciesism.

To frame the issue in terms of everyone being “on their own journey” is another way of distracting attention away from the animals and towards ourselves. It attempts to put a romantic gloss on something that’s very ugly. It’s not about *us* and our journey; it’s about *them*, the billions of sentient beings who are enduring unimaginable suffering because of our choices. Some journeys, those that inflict suffering and death on others, should never be made.”

- Linda McKenzie

River

2012-01-06T01:21:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges: The ideology justifies the cruelty of unfettered capitalism ....

2012-01-05T22:44:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges: The ideology justifies the cruelty of unfettered capitalism ....

LiveVegan
For those who are interested, please watch these vids:
Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy Wall Street: Radical movements keep this country honest
http://youtu.be/m8UW__mFMd8

Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy Wall Street: Part 2 - Q and A
...See more
Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy Wall Street: Radical movements keep this country honest!
www.youtube.com
Last week, Chris Hedges came down to Occupy Wall Street in New York. Hedges gave...See more
26 October 2011 at 13:18 · ·
LiveVegan http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11961
Charlie Rose - A discussion about Occupy Wall Street
www.charlierose.com
A discussion about Occupy Wall Street with journalist Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!
28 October 2011 at 01:13 · ·
LiveVegan A Master Class in Occupation by Chris Hedges Hedges « Dandelion Salad http://bit.ly/tydjHE Truthdig

Democracy Now! TUNE IN for a round-up report on the weekend's #Occupy actions. STREAM 8am EDT: http://owl.li/7dYlL #ows
A Master Class in Occupation by Chris Hedges
dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
by Chris Hedges Featured Writer Dandelion Salad Truthdig Oct. 31, 2011 ...See more
1 November 2011 at 00:31 · ·
LiveVegan http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/chris-hedges-and-amy-goodman-reverse-the-corporate-coup-detat/
Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman: Reverse the Corporate Coup d’Etat
dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
with Chris Hedges Featured Writer Dandelion Salad Oct. 31, 2011 munderlark...See more
LiveVegan America Is Not A Democracy - Noam Chomsky - YouTube http://bit.ly/lhhddn #OWS
America Is Not A Democracy - Noam Chomsky
www.youtube.com
LiveVegan Noam Chomsky on the most dangerous country in the world - part 1 of 2 - YouTube http://bit.ly/smiEV0 #OWS
Noam Chomsky on the most dangerous country in the world - part 1 of 2
www.youtube.com
Noam Chomsky answers Daniel Guermeur's questions on world topics: most dangerous...See more
18 November 2011 at 14:41 · ·
LiveVegan www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTQE3ADKVI&feature=related
Noam Chomsky on the most dangerous country in the world - part 2 of 2
www.youtube.com
Noam Chomsky answers Daniel Guermeur's questions on world topics: most dangerous...See more
LiveVegan ‎"I'm feeling great! I feel so energized! It's amazing what a little pepper spray will do for you." ~ Dorli Rainey (84 Year Old Activist @ Occupy Seattle)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwo5eumXxyA&feature=related
Olbermann Interviews Dorli Rainey 84 Year Old Pepper Sprayed By Seattle Cops
www.youtube.com
November 16, 2011 CURRENT TV Keith Olbermann http://MOXNews.com/
19 November 2011 at 02:23 · ·
LiveVegan Speaking of human rights, this is an interesting essay by Chris Hedges. I personally don't agree with the small part about self defence but the rest is very interesting

The Zero Point of Systemic Collapse http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-zero-point-of-systemic-collapse-by-chris-hedges/?mid=543
The Zero Point of Systemic Collapse by Chris Hedges
dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
by Chris Hedges Featured Writer Dandelion Salad Feb. 12, 2010 Crossposted ...See more
4 December 2011 at 02:34 · ·
LiveVegan
For those who might be offended by religious references, then this vid is not for you. ;-) but it's well done

Video info "Chris Hedges speaks to Occupy Wall Street at Liberty Square. Calls on religious groups to give real support to OWS mo...See more
Chris Hedges Occupy Wall Street December 3, 2011
www.youtube.com
Chris Hedges speaks to Occupy Wall Street at Liberty Square. Calls on religious ...See more
·
LiveVegan http://tiny.cc/xakw4
The Zero Point of Systemic Collapse by Chris Hedges
dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
by Chris Hedges Featured Writer Dandelion Salad Feb. 12, 2010 Crossposted ...See more
5 December 2011 at 11:50 · ·
LiveVegan http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_time_were_taking_the_whole_planet_with_us_20110307/
Chris Hedges: This Time We’re Taking the Whole Planet With Us - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
www.truthdig.com
We seem condemned as a species to drive ourselves and our societies toward extin...See more
LiveVegan http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AlR9rMrYuHU
Chris Hedges addresses Occupy Harvard November 28 2011 (part 1)
www.youtube.com
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges addresses the student of Occupy H...See more
6 December 2011 at 18:26 · ·
LiveVegan http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eWBv5je0_ns
Unfettered Capitalism - Chris Hedges & Michael Moore
www.youtube.com
A frank discussion of Imperial Capitalism.
12 December 2011 at 23:13 · ·
LiveVegan Chris Hedges "Brace Yourself! The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying!" - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zotYU21qcU
Chris Hedges "Brace Yourself! The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying!"
www.youtube.com
January 01, 2012 C-SPAN http://MOXNews.com/

Chris Hedges "Brace Yourself! The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying!" - YouTube

2012-01-05T22:23:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges "Brace Yourself! The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying!" - YouTube

Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, and the Slavery Analogy by Prof. Gary L. Francione

2012-01-05T13:06:00.000+11:00

Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, and the Slavery Analogy | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

Many vegans become irritated with non-vegans who claim to care morally about animals but who continue to consume them. The former will often invoke an analogy to human slavery. It goes like this: we all agree that the use of humans exclusively as resources–the condition known as human slavery–is morally abhorrent. Similarly, if people think that animals are members of the moral community, then we ought not to be treating them exclusively as resources either and we ought to oppose animal slavery. And if one opposes animal slavery, one adopts and promotes veganism.

Does the analogy work?

Yes and no. The slavery analogy, which I have been using for two decades now, is not particularly compelling if one maintains that nonhumans, unlike human slaves, only have an interest in not suffering and do not have an interest in continued life or in autonomy. And that is a core belief of the welfarist position going back to Bentham–that animals can suffer and have interests in not suffering but are cognitively different from us in that they are not self-aware and do not have an interest in continued existence. To put the matter another way: welfarists maintain that animals do not have an interest in not being slaves per se; they just have an interest in being “happy” slaves. That is the position promoted by Peter Singer, whose neo- or new-welfarist views are derived directly from Bentham. Therefore, it does not matter morally that we use animals but only how we use them. The moral issue is not use but treatment.

Add to this that most welfarists are utilitarians–they maintain that what is right or wrong is determined by what maximizes pleasure or happiness or interest satisfaction for all of those affected–and you end up with the view that as long as an animal does not suffer “too much,” and given that the animal does not have an interest in her life, her having lived a reasonably pleasant life and ended up on human plates is better than her not having lived at all. If we provide a reasonably pleasant life and relatively painless death for animals, we actually confer a benefit on them by bringing them into existence and using them as our resources.

to continue reading: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-animal-welfare-and-the-slavery-analogy/

A message of nonviolence for 2012 - YouTube

2012-01-01T18:32:00.000+11:00

A message of nonviolence for 2012

"Human zoos: When real people were exhibits"

2011-12-31T20:47:00.001+11:00

Human zoos: When real people were exhibits

(We continue to do this to nonhumans. Please go vegan)

Human zoos: When real people were exhibits

By Hugh Schofield BBC News, Paris

Curator Nanette Snoep gives a tour of the Savages exhibition

An exhibition in Paris looks at the history of so-called human zoos, that put inhabitants from foreign lands, mostly African countries, on display as article of curiosity.

Over four centuries from the first voyages of discovery, European societies developed an appetite for exhibiting exotic human "specimens" shipped back to Paris, London or Berlin for the interest and delectation of the crowd.
What started as wide-eyed curiosity on the part of observers turned into ghoulish pseudo-science in the mid-1800s, as researchers sought out physical evidence for their theory of races.
Finally, in high colonial times, hundreds of thousands of people visited "human zoos" created as part of the great international trade fairs.
Here they could watch whole villages of Kanaks or Senegalese, with real-life inhabitants paid to act out war dances or religious rituals before their colonial masters.
The story is told at the Quai Branly museum in Paris until June 2012, mainly through the display of paintings, old photographs, archive film, posters and postcards.
The aim of the exhibition is explicit - to teach how Western societies created a sense of "the other" in regard to foreign peoples, thus legitimising their eventual domination.

“Start Quote

The information allows people to understand why there are still faultlines in society based on the colour of our skins."”

Ex-footballer Liliane Thuram

"What we tried to do is conduct a kind of archaeology of the stereotype," says curator Nanette Snoep.

The display, entitled "Inventing the Savage", was the inspiration of the Caribbean-born former international footballer Liliane Thuram, who today heads his own anti-racism foundation.
"I have long been interested in slavery because of the way my own family was affected by it," says Thuram.
"It became clear to me that racism was above all an intellectual construction. And as such, it was also susceptible to de-construction.
"That's what we are trying to do with the exhibition: putting on display the information that allows people to understand why there are still faultlines in society based on the colour of our skins."
At the start, all was relatively innocent. One of the first paintings is of four Greenlanders brought to the Danish court in 1664 by a Dutch sailor. They stare out with a look as bewildered as those that must have been on the faces of their captors.
"What is fascinating is that on top of the painting are written their names. In other words, at this early stage they are seen as individuals. Exotic yes, but people," says Snoep. "It is later when the names disappear that the relationship deteriorates."
Another early portrait is of the Tahitian man called Omai, who was brought to the court of King George III in London by the explorer Joseph Banks.

Ethnographic displays disappeared after World War II

In his book The Age of Wonder, Richard Holmes describes Omai as "quick-witted, charming and astute. His exotic good looks… were much admired in society, especially among the more racy of the aristocratic ladies."
But describing this same portrait, Holmes adds: "It is not clear if [Omai] is Banks's companion or his trophy."
Guest or specimen? If there was room for ambiguity in the early days - when explorers and explored often found each other mutually intriguing - this disappeared with the new certainties of the colonial epoch.
The saddest emblem of the coming era was the South African Saartjie Baartman, later to be known as the Hottentot Venus. Born around 1780, she was brought to London in 1810 and put on display.
She had the genetic characteristic known as steatopygia - extremely protuberant buttocks and elongated labia - which evidently delighted the cabaret-goers of the British capital.

Can it teach us anything about modern attitudes to race?

Later she came to Paris, and was analysed by the budding racial anthropologists. According to the exhibition catalogue, one scientist described her as having the "buttocks of a mandrill".
When she died in poverty, her skeleton was put on display. It remained on show in the Museum of Mankind in Paris until 1974. In 2002, her remains were repatriated and buried in South Africa.
"Baartman marks the start of the period of description, measurement and classification, which soon leads us to hierarchisation - the idea that there are lesser and greater races," says Snoep.
The climax of the story comes with the imperialist high noon of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
A European public fed on notions of Christian evangelism and cultural superiority was titillated by re-enactments of life in the colonies which became a regular part of international trade fairs.
Entrepreneurs put on travelling stage shows featuring Hindu rope-dancers, Arabian camel-herders, Zulu warriors or hunters from New Caledonia. Whole African villages were recreated to allow Europeans a glimpse of "primitive" living.
The most famous impresario was "Buffalo Bill" Cody whose Wild West shows - according to the exhibition organisers - were another example of racial stereotyping.

“Start Quote

The story helps explain how millions of westerners were manipulated into a belief in the inequality of races”

Voiceover on Inventing the Savage

Some 35,000 people are reckoned to have taken part in the displays. Most were paid.

"They were shows. Public entertainment. The villagers from Africa or India were acting out a role. Significantly there were barriers between the public and the performers, to reinforce the notion of separateness," says Snoep.
These ethnographic displays died out after World War II. Oddly it was Hitler who first banned them. The last was in Belgium in 1958.
The organisers of Inventing the Savage claim that these "human zoos" were seen by 1.4 billion people overall - and that they therefore played an important, and so far unacknowledged, part in the development of modern racism.
"What is left of this incredible story today?" intones the voice-over on a film which is part of the exhibition.
"A view of Africa and its people that is still contemptuous. A certain way in the West of believing oneself superior. Above all the story helps explain how millions of westerners were manipulated into a belief in the inequality of races."
Inventing the Savage provides plenty of food for thought, and there is no-one alive today who would for a minute defend the practice of human ethnographic exhibitions.

Belgium hosted the last such display in 1958

The show has been well-received but has come into some criticism for what some see as its heavy-handed didacticisim - as well as a kind of historical cherry-picking that leaves out what does not fit the message.
There is no mention for example of what the human "exhibits" themselves thought when brought to Europe. They are presented as victims, nothing more. Nor are the reactions of the audience explored. Maybe these were more complex than mere colonial self-satisfaction.
Writing in the left-wing newspaper Libération, columnist Marcela Iacub detects in the show "the frankly conservative role… of militant anti-racists and the consensus that they seek to create."
The spirit of the exhibition, she says, is a kind of "censorship, accompanied by the promotion of pedagogical, uplifting messages that will eradicate in us all those dangerous ideas that survive."
Iacub says it is ironic that it was just that kind of misguided moral superiority - the need to improve the unenlightened - that led to Europeans colonising Africa in the first place.
"In the eyes of the militant anti-racist, we are all violent, easily manipulated, barbarous, bloodthirsty, and incapable of thinking without the aid of people to teach us. In fact just like the 'savage' of old!"

Human zoos: When real people were exhibits

2011-12-31T20:40:00.000+11:00

Human zoos: When real people were exhibits

Next time an Indian friend or a Jain friend says that cows in India are respected .......

2011-12-31T18:07:00.001+11:00

Next time an Indian friend or a Jain friend says that cows in India are respected .......

Next time an Indian friend or a Jain friend says that cows in India are respected and that any dairy operations respect cows, therefore using dairy products is acceptable, please remember
1) this is a myth
2) any use of a nonhuman is violence and exploitation no matter how "respectful" it may appear.
3) the best way to respect cows and other sentient beings is to go vegan and educate others to do so http://www.veganpamphlet.com/
4) there's no such thing as non-abusive use and there's no such thing as a "humane" slaughterhouse and even if there were, it would still be unjust.
Corey Lee Wrenn: "A lot of Indians still revere the cow, but they also use them for milk and labour...and most of the world's leather comes from them. I've seen a video of an Indian slaughterhouse. It was one of the most gruesome. I mean sawing away at the neck at a fully conscious animal with a dull kitchen knife...while her friend stands 2 feet away watching, waiting her turn.

I believe that it's still illegal to slaughter cows in much if not all of India, so they are often transported over long distances to regions where their slaughter is legal. Chilli peppers are often rubbed into their eyes and their tails twisted and broken to keep them moving. Many cows are sold by impoverished families who desperately need the money. Many of these cows on these death marches are also old, lame, and sick. It's a very sad, sad thing.

This whole religious aspect also stands as a major hindrance to promoting veganism in India...because 1. people think cows are sacred and its asking them to forgo a practice that is strongly linked to their religion 2. most Indians have NO idea what really happens to these cows."

Please view this: The myth of India's sacred cow and reverent exploitation http://www.examiner.com/vegan-in-roanoke/the-myth-of-india-s-sacred-cow-and-reverent-exploitation

Ahimsa and Veganism
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/Ahimsa.pdf

Lower your Himsa Footprint:
http://veganjains.com/2011/12/17/lower-your-himsa-footprint/

Not vegan? Please start here http://www.bostonvegan.org

I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice | Quotes on Slavery

2011-12-30T22:44:00.000+11:00

I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice | Quotes on Slavery

Festivus For the Rest of us - YouTube

2011-12-26T18:42:00.000+11:00

Festivus For the Rest of us - YouTube

Noam Chomsky: The Fate of the Human Species « Dandelion Salad

2011-12-24T15:58:00.000+11:00

Noam Chomsky: The Fate of the Human Species

Noam Chomsky Interview - Part 1 from Pierhead Sessions TV on Vimeo.

All forms of discrimination are related.......

2011-12-24T15:09:00.000+11:00

All forms of discrimination are related

All forms of discrimination are related. Sexism = speciesism = ableism = classism = heterosexism = racism and so on. They all cause violence. If we want a nonviolent world, it starts with us. It's not some abstract idea.
A nonviolent life begins when we start to dismantle our own prejudices.

A nonviolent life begins when we recognize our interconnectedness with all sentient beings and the planet.

A nonviolent life begins when we stop "otherizing" sentient beings.

A nonviolent life begins when we stop viewing the planet as ours, as something to be used up and destroyed.

A nonviolent life begins when we stop using other animals as property, as "things", as resources and that means that we must stop eating, wearing and using other animals and become vegan.

Nonviolence = veganism.

If you are not vegan, you have not begun a life of nonviolence. Please go vegan http://www.veganapamphlet.com/

This is adorable: Inhabitat How to: Make Vegan Pumpkin Cupcakes - With Petey - YouTube

2011-12-24T09:08:00.000+11:00

Inhabitat How to: Make Vegan Pumpkin Cupcakes - With Petey - YouTube

Advice for vegans during the holiday season:

2011-12-21T22:27:00.001+11:00

Being vegan at a celebration which revolves around murdered animals and animal secretions (Xmas celebrations) can be a particularly difficult time for vegans. But if you prepare yummy vegan food to bring to the event, and if others know you are an ethical vegan just by example, this is a powerful statement.

If you want to mention veganism to someone, don't bring it up while they are eating animal products. Wait until you are away from the table and in a neutral situation.

**Most importantly, don't apologize for refusing to participate in violence.***

If someone is mocking you for not consuming animal products, please don't be tempted to give back in kind. They are only making themselves look foolish and are uncomfortable because somewhere inside them, they know what they are doing is wrong, and they respond by disparaging you. Don't become angry, because that's what they are hoping for. Just politely excuse yourself from their company and if possible go talk to some other people or go outside for while and take some deep breaths ;-) Being prepared mentally prior to the event for various scenarios is a good idea.
Another suggestion is to opt to organise your own vegan event and invite whomever, and have a real celebration of peace. Invite friends who have no family or whose family is completely unsupportive. So many people are alone, lonely and sometimes even suicidal at Xmas.

You could also choose to fast on the day of Xmas in response to the gluttony that is promoted at Xmas and be mindful of the 100s of thousands of starving children right now in Somalia and the Horn of Africa.

Also, one can choose to volunteer at a homeless shelter or a women's shelters etc, or just choose to donate to a humanitarian group or a group like "The Fruit Tree Planting Foundation".

And if possible, consider meditating on peace and nonviolence on the day, because nonviolence is desperately needed in the world and it starts with you and I.

If you're not vegan. Please go vegan. It's easy. It's better for your health, and for the planet --because animal use is an ecological nightmare -- and most importantly, it's the morally right and just thing to do.

The World is Vegan
If You Want It!
http://www.theworldisvegan.com/

=============

From Gary L Francione:
Three suggestions to celebrate peace this holiday season:

First, don't consume. Take the money that you plan to spend on acquiring more things and give that money to someone or to a family who needs help in these very difficult times. Or get vegan food to support the good folks at a local Occupy site.

Second, if you are not vegan, go vegan and stop eating, wearing, or consuming animal products. There is no justification for it.

Third, adopt a homeless animal. There are so many who need you!

Eric Bibb - I heard the angels singing - YouTube

2011-12-20T00:00:00.000+11:00

Eric Bibb - I heard the angels singing - YouTube

"Compassion Over Killing and Quorn collaborate, nonhuman animals lose" by Corey Wrenn

2011-12-19T13:15:00.000+11:00

Compassion Over Killing and Quorn collaborate, nonhuman animals lose - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

"Vegan Outreach: Ultimate goal is not veganism " by Corey Wrenn

2011-12-18T16:21:00.000+11:00

Vegan Outreach: Ultimate goal is not veganism - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

In their December 17 enewsletter, titled, "VO Feedback: Remembering the Ultimate Goal," Vegan Outreach makes it crystal clear that their "ultimate goal," paradoxically, is not to promote veganism. This is clarified in a referenced statement by co-founder and executive director, Matt Ball:

[ . . . ] always remember your ultimate goal. In my case, it is the alleviation of suffering.

According to Vegan Outreach literature, "alleviating suffering" can mean any number of speciesist behaviors: reductionism, vegetarianism, participation in welfare reform, etc. This "ultimate goal" is bewildering, as just ten days prior, Vegan Outreach makes this statement on their blog:

But more and more of us aren't satisfied with a world that seems a little less bad. We want a world that is fundamentally different, where animals aren't viewed as food.

How are they going to achieve this fundamental change if they insist on supporting speciesist consumption, which, by the way, continues to view nonhuman animals as food? How are they going to achieve this fundamental change if they mention veganism as only one of many potential options? What's more, Vegan Outreach often goes out of its way to portray veganism negatively. For example, in a 2009 presentation that Vegan Outreach has been circulating as of late, president and co-founder Jack Norris describes veganism as appearing "uptight" and "difficult." Further, he warns, focusing on veganism detracts from donations. As we know, donations are very important for organizations like Vegan Outreach. Without donations, Vegan Outreach could not afford to keep printing anti-vegan literature, nor could it afford to hire "veganish" utilitarians to pass out that literature to impressionable young people on college campuses. It's a very confused, self-perpetuating system.

Veganism, Norris criticizes, is an "all-or-nothing" approach. It's a sad state of affairs when an organization that calls itself Vegan Outreach tells us that nonviolence isn't all-or-nothing. To the contrary, I argue that no one should ever support rape, murder, pedophilia, nonhuman animal exploitation, or any other form of violence: not under any circumstance or to any degree. Denouncing violence is all-or-nothing. We have no business whatsoever condoning any form of violence against humans and nonhumans alike. Then again, this is to be expected from a group whose ultimate goal is reducing suffering, not eliminating suffering.

At the end of his presentation, Norris states:

If you are veg*n to prevent animal suffering, say it. The more people hear it, the sooner they’ll accept it as legitimate.

If only he could heed his own words and embrace veganism. We can never expect veganism to appear any less optional or any less "difficult" so long as the organizational face of veganism portrays it as such. We owe it to the nonhuman animals to unequivocally promote veganism as the very least we can do in our fight to end violence and inequality. And, as Norris says, the more people hear it, the sooner they'll accept it as legitimate.

