Tuesday, August 29, 2006
For the Love of Wolves
I find wolves to be compelling animals. They are beautiful, intelligent, and devoted to family. So it's enough to make me want to cry when I find out that Idaho would like to eliminate their wolf population. Please sign this petition to urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to say no to Idaho's outrageous slaughter request.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Just Hope You Don't Need It in an Emergency
FDA Approves Plan B's Over-the-Counter Sale
As you may have heard, Plan B emergency contraception, was approved for over-the-counter (OTC) sales. However, it is only being made available to women (and men) over 18 with valid IDs, and it is being kept behind the pharmacist's counter. This is seen as only a partial victory by women's advocacy groups, such as NOW (who is already hitting me up for money to help their campaign--don't they know I'm broke?). After all, a woman who needs EC doesn't want to have to ask a pharmacist who may be more inclined to give out lectures than medication. And in fact, the issue of whether anti-abortion pharmacists and religious hosptitals have the right to refuse provision of EC is still wide open.
According to Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, this is a detrimental decision for women, families, parents, and girls. Apparently it will encourage promiscuity and lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Yeah, what? That's like saying condoms help spread disease. These people don't seem to understand that women have sex without wanting to get pregnant, and they will continue to have sex whether they are well-prepared and well-educated or not. (Men will too, but the risk of pregnancy is significantly less for them.) The recent decision of the CDC to treat all women as "pre-pregnant" comes from the fact that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other industrialized nations and half of all pregnancies are unplanned, increasing likelihood of bad habits during pregnancy (Pregnant Forever). I would suggest that the reason other nations have fewer problems is because they have contraception readily available, and strong sex ed programs that are not geared towards eliminating teen sex.
Forcing women to continue with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies is, in my opinion, a form of rape. Rape is a horrendous crime because it forces a person into a position where she (usually) is bereft of control/possession of her own body. Forbidding women easy access to contraceptives, and yes, even abortifacents, does the same thing. The statement made is that the government (or for places with parental consent laws, a girl's parents) has more say over a woman's body than she herself does. Control over one's own body is an inherent right of every individual. If we say that a woman has to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, what is to keep us from saying that people are obligated to donate blood, bone marrow, or a kidney to a person in dire need? After all, the decision not to donate could mean the death of an individual, whereas I would argue that a fetus is not an individual, and so is not deserving of the same consideration we give to, shall we say, post-birth humans? But I think most of us would have serious issues with proposing taking body parts from people against their will, so why should it be considered appropriate to hi-jack a woman's womb?
I don't advocate promiscuity, unsafe sex, or abortions. But I have absolutely no right to forbid those things to anyone. And the fact is that latter two would happen far less often if we stopped trying to lock sex behind the counter and just made condoms, birth control, the embattled hpv vaccine, and EC readily available.
As you may have heard, Plan B emergency contraception, was approved for over-the-counter (OTC) sales. However, it is only being made available to women (and men) over 18 with valid IDs, and it is being kept behind the pharmacist's counter. This is seen as only a partial victory by women's advocacy groups, such as NOW (who is already hitting me up for money to help their campaign--don't they know I'm broke?). After all, a woman who needs EC doesn't want to have to ask a pharmacist who may be more inclined to give out lectures than medication. And in fact, the issue of whether anti-abortion pharmacists and religious hosptitals have the right to refuse provision of EC is still wide open.
According to Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, this is a detrimental decision for women, families, parents, and girls. Apparently it will encourage promiscuity and lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Yeah, what? That's like saying condoms help spread disease. These people don't seem to understand that women have sex without wanting to get pregnant, and they will continue to have sex whether they are well-prepared and well-educated or not. (Men will too, but the risk of pregnancy is significantly less for them.) The recent decision of the CDC to treat all women as "pre-pregnant" comes from the fact that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other industrialized nations and half of all pregnancies are unplanned, increasing likelihood of bad habits during pregnancy (Pregnant Forever). I would suggest that the reason other nations have fewer problems is because they have contraception readily available, and strong sex ed programs that are not geared towards eliminating teen sex.
Forcing women to continue with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies is, in my opinion, a form of rape. Rape is a horrendous crime because it forces a person into a position where she (usually) is bereft of control/possession of her own body. Forbidding women easy access to contraceptives, and yes, even abortifacents, does the same thing. The statement made is that the government (or for places with parental consent laws, a girl's parents) has more say over a woman's body than she herself does. Control over one's own body is an inherent right of every individual. If we say that a woman has to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, what is to keep us from saying that people are obligated to donate blood, bone marrow, or a kidney to a person in dire need? After all, the decision not to donate could mean the death of an individual, whereas I would argue that a fetus is not an individual, and so is not deserving of the same consideration we give to, shall we say, post-birth humans? But I think most of us would have serious issues with proposing taking body parts from people against their will, so why should it be considered appropriate to hi-jack a woman's womb?
I don't advocate promiscuity, unsafe sex, or abortions. But I have absolutely no right to forbid those things to anyone. And the fact is that latter two would happen far less often if we stopped trying to lock sex behind the counter and just made condoms, birth control, the embattled hpv vaccine, and EC readily available.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Book Recommendation
I've recently started reading A Very Short Introduction to Animal Rights by David DeGrazia, part of Oxford's "A Very Short Introduction" series. It's very readable is quite good at explaining the basics philosophies behind the animal rights movement (as well as behind those who are opposed to it). I think you'll find it helpful whether you're a dvoted vegetarian who wants to be able to make better arguments or someone who is still trying to learn more about the decision to support animal rights.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
The Other Blog
Yes, Aine Bina is a two-timing sort of blogger. At any rate, I posted a meme at the other blog about books. The other blog is for trying out html stuff, or giving book recommendations, or whatever I want to blab about but doesn't really fit in with the whole social commentary theme of this blog.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The Color Green: Representing Environmentalism or Nausea?
Aine Bina has finally gotten around to reading an article from the June 4, 2006 issue of the New York Times that has been sitting on her night stand. The article, which perhaps should be described as editorial journalism, was featured in the "The Way We Live Now" column of the NY Times' Weekend magazine and is called "Mass Natural; With Wal-Mart going organic, where will organic go?" and was written by Michael Pollan. I am giving you all this info rather than a link to the article because a) I *gasp* have the article in hard copy, so I would have to actually *bigger gasp* work to find such a link and b) NYT is quite stingy about letting just anyone access its articles in full on the web.
The title is a pretty good indicator of what the article is about. On the surface, the news of Wal-Mart, or Evil Incorporated as I affectionatley refer to it, deciding to go organic is a major coup for environmentalism. As The Grist wrote in a recent editorial on green crusaders failing to applaud progressive actions taken by the traditional enemies of the environment: "But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking on a comprehensive sustainability program that includes emission reductions and organics -- the whole shebang." But as Pollan will reveal to us, dig a little deeper and suddenly Wal-Mart's decision to go organic is deeply troubling. Wal-Mart's decision to go organic should not be interpreted as a company's sudden impulse to be a more caring type of corporation. The fact is that recently green has become cool. Vanity Fair did its green issue this summer, and the Washington Post devoted a Sunday Source to it this past month. I was flipping through a recent issue of "Glamour" and they had some suggestions on small steps to becoming greener. So if Wal-Mart wants to keep up with trends in consumer culture, they have to start satisfying demands for Green veggies.
Wal-Mart still wants to deliver it's products at "great" low prices. So they're promising that organic products will only cost 10% more than their non-organic counterparts. The fact is that the Green movement has never promised you cheap goods, just responsibly priced goods. So if Wal-Mart insists that it can deliver organic products cheaply, then one has to ask what the cash register price fails to reflect. For starters, if Wal-Mart is going to deliver on promises for cheap organics, it is going to have to get the products from where it's cheap to grow them. Check the labels on some items around your house: a tv, a souvenir from your recent trip, the tag in your shirt. Found anything made in Asia yet? (Actually, my shirt was made in the USA. Kudos to Wet Seal) So lets ignore for a moment the worker abuses that may be/probably are going on in the countries where we produce our fabulously cheap goods. If you've looked at any websites like myfootprint.org or climatecrisis.net, you know that transporting goods (or people) over great distances causes a significant amount of environmental damage. Why do we love organic again?
As Pollan says "To [get organic food prices to a level just 10% above non-organics] would virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable, at least not in any meaningful sense of that word." This isn't just a theorhetical projection; the evidence for non-sustainable, cheap "organics" is already there. Pollan points out the existence of so-called organic feed-lots. To produce cheap organic milk, agribusiness sets up huge factory dairies, often in the desert. Rather than being fed on grass, these organic cows are fed a diet purely of organic grain, which not only negatively affects the cows, but actually affects the nutritional value of the milk that you drink. Organic milk produced by these cows is lacking in beta-carotene and "good" fats. Is that really what we think of when we choose organic? And sure, guidelines for growing organic meat requires that animals have access to the outside, but agribusiness often meets these requirements by cramming animals into too-small, grassless, shadeless feedlots or, in the case of some poultry producers, screened-in porches which really only provide access to a view of the outside.
This is why, to quote Kermit the Frog, it isn't easy being green. The more converts we get, the more big corporations want to cash in by providing goods labeled "organic" and "locally grown" without in any way affecting their bottom line. And if obeying only the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law isn't enough to keep it cheap for companies, they'll lobby to change the letter. In the past year the Organic Trade Association lobbied on behalf of Kraft Foods (a part of Phillip-Morris, which I affectionately refer to as "The Devil's Henchment"), to make it easier to include synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic. Pollan tells the story of a chicken producer, Fieldale Farms, which persuaded their Georgian congressman to add a provision into an appropriations bill which would allow the substitution of conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. The rule was eventually repealed, thank goodness. Because if so-called organic producers can continue to label their goods "organic" without actually producing them in an organic way, what good does that do any of us?
The Grist has some hope for the future of a better, kinder, greener, Wal-Mart. So the point here isn't really that Wal-Mart is intrinsically evil and will ultimately fail to in any way help the environment, but rather that one can't become complacent, and you should always do your homework.
The title is a pretty good indicator of what the article is about. On the surface, the news of Wal-Mart, or Evil Incorporated as I affectionatley refer to it, deciding to go organic is a major coup for environmentalism. As The Grist wrote in a recent editorial on green crusaders failing to applaud progressive actions taken by the traditional enemies of the environment: "But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking on a comprehensive sustainability program that includes emission reductions and organics -- the whole shebang." But as Pollan will reveal to us, dig a little deeper and suddenly Wal-Mart's decision to go organic is deeply troubling. Wal-Mart's decision to go organic should not be interpreted as a company's sudden impulse to be a more caring type of corporation. The fact is that recently green has become cool. Vanity Fair did its green issue this summer, and the Washington Post devoted a Sunday Source to it this past month. I was flipping through a recent issue of "Glamour" and they had some suggestions on small steps to becoming greener. So if Wal-Mart wants to keep up with trends in consumer culture, they have to start satisfying demands for Green veggies.
Wal-Mart still wants to deliver it's products at "great" low prices. So they're promising that organic products will only cost 10% more than their non-organic counterparts. The fact is that the Green movement has never promised you cheap goods, just responsibly priced goods. So if Wal-Mart insists that it can deliver organic products cheaply, then one has to ask what the cash register price fails to reflect. For starters, if Wal-Mart is going to deliver on promises for cheap organics, it is going to have to get the products from where it's cheap to grow them. Check the labels on some items around your house: a tv, a souvenir from your recent trip, the tag in your shirt. Found anything made in Asia yet? (Actually, my shirt was made in the USA. Kudos to Wet Seal) So lets ignore for a moment the worker abuses that may be/probably are going on in the countries where we produce our fabulously cheap goods. If you've looked at any websites like myfootprint.org or climatecrisis.net, you know that transporting goods (or people) over great distances causes a significant amount of environmental damage. Why do we love organic again?
As Pollan says "To [get organic food prices to a level just 10% above non-organics] would virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable, at least not in any meaningful sense of that word." This isn't just a theorhetical projection; the evidence for non-sustainable, cheap "organics" is already there. Pollan points out the existence of so-called organic feed-lots. To produce cheap organic milk, agribusiness sets up huge factory dairies, often in the desert. Rather than being fed on grass, these organic cows are fed a diet purely of organic grain, which not only negatively affects the cows, but actually affects the nutritional value of the milk that you drink. Organic milk produced by these cows is lacking in beta-carotene and "good" fats. Is that really what we think of when we choose organic? And sure, guidelines for growing organic meat requires that animals have access to the outside, but agribusiness often meets these requirements by cramming animals into too-small, grassless, shadeless feedlots or, in the case of some poultry producers, screened-in porches which really only provide access to a view of the outside.
This is why, to quote Kermit the Frog, it isn't easy being green. The more converts we get, the more big corporations want to cash in by providing goods labeled "organic" and "locally grown" without in any way affecting their bottom line. And if obeying only the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law isn't enough to keep it cheap for companies, they'll lobby to change the letter. In the past year the Organic Trade Association lobbied on behalf of Kraft Foods (a part of Phillip-Morris, which I affectionately refer to as "The Devil's Henchment"), to make it easier to include synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic. Pollan tells the story of a chicken producer, Fieldale Farms, which persuaded their Georgian congressman to add a provision into an appropriations bill which would allow the substitution of conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. The rule was eventually repealed, thank goodness. Because if so-called organic producers can continue to label their goods "organic" without actually producing them in an organic way, what good does that do any of us?
The Grist has some hope for the future of a better, kinder, greener, Wal-Mart. So the point here isn't really that Wal-Mart is intrinsically evil and will ultimately fail to in any way help the environment, but rather that one can't become complacent, and you should always do your homework.
Friday, August 11, 2006
The State of the Blogger
My gentle readers (affectionately known as "you three"), Aine Bina is developing a stomach ache of massive proportions. The Israeli-Lebanon crisis is the cause of my gastro-intestinal woes. This is not an entry, like the last one, that speaks directly to the issue, but rather to the fall-out of the issue. Specifically, my personal fall-out. I am a Zionist. I support Israel's right to exist and its right to defend itself. But that does not mean that I think it is without failing or fault, or that I wish to give it a carte blanche to do whatever it wants. First, no country is without failing or fault, and there is no reason to expect that Israel should be any different from the rest of the world. Second, I do not wish to engage in the sort of rampant ethnic chauvinism that so frequently breeds terrorists and hate-mongers. Yet I find myself in a difficult position. It seems that there is no such thing as a fair and unbiased report of the situation. Of course, it is hard to know what is fair and unbiased when one is already biased. I would not wish to become one of those people (and I personally know at least one) who says "This person holds the same opinions as I do; at last, an unbiased account." And yet it seems very difficult to find the unique person who truly sees the situation for what it is. I expect to recognize this person (or organization) when they can present criticism of all parties involved, because it is false to set up this dichotomy as one of brutal oppressors and brave, pure freedom fighters. It is equally false to look at this as a situation of racist, selfish terrorists and an embattled bastion of democracy and goodness, though that one rings closer to the truth for me in many ways. It isn't that I think Israel is always completely blameless in its actions, but I do think that the major instigators like Hezbollah and Hamas claim to do things in the name of downtrodden Muslims when they really couldn't care less. I don't think Hezbollah's goals are universal health care and a Utopian Middle East free of religious prejudice and intolerance. I don't think Hezbollah expects anyone to think that. It would be so easy to just take the hard-line Zionist stance and insist that Israel is only defending itself and has made no wrong moves in this conflict or in its history at all. But that would be wrong of me. Just as it is wrong of Muslims to say that Hezbollah's actions are justified or that the civilians of many Middle Eastern countries aren't in many cases as horribly oppressed by their own "compatriots" as they are by some great, evil, Westernizing force. There is always a greater complexity to international issues. Always. More so in the Middle East, which has been a center of strife for as long as humanity has kept written records. And it's greatly distressing that I feel as if there is no one that I can trust on this issue, least of all myself.
Once again, Aine Bina finds herself wishing she could move into some nice log cabin in the woods and pretend the world does not exist.
Once again, Aine Bina finds herself wishing she could move into some nice log cabin in the woods and pretend the world does not exist.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
You Say Opinion, I Say Deliberate Misrepresentation
Huh. That's not as catchy as "to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to." Oh well. Check out this here propaganda:
Lebanese Prime Minister's Seven Point Plan for Peace.
Lest you accuse me of indiscriminately calling all critics of Israel anti-Semitic and all criticisms propaganda, allow me to explain what bugs me about Faoud Siniora's "End This Tragedy Now." Siniora's essay has a complete lack of accountability for the UN or for the Arab* countries in the Middle East. He states "the peoples of the Middle East. . . aspire only to live in freedom and dignity**." Actually, Hezbollah quite adamantly insists that what they want is to wipe Israel of the map. So does the official, internationally recognized government of Iran; one of its ministers made a public statement to that effect just recently***. Hamas, which is the "political" party currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority, is squatting on Israel's doorstep with the same ideology.
I do not condone Israel's botched campaign against Hezbollah; too many civilians have died. Israel is getting sloppy, and their warnings to civilians (a courtesy not extended by Hezbollah to Israelis) are not sufficient. Yet Hezbollah has also targeted civilians in Israel. In fact, for this specific conflict, they started it. And Hezbollah does not truly care about Lebanese civilians. If they did, they would not launch their rockets at Israel from the backyards of Lebanese villagers, thus making innocent families targets for Israeli retaliation. It is not a new strategy for Middle East terrorist groups to use civilians, including, and perhaps particularly, children, as shields.
Siniora also proposes "land for peace," which was a frequent strategy of Israel before the most recent Intifada. In fact, PM Barak offered to meet 95% of Palestinian demands for land and statehood--an offer that was rejected because it did not include Jerusalem. Yet nowhere in his piece does Siniora state an agreement to the disarmament of Hezbollah. The Lebanese and other Arab nations are apparently eager for peace, so long as it doesn't actually involve compromise on their part. Oh, silly me. . . they must feel it is a compromise just to "allow" Israel to continue existing.
I will make no claims to impartiality. I am a Zionist, and it can be hard to recognize Israel's faults when it seems that the whole world is reluctant to acknowledge the contributions to violence and conflict made by other nations in the Middle East. If one has legitimate criticism of Israel, then by all means it should be expressed intelligently. But in order for there to be a true path to peace, all the nations of the Middle East must accept accountability and agree to compromise for lasting peace.
*I am actually quite unclear as to whether descriptions of Arab-Israeli conflict include Iran. It is technically a Persian nation, speaking farce rather than Arabic. However, it is deeply entrenched in Middle East conflict and was an early addition to the Islamic Empire, giving it a long history of Arab influence.
**And of course, if the peoples of the Middle East really aspire to live in freedom and dignity, I'd say they need to take a close look at their own governments. Iran recently declared the Center for Defense of Human Rights, founded by a Nobel Laureate illegal. Apparently human rights watchdog need proper permits, even if the Iranian constitution doesn't actually say so (forget that the CDHR applied for the permits repeatedly and never got a response).
***They're also Holocaust deniers. Hey homosexuals, disabled persons, Gypsies, blacks and even some Christians who opposed the Nazi regime: that must make you feel great about Iran!
Lebanese Prime Minister's Seven Point Plan for Peace.
Lest you accuse me of indiscriminately calling all critics of Israel anti-Semitic and all criticisms propaganda, allow me to explain what bugs me about Faoud Siniora's "End This Tragedy Now." Siniora's essay has a complete lack of accountability for the UN or for the Arab* countries in the Middle East. He states "the peoples of the Middle East. . . aspire only to live in freedom and dignity**." Actually, Hezbollah quite adamantly insists that what they want is to wipe Israel of the map. So does the official, internationally recognized government of Iran; one of its ministers made a public statement to that effect just recently***. Hamas, which is the "political" party currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority, is squatting on Israel's doorstep with the same ideology.
I do not condone Israel's botched campaign against Hezbollah; too many civilians have died. Israel is getting sloppy, and their warnings to civilians (a courtesy not extended by Hezbollah to Israelis) are not sufficient. Yet Hezbollah has also targeted civilians in Israel. In fact, for this specific conflict, they started it. And Hezbollah does not truly care about Lebanese civilians. If they did, they would not launch their rockets at Israel from the backyards of Lebanese villagers, thus making innocent families targets for Israeli retaliation. It is not a new strategy for Middle East terrorist groups to use civilians, including, and perhaps particularly, children, as shields.
Siniora also proposes "land for peace," which was a frequent strategy of Israel before the most recent Intifada. In fact, PM Barak offered to meet 95% of Palestinian demands for land and statehood--an offer that was rejected because it did not include Jerusalem. Yet nowhere in his piece does Siniora state an agreement to the disarmament of Hezbollah. The Lebanese and other Arab nations are apparently eager for peace, so long as it doesn't actually involve compromise on their part. Oh, silly me. . . they must feel it is a compromise just to "allow" Israel to continue existing.
I will make no claims to impartiality. I am a Zionist, and it can be hard to recognize Israel's faults when it seems that the whole world is reluctant to acknowledge the contributions to violence and conflict made by other nations in the Middle East. If one has legitimate criticism of Israel, then by all means it should be expressed intelligently. But in order for there to be a true path to peace, all the nations of the Middle East must accept accountability and agree to compromise for lasting peace.
*I am actually quite unclear as to whether descriptions of Arab-Israeli conflict include Iran. It is technically a Persian nation, speaking farce rather than Arabic. However, it is deeply entrenched in Middle East conflict and was an early addition to the Islamic Empire, giving it a long history of Arab influence.
**And of course, if the peoples of the Middle East really aspire to live in freedom and dignity, I'd say they need to take a close look at their own governments. Iran recently declared the Center for Defense of Human Rights, founded by a Nobel Laureate illegal. Apparently human rights watchdog need proper permits, even if the Iranian constitution doesn't actually say so (forget that the CDHR applied for the permits repeatedly and never got a response).
***They're also Holocaust deniers. Hey homosexuals, disabled persons, Gypsies, blacks and even some Christians who opposed the Nazi regime: that must make you feel great about Iran!
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Gendered Brains
Femme Mentale
I've never had any argument with the recenty studies of biology, neurology, and psychology that suggest that women and men have differently wired brains. Perhaps I was predisposed to accept this idea because my father and I are very much alike in our intelligence, yet he prefers math and science and I prefer humanities. However, these conclusions of gender differences in the brain often incur criticisms, particularly from feminists, it would seem. There is the feeling that "separate by definition is not equal", as determined in "Brown v. Board of Education," is as applicable to our biology as to our school systems. Yet I would say the issue is not in saying that women's strengths lie in social skills and humanities, and thereby putting them in an inferior position to men, but rather that our society has learned to value male/masculine traits above female/feminine traits. We live in a world where power is more laudable than family and cooperation, and the sciences are more necessary than humanities. Well, those of you who read my second entry know how I feel about the latter hierarchy. And in fact, we would all do a lot a better with more focus on cooperation and social building and less on obtaining power and money while we're at it. If we valued art and literature more than we valued our video games and our cars, we would live in a world that was cleaner and more beautiful. If we made statues of our mothers and nurses instead of our war heroes, we would show that we reverence creation more than destruction. That there is more bravery in bearing and nurturing life than there is in ending it.
It is the female brain that gives birth to language, that key human trait that makes all other accomplishments possible. It is the female brain that continues to nurture humanity even when our jealousies and hatreds seek to destroy it. It is wonderful that we have programs that encourage young girls and women to go into the sciences, but we should also develop programs that empower young women to feel good about their works of art and about their close friendships. In fact, I think much of why women suffer today, being twice as likely as men to report symptoms of depression, is that we have been separated from our gendered community. Women are being trained by culture to compete with each other, rather than create reliable, close social networks. We are told to look for our soulmates in our male spouses, rather than our sisters (biological or otherwise). And even more importantly, we are taught that our reproductive value lies only in our wombs, and not in our abilities to teach younger generations--an ability that is only strengthened in the crone stages of our lives, where the biological reproductive capacity of the maiden and matron years wanes.
Perhaps these studies can give new hope to our daughters. We can teach them that they are the equals of men, not because they can compete with them in masculinity, but because they have their own strengths, just as men have their own weaknesses. This may finally be the key to ending the struggles of women trying to fit into a man's world and beginning to allow a woman's world to emerge.
On another note, Joan Gould's Spinning Straw Into Gold is an excellent women's studies book on fairy tales.
I've never had any argument with the recenty studies of biology, neurology, and psychology that suggest that women and men have differently wired brains. Perhaps I was predisposed to accept this idea because my father and I are very much alike in our intelligence, yet he prefers math and science and I prefer humanities. However, these conclusions of gender differences in the brain often incur criticisms, particularly from feminists, it would seem. There is the feeling that "separate by definition is not equal", as determined in "Brown v. Board of Education," is as applicable to our biology as to our school systems. Yet I would say the issue is not in saying that women's strengths lie in social skills and humanities, and thereby putting them in an inferior position to men, but rather that our society has learned to value male/masculine traits above female/feminine traits. We live in a world where power is more laudable than family and cooperation, and the sciences are more necessary than humanities. Well, those of you who read my second entry know how I feel about the latter hierarchy. And in fact, we would all do a lot a better with more focus on cooperation and social building and less on obtaining power and money while we're at it. If we valued art and literature more than we valued our video games and our cars, we would live in a world that was cleaner and more beautiful. If we made statues of our mothers and nurses instead of our war heroes, we would show that we reverence creation more than destruction. That there is more bravery in bearing and nurturing life than there is in ending it.
It is the female brain that gives birth to language, that key human trait that makes all other accomplishments possible. It is the female brain that continues to nurture humanity even when our jealousies and hatreds seek to destroy it. It is wonderful that we have programs that encourage young girls and women to go into the sciences, but we should also develop programs that empower young women to feel good about their works of art and about their close friendships. In fact, I think much of why women suffer today, being twice as likely as men to report symptoms of depression, is that we have been separated from our gendered community. Women are being trained by culture to compete with each other, rather than create reliable, close social networks. We are told to look for our soulmates in our male spouses, rather than our sisters (biological or otherwise). And even more importantly, we are taught that our reproductive value lies only in our wombs, and not in our abilities to teach younger generations--an ability that is only strengthened in the crone stages of our lives, where the biological reproductive capacity of the maiden and matron years wanes.
Perhaps these studies can give new hope to our daughters. We can teach them that they are the equals of men, not because they can compete with them in masculinity, but because they have their own strengths, just as men have their own weaknesses. This may finally be the key to ending the struggles of women trying to fit into a man's world and beginning to allow a woman's world to emerge.
On another note, Joan Gould's Spinning Straw Into Gold is an excellent women's studies book on fairy tales.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Sharing the blog love
There is an excellent essay on anti-semitism here. Truly well researched and organized, I could not have done better myself (which will probably be apparent after comparing this essay to any of my posts).
Friday, August 04, 2006
A Marriage of Equals, part II
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work," Kent Brockman, The Simpsons, "Bart's Comet"
I must say that I'm starting to agree. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, was put in place after our wise, if imperfect, forefathers realized that they had to protect against the tyranny of the majority. They had to keep the mobs from exerting undue pressure on anyone who didn't agree with them, or was different from them. Yet, the framers, even with the foresight to protect speech, assembly, and even religion, failed to take into consideration how people of color or women were being trodden upon. Eventually minorities and women won their legal rights, though I would argue we are far from equal, and Native Americans would probably argue, and rightly so, that they have not been granted full rights--at least not the full rights of sovereign nations. However, homosexuals are still a deeply oppressed people. Anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals are not in place as they are for ethnic minorities and women, and we're all well aware that they aren't allowed to marry. And the battle for homosexual rights, including, and perhaps especially, the right to marry. Check out some articles:
Washington Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Virginia's Anti-Gay amendment
and finally:
New York and Georgia rule out Same-Sex Marriage
New York's majority opinion was ridiculous, as readers of Dan Savage's advice column have already been told. To say that discriminating against homosexuals makes sense, since heterosexual couples have children and therefore need marriage may very well be the dumbest statement. . . well there are a lot of really dumb statements floating around these days, but it's still imbecilic. Gay people have children, even in states that ban them from adopting, through sperm donors and surrogate mothers. Plus, straight people can get married whether they want/are able to have kids or not. And the Republican gov., as well as his likely GOP successor, say they would veto any legislation that would give homosexuals the right to marry. Apparently it goes against the religious beliefs of millions of New Yorkers. Which, even if true, is irrelevant, given the whole separation of Church and State thing we have going on. I mean, what if my religion demands that homosexuals marry? Where's my religious freedom?!
Georgia is backwards. We all pretty much expected it. And don't come whining to me if you're from Georgia (and my sitemeter suggests you are not). If you didn't want to be called backward, you shouldn't have passed that amendment.
Washington's supreme court seems to have come to same conclusion as New York's. The legislature is free to legalize same-sex marriage, but the supreme court doesn't have the power to overturn the current laws. Which I suppose is better than being out and out bigoted, but it just seems that legislating against people based on their own, private, non-larcenous, non-violent, love/sex lives is a blatant violation of the civil liberties that this country supposedly holds dear.
Of course, Virginia is probably the worst of all. They have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions, but just in case a few loving, committed same-sex couples sneak over the border anyway, they're passing an amendment that will make it possible to undermine the wills, living-wills, and power-of-attorney arrangements that same-sex couples make. If I could find the specific text of the document, I would give you the link and more information, but so far, no go.
So, here's our democracy at work. The majority uses its power to oppress the minority. Scary. A thousand times scarier than same-sex marriage ever was.
I must say that I'm starting to agree. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, was put in place after our wise, if imperfect, forefathers realized that they had to protect against the tyranny of the majority. They had to keep the mobs from exerting undue pressure on anyone who didn't agree with them, or was different from them. Yet, the framers, even with the foresight to protect speech, assembly, and even religion, failed to take into consideration how people of color or women were being trodden upon. Eventually minorities and women won their legal rights, though I would argue we are far from equal, and Native Americans would probably argue, and rightly so, that they have not been granted full rights--at least not the full rights of sovereign nations. However, homosexuals are still a deeply oppressed people. Anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals are not in place as they are for ethnic minorities and women, and we're all well aware that they aren't allowed to marry. And the battle for homosexual rights, including, and perhaps especially, the right to marry. Check out some articles:
Washington Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Virginia's Anti-Gay amendment
and finally:
New York and Georgia rule out Same-Sex Marriage
New York's majority opinion was ridiculous, as readers of Dan Savage's advice column have already been told. To say that discriminating against homosexuals makes sense, since heterosexual couples have children and therefore need marriage may very well be the dumbest statement. . . well there are a lot of really dumb statements floating around these days, but it's still imbecilic. Gay people have children, even in states that ban them from adopting, through sperm donors and surrogate mothers. Plus, straight people can get married whether they want/are able to have kids or not. And the Republican gov., as well as his likely GOP successor, say they would veto any legislation that would give homosexuals the right to marry. Apparently it goes against the religious beliefs of millions of New Yorkers. Which, even if true, is irrelevant, given the whole separation of Church and State thing we have going on. I mean, what if my religion demands that homosexuals marry? Where's my religious freedom?!
Georgia is backwards. We all pretty much expected it. And don't come whining to me if you're from Georgia (and my sitemeter suggests you are not). If you didn't want to be called backward, you shouldn't have passed that amendment.
Washington's supreme court seems to have come to same conclusion as New York's. The legislature is free to legalize same-sex marriage, but the supreme court doesn't have the power to overturn the current laws. Which I suppose is better than being out and out bigoted, but it just seems that legislating against people based on their own, private, non-larcenous, non-violent, love/sex lives is a blatant violation of the civil liberties that this country supposedly holds dear.
Of course, Virginia is probably the worst of all. They have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions, but just in case a few loving, committed same-sex couples sneak over the border anyway, they're passing an amendment that will make it possible to undermine the wills, living-wills, and power-of-attorney arrangements that same-sex couples make. If I could find the specific text of the document, I would give you the link and more information, but so far, no go.
So, here's our democracy at work. The majority uses its power to oppress the minority. Scary. A thousand times scarier than same-sex marriage ever was.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
*gasp*
Much to my horror, I found myself applauding today's (8/2/06) Prickly City. Generally, I find Scott Stantis to be at least moderately annoying, though he could be worse. He could be a raving lunatic mouthpiece for the fundamentalist Christian right. Anyway, the strip says it all, though you may want to check out yesterday's strip for further clarification.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Wafa Sultan
Wafa Sultan
This is a clip of Wafa Sultan's appearance on the Al-Jazeera network, dating from February. You may have already seen it on other weblogs, or been sent a link in an email forward. It has circulated quite a bit, though today is the first I've seen/heard of it.
It's interesting in two respects. One, it is a person of Muslim heritage, though Sultan considers herself a secular humanist, who is openly criticizing the actions of the Muslim world. I have no statistics, but my general sense is that I more commonly see Jews who speak out against the actions of Israel than Muslims who speak against the actions of Israel's Arab neighbors. I am biased though, as I am moderately Zionist and so the people coming out against Israel make more of an impression on me. I am not wholly supportive of Israel's actions, but I think they generally get more than their fair share of the blame, and I also think they are in an untenable position which sometimes makes it hard for them to do the most peaceable thing and still maintain a position of strength in a region that is hostile to them. Much of the reason they are in an untenable position can be blamed on the UN, a body that I have increasingly less respect for, which among other things refuses to allow Israel complete membership.
The other interesting thing about Wafa Sultan's interview is a statement that can be applied to all religious zealots, including Hezbollah and the American Christian Right. "You can believe in stones, but that does not give you the right to throw them at me." Believe as strongly as you want, but we no longer live in an era where conversions by the sword (or pipe-bomb, rocket, or even persecuting legislation) is acceptable practice. It is pure barbarism to force your beliefs on others. Frankly, if God wants converts, she has more than enough power to do it without using human weapons of destruction.
Wafa Sultan is Syrian-American psychiatrist. She and her husband immigrated in 1989. Her turning point was when she saw her medical professor gunned down by Muslim terrorists in the classroom. The New York Times published this article about her.
I may be posting more on the Israeli-Arab conflict in the future, but I may not. It's a huge subject that is incredibly divisive, and as it is still very much a hot-topic, I doubt if it's possible to find an unbiased treatise about the subject anywhere, and it requires much in the way of research on my part. So in other words, nobody hold their breath.
This is a clip of Wafa Sultan's appearance on the Al-Jazeera network, dating from February. You may have already seen it on other weblogs, or been sent a link in an email forward. It has circulated quite a bit, though today is the first I've seen/heard of it.
It's interesting in two respects. One, it is a person of Muslim heritage, though Sultan considers herself a secular humanist, who is openly criticizing the actions of the Muslim world. I have no statistics, but my general sense is that I more commonly see Jews who speak out against the actions of Israel than Muslims who speak against the actions of Israel's Arab neighbors. I am biased though, as I am moderately Zionist and so the people coming out against Israel make more of an impression on me. I am not wholly supportive of Israel's actions, but I think they generally get more than their fair share of the blame, and I also think they are in an untenable position which sometimes makes it hard for them to do the most peaceable thing and still maintain a position of strength in a region that is hostile to them. Much of the reason they are in an untenable position can be blamed on the UN, a body that I have increasingly less respect for, which among other things refuses to allow Israel complete membership.
The other interesting thing about Wafa Sultan's interview is a statement that can be applied to all religious zealots, including Hezbollah and the American Christian Right. "You can believe in stones, but that does not give you the right to throw them at me." Believe as strongly as you want, but we no longer live in an era where conversions by the sword (or pipe-bomb, rocket, or even persecuting legislation) is acceptable practice. It is pure barbarism to force your beliefs on others. Frankly, if God wants converts, she has more than enough power to do it without using human weapons of destruction.
Wafa Sultan is Syrian-American psychiatrist. She and her husband immigrated in 1989. Her turning point was when she saw her medical professor gunned down by Muslim terrorists in the classroom. The New York Times published this article about her.
I may be posting more on the Israeli-Arab conflict in the future, but I may not. It's a huge subject that is incredibly divisive, and as it is still very much a hot-topic, I doubt if it's possible to find an unbiased treatise about the subject anywhere, and it requires much in the way of research on my part. So in other words, nobody hold their breath.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Vegetarianism, Part II: Eggs and Dairy
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a vegetarian but not a vegan, and quite ashamed about it. I try to stick to organic yogurt, and cage-free eggs when I buy eggs, and I don’t eat ice cream or drink milk as a general rule, but that’s a pretty small concession to veganism, and I admit it honestly, if not freely. It should be assumed that the following applies to “factory-farms,” not necessarily operations like family-owned farms, kosher facilities, or certified humane businesses. Whether or not these other types of farms are acceptable alternatives is another question, which may be addressed here at a later date, though I’m not making any promises.
So, it’s a pretty miserable life being an egg laying hen. Hens are debeaked, with hot irons, because the horrendous conditions in which they are kept can induce destructive behavior such as cannibalism. 98% of egg-laying hens “live” in stacked battery cages, with 5-7 birds in space not really adequate for long term residence for one: 20x24”. They’re improperly fed to manipulate their egg production. They lose their feathers from malnutrition and their feet are destroyed by the harsh metal floors they have to stand on. The egg industry also feeds the slaughter. Any male chicks which are born are killed, as they have no use for egg laying. According to PETA, they’re often killed in a high-speed grinding machine called the macerator. The hens, who are exhausted by the malnutrition and overproduction, not to mention osteoporosis, are worn out and therefore shipped to slaughter around 2 years of age, one-fifth the potential life-span of a chicken.
Dairy cows in factory farms also suffer. There are approximately 9 million cows on dairy farms, some 13 million less than in 1950. Yet milk production is up, an indication of the unnatural and demanding position dairy cows are in. They are kept constantly pregnant, and never given the chance to actually raise their young. Male calves are taken away when they’re a day old and fed a milk substitute, destined for the veal market. Females are slaughtered or “groomed” for dairy production. Through genetic manipulation, antibiotics, and hormones cows are forced to produce an unnatural quantity of milk. Some cows are kept chained to poles on concrete floors while others are crammed into over-crowded mud lots. Grass doesn’t even come into the equation, as their feed consists of various animal parts, even including cow meat. This particular abomination is what gave rise to the mad cow problems being experienced, particularly in Britain, a few years ago. One of the most frequent disorders affecting dairy cows is mastitis, a painful inflammation of the mammary glands, in part due to the automated milking systems employed by high-yield dairy farmers. Here’s something particularly disturbing from PETA factsheets:
Studies have shown that providing cows with cleaner housing, more space, and better diets, bedding, and care lowers the SCC of their milk and their incidence of mastitis.(15) A Danish study of cows subjected to automated milking systems found “acutely elevated cell counts during the first year compared with the previous year with conventional milking. The increase came suddenly and was synchronized with the onset of automatic milking.”(16) Yet instead of improving conditions on factory farms or easing cows’ production burden, the dairy industry is exploring the use of cloned cattle who have been genetically manipulated to be resistant to mastitis.(17)
Rather than consider a little bit of kindness or compassion, dairy farmers are trying to make Frankencows.
We shouldn’t kid ourselves. Eggs and dairy aren’t harmless, especially when we don’t pay attention to where they come from. It isn’t easy to give up, or even cut back on, the foods we love. But that omelet may come at the price of everything that’s supposed to be good in humanity.
And if the suffering of animals doesn’t bother you, you should see what the livestock industry is doing to people.
So, it’s a pretty miserable life being an egg laying hen. Hens are debeaked, with hot irons, because the horrendous conditions in which they are kept can induce destructive behavior such as cannibalism. 98% of egg-laying hens “live” in stacked battery cages, with 5-7 birds in space not really adequate for long term residence for one: 20x24”. They’re improperly fed to manipulate their egg production. They lose their feathers from malnutrition and their feet are destroyed by the harsh metal floors they have to stand on. The egg industry also feeds the slaughter. Any male chicks which are born are killed, as they have no use for egg laying. According to PETA, they’re often killed in a high-speed grinding machine called the macerator. The hens, who are exhausted by the malnutrition and overproduction, not to mention osteoporosis, are worn out and therefore shipped to slaughter around 2 years of age, one-fifth the potential life-span of a chicken.
Dairy cows in factory farms also suffer. There are approximately 9 million cows on dairy farms, some 13 million less than in 1950. Yet milk production is up, an indication of the unnatural and demanding position dairy cows are in. They are kept constantly pregnant, and never given the chance to actually raise their young. Male calves are taken away when they’re a day old and fed a milk substitute, destined for the veal market. Females are slaughtered or “groomed” for dairy production. Through genetic manipulation, antibiotics, and hormones cows are forced to produce an unnatural quantity of milk. Some cows are kept chained to poles on concrete floors while others are crammed into over-crowded mