Posts

Posted on

Animal Right

I’ve been a vegan for a little over 13 years now and I have assiduously avoided the Animal Rights (or “AR”) movement. However, when I found out about a free class on Animal Rights philosophy (through the Boston Vegan Association), I thought it was about time that I learned a little about the ideological cousin of Veganism.

I entitled this post “Animal Right” because in the end, I learned that Animal Rights is really about one “right” which is the right to not be property. This is a basic right that is of primary necessity in order for any being to have any other rights (for example, if you were property of another being, then you could not really have a right to property of your own, because your owner could always confiscate it; likewise, you could not have a right to physical safety because your owner would be able to hit or kill you if it suited him/her) – this is because in our legal system, property ownership is paramount.

During the course of my readings, I was surprised to learn that there are several different competing ideologies: Continue reading “Animal Right”

Posted on

Breaking Up without Breaking Down

Note: I wrote this in the Fall of 2005, but never “published” it. I just found it and I think it’s pretty interesting, so I’m posting it here.

———————————————————

Foreknowledge of what comes after is so often desperately absent from what comes before. One can always argue that we learn from our mistakes, but who can truly predict the future? Would it be terribly rude of me to ask, “So how do you handle a break-up?” on the first date? “How do you react when your heart is broken and your pride is downtrodden? Which of the following do you prefer as an tool of revenge? A. The telephone B. E-mail C. Physical omnipresence D. Emotional manipulation E. Financial manipulation F. Property damage G. Violence or H. All of the above ?” It’s not that I don’t adore the first baby-steps of a relationship, the fluttery stomach, the nervous conversations, the first hesitant, yet endearing kiss. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the middle parts when the nervousness has been replaced with a more easy-going camaraderie. It’s not that I’m unwilling to commit, nor that I believe every relationship is doomed to failure. It’s merely that in the case where things don’t work out, I’d like to live to tell about it with all my teeth, car tires and mental acuity intact. Continue reading “Breaking Up without Breaking Down”

Posted on

Combatting Elitism (vis-à-vis veganism)

It’s been a while since I posted here due to a very busy few months and because I got locked out of my account (they had to reset everything). I plan to keep writing at least monthly in this blog. FYI, I wrote this post nearly 1 month back for the Boston Vegan Association forum.

Note: I don’t personally have a problem with elitism in the abstract and, in some ways, I am happily elitist, but I do, however, have a big problem with the negatively weighted claim that vegans are, by virtue of making a serious and difficult commitment to nonviolence, “elitist” & thus this post.

———————————————————

In my opinion, one of the most damaging arguments against veganism is the charge of elitism. This is a common, vehement and sticky accusation.

QUOTE:
e·lit·ism [i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-]
noun (c/o dictionary.com)
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

In at least one sense, this charge is clearly fallacious: people who believe that humans “rule” over most/all non-human animals and can use them as property and/or take pride in that state of affairs are elitist. Continue reading “Combatting Elitism (vis-à-vis veganism)”

Posted on

right-to-life, pro-life and other political misnomers

Some people are playing fast and loose with language in order to manipulate political situations. I would like to set a few things straight. Take for instance the term “conservative,” which means minimizing risk and minimizing resource use. A conservative must care about conservation of resources, independence and fiscal responsibility. In political terms, a conservative should be pro-efficiency, pro-environment (conservation), anti-big spending and desiring of low taxes, minimal regulation and, of course, balancing the budget. And yet, so-called “conservatives” are known to drive extremely inefficient passenger vehicles (SUVs, etc.), instigate expensive wars, borrow money from other countries, rely on foreign resources (oil), destroy environmental protections at home while wasting time and money regulating social contracts like marriage.

On the other hand, “liberal” indicates a belief in personal freedom. A liberal must care about the well-being and freedom of choice for individuals. In political terms, a liberal should be pro-equality, pro-environment (for health), pro-labor (rights), anti-imprisonment, anti-war, pro-health, supportive of personal freedom of action (speech, drugs, etc.). And yet, many so-called “liberals” oppose recreational drug use, promote war and are pro-prisons, tacitly anti-miscegenation, enforcers of gender-based discrimination and willing participants in a system that deliberately squanders resources (causing unnecessary disposal problems and related health issues) and routinely uses indentured servants as “labor” (illegal immigrants at home or sweat-shops abroad) for production of goods, all in the pursuit of ever greater profits. And some of these same so-called liberals support governmental regulation of social contracts like marriage. Continue reading “right-to-life, pro-life and other political misnomers”

Posted on

vegan miscellany / intersectionality

FYI, I recently did extensive rewriting of last year’s animal testing post.

Also, there is some interesting discussion in the blogosphere about intersectionality (which is the crossover inter-relationship of seemingly disparate single-focus issues): feminism and animal rights (a first step), young folks and intersectionality and others (check the Vegans of Color, The Vegan Ideal and B*tch Blogs for more).

In other news, there is a growing division in the animal rights movement between Animal Welfare reform activists and Abolitionists; Pattrice Jones wrote an interesting article about this: Strategic Analysis of Animal Welfare Legislation (a guide for the perplexed) which addresses the California 2008 Proposition 2 measure controversy (which seems like a step in the right direction in terms of Animal Welfare, but is weak with loopholes, see the exceptions section of the document).

If you don’t already know about Abolitionist Animal Rights theory, it boils down to the idea that non-human animals are currently considered property (or resources) and that no meaninful protections can be enacted while they’re allowed to be property (which essentially makes them “things”) because property ownership interests will always triumph over the interests of the property itself.  The legal and cultural property status of non-human animals is akin to the institution of human slavery (when it was legal). Abolitionists seek to abolish the property status of any and all animals and enact a basic right to life (that is, the right not to be killed (or otherwise treated solely) as a resource).

Posted on

liberal cop-out: support soldiers, not war

Contrary to what some people claim, violence does solve things. It is not, however, the only solution; it’s just that the people who benefit by violence want you to see it that way. Violence is an easy method of engendering or maintaining power. An entire industry (the military-industrial complex) has risen up around this type of power-mongering and rakes in billions of dollars each year. Possibly more, considering the modern high-tech costs of war.

What is confounding is that, in recent years, liberals and peace protesters have come out with slogans like “support our troops, but not the war” which is sort of like saying, shut down the factory, but keep the factory workers employed, because without the soldiers, there is no war and without the war (or at least the potential of it), there is no need for soldiers.

Soldiers are not robots. If they were, they’d be fighting machines and wouldn’t get things like post-traumatic stress disorder. Since they’re not robots, like other human beings, they possess free will and can make choices. They’re also free to make mistakes. I believe that intentionally or carelessly killing other humans is a mistake. The most basic function of any organism is its own survival and as highly evolved animals, if we cannot respect the right of other humans to live, then we cannot expect them to respect our right to live. Continue reading “liberal cop-out: support soldiers, not war”

Posted on

pants on fire

This is the story of some pants and a fire, but the pants were not actually on fire (nor on, for that matter).

A little background as to my state of mind: following a long week with little sleep, I topped it off with an eventful weekend with even less sleep. Monday morning, I oozed my way out of bed and managed to pull myself together for the workday, where I got things done without much grace or efficiency. Driving home, I fretted about my environmental group meeting that was to occur that same evening (and wishing I could just veg instead). I was nearly in a fugue state, I was so tired, but got my car parked and myself up the stairs and home, sweet home.

After setting down my bags and kicking off my shoes, I did a quick sweep of the kitchen floor and meandered to the bathroom to put in my contacts. While putting in my left contact, an alarm sounded, startling me and my contact fell in the sink. I thought at first that one of the alarms was malfunctioning and just needed to be turned off. I rushed around semi-blind trying to figure out which alarm it was, and gradually it dawned on me that it was probably a real alarm. I wondered if it was carbon monoxide and fear slowed me down enough to realize the alarm was not coming from inside my apartment. Opening the door to the hall, I was hit by a wall of sound and nearly stumbled, it was so loud. Like air raid sirens, with impossibly bright flashing lights. Obviously the fire alarm, then, but no smoke was apparent, nor any neighbors. My blood was pounding in my head.

I jerked the door shut and turned away. I stood facing the closet with my mind skipping like a broken record, not knowing what to do and what about my meeting? I’d faced many false fire alarms in my life, but never a real one, so I had an irrational impulse to hide under the covers and to wait for it to go away. Continue reading “pants on fire”

Posted on

hedwig and the angry millimeter

1 in 1000. That’s how many babies are born in an intersex condition. That’s people who are not clearly male or female. Sometimes it is a chromosomal aberration (XXY); other times, it is a hormonal aberration; in all cases, the human could end up with “mixed” sexual characteristics (ambiguous genitalia or secondary sex characteristics that don’t seem to match the genitalia that we expect).

1 in 1000 people are neither male or female. Physically. Biologically. Born that way. And yet, we only acknowledge the existence of two sexes. The medical establishment has been aware of this for ages (although they often hide the fact by “fixing” the intersex children); the Olympics have been aware of intersex people for decades (note, however, that the article’s definition of intersex is incomplete as it is not only chromosomal & the Olympics still insists on the male/female categorization since it is more convenient).

How could a minority of people numbering approximately 300,000 people (in this country alone) be so completely invisible? Unacknowledged. And this is not even getting into the subject of people who may appear to be one sex, but identify otherwise. 3 genders, 13 months (moon-cycles) per year. The natural truths that we choose to define out of existence.

Posted on

Diversiphobia: fear of difference

Even as our society becomes more permissive, it’s becoming more intolerant. The religiopolitical landscape is weak with diversiphobia. What I mean is the “behind closed doors” or “not allowed” policy against any state of being that some find offensive, like the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about homosexuality, but also the more pervasive and often subtle racism, classism, censorism and other isms. Even discussion is not allowed as people get louder and more vehement with repetitive statements instead any attempt at rational debate. People try to legislate their opinions into fact (like the constitutional amendments against gay marriage or pushing for prayer in schools).

The reality that diversiphobes are blind to is that diversity is a wonderful and necessary thing, even when you dislike it. If someone disagrees with you and you have a [calm] discussion with them, you can articulate and refine the arguments that support your viewpoint. Of course, there’s a small chance that you may be convinced to change your opinion; maybe that is what they’re really afraid of. But changing your mind occasionally is part of being human.

I find that I learn the most from other perspectives and often it strengthens my own convictions by prompting me to consider more aspects and think it over more thoroughly. I also learn a lot by interacting from people from different cultures or backgrounds who are fundamentally different from myself. It’s not always comfortable, but having been through a few dozen has been mind-opening.

We can learn nothing from sameness.

swamp heron

Posted on

mad about mad cow

OK, I’m lately hearing about the Beef Protests in Korea amid concerns about the safety of imported beef from the USA and I keep thinking good for them.

I never understood why the whole “mad cow scare” was so unmanageble. This so-called disease results directly from factory farming unnatural practices whereby they feed cows rendered animal parts (such as sheep and even sometimes other cows). Cows are herbivores – they graze on grass in the wild.

Some idiot came up with the idea of saving money by feeding them waste products (and extra protein/fat) and then it backfires and the industry just shrugs and says rhetorically, “what can we do?” –Um, you could let the cows eat grass and stop feeding them unnatural crap. Duh.

And people scared of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (the human form of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy aka “Mad Cow Disease”) could just, I dunno, stop eating beef, or at least stop eating factory-farmed beef.

The whole agribusiness factory farming thing is so messed up (with all the hormones, animal cruelty, pollution and hazardous working conditions) it infuriates me, especially when they get government subsidies (via the Farm Bill).

It’s almost enough to make you go vegetarian. 😉