Iraqi Women's Activist Rebuffs US Claims of a Freer Iraq: "This Is Not a Democratic Country" - YouTube

2011-12-17T04:13:00.000+11:00

Iraqi Women's Activist Rebuffs US Claims of a Freer Iraq: "This Is Not a Democratic Country" - YouTube

UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people

2011-12-17T03:59:00.000+11:00

UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people

The Costs of War: Tens of Thousands Dead, Billions Spent, and a Country Torn Apart - YouTube

2011-12-17T03:51:00.000+11:00

The Costs of War: Tens of Thousands Dead, Billions Spent, and a Country Torn Apart - YouTube

"Heifer International: a noble idea with some serious flaws" by Corey Wrenn

2011-12-14T11:52:00.001+11:00

Heifer International: a noble idea with some serious flaws - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

My note: Please do not support animal slavery this holiday season (or anytime) by supporting organisations which exploit animals. And remember, the public create demand for animal products. We are the real animal exploiters. If you are not vegan, please go vegan. It's easy. It's better for your health, for the planet because animal use is an ecological nightmare, and most importantly, it's the morally right and just thing to do http://www.veganpamphlet.com Not vegan? start here http://www.bostonvegan.org

Heifer International, a charity that donates livestock to impoverished non-Western peoples, claims that you can "change the world one animal at a time." The gift of a nonhuman animal, they argue, will help end hunger and poverty. I beg to differ. In fact, this program is simply a manifestation of elitist, neoliberal domination and only further entrenches systems of inequality.
Health and Hunger

Today, millions of people who were once hungry will be nourished by milk, eggs…

In fact, consumption of nonhuman animal products is linked to many serious chronic diseases including heart disease and cancer. As non-Western peoples begin to incorporate nonhuman animal products into their diets, they begin to exhibit the same health problems as Western peoples. Breeze Harper has critiqued these forced patterns of Western consumption on nonwhites, calling it a colonization of the diet. Imposed reliance on nonhuman animal products, she argues, constitutes racism and an elitist view of culinary ideologies. And, the health problems inflicted by the nonhuman animal-based Western diet further weaken and disempower these peoples.
What's more, milk, eggs, and flesh are extremely resource intensive and hopelessly inefficient. Hunger would be better alieviated if the grains, vegetables, and water being funneled into nonhuman animal production went directly to human consumption. When we cut out livestock, there is much more food to go around.
Environmental Health and Sustainability

Many international organizations are increasingly warning about the environmental devastation resultant from globalizing reliance on nonhuman animal production. The United Nations cites animal agriculture as responsible for 18% of global warming; the World Watch Institute cites as much as 51%. And, no matter how "sustainable" the operation, nonhuman animal agriculture is inherently resource inefficient and intensive. It invariably pollutes the air, land, and water. It also begets desertification, habitat loss, and conflicts with native species. Non-Western regions already experience an unequal burden of global environmental problems (much of which is created in the West). Increasing their reliance on deleterious nonhuman animal agriculture is nothing short of insulting.
The Ideology of Inequality

Most importantly, nonhuman animals are persons. They are not property to be gifted. By presenting these nonhumans as economic commodities, it exacerbates the notion that nonhumans are nonpersons: they become capital. Attempting to remedy extreme human inequality with another system of inequality is nonsensical.
Imposing destructive Western practices on non-Western peoples will not solve a history of detrimental neoliberal domination and subsequent global inequality. Promoting nonhuman animal use means promoting chronic health problems, disastrous environmental damage, and ideological complacency with exploitation of the vulnerable. Combating global inequality is no easy matter: it is the product of centuries of exploitative and disempowering practices. If we want to better the lives of the undernourished and impoverished, we should look to programs that seriously consider empowering those peoples without reinforcing systems of colonization that have disastrous physical and ideological consequences.

My Secrets, My Life - YouTube

2011-12-13T19:23:00.000+11:00

My Secrets, My Life - YouTube

Unfettered Capitalism - Chris Hedges & Michael Moore - YouTube

2011-12-12T23:14:00.000+11:00

Unfettered Capitalism - Chris Hedges & Michael Moore - YouTube

"Honey: Why It’s Not Vegan" by Gentle World

2011-12-12T11:49:00.000+11:00

Honey: Why It’s Not Vegan

3 Reasons Not to Eat Honey

by Alisa Rutherford-Fortunati

Post to Facebook
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
Post to Twitter
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Add to LinkedIn
Post to StumbleUpon
Post to Digg
Post to Delicious
Send via E-mail program

“Unique among all God’s creatures, only the honeybee improves the environment and preys not on any other species.”

~ Royden Brown

From the basil plant a strong hum sounds, soft wings vibrate the air, endlessly searching for nectar. To truly watch these amazing creatures plunder and absent-mindedly pollinate these tiny white flowers makes one wonder how such a small creature could make such a large difference in our lives.

Yet without the humble bee:

- The food on your table
- The flowers in your garden
- The clothes on your back

might just disappear.

Bees* pollinate nearly 80% of all fruit, vegetable and seed crops in the U.S. We may be able to spray noxious fertilizers and pesticides on plants to “rid” ourselves of some problems (and create new ones). But we have yet to create a chemical that can successfully pollinate large crops. Nonetheless, we have still created an agricultural system that is in danger of killing one of its strongest contributors, in the pursuit of easy pollination and honey.

*Although there are numerous species of bees that pollinate flowers/crops, this job has been disproportionately taken over by farmed honeybees.

We’ve been tricked into believing that honey is simply a byproduct of the essential pollination provided by farmed honeybees. Did you know though that the honeybee’s wild counterparts (such as bumblebees, carpenter and digger bees) are much better pollinators? They are also less likely than farmed honeybees to be affected by mites and Africanized bees. The issue is that these native bees can hibernate for up to 11 months out of the year and do not live in large colonies. Thus, they do not produce massive amounts of honey. Enter a $157 million dollar a year industry and three reasons you should stop eating honey today.

Give the bees a break.

While you may spread a heaping tablespoon of honey on your morning toast without thinking, creating each drop is no small feat. To make one pound of honey, a colony must visit over two million flowers, flying over 55,000 miles, at up to 15 miles per hour to do so. During a bee’s lifetime, she will only make approximately one teaspoon of honey, which is essential to the hive for times when nectar is scarce, such as during winter. At times there may be an excess in the hive, but this amount is difficult to determine and large-scale beekeepers often remove all or most of it and replace it with a sugar or corn syrup substitute. Can you imagine someone removing all the fruit juice from your house and replacing it with fruit-flavored soda? It may still give you energy, but eventually it will probably make you sick.

Another thing to think about while you sit by your beeswax candle and contemplate the lives of these little fellows is that bees must consume approximately eight pounds of honey to produce each pound of wax! And the more we take from them (bee pollen, royal jelly, propolis) the harder these creatures must work and the more bees are needed, which isn’t good news for a population that is dwindling.

When you see a jar of honey, you may think of the sweet cartoon hives depicted in childhood stories such as Winnie the Pooh. But most hives are now confined to large boxes (a completely foreign shape to bees) that are jostled and shipped around the country to pollinate crops and produce honey. This is stressful and confusing to the bees’ natural navigation systems. Along the way, bees are lost and killed, and may spread diseases from one infected hive to another. The practice of bee farming often limits the bees’ diet to monoculture crops (*hint hint* blueberry, clover, lavender honey), introduces large amounts of pesticides into their systems and causes the farmed bees to crowd out the native wild pollinators that may have been otherwise present. Beekeepers (even small-scale backyard beekeepers) will also kill the queens if they feel the hive is in danger of swarming (fleeing their file cabinet shaped homes) or drones* that they deem unnecessary to honey production.

* The drones’ main function is to fertilize the queen when needed.

Honey is meant as a health food; a health food for bees. The more we interfere with their natural processes, both by relying on farmed bees as pollinators (rather then other native wild bees, insects or animals) and to feed our desires for “sweets,” the closer we’re coming to agricultural disaster.

The Case of the Disappearing Bees

The question of what will happen if bees disappear may not be far from being answered. Over the past couple of years, stories about bees disappearing and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) have been popping up in the The New York Times, Star Tribune, Huffington Post, PBS, Discovery News and more. If nothing else wakes us up, perhaps the fact that the disappearance of bees has become front page news will. Scientists are rushing to discover what’s causing this problem before it’s too late and before we lose the important environmental link created by bees.

Thus far, there are three main theories/contributing factors:

Pesticides

Pennsylvania State University published a study in 2010 that found “unprecedented levels” of pesticides in honeybees and hives in the United States. (If it’s in the bees and hives, what do you think is in your honey?) Some of these chemicals are killing bees, and guess what? The EPA knows about it.

“The EPA identifies two specific neonicotinoids, imidacloprid and clothianidin, as highly toxic to bees. Both chemicals cause symptoms in bees such as memory loss, navigation disruption, paralysis and death.

Both chemicals have been linked in dramatic honeybee deaths and subsequent suspensions of their use in France and Germany. Several European countries have already suspended them. Last year Slovenia and Italy also suspended their use for what they consider a significant risk to honeybee populations.”

- Mother Earth News

This is old news; this story came out in 2009. But has anything changed here? Not as far as I can tell.

Mites and Viruses

With weakened immune systems (stress, inferior food sources, pesticides etc.) bees have become more susceptible to viruses, fungal infections and mites. Many of these invasive bugs are spread as hives are moved around the country or transferred from country to country.

While there are a number of treatments on the market for the mites, viruses, funguses and other pests that are attacking our colonies, none have solved the problem completely. These treatments can also introduce antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals into the hives in an attempt to prevent or heal infection. If these chemicals (often on strips) are not removed from the hive after they lose potency, they can in fact help the viruses or mites become resistant to treatment in the future.

Cell phones

This is one of the newest theories on CCD and may need further testing.

“According to a Swiss researcher who recently published a paper on the subject, the electromagnetic waves from mobile phones have a significant impact on the behavior of honeybees and could potentially be harming honeybees around the world.”

“To test the relationship between honeybees and buzzing cellphones, he placed phones inside bee hives and then monitored the bees’ reaction. He found that in the presence of actively communicating cellphones (those not in standby mode), bees produced the sounds known as “worker piping,” which tends to indicate disturbance in a bee colony.”

– ABC News

Cell phones, pesticides and viruses aside, commercial bee farming – whether organic (where bee deaths are fewer, but still occur) or conventional – does not provide bees with the opportunity to live out their normal life cycle. No matter how small the animal, farming is farming. Whether you choose to buy backyard honey or a large brand, eating honey and using other bee products encourages using bees for profit.

Still have a hankering for some honey? Well the next fact might change just that.

The True Story of Honey Production

Honeybees are the only insects that create a food that we eat*, which should tip us off to the fact that something is amiss.

* There are other insect-produced substances (such as shellac) and products derived from parts of insects (cochineal or carmine) that may be used in food, but they are not considered food in and of themselves. Some insects are also eaten as food, but honey remains the one product “created by” insects that is actually marketed as a food.

This is the true story of how this “healthy sweetener” is produced:

The bees search for a source of nectar.
When they find a suitable flower they dig in and swallow the nectar into their ‘crop’ (like a stomach for honey).

Not too bad so far… But wait.

The bees then chew the regurgitated nectar, mixing it with saliva to add enzymes.
Then they swallow it again.
Then they regurgitate it again.
This process is repeated…many, many times.

If we could see this process in action, would we really want to slather this substance on our toast? While some people may shrug and say ‘so what?’, the fact is that honey is a mix of regurgitated food and spit.

Let me ask you this:

Is there any other food that you would willingly eat that has been swallowed, vomited, mixed with spit, re chewed, swallowed and then regurgitated again? I don’t care how sweet it is, or what the “health benefits” are, one of my rules for life is: Do not eat anything that came out of another animal’s stomach.

The lives of bees are complex: they feel pain, they dance to communicate and they view the world through Technicolor eyes. While they may not directly offer their help to us, we should be grateful for all they do willingly and ask no more.

I hope that next time you see a bee, you will watch more closely and show your appreciation for their work by planting a flower-rich garden and leaving the honey, wax and other bee products for those winged creatures that truly need them.

Even the smallest of creatures deserves the right to live their lives free from being part of a production line.

Is Your Alcohol Vegan?
Shellac & Food Glaze
Natural Colors – Carmine & Cochineal

"I'm Scared For My Future": Student Disrupts Speech By US Climate Envoy Todd Stern in Durban - YouTube

2011-12-09T18:05:00.000+11:00

"I'm Scared For My Future": Student Disrupts Speech By US Climate Envoy Todd Stern in Durban - YouTube

Taxing meat

2011-12-08T18:17:00.000+11:00

A good way to reduce demand: internalize some of the hideous health care costs caused by animal products: http://yhoo.it/umIsyb

Taxing meat could make us thinner

Fighting ageism

2011-12-07T01:01:00.000+11:00

Fighting ageism

Where Were You When They Crucified My Movement? by Chris Hedges

2011-12-05T23:33:00.000+11:00

Where Were You When They Crucified My Movement? by Chris Hedges
FAIR USE NOTICE

Posted on December 5, 2011 by dandelionsalad

by Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Truthdig
Dec. 5, 2011

[Note: See video of Chris Hedges' speech in Liberty Square on Dec. 3, 2011. ~ DS]

Chris Hedges gave an abbreviated version of this talk Saturday morning in Liberty Square in New York City as part of an appeal to Trinity Church to turn over to the Occupy Wall Street movement an empty lot, known as Duarte Square, that the church owns at Canal Street and 6th Avenue. Occupy Wall Street protesters, following the call, began a hunger strike at the gates of the church-owned property. Three of the demonstrators were arrested Sunday on charges of trespassing, and three others took their places.

The Occupy movement is the force that will revitalize traditional Christianity in the United States or signal its moral, social and political irrelevance. The mainstream church, battered by declining numbers and a failure to defiantly condemn the crimes and cruelty of the corporate state, as well as a refusal to vigorously attack the charlatans of the Christian right, whose misuse of the Gospel to champion unfettered capitalism, bigotry and imperialism is heretical, has become a marginal force in the life of most Americans, especially the young. Outside the doors of churches, many of which have trouble filling a quarter of the pews on Sundays, struggles a movement, driven largely by young men and women, which has as its unofficial credo the Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons and daughters of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

It was the church in Latin America, especially in Central American and Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, which provided the physical space, moral support and direction for the opposition to dictatorship. It was the church in East Germany that organized the peaceful opposition marches in Leipzig that would bring down the communist regime in that country. It was the church in Czechoslovakia, and its 90-year-old cardinal, that blessed and defended the Velvet Revolution. It was the church, and especially the African-American church, that made possible the civil rights movements. And it is the church, especially Trinity Church in New York City with its open park space at Canal and 6th, which can make manifest its commitment to the Gospel and nonviolent social change by permitting the Occupy movement to use this empty space, just as churches in other cities that hold unused physical space have a moral imperative to turn them over to Occupy movements. If this nonviolent movement fails, it will eventually be replaced by one that will employ violence. And if it fails it will fail in part because good men and women, especially those in the church, did nothing.

Where is the church now? Where are the clergy? Why do so many church doors remain shut? Why do so many churches refuse to carry out the central mandate of the Christian Gospel and lift up the cross?

Some day they are going to have to answer the question: “Where were you when they crucified my Lord?”

Let me tell you on this first Sunday in Advent, when we celebrate hope, when we remember in the church how Mary and Joseph left Nazareth for Bethlehem, why I am in Liberty Square. I am here because I have tried, however imperfectly, to live by the radical message of the Gospel. I am here because I know that it is not what we say or profess but what we do. I am here because I have seen in my many years overseas as a foreign correspondent that great men and women of moral probity arise in all cultures and all religions to fight the oppressor on behalf of the oppressed. I am here because I have seen that it is possible to be a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu or an atheist and carry the cross. The words are different but the self-sacrifice and thirst for justice are the same. And these men and women, who may not profess what I profess or believe what I believe, are my brothers and sisters. And I stand with them honoring and respecting our differences and finding hope and strength and love in our common commitment.

At times like these I hear the voices of the saints who went before us. The suffragist Susan B. Anthony, who announced that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God, and the suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who said, “The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls.” Or Henry David Thoreau, who told us we should be men and women first and subjects afterward, that we should cultivate a respect not for the law but for what is right. And Frederick Douglass, who warned us: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” And the great 19th century populist Mary Elizabeth Lease, who thundered: “Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master.” And Gen. Smedley Butler, who said that after 33 years and four months in the Marine Corps he had come to understand that he had been nothing more than a gangster for capitalism, making Mexico safe for American oil interests, making Haiti and Cuba safe for banks and pacifying the Dominican Republic for sugar companies. War, he said, is a racket in which newly dominated countries are exploited by the financial elites and Wall Street while the citizens foot the bill and sacrifice their young men and women on the battlefield for corporate greed. Or Eugene V. Debs, the socialist presidential candidate, who in 1912 pulled almost a million votes, or 6 percent, and who was sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for opposing the First World War, and who told the world: “While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” And Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who when he was criticized for walking with Martin Luther King on the Sabbath in Selma answered: “I pray with my feet” and who quoted Samuel Johnson, who said: “the opposite of good is not evil. The opposite of good is indifference.” And Rosa Parks, who defied the segregated bus system and said “the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.” And Philip Berrigan, who said: “If enough Christians follow the Gospel, they can bring any state to its knees.”

And the poet Langston Hughes, who wrote:

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
Like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
Like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

And Martin Luther King, who said: “On some positions, cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ And there comes a time when a true follower of Jesus Christ must take a stand that’s neither safe nor politic nor popular but he must take a stand because it is right.”

Where were you when they crucified my Lord?

Were you there to halt the genocide of Native Americans? Were you there when Sitting Bull died on the cross? Were you there to halt the enslavement of African-Americans? Were you there to halt the mobs that terrorized black men, women and even children with lynching during Jim Crow? Were you there when they persecuted union organizers and Joe Hill died on the cross? Were you there to halt the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in World War II? Were you there to halt Bull Connor’s dogs as they were unleashed on civil rights marchers in Birmingham? Were you there when Martin Luther King died upon the cross? Were you there when Malcolm X died on the cross? Were you there to halt the hate crimes, discrimination and violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and those who are transgender? Were you there when Matthew Shepard died on the cross? Were you there to halt the abuse and at times slavery of workers in the farmlands of this country? Were you there to halt the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese during the war in Vietnam or hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan? Were you there to halt Israel’s saturation bombing of Lebanon and Gaza? Were you there when Rachel Corrie died on the cross? Were you there to halt the corporate forces that have left working men and women and the poor in this country bereft of a sustainable income, hope and dignity? Were you there to share your food with your neighbor in Liberty Square? Were you there to become homeless with them?

Where were you when they crucified my Lord?

I know where I was.

Here.

With you.

Chris Hedges spent two decades as a foreign reporter covering wars in Latin America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. His latest books are Death of the Liberal Class, and The World as It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress.

see

Chris Hedges: #OWS – Where Were You When They Crucified My Lord? (video of speech)

Noam Chomsky at Kutztown University - Nov. 21, 2011 - YouTube

2011-12-05T22:39:00.000+11:00

Noam Chomsky at Kutztown University - Nov. 21, 2011 - YouTube

The Zero Point of Systemic Collapse by Chris Hedges

2011-12-04T01:45:00.000+11:00

The Zero Point of Systemic Collapse by Chris Hedges

Excerpt:

Obama, like Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the other heads of the industrialized nations, has proven as craven a tool of the corporate state as George W. Bush. Our democratic system has been transformed into what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin labels inverted totalitarianism. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, a free press, parliamentary systems and constitutions while manipulating and corrupting internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens but are ruled by armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington, Ottawa or other state capitals who author the legislation and get the legislators to pass it. A corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion. Mass culture, owned and disseminated by corporations, diverts us with trivia, spectacles and celebrity gossip. In classical totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. “Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true,” Wolin writes. “Economics dominates politics – and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness.”

Inverted totalitarianism wields total power without resorting to cruder forms of control such as gulags, concentration camps or mass terror. It harnesses science and technology for its dark ends. It enforces ideological uniformity by using mass communication systems to instill profligate consumption as an inner compulsion and to substitute our illusions of ourselves for reality. It does not forcibly suppress dissidents, as long as those dissidents remain ineffectual. And as it diverts us it dismantles manufacturing bases, devastates communities, unleashes waves of human misery and ships jobs to countries where fascists and communists know how to keep workers in line. It does all this while waving the flag and mouthing patriotic slogans. “The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed,” Wolin writes."

"The power of words: welfarists, new welfarists, and Francionites" by Corey Lee Wrenn

2011-12-03T22:18:00.000+11:00

The power of words: welfarists, new welfarists, and Francionites

Increasingly, activists are finding the terms “welfarist” and “new welfarist” problematic and even insulting. These words, they argue, are used in a derogatory sense meant to otherize and offend.

Certainly, how language is used has real consequences. Critical discourse analysis examines language as a social practice of socio-political domination and argues that our words are never neutral. As an example, take a moment and list all the possible insults you can think of. How many of them refer to women, homosexuals, and nonhumans? Consider the implications of these negative associations in our language. Words have power.

But are “welfarist” and "new welfarist" derogatory? Gary Francione popularized the terms in his 1996 book Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. According to Francione, one is defined as a welfarist when they focus on reforming nonhuman animal use with no goal of abolishing exploitative institutions. Activists are defined as new welfarist when they seek to end nonhuman animal use but adopt welfarist strategies of reform to reach abolition. Supporting single-issue campaigns and consumption reductionism is also linked to new welfarism. Francione explains:

New welfarism is the view that there is a causal relationship between animal welfare reform and abolition in that the former will lead to the latter, and is the best (or only) way to achieve abolition. I have argued that new welfarism is problematic both morally and practically.

The terms “welfarist” and “new welfarist,” then, are used to describe tactical approaches. They are not inherently derogatory, though Francione emphasizes the moral and practical implications of supporting such tactics. Certainly, to be accused of strengthening the institutions of nonhuman animal use through counterproductive measures would be deemed offensive by anyone who takes the interests of nonhumans seriously. Yet, the terms can only be understood as accurate when one works to achieve insignificant changes to exploitative industries in hopes of one day abolishing that use. For example, PETA’s Controlled Atmosphere Killing campaign seeks to replace current slaughter methods for chickens with a supposedly more “humane” gassing technique. In their economic report, however, they emphasize how the new technique would reduce loss and increase efficiency. There is no intention of ending use with this campaign. PETA hopes to improve welfare by promoting reform. This makes PETA welfarist. Similarly, when activists promote Meat-Free Mondays or cage-free campaigns, those activists are engaging in welfarist behavior and this makes them welfarists. Furthermore, when activists uncritically engage reform-focused organizations or otherwise remain neutral to welfarist advocacy, this implies complacency with the welfarist hegemony.

Alternatively, those who ascribe to the abolitionist approach to nonhuman animal rights are increasingly labeled as “Francionites.” This term is particularly loaded. The suffix “ite” denotes blind adherence to a leader and a doctrine. The implication here is that abolitionism is similar to a religious sect, Gary Francione is akin to an authoritarian cult leader, and those who ascribe to his theory are mindless followers. There can be no question that the term is intentionally meant to undermine and is decidedly derogatory.

Furthermore, because welfarism is the dominant paradigm in the nonhuman animal rights movement, welfarists control meaning construction. That is, ideas, norms, values, etc.are shaped by the welfarist worldview. Welfarism is in the majority, abolitionism is in the minority. Welfarism enjoys power and influence. Abolitionism must struggle for recognition. Terms like “Francionite” are intended to debase abolitionist claims and further alienate abolition from mainstream nonhuman animal rights discourse.

Further, even if abolitionists were to use the terms “welfarist” and “new welfarist” in a derogatory sense, their impact would be comparably insignificant. Welfarist ideology has become part of the movement's everyday common sense. And, so long as welfarism makes up the dominant paradigm, it renders abolitionist retaliation impotent. Consider this dynamic in other systems of majority/minority interactions. For example, women are routinely sexually objectified, but sometimes, so are men. However, we live in a patricarical society, so the reprecussions are much different for women than they are for men. In another example, a Black person might call a White person a cracker. Is the effect the same as a White person calling a Black person the “n word”? Because we live in a White-dominated society, the effects of derogatory language on Blacks is significantly more harmful in its consequences.

Words are used to subjugate, otherize, and disempower. Welfarist opponents may call us Francionites, disgusted by our absolutist stance against nonhuman animal exploitation. Yet, abolitionists have no shame in taking an absolutist stance against any injustice. We have no interest in partnering with exploiters or in condoning reformed exploitation. We only have interest in abolishing it. Francione's theory is simply consistent with the justice we owe to nonhumans. The abolitionist movement is comprised of individuals who want nothing more than to make the best and most lasting change for nonhuman animals. Welfarist tactics have failed to make any significant improvements for nonhumans in the 200 or more years it has existed. It is clear that focusing on reform and single issues is confusing and counterproductive. We need to focus on consistent vegan education. In this respect, we must be uncompromising. If that makes us “Francionites,” then so be it.

FAIR USE NOTICE

UNTV: 21st Century - India: Forgotten Women

2011-12-02T19:11:00.000+11:00

UNTV: 21st Century - India: Forgotten Women

They number nearly 250 million worldwide ... almost half of them live in extreme poverty. They are widows, many discriminated against and relegated to a life of isolation. In India, we get a glimpse of what life is like for these forgotten women. Here's our story. 21st Century - Show 59 - India: Forgotten Women Script (pdf): http://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/21century59.pdf

"Gary Francione, leader in abolitionist animal rights and vegan outreach" by Corey Wrenn

2011-12-02T17:57:00.001+11:00

Gary Francione, leader in abolitionist animal rights and vegan outreach

Our advocacy must vegan-based and must focus on eradicating the property status of nonhuman animals. In this, we must focus on abolishing animal use, not reforming it. These are the basic principles of abolitionist nonhuman animal rights theory as developed by Gary Francione.
Professor Francione’s passion for nonhuman animal rights began with a fortuitous visit to a slaughterhouse in Virginia several decades ago. Horrified at what he saw, Francione rejected the unnecessary suffering and harm that nonhuman animals endured. He became a vegan in 1982 and from there he became involved with the nonhuman animal rights movement. However, he became increasingly critical of ineffectual tactics endorsed the mainstream organizations and their questionable affiliations with institutional exploiters.
Professor Francione has authored several influential books and articles in the field of nonhuman animal rights theory and philosophy, notably Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? and Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (all profits collected from his book sales are donated to rescue organizations). While the mainstream welfarist movement has largely obscured Francione’s work, increased internet access in the early 2000’s and the arrival of his website, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, gave audience to his theory and groundbreaking critical analysis of the modern nonhuman animal rights movement. He is also a professor of law at Rutger’s University, inspiring classrooms to consider the personhood of nonhuman animals each semester.
Unique among theorists and many activist professionals and celebrities in the nonhuman animal rights movement, Professor Francione is remarkably accessible to grassroots activists, students, the media, and other interested parties and newcomers. He is a regular presence on internet forums, podcasts, Twitter, and other electronic communities and works tirelessly to inspire and educate.
With his passionate and diligent promotion of nonhuman animal rights and veganism, Gary Francione instills much needed hope and optimism in activists who strive for a nonviolent society that sees all animals, human and nonhuman as persons worthy of equal consideration. Francione has inspired hundreds, if not thousands, of activists to embrace veganism as a moral obligation to all sentient beings and to never compromise in the goal for abolishing the property status for all individuals.

[I]f the world is ever going to change, and I believe that it can, it will do so because of a fundamental paradigm shift, a revolution of the heart. And that revolution will not be brought to us courtesy of any groups that "sell" compassion as a commodity packaged as this or that single-issue campaign that can be supported with a "donate" button. A paradigm shift involves a different way of looking at things. It comes from the inside as an expression of the spirit of nonviolence and the most effective thing that we can do is to help others to realize their own nonviolent nature.
-- Gary L. Francione

Please be sure to visit Professor Francione's site, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, for informative essays, videos, interviews, podcasts, discussion, and outreach materials.

US Congressman Dennis Kucinich: We Need to Restore Democracy; Private Contributions to Federal Elections Must End

2011-12-02T17:52:00.000+11:00

We Need to Restore Democracy; Private Contributions to Federal Elections Must End - YouTube

Watch Native Americans Mark Day of Mourning on Thanksgiving: 'We are not Vanishing, We Are Not Conquered'

2011-12-02T17:51:00.000+11:00

Native Americans Mark Day of Mourning on Thanksgiving: 'We are not Vanishing, We Are Not Conquered' - YouTube

Veganfreak podcast #94: Gary Francione Interview, Part 1

2011-11-26T17:55:00.000+11:00

Veganfreak - 94: Gary Francione Interview, Part 1

	veganfreak - 94: Gary Francione Interview, Part 1 .mp3

	Found at bee mp3 search engine

It's time for marriage equality in Australia and globally

2011-11-25T15:23:00.000+11:00

It's time. - YouTube

Killing Animals and Making Animals Suffer | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach by Prof. Gary L. Francione

2011-11-22T23:32:00.001+11:00

Killing Animals and Making Animals Suffer | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

The basis of the animal welfare movement, stretching from its inception in the 19th century until the present day, is that animal use is itself acceptable because animals do not have an interest in continuing to live. According to welfarists, nonhuman animals are not self-aware and cognitively sophisticated in the way that humans are. This means that the lives of nonhumans are less valuable than the lives of humans. According to Peter Singer:

While self-awareness, the capacity to think ahead and have hopes and aspirations for the future, the capacity for meaningful relations with others and so on are not relevant to the question of inflicting pain . . . these capacities are relevant to the question of taking life. It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being, capable of abstract thought, of planning for the future, of complex acts of communication, and so on, is more valuable than the life of a being without these capacities.

Welfarists distinguish between killing, which is itself not morally objectionable, and the imposition of “unnecessary” suffering, which is morally objectionable. If we give animals a reasonably pleasant life and a relatively painless death, then our exploitation of animals may be morally acceptable. Again, according to Singer:

If it is the infliction of suffering that we are concerned about, rather than killing, then I can also imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm.

It is this sort of thinking that has given impetus to the “happy” meat/animal products movement that is promoted by Singer and virtually all of the large animal organizations in the U.S. and Europe. Using animals is not the problem; the problem is animal suffering. If we decrease suffering through welfare reforms, then we make animal exploitation less morally objectionable. The public can continue to consume animals and feel good about being “compassionate.”

We should not be surprised that more and more people feel comfortable about consuming animal products. After all, they are being assured by the “experts” that suffering is being decreased and they can buy “happy” meat, “free-range” eggs, etc.. These products even come with labels approved of by animal organizations. The animal welfare movement is actually encouraging the “compassionate” consumption of animal products.

Putting aside that welfare reforms do very little to increase the protection given to animal interests because of the economics involved, the position of the animal welfare movement begs a very important question: it assumes that because animal minds are different from human minds, animals, unlike humans, do not have the sort of self-awareness that translates into having an interest in continuing to live.

A major focus of my work has been to challenge that welfarist assumption and to argue that the only non-speciesist position to take is that any sentient being–any being who is perceptually aware and has subjective states of awareness–has an interest in continuing to live. Any other view accords an arbitrary preference to human cognition.

If animals have an interest in continuing to live, as I maintain they do simply by virtue of being sentient, and if that interest matters morally, which I argue that it must do, then there is only one plausible conclusion: any use–however “humane”–is unjust.

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s easy to go vegan; it’s better for your health and for the planet; and, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do.

And please remember: Animal welfare reforms do little, if anything, to reduce animal suffering. But, in any event, the important point is that veganism is not just a matter of reducing suffering; it’s a matter of fundamental moral justice. It is what we owe to those who, like us, value their lives and who want to continue to live.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University

FAIR USE NOTICE

Interview with Angel Flinn of Gentle World by Corey Wrenn - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

2011-11-22T22:10:00.002+11:00

Interview with Angel Flinn of Gentle World - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

In celebration of World Vegan Month, I will be hosting a collection of interviews with vegan abolitionists from across the globe. I'm excited to have this opportunity to showcase vegan activists and give a face to our beautiful movement. Be sure to check back for regular installments throughout the month of November.

Today's featured vegan abolitionist is Interview with Angel Flinn of Gentle World who lives in Hawaii.
Angel, please tell us about yourself. How did you become vegan? What type of activism do you participate in?

I’m the Outreach Director for Gentle World, which is a 30-year vegan educational organization and 40-year intentional community. Through our classes, seminars, books, visitor program and online outreach (which includes a regularly updated blog and monthly newsletter), Gentle World’s unique approach has inspired many people over the years to embrace the vegan ethic of nonviolence.
I became vegan when I joined forces with the community eleven years ago. At that time, I was stuck in the paralyzing hypocrisy of a ‘partial vegan lifestyle’, in which (due to my awareness of the cruelty involved) I refused to consume most animal products, but was willing to ‘cheat’ on occasion, and turna blind eye to wearing them on my body. Once the significance of veganism really moved in on me, I became tremendously empowered by my new understanding, which continues to evolve as I become increasingly committed to this profoundly important social movement.
In addition to the other activities mentioned above, my own advocacy is focused around developing and promoting Gentle World’s website and blog, which is growing into its potential as an authoritative vegan resource, as we continue to build our archive of information and promote it to a wider audience. My own articles are also published on a different website, called Care2, where they reach a large number of (mostly nonvegan) people.

What do you think should be the focus of the non-human animal rights movement?
Since widespread veganism is the only way to put an end to animal exploitation, it’s so obvious that our focus should be on vegan education. If we put all our resources and energy toward spreading the message that veganism is a moral imperative, and showing people how easy it is (and how to do it), we would be able to create a truly significant movement for social change.

What are some of the biggest obstacles to reaching our goals?
Obviously, the animal industry represents a huge amount of money to certain people, and I’m sure that these individuals have no qualms about spending their resources trying to infiltrate our movement and direct it off-course. The popularity of the recent trend toward embracing an animal welfare model suggests to me that this is exactly what has happened. For that reason, I’m inclined to believe that our biggest obstacles are not only the big money behind animal exploitation, but also the big money behind the animal welfare business. Although it’s true that organizations require funding to survive and carry out their activities, advocates need to realize that we will never achieve our goals by selling out our core values in exchange for donations and other funding. Certain large organizations that make a business (and a joke) out of animal advocacy, and those who compromise on the message in favor of ‘reaching a wider audience’ make it much more difficult for us to convince the public that we have a serious message of crucial importance.

How is your activism impacted by where you live?

Gentle World has locations in two parts of the world: Hawaii and New Zealand. Unlike big population centers, our opportunities for outreach in public venues are limited, so we try to create them ourselves, by hosting food sampling events where we talk to people about the importance of being vegan. We also offer free cooking classes and consultations to anyone interested in making the transition, and free meals as well. Once a year, there’s a big local fair here in Hawaii where we raise funds by selling vegan food to hundreds of people. (Incredibly delicious vegan food has always been an essential part of Gentle World’s advocacy efforts!)

What are your thoughts on the power of vegan education?

We recently published an article about the life and philosophy of Donald Watson, the founder of the first Vegan Society. What continues to strike me about this man’s legacy is how simple this truth was as he perceived it back in 1944. Before factory farming, before the environmental catastrophes of industrialized animal exploitation, before intensive confinement and routine mutilations, and before anyone knew that veganism was healthy or even nutritionally adequate, Watson came to a very simple epiphany: that hurting and killing animals is wrong, whether for meat or for milk, for fur or for leather. Ironically, the farm he was observing was probably a perfect model of the ‘happy farm’that is being promoted today as the answer to the evils of factory farming. The same is true of the realities experienced by Gentle World’s co-founders, when they became vegan back in 1970, over forty years ago. It wasn’t the mechanized brutality of factory farming that they were horrified by, but merely the profound wrong that is inherent in inflicting violence on innocent beings.

I understand that advocates are frustrated and, in many cases, probably afraid to even hope that the vegan world we long for might ever come to be, but the answer is not to promote a message of half-way measures simply so the public can stomach it. Those of us who know the truth about animal exploitation and have been fortunate enough to have the realization that veganism is the only answer have a duty to share that truth with others, regardless of how many times we are rebuffed and feel belittled or isolated as a result. No matter how many people close their eyes and ears, every now and then someone will understand, and to that person, your message will be absolutely life-changing.

Since we are also an intentional community, our visitor program makes it possible for us to reach out to a lot of people who come to stay with us due to their interest in veganism or communal living. Spending a week in an immersive vegan environment can have a remarkable effect, even for those who contact us initially simply out of their desire to experience life in an intentional community or the beauty of our two locations.

LiveVegan Podcast #27: Factory farming-- for a number of reasons -- cannot end

2011-11-21T00:40:00.001+11:00

LiveVegan Podcast #27: Factory farming-- for a number of reasons -- cannot end

LiveVegan Podcast #26: Single Issue Campaigns: Pruning Exploitation

2011-11-19T15:35:00.003+11:00

Single Issue Campaigns: Pruning Exploitation

Noam Chomsky on the most dangerous country in the world - part 1 of 2 - YouTube

2011-11-18T14:51:00.002+11:00

Noam Chomsky on the most dangerous country in the world - part 1 of 2 - YouTube

Morality, believers and "gods" - YouTube

2011-11-17T00:21:00.000+11:00

Morality, believers and "gods" - YouTube

Gary L. Francione - Paris (anglais et francais)

2011-11-16T18:07:00.000+11:00

Gary L. Francione - Paris (anglais et francais)

LiveVegan Podcast #25: No, Ethical Veganism is Not Extreme

2011-11-13T19:52:00.000+11:00

No, Ethical Veganism is not extreme

LiveVegan Podcast #25: No, Ethical Veganism is Not Extreme

2011-11-13T01:52:00.000+11:00

LiveVegan Podcast #25: No, Ethical Veganism is Not Extreme

David Crosby and Graham Nash Sing "Teach Your Children" at Occupy Wall Street in NYC - via Democracy Now

2011-11-11T11:41:00.001+11:00

David Crosby and Graham Nash Sing "Teach Your Children" at Occupy Wall Street in NYC - YouTube

Rising trend of farm suicides in India

2011-11-11T00:23:00.000+11:00

Rising trend of farm suicides in India

RISING TREND OF FARM SUICIDES IN INDIA: Bt cotton was first released for commercial growing in India in 2002, and the data on farm suicides show clearly that the last eight years were much worse than the preceding eight. As many as 1,35,756 farmers killed themselves in the 2003-10 period. For 1995-2002, the total was 1,21,157. On average, this means the number of farmers killing themselves each year between 2003 and 2010 is 1,825 higher than the numbers that took their lives in the earlier period. This is alarming since the total number of farmers is declining significantly.

Interview with Trish Roberts of LiveVegan - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

2011-11-10T07:07:00.001+11:00

Interview with Trish Roberts of LiveVegan - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

In celebration of World Vegan Month, I will be hosting a collection of interviews with vegan abolitionists from across the globe. I'm excited to have this opportunity to showcase vegan activists and give a face to our beautiful movement. Be sure to check back for regular installments throughout the month of November.
Today's featured vegan abolitionist is Trish Roberts of LiveVegan. I highly recommend following LiveVegan on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter. Trish does a wonderful job of keeping us up to date on activities from other abolitionists and relevant current events and news stories.

Trish, tell us a little about yourself...

My name is Trish Roberts. I'm an abolitionist vegan and I live in Australia. I became vegan overnight after reading some information about the reality of the dairy industry and the associated veal industry, and also upon hearing about the slaughter process of chickens. That was six years ago. Shortly after becoming vegan I started an AR/vegan advocacy group.

It wasn't until I came across Prof. Gary L. Francione's work on Facebook in mid 2009 that I truly clarified my own position. My own education is an ongoing process and through his work, I believe I have become a more effective advocate. I spend much of my time doing vegan education mostly through social networking sites like our page LiveVegan on Facebook, Twitter, LiveVegan vids and podcasts on Youtube, fora, discussions and in everyday life.

I'm vegan because I believe we have no right to eat, wear and use other animals. 56 billion nonhuman animals are tortured and murdered each year for our pleasure. Approximately 1,140,000 sea animals are tortured and murdered every 30 seconds for our pleasure. This is morally unjustifiable and it is unimaginable violence. I'm vegan because I believe in nonviolence and justice; so I cannot in good conscience promote anything less than veganism. I believe veganism is the most important social justice movement today and is the most important form of activism one can engage in.

If I may share a quote by a friend Dan Cudahy (author of "Unpopular Vegan Essays") which I agree with wholeheartedly:

[I] am a vegan because after much learning and thought about the issue, I have come to see enslaving, exploiting, or intentionally killing an animal as morally equivalent to enslaving, exploiting, or intentionally killing a child. The only difference is one is socially acceptable and the other is socially unacceptable.

What do you think should be the focus of the non-human animal rights movement?
There are two movements today -- the "humane" use movement (all large animal organisations) and the abolitionist movement.

The abolitionist movement is a grassroots political movement and it's growing every day. Its focus is the abolition of animal use through creative, nonviolent vegan education. Veganism rejects the property status of animals and is a recognition of the moral personhood of nonhuman animals. The abolitionist movement is unique because it has veganism as its moral baseline. Our focus should be not HOW animals are used, but THAT they are used, and the only way to address this terrible injustice is to be vegan and educate the public to be vegan.

What are some of the biggest obstacles to reaching our goals?

One of the biggest obstacles to achieving our goals is the false belief that "humane" use / welfare "reform" will lead to abolition, that welfare is just a different tactic to meet the same objective - abolition. However, welfare and abolition are opposing and incompatible views. Welfare "reform" makes animal exploitation more efficient by reducing production costs; it further enmeshes animals in the property paradigm; it makes people more comfortable about animal use and does little to nothing to reduce the torture of other animals. Animal welfare protects animal interests only to the extent that it provides economic benefits for humans.The reality is there's no such thing as "humane" use or "humane" murder, and even if there were, it would still be unjust. ALL animal use is abuse. ALL animal use is violence.

Today we have big multi-million dollar animal organisations that are just charities. They are not political. Abolitionists are building a political grassroots movement with veganism as our foundation.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say if you are not vegan, if you believe in justice and nonviolence, please go vegan. It's easy and it will be one of the most profound and important decisions you will make in your life.

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul's 9/11 Theories: "What He Said Is Completely Uncontroversial" - YouTube

2011-11-08T22:24:00.001+11:00

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul's 9/11 Theories: "What He Said Is Completely Uncontroversial" - YouTube

Democracy Now!
Ron Paul’s blunt comments about U.S. foreign policy at the recent GOP debate are drawing both widespread praise and criticism. "We’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries," he said. We get a reaction from world-renowned MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

The War Against the Poor - Truthdig

2011-11-08T11:54:00.000+11:00

The War Against the Poor - Truthdig

Marvin Gaye "What's Going On"

2011-11-08T11:40:00.001+11:00

Marvin Gaye "What's Going On / What's Happening Brother" - YouTube

Harry Belafonte on Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

2011-11-07T18:08:00.000+11:00

Harry Belafonte on Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

Sea Shepherd's speciesism and rejection of veganism

2011-11-05T13:58:00.002+11:00

Here is the transcript of Paul Watson's interview:

"Q: My editor wanted me to ask you: Why is killing a whale worse than killing a pig, for example, when a pig is intelligent, too?

A: I get this question from the Japanese a lot, and I find it offensive. How can anybody compare the killing of a pig to the killing of a whale?

Q: Are you a vegetarian or vegan?

A: Yes, a vegan, but we're promoting veganism not for animal-rights reasons but for environmental conservation reasons.

You cannot compare the killing of animals in a domestic slaughterhouse to the killing of a whale. What goes on with those whales - or dolphins, say, in Taiji - would never be tolerated in a slaughterhouse. Those slaughterhouses would be shut down. It takes from 10 to 45 minutes to kill a whale and they die in horrific agony. That would be completely intolerable and illegal in any slaughterhouse in the world."

Paul Watson (Captain of Sea Shepherd) when asked "Why is killing a whale worse than killing a pig, for example, when a pig is intelligent, too?" said "I get this question from the Japanese a lot, and I find it offensive. How can anybody compare the killing of a pig to the killing of a whale?."

Paul Watson goes on to say that whales suffer much more than any animal in a slaughterhouse. I ask anyone to watch this "humane" slaughterhouse vid and tell me that these sentient beings suffer less. This is a normal functioning slaughterhouse. By the way, it's not about HOW animals are used that is the issue, it's THAT they are used that is the issue. Please go vegan.

WARNING: This following video is disturbing, so if you are sensitive, and / or you are vegan and you do not promote "humane" use and "humane" slaughter, then DON'T watch this vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCcUV-Yg-bc

Occupy Humanity

2011-11-03T11:54:00.000+11:00

Occupy Humanity

U.S. Pulls All Funding for UNESCO After Sweeping Vote to Support Palestinian Membership

2011-11-02T11:37:00.000+11:00

U.S. Pulls All Funding for UNESCO After Sweeping Vote to Support Palestinian Membership

In an emotional—and largely symbolic—move, the United Nations cultural organization known as UNESCO overwhelmingly voted to grant membership to the Palestinians, despite opposition from the United States and Israel. Now the United States says it will cancel a $60 million payment due in November to the U.N. body. Membership dues paid by the U.S. account for about a fifth of UNESCO’s annual budget. The U.S. is also threatening to veto any Palestinian effort to be recognized by the U.N. Security Council as an independent state. "By going to UNESCO, this was a way both of gauging where the public opinion is among the various governments and, more importantly, symbolically for the world, showing that this is a moment of recognition that the 20-year-old U.S.-controlled so-called 'peace process' simply hasn’t worked," said Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies.

If or when we proudly exclaim "I support the troops" .........

2011-11-01T13:45:00.000+11:00

Violence for humans is not a natural state. If it were, soldiers would not need to learn how to kill, would not experience PTSD and would not suicide in record numbers. If or when we proudly exclaim "I support the troops", what we are really supporting is often impoverished people who join the defense force for financial reasons; who are sent to often impoverished countries and then proceed to kill other poor people for reasons they are not convinced or clear on; and they do all this for wealthy people (the oligarchy) who have financial interests in occupying that country. So what we are essentially supporting is violence, imperialism, classism and racism all at the same time. This is not the way to peace.

LiveVegan Podcast #24: "Are orcas covered under the 13th amendment?" - YouTube

2011-10-29T22:45:00.000+11:00

LiveVegan Podcast #24: "Are orcas covered under the 13th amendment?" - YouTube

Podcast link http://www.archive.org/details/LiveveganPodcast24AreOrcasCoveredUnderThe13thAmendment

Are orcas covered under the 13th amendment? by Corey Wrenn

2011-10-29T15:14:00.000+11:00

Are orcas covered under the 13th amendment? by Corey Wrenn - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

PETA has filed suit against SeaWorld for violating the constitutional rights of orcas. The 13th Amendment "...prohibits the condition of slavery without reference to 'person' or any particular class of victim." Because the amendment does not specify humans, PETA is hoping to win freedom for the incarcerated whales. Presumably, they hope to challenge the property status of all non-humans should they win the case. It seems for once PETA might be on the right track. It is true, orcas are slaves. They are persons treated as property. They are held against their will and exploited for profit. Undoubtedly, sea park mammals have miserable histories and live in conditions nothing short of deplorable for highly social animals of the open sea. However, whether or not the 13th amendment is applicable in this situation is another matter. This is certainly an interesting approach to non-human animal advocacy for PETA, as it recognizes the personhood of non-human animals and draws attention to the orca's property-status. But it remains that this campaign is characteristic of new welfarism and is fundamentally flawed in at least two areas.

First, legislative activism is unlikely to be successful without a public that is sympathetic to the change. Non-human animals are recognized only as property to a level above and beyond that which human slaves ever experienced. In fact, human slaves were often compared to non-human animals as a justification for their enslavement. So, with non-human animals as the comparison for slavery everywhere, it is apparent that their property status is heavily engrained and normalized in human animal ideology. The property-status of non-human animals is so thoroughly taken-for-granted, we will first need drastic ideological change to correct this. Until the public comes to see non-human animals as persons worthy of equal consideration, no court is likely to recognize their personhood and grant freedom. A more likely outcome is that the failed suit will make future activism more difficult by clarifying existing laws so that they explicitly exclude non-humans.

In the meantime, without a critical vegan mass and a necessary rejection of the property status for non-humans, if conditions are to be changed at all in sea parks, it will probably only be in the interests of owners. For example, several handlers have been injured or killed in their interactions with under-stimulated and overly confined whales. If anything is done to improve the living conditions of the whales, those improvements are likely to be aimed at reducing risk to employees and will have nothing to do with the interests of the whales. Additionally, any improvements are likely to be miniscule and insignificant. Orcas will still be stolen from their families at early ages, repeatedly and forcibly impregnated, and confined for the duration of their lives. These conditions are inherent to sea parks and no amount of improving will make them anything less than torture for the non-human animals involved. Furthermore, minor improvements will only make the public more comfortable with the confinement of these whales. This comfort, of course, is compounded with the sea parks' misleading claims to their integral role in conservation and increasing public awareness.

Secondly, this campaign is terribly speciesist as it only focuses on one charismatic megafauna. The orca, of course, is a wildly popular species and holds a special place in our culture. The orca industry, in other words, is an easy target. Even if this suit was to succeed, it would single out certain species as more deserving of equal consideration than others. Orcas make up a tiny fraction of the non-human animals exploited by human animals. Singling out orcas takes advantage of a preexisting appreciation for the interests of killer whales and does nothing to challenge the largely unquestioned use of other species. This suit excludes the vast majority of oppression and supports our already schizophrenic thinking about which non-humans are worthy or capable of personhood and which are not.

So, while PETA's SeaWorld campaign is unique in that it draws the public's attention to the personhood of orcas and their property status, the campaign is ultimately counterproductive and confusing. It will inevitably fail and subsequently strengthen laws against future challenges to the property status of non-human animals. Further, it is likely that this campaign will result in minor and insignificant improvements to the sea park industry which will only increase public comfort with non-human exploitation, improve working conditions for employees, and perpetuate torturous confinement and servitude for the orcas. Furthermore, this campaign will single out certain species as more worthy of equal consideration than others. So, unfortunately, PETA appears to be going about things in a way that could only detriment the cause. We need to spend our limited time and resources on building a critical vegan mass not strengthening systems of oppression through ineffectual legislation and speciesist single-issue campaigns. Only when a critical vegan mass is achieved can we tackle the legal status of non-humans animals....all non-human animals.

"US ban on horse slaughter is counterproductive new-welfarism" by Corey Wrenn

2011-10-29T14:07:00.000+11:00

US ban on horse slaughter is counterproductive new-welfarism by Corey Wrenn

While a student of Bernie Rollin's graduate course on animal rights theory, Rollin and I often had major disagreements on what constituted progress in the non-human animal rights movement. Rollin is a traditional welfarist. He argues that a vegan world can never be achieved, so we would be best to reform use. As an abolitionist, I counter that we must fight the root of oppression by advocating veganism and rejecting the property status of non-human animals. There are common misconceptions about the abolitionist stance that Rollin often attributed to my arguments. First, he accused that abolitionists want non-human animals to continue to suffer without the alieviation of reforms because it brings attention and support to our cause. Second, a vegan world is an unachievable utopia, thus, steps towards abolition are confused and often ungrounded in reality.

For example, Rollin cited the recent ban on horse slaughter in the United States. While many in the animal rights movement might hail it a victory, Rollin points out that slaughter has simply shifted across US borders to regions with laxer standards of humane treatment. Additionally (at least in the Western US), some owners simply release their horses into the wild to fend for themselves. More often than not this results in a slow death from dehydration, starvation, and exposure. So, Rollin asks, what has the abolition of this industry achieved besides more suffering?

This brings us to a very important point that highlights the distinction between new-welfarism and abolition. Attacking easily achievable single issues might seem like a step towards abolition, but it does nothing to address the root of the problem. There was no mention of horse slaughter as part of an overarching problem of non-human animal exploitation and the need to grant non-human animals equal consideration. Therefore, the exploitation either shifts elsewhere or manifests in new places. Thus, the ban against horse slaughter in the US represents new-welfarist activism. Here, the goal of abolition is desired, but the means of reaching that goal are welfarist in nature. There is a focus on reform with the mistaken belief that reforms will lead to a cessation of exploitation.

Campaigns such as these do nothing to address the underlying root of exploitation. Horses, like other non-humans, are still seen as property. There interests are still secondary, if considered at all. With the failure to address the underlying systems of oppression, the oppression will only continue or worsen. So, while some might have viewed this ban a victory, it actually represents a highly counterproductive failure.

We need to promote veganism and equal consideration for all sentient beings. When we do this, we can achieve a vegan world where there be no slaughter or abandonment. In a vegan world, non-human animals are seen as persons. There will be no domesticated animals whose welfare concerns we have created and must contend with. Without addressing the systems of oppression, there will never be a perfect solution but only compounded problems. So, no Dr. Rollin, we do not want to see horses suffer in US slaughterhouses to bolster our cause, but neither do we agree that abolishing one tiny branch in the system of oppression will be anything but counterproductive.

The deregulation of non-human animal agriculture and urban farming by Corey Wrenn

2011-10-29T13:37:00.000+11:00

The deregulation of non-human animal agriculture and urban farming - Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com

As part of the growing urban farm movement, there has also been an increase in the keeping of "backyard" livestock. Oakland, for example, is considering the legalization of urban non-human animal farming whereby non-humans can be raised and slaughtered by regular citizens.

Certainly there is divide in how welfarists might react to this trend. Some, for example, praise alternative non-human animal agriculture as less intensive and thus more humane for the non-humans involved. Others, however, warn against the inappropriate handling of non-humans by owners who lack the knowledge to properly care for them. From an abolitionist perspective, this trend in deregulated non-human animal agriculture is particularly disturbing not only because farmers might lack the know-how in tending the non-humans, but also, this trend might perpetuate the myth that non-humans live happy and content in backyard pens and coops. This myth distracts from the heart of the matter: the property status of non-human animals that sustains their exploitation and ignores their interests.

As I've argued in previous pieces, even low-intensity farming is still exploitation. The non-humans involved remain property and they are still subject to their owners whims, ignorance, or apathy. And, again, this movement paints an unrealistic public image of humaneness in food production. Further, by seeking to include and encourage public participation in exploitation, an ideology that glorifies and justifies the use of other sentient beings is nurtured. Paul McCartney suggested that if slaughterhouses had glass walls we would stop exploiting non-humans, but it might be the case that glorified urban non-human animal agriculture and other forms of hands-on exploitation might normalize the violence and oppression.

Charlie Rose - A discussion about Occupy Wall Street with Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges

2011-10-28T00:16:00.000+11:00

Charlie Rose - A discussion about Occupy Wall Street

Amy Goodman: Globalizing Dissent, From Tahrir Square to Liberty Plaza - Truthdig

2011-10-27T23:07:00.000+11:00

Amy Goodman: Globalizing Dissent, From Tahrir Square to Liberty Plaza - Truthdig

Killing Gaddafi

2011-10-27T22:51:00.000+11:00

Killing Gaddafi

Excerpt:

The comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell, once commented on a striking feature of modern propaganda:

‘It's been largely based on denigrating somebody over there and saying we've got to go in and knock them out. The main awakening of the human spirit is in compassion and the main function of propaganda is to suppress compassion, knock it out. Well, it's in public journalism all the time now, too.’ (Campbell, The Hero's Journey, HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, p.220)

============

'Those who are hurt by others in return for the goodness they show them, yet, despite this, still act beneficially towards them, are the finest humans in the world: people who can return good for bad.' (Gampopa, Gems of Dharma, Jewels of Freedom, Altea, 1994, p.155)

Does anyone doubt that a Jesus or a Buddha would not merely have harboured sympathy for Gaddafi but would have intervened to save his life? And who would dare claim that doing so would make them ‘apologists’ for tyranny?

Noam Chomsky on Occupy Wall Street protests - YouTube

2011-10-23T23:50:00.000+11:00

Noam Chomsky on Occupy Wall Street protests - YouTube

Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy Wall Street: Radical movements keep this country honest!

2011-10-23T23:29:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy Wall Street: Radical movements keep this country honest! - YouTube

Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy Wall Street: Part 2 - Q and A

2011-10-23T23:13:00.000+11:00

Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy Wall Street: Part 2 - Q and A - YouTube

Got Faith (in Animal Welfare)? by Gary L. Francione

2011-10-19T16:02:00.000+11:00

Got Faith (in Animal Welfare)?

Post by Gary L. Francione in Blog

Hello there! If you would like to subscribe to Gary Francione's blog -- you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed here for updates on this topic.

I reject animal welfare reform and single-issue campaigns because they are not only inconsistent with the claims of justice that we should be making if we really believe that animal exploitation is wrong, but because these approaches cannot work as a practical matter. Animals are property and it costs money to protect their interests; therefore, the level of protection accorded to animal interests will always be low and animals will, under the best of circumstances, still be treated in ways that would constitute torture if applied to humans.

By endorsing welfare reforms that supposedly make exploitation more “compassionate” or single-issue campaigns that falsely suggest that there is a coherent moral distinction between meat and dairy or between fur and wool or between steak and foie gras, we betray the principle of justice that says that all sentient beings are equal for purposes of not being used exclusively as human resources. And, on a practical level, we do nothing more than make people feel better about animal exploitation.

I maintain that those who believe that animals are members of the moral community should, instead, make clear that veganism, defined as not eating, wearing, or using animals, is the non-negotiable, unequivocal moral baseline and should put their labor and resources into grassroots vegan education that may take a myriad of creative forms but should never involve violence.

Those who are critical of my view argue that my position on the need for creative, nonviolent vegan advocacy requires some sort of faith that such an approach will work.

I find that criticism to be ironic in that it would seem that if any position requires faith, defined as a belief that is maintained in the face of all extant empirical evidence, it is that welfare reform and single-issue campaigns will lead anywhere but to more animal exploitation.

Animal Welfare: Why?

Why does anyone believe that welfare reform will lead to abolition? If we look at the history of animal welfare reform, we see that most reforms are minor, most are not even enforced, and most actually increase production efficiency and provide economic benefits to producers. We have had the animal welfare paradigm for 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals now in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.

Why does anyone believe that promoting “happy” exploitation is going to lead to the abolition of exploitation? Use your common sense. “Happy” exploitation won’t lead anywhere but to a public that feels better about particular forms of animal exploitation. If that were not the case, the animal exploitation industries, in partnership with the large animal welfare corporations, would not be investing all the resources that they are investing in “happy” exploitation campaigns and labels.

Why does anyone believe that by continuing to reinforce and strengthen the paradigm that treats animals as property, we will eventually abolish animal exploitation?

Why does anyone believe that single-issue campaigns will lead to the abolition of exploitation? Just take a look at long standing single-issue campaigns, such as the anti-fur campaign. That campaign has been going for decades and the fur industry is stronger than it has ever been. Why? Because there is no principled basis that can serve to distinguish fur from wool or leather, or to distinguish wearing animals from eating them. As long as people do not understand and accept the general moral principle, they will fail to see the problem of specific uses. And it is no answer to say, as many advocates do, that fur represents a gratuitous use of animals. So does eating animals. We eat animals because they taste good. And palate pleasure is no better a justification than is fashion.

As I have written elsewhere, supporters of welfare reform never address these questions; they just declare that any criticism is “divisive” or that any alternative is “too idealistic.” In other words, they have nothing to say.

Veganism as a Moral Baseline: Why Not?

The appeal of creative, nonviolent vegan advocacy is that it challenges people to apply a moral principle that most people already accept and claim to view as important: that it is morally wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals unless it is necessary, and pleasure, amusement, and convenience cannot suffice to demonstrate necessity. When people are confronted with the argument that criticizing Michael Vick for dog fighting does not make sense if we are eating animals or animal products, or with the similarity between the animals whom they love and those they eat or wear, they may not all become vegan immediately, but we have at least gotten them to start thinking about the general issue of animal use in moral terms. And to the extent that the argument resonates–and it will resonate for many–they will begin to assess matters of animal ethics in a different way.

If, as I maintain, we cannot justify the use, however “humane,” of animals, then we ought to be clear about that. We ought to be clear that we cannot justify eating, wearing, or using animals. Period. If those who are concerned about the issue are not yet willing to give up animal use and go vegan, they can take whatever incremental steps they want. But those incremental steps should never be characterized as normatively desirable if we really believe that animal use is unjust. Just as we would never say that “humane” or “happy” sexism or racism is acceptable, we should never characterize “humane” or “happy” meat or dairy or whatever as morally acceptable.

Finally, promoting veganism as a moral baseline is no more a matter of moral “purity” than is promoting justice where humans are concerned. We are told that even if we go vegan, we cannot avoid causing harm to nonhumans. That is true. Living in the world and engaging in any sort of action necessarily has adverse consequences for others, humans and nonhumans alike. We should, of course, endeavor to cause the least amount of harm that we can to all sentient beings. But the fact that we cannot avoid all harm does not mean that we should not at least stop all intentional harm that we inflict on sentient nonhumans just as the fact that we cannot eliminate all violence in the world means that it is morally acceptable for us to murder other humans.

If we are ever to abandon the property paradigm, we need to get people to recognize that animal use, however “humane,” cannot be justified morally. I am confident that creative, nonviolent vegan advocacy is not only consistent with the claim of justice that is entailed, in my view, by the animal rights position, but that it is the best way to achieve the goal of shifting away from the property paradigm and toward the notion of animals as moral persons.

Those grassroots advocates who are engaged in creative, nonviolent vegan education all report that the results are astounding; that people react and react positively.

And I am certain that any belief that welfare reform, single-issue campaigns, “happy” exploitation, etc. will take us anywhere but to a greater level of comfort about animal exploitation requires a particularly blind form of faith.

******

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s easy to go vegan; it’s better for your health and for the planet; and, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do.

If you are vegan, educate everyone with whom you come in contact in a creative, nonviolent way about veganism. If we really do regard animals as members of the moral community; if we really believe that we cannot justify unnecessary animal suffering and death, then we cannot justify billions of animal death based on palate pleasure.

And please remember: veganism is not just a matter of reducing suffering; it’s a matter of fundamental moral justice. It is what we owe to those who, like us, value their lives and who want to continue to live.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Occupy Times Square: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Swarm Midtown (PHOTOS)

2011-10-16T14:15:00.000+11:00

Occupy Times Square: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Swarm Midtown (PHOTOS)

LiveVegan: Veganism = Nonviolence

Chris Hedges: Call to Action - YouTube

Speciesist Language and promoting discrimination in the minds of others

On LiveVegan today I commented about speciesist language and on being mindful of not accidentally promoting speciesism in other’s minds.

Here is a the link to the discussion that followed if you wish to view it

Chris Hedges: Occupy Draws Strength From the Powerless - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

Adele performs "Rolling In The Deep" at the Grammys:

Noam Chomsky speech: "Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours" - YouTube

San Francisco Police Department ‘It Gets Better’ Video: LGBT Officers Release Inspiring Message (VIDEO)

“When It’s Cold I’d Like To Die” vocals by Kelli Scarr – Live at Sydney Opera House (2010 )

Gary L. Francione “On the issue of moral theory and animal rights…” « Veganism is Nonviolence

"Religion" by Jeff Perz

Spirituality, Rationality, and Animal Rights: Brief Reflections

"Gay and Lesbian groups can fight their own battles."

Rep Dennis Kucinich: Fact Checking the Media - Iran

CHRIS HEDGES: "Hope" Speech (Unedited)

Chris Hedges on WorldStreams

The World is Vegan! If You Want It - YouTube

Letters of Note: To My Old Master

Wha Me Eat - Macka B OFFICIAL VIDEO - YouTube (song about being vegan)

Being vegan, better for you, for the planet, and most importantly, it's morally right

Chris Hedges: Thank You for Standing Up - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

Dethrone the Corporate State by Chris Hedges « Dandelion Salad

Hunger Is a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’, says Jean Ziegler by Siv O’Neall « Dandelion Salad

Hunger Is a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’, says Jean Ziegler by Siv O’Neall

The need to protect the internet from 'astroturfing' grows ever more urgent | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The Sad Story of Fish

Chris Hedges "Death of the Liberal Class" at The Sanctuary for Independent Media 10-17-10 - YouTube

Cornel West Chris Hedges talk Education - YouTube

SPECIAL: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in His Own Words

Noam Chomsky - As Humankind Heads Toward the Cliff - YouTube

Chris Hedges is Right About Pretty Much Everything | assailedteacher

Alarming Discussion with Professor Noam Chomsky Regarding Our Nation and World - YouTube

The Paradigm Shift Requires Clarity About the Moral Baseline: Veganism

On moral relativism « the vegan pensieve by Maya Shlayen

On moral relativism

River

Chris Hedges: The ideology justifies the cruelty of unfettered capitalism ....

Chris Hedges "Brace Yourself! The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying!" - YouTube

Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, and the Slavery Analogy by Prof. Gary L. Francione

A message of nonviolence for 2012 - YouTube

"Human zoos: When real people were exhibits"

Human zoos: When real people were exhibits

“Start Quote

“Start Quote

Human zoos: When real people were exhibits

Next time an Indian friend or a Jain friend says that cows in India are respected .......

I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice | Quotes on Slavery

Festivus For the Rest of us - YouTube

Noam Chomsky: The Fate of the Human Species « Dandelion Salad

All forms of discrimination are related.......

This is adorable: Inhabitat How to: Make Vegan Pumpkin Cupcakes - With Petey - YouTube

Advice for vegans during the holiday season:

Eric Bibb - I heard the angels singing - YouTube

"Compassion Over Killing and Quorn collaborate, nonhuman animals lose" by Corey Wrenn

"Vegan Outreach: Ultimate goal is not veganism " by Corey Wrenn

Iraqi Women's Activist Rebuffs US Claims of a Freer Iraq: "This Is Not a Democratic Country" - YouTube

UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people

The Costs of War: Tens of Thousands Dead, Billions Spent, and a Country Torn Apart - YouTube

"Heifer International: a noble idea with some serious flaws" by Corey Wrenn

My Secrets, My Life - YouTube

Unfettered Capitalism - Chris Hedges & Michael Moore - YouTube

"Honey: Why It’s Not Vegan" by Gentle World

3 Reasons Not to Eat Honey

Give the bees a break.

The Case of the Disappearing Bees

Pesticides

Mites and Viruses

Cell phones

The True Story of Honey Production

Related Posts

"I'm Scared For My Future": Student Disrupts Speech By US Climate Envoy Todd Stern in Durban - YouTube

Taxing meat

Fighting ageism

Where Were You When They Crucified My Movement? by Chris Hedges

Noam Chomsky at Kutztown University - Nov. 21, 2011 - YouTube

The Zero Point of Systemic Collapse by Chris Hedges

"The power of words: welfarists, new welfarists, and Francionites" by Corey Lee Wrenn

UNTV: 21st Century - India: Forgotten Women

"Gary Francione, leader in abolitionist animal rights and vegan outreach" by Corey Wrenn

Democracy Now!
Ron Paul’s blunt comments about U.S. foreign policy at the recent GOP debate are drawing both widespread praise and criticism. "We’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries," he said. We get a reaction from world-renowned MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.