Trap Neuter Return, then Get Over Yourself

Washington Post Magazine article
Alley Cat Allies Response to WaPo
Dr. Fox's and Readers' comments on TNR

I have not been a dedicated blogger, I know. As with all diaries and journals I have tried to keep throughout my life, I start out strong and then just sort of peter out. My apologies to anyone who actually missed me. (Allow me a few delusions of importance, please.)

I feel inspired to post after reading the Washington Post Magazine's article on Trap Neuter Return programs operating in DC. I was extremely disturbed by some of the comments reported.

I do believe that pet cats should be kept indoors to the greatest extent possible, or at least to escape-proof back yards (I wouldn't want my dog to wander around unsupervised, why would I want that for my cat?).  It does seem to me that felis catus probably should be categorized as an invasive species in the Americas and certainly in Australia and New Zealand, and that they can prey on indigenous animals that may or may not be threatened. They may, of course, also prey on other invasive species, like rats. And their destructiveness is nothing compared to the destruction caused by the species that helped them migrate to new continents: humans.

We are the most destructive invasive species of all. However, if I suggested wide-spread "euthanasia" to manage human populations, I would be considered a monster, and rightly so. Progressive humans can look back at history and recognize that efforts at eugenics, at keeping "undesirable" people from reproducing, were and are horrific. I would like to think that nobody read Lois Lowery's The Giver and thought it was a blueprint for an ideal society.

I lead with all this not to say that there is no distinction between human and non-human animals, though I find the importance/meaning of those distinctions so minimal that some find it offensive. I lead with all this to say that large sections of humanity must let go of their arrogant assumption that it is right and proper that humans curate the planet.

It is dangerous thinking that both environmentalists and non-environmentalists adopt. The position of Ingrid Newkirk is a perfect example of this. The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals believes it is unethical to return feral cats to outdoor lifestyle. PETA often seems to be of the view that animals are better off dead than in less-than-perfect circumstances of any kind. It's ironic, I think, that the world spends considerable resources on psychiatric treatment to prevent people from adopting the same philosophy in their own lives. 

A representative of the American Bird Conservancy thinks its morally justified to kill cats because this saves birds. Of course, organizations also justify killing invasive bird species to preserve indigenous birds. But whoever is being killed and who is being saved, we humans have reserved the right to make that decision. And our reasons often fail tests of practicality and morality.  It makes no sense to euthanize healthy homeless dogs while people continue to purposefully breed English bull dogs, animals of notoriously poor health. We also devote significant amounts of money and labor resources to trying to breed pandas in captivity, despite ample evidence that this is a losing battle. But hey, they have those cute black circles around their eyes, so by all means, lets focus on them.

The world is in many ways a big mess right now, and it's all thanks to human behavior. In a misguided effort to preserve the native species that we have endangered, many organizations institute eradication policies of species considered invasive, which frequently means killing any that can be found. This is as if animals have no emotional lives, no sentience worth considering. Moreover, it is an attempt to solve problems with the same defective thinking that caused the problems in the first place. We change the landscape and the ecosystems we inhabit to accommodate our needs. If we find that in accommodating our physical needs we have left a wake of destruction, we satisfy our psychological need to make reparation by creating making a new path of destruction. Yet destruction is the result no matter what. It is only that we have convince ourselves that the latest form of annihilation is a moral good. This is also what European colonialists thought about their policies of forced sterilization and transplantation of indigenous human populations.

We know now that they were wrong to think that because they had the power, they had the right, or even the obligation, to tell others humans how or whether or they could live. We now redirect that energy to animals, animals that are in the wrong environments because of our interventions.

Trap-neuter-return is humane and sensible. It may be slower than mass extermination (and the evidence doesn't necessarily prove it is), but you would think by this point we would have learned that the quickest solution is not the best or the most sustainable. When we stop thinking about the planet and its non-human denizens as though it was our living room and decor, to be arranged in the most pleasing and efficient manner, maybe we will finally start to find real solutions to our problems.

E-book readers

According to this Grist article, e-book readers appear to be the way to go, which has been my instinct all along, at least in terms of going for e-books for my computer.  Of course, the e-book reader is a lot more portable than even my laptop.  To that end, I am posting this link to the Amazon Kindle, which has been severely reduced in price.  I recently saw a news piece on News 1 in New York City that ranked the Kindle as the best of the e-book readers.

Of Course Plants Like to Live

The title of this article reminds me of the time someone told me in high school that broccoli screams as though that would somehow undermine my recent choice to become a vegetarian.  Of course, the whole "eat animals, save the plants" argument is ridiculous because eating meat causes the death of far more vegetation than a vegetarian diet would.  Not to mention the fact that a person can live without eating meat, but not without eating vegetables.

However, the lesson to take away here is that one cannot treat plants as though they are inanimate and without moral weight. I am not suggesting some sort of plant liberation movement, but rather that we should think twice before carving our names into living trees.

Am I a Jerk?

Probably, but this isn't really about me. This article from Slate discusses the possibility that people trade in on moral credit.

They failed to mention some other types of credit that may affect decision making in these instances: namely, credit cards. When someone spends more money to buy organic/local/fair trade/other socially responsible item, they may feel like they have less cash to flat out give to charity. The same can be true of energy expenditures: the harder you work to try to make ethical choices a part of your everyday life, the more burnt out you may feel when it comes to volunteering your time.

So readers, if you do actually exist, do you think you cash in on "moral credit?"

Gender Wars and Objectivity

This piece in XX Factor is interesting and scary.

What I think is also interesting is an issue I see coming up in the comments that goes along with what I wrote when I came back from Australia a couple of years ago: the lack of trust in the objectivity of the journalist. Though I do not have objections or doubts about what has been presented by Katheryn Joyce, it has become so expected that journalists are writing (and scientists are researching) from their own inherent biases that people can dismiss any evidence that goes against their own preferred notions as being the presentation of people trying to unfairly sway the argument. For example, when confronted with the fact that all peer-reviewed articles found in scientific journals support the conclusion that there is extreme anthropogenic global warming, the naysayers argue that there is conspiracy within the scientific community to reject any evidence that goes against global warming and that any who dare to argue are immediately and unfairly blackballed. Conservatives don't trust the Washington Post and Liberals won't rely on the Washington Times for information. I for one have difficulty trusting anyone to give me a completely objective reporting and end up being swayed by personal pathos and whatever empirical observations I am able to draw from my own limited experience to decide where I stand on an issue, which makes any sort of open debate difficult.

Hautelook link

I've added a new link to the side, "hautelook." It's to my personal invitation page. If you're wondering why I posted it as a "Just Living" link, it's because they occasionally have sample sales by eco-designers. Considering the high costs of some of them, 50% off is pretty exciting.

There Is No Sex In Your Violence

I have a fantasy wherein I write frequent posts and people read them and leave insightful complimentary comments.  

Item 1: So, the new incarnation of the H1N1 virus, popularly (and somewhat inaccurately) still referred to as swine flu, is big in the media now.  It is actually a hybrid of avian, porcine, and human viral strains. I haven't read anything but the subject lines yet, but I can see that PETA is sending out emails about how this is more proof of how factory farming in particular and meat-eating in general are great evils that should be stopped.  I said the same thing to my parents before I heard it from PETA (Yay! The frequently irrational crackpots at PETA back me up!).  The unhealthy conditions that abound in slaughterhouses and the "farms" that supply them are ideal incubators for virulent diseases.  Even the factory farm owners know it, since they pump their animals full of preemptive antibiotics.  I guess they should have used antivirals as well.  Granted, the bird flu originated in small, family-owned fowl coops, but these were also homesteads of people with antiquated sanitation systems (or no sanitation systems at all).  And of course, meat farming is devastating to the environment, which threatens wild species and ultimately biodiversity, which increases the likelihood that new contagions will adapt to humanity as they lose their former hosts.  I realize as a formerly struggling vegetarian and a currently struggling (and frequently failing) vegan that giving up animal products is hard (and perhaps not even entirely possible: book bindings, as well as other seemingly innocuous, everyday items are manufactured with animal by-products), but we really all should be making an effort to decrease our dependency, even if it is only by incremental amounts.

Item 2:  I encounter someone who pronounced vegan as "vay-gan."  This is incorrect.  Even if Merriam Webster does recognize several pronunciations, the originator of the word released a pronunciation guide soon after coining the term to clarify that the word is vee-gan.  Long E, hard g.  Knowledge is power.

Item 3: Last week two of my coworkers and I went to see Disney's new Earth movie, a collaboration with the BBC.  It was mediocre.  The footage was stunning, but according to my coworker, much of it was recycled from the Planet Earth series, Discovery Channel's collaboration with the BBC.  I have not yet seen any of this series, much to my chagrin, but I don't have any reason to doubt her word on this.  The documentary's story line/unifying theme was weak, and they showed the typical American view that violence is less offensive (and less corrupting of children) than sex and birth.  While I recognize that violence and death are part of the natural world, the scene of the Great White Shark snatching a seal up in its jaws shown in slow motion from three different angles seemed excessive.  

Item 4: I've been spending the last 7 months working for Americorps via the Maryland Conservation Corps (and will continue to do so into August).  I have the very best intentions of writing a post in the near future about my experiences and impressions.

Cultured Meat

Here is an article I wrote for Helium about cultured meat.  Check it out, give me props. 

Ferraro Fiasco

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of my retirement have been greatly exaggerated.  Also, rumors that anyone has bothered to spread rumors of my retirement have been greatly exaggerated.  

This is old news, but I have to comment on the fracas surrounding Geraldine Ferraro and the comment she made this past winter: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.  And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position.  He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.  And the country is caught up in the concept."  I don't care to comment on the veracity of her statement, mostly because I just don't have the energy for it.  I have become worn out on the finer points of rhetoric, and I only can make so many cogent(and in this case I am applying the term rather liberally) arguments anymore. Most of the time, I simply find myself wanting to call people names and stick my tongue out at them.  

Anyway, what I want to say is that Ferraro's comments were not racist.  She was stating her opinion about the way race and gender sway the voting populace and the political decisions of this country.  To say that one doubts a man of Obama's accomplishments could have catapulted to the top of the political heap this quickly without benefit of "affirmative action" for his skin color is not prejudicial against people of color.  Nor is it beyond the pale to suggest that sexism is more pervasive that racism (a casual observance of what passed as acceptable political commentary during this primary race might easily lead one toward that conclusion).  You may not agree with her interpretation of the situation, but it is not racist to say that the color of a person's skin matters to large portions of the US population.  It is not racist to say the certain powerful politicos in the Democratic party deliberately moved Obama into the party spotlight because they are aware of this.  

All right, I can't think of a good conclusion.  So let me just end with this: skidush!

China Won't Be Cheap for Much Longer

This news is great, if you care about fair labor and low environmental impact.  Less good if all you care about is cheap t-shirts and electronics.  But if that is all you care about, why are you at this blog?

New Links

I added a link for Co-op America to the Just Living links on the right side of the blog.  Also, I inserted a widget for Discovery News.  You should be able to access Discovery Earth articles.   I hope everyone is enjoying their respective holidays.  

The Man Who Hit the Deer

The other night my mom and I were driving home and I saw a deer running on a church's lawn by the side of the road.  Because I saw it I was able to warn my mom who came to a stop before the deer leaped into the street.  However, a car coming in the opposite direction apparently didn't see the deer, either because it was dark or the driver was inattentive.  As best as I could tell, the car hit the deer just before it was completely out of the road.  At the very least, we heard something that sounded like glass breaking.  The car (I think it was actually more of an SUV) just kept going, not even slowing down.  When we got home I looked up the number for animal services in my county and I called the animal emergency number.  Apparently, they could only do something if I knew the deer was dead.  What an a$$-backwards policy.  At any rate, I asked her to give me a number I could call to help an injured animal.  It was the county police.  They at least accepted the information and said they would send someone out.  I don't know if anything ever came of it.

The reason I am posting this story is because I almost didn't make a call.  It is so easy to fall into the trap of thinking there is nothing you can do but agonize.  At the very least I let someone know that citizens in the county care about injured wildlife.  In addition, I now know of a flaw in the system that I can bring to my county rep.  Maybe what I did ultimately didn't have an effect.  But maybe someone went out, found the deer, and gave him some help.  We all have power to change the world, one little step at a time.

Co-op America

Check out Co-op America's action on fair trade fruit here.

OxFam America

OxFam Americahas the scoop on the Farm Bill. It has not passed the Senate yet. FYI.

Still Standing

I apologize for the long hiatus. I had started an entry on the new farm bill, but I ran out of energy and then it ended up passing in the House before I got around to finishing it. I honestly have no idea if the Senate has passed it as well. But if they haven't, I suggest writing to your Senators and complaining that the Farm Bill continues to subsidize factory farming and makes school children obese with its antiquated school lunch program.

On another note, I will probably not be producing entries with any regularity for the foreseeable future. I'm experiencing a bit of compassion fatigue. I'm still trying to live as ethically as possible, but I just don't have it in me to do the research that I usually do for these entries. However, if anyone is interested in submitting some comments about issues they want me to talk about, I will try to respond, at the very least with my opinion and some links to other resources.

Journalism

During my recent trip to Australia, a certain word came up rather frequently in discussing the work of reporters. "Relatable." I found this to be somewhat...not comical per se, but rather wryly amusing in that way I have. You see, I cannot imagine why it is important for *news* to be relatable. A human interest story? Of course that should be relatable. That's how Oprah rakes in her millions. But that is not news, and it is not, or at least *should* not, be the work of the investigative journalist. Tugging at people's heartstrings is not a worthy aim for journalists. Journalist have an unflinching duty to bring the facts, without bias, to people who do not have the resources or time to dig them up for themselves.

I also heard certain jouranalists and journalism students use the term, "passion." While I am certainly supportive of journalists having a passion for their jobs and for the news, I am extremely concerned by what appeared to be, at least among some, to be a passion for the subjects of their coverage. A journalist may be passionate about bringing the news to people, but she must be completely dispassionate about the topics on which she chooses to report. It seems that more and more, people, at least in the US, are loath to trust the news. I know I certainly am. I am unsure of any reporter's methods, and mistrustful that any news piece is free of bias, whether it be the bias of the reporter or the media outlet she works for.

I want the cold hard facts. I want facts that I can use in making my voting and purchasing decisions. I want to be given the freedom to take unadorned facts and come to my own informed opinion about them, without being swayed by the unannounced agenda of the journalist who thinks she knows better, or the over-emphasized annecdotal evidence that plays on the emotions, but fails to encapsulate the whole issue.

And, before I get accused of being the worst kind of hypocrite: I am *not* a journalist. I blog. I make it clear that I am not unbiased and I certainly am trying to sway you to a certain way of thinking. If this was not abundantly clear before, then I do apologize.

G'day!

I came back from Australia on the 31 of May, and have spent much of the time since sleeping. Sorry for the severe lack of posts lately. Considering how much there is to be angry over I really have no excuse. At any rate:

In Australia, they have many of the same hotbutton issues we do: big agribusiness, immigration issues, racism, etc. However, here is what they currently do that we could borrow from: mini-flush buttons, for when it just doesn't take much water to do the job; hotel lights that only work when the key is inserted into a special slot, thus making it impossible to leave lights on when the room is empty; and "Media Watch," a 15-minute program on the ABC (like the British BBC, rather than the American ABC) that points out the major lapses of the media.

While there, I had an interesting discussion with a Lebanese-American who was a part of my program. I acknowledged that Zionism did displace many Arabs in the area and that Israeli severely mishandled the war in Lebanon and that my sympathy with the Zionist movement was that I could understand the fear that moved Jews to feel the need for a safe haven and the feeling that it could not have been made anywhere other than in the location of Ancient Israel, but that didn't mean the founding of Israel didn't have serious problems. She acknowledged that anti-Jewish sentiment is a large part of what causes strife and that much of the Palestinian refugee problem has been caused and exasperated by neighboring Muslim nations. It was altogether a very civil discourse and I was quite proud of both of us.

Finally, as it is mid-year, I am going to rededicate myself to sticking to fair trade/organic chocolate, coffees, and teas. I am also going to work on decreasing my consumption of eggs and dairy and planning better to avoid being stuck outside the house in a position where I cannot do those things.

Stay tuned for a post on journalism.

Wait for me. . .

I will post something soon. I promise. Don't give up on me yet.

Local Harvest

Recently my mother needed to send some gift baskets, and we found a cute site: localharvest.org. They have lots of organic goodies and, in so far as such a thing is possible, cruelty free meat.

Cast Off the Shackles of Yesterday

New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment

The above article is from the 3/28 Washington Post and is about a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA. To date, women are not guaranteed equality with men in the Constitution.

I wanted to briefly address this paragraph:

In the 1970s, Schlafly and others argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. Today, she warns lawmakers that its passage would compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.

For starters, an ERA should make women should eligible for military draft. Even if the military continues to refuse to put women on the front lines, they can still serve invaluably in support functions, like as trained medical staff. And sacrifices which are expected of men can and should be expected of women, assuming that women have been granted the same privileges as men.

Second, the issue of possibly being forced to use unisex bathrooms (and who would want them so badly they would use their constitutional right as a basis for suing for unisex bathrooms is beyond me) pales in comparison to the fact that women are not guaranteed equal pay for equal work or equal consideration for promotions.

We'll skip over the same-sex marriage business, as I think it has been discussed enough in this blog for everyone to know how I feel about it. I'm not even sure that the argument is reasonable, though I suppose I could petition that my right to marry a woman should be equal to a man's right to marry a woman, and that a man's right to marry a man should be equal to a woman's right to marry a man. But any judge could say that everyone in society has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so there's no sex-based descrimination.

Finally, equality between the sexes wouldn't mean that widows and housewives don't get support. It would mean that widowers and househusbands do. We now live in an era where the vast majority of women work and men are beginning to take the option to stay at home with the kids. So we need to worry about men whose wives make more money than they do as much as we worry about women who are supported by paychecks made out to their husbands.

True equality guarantees that nobody gets left behind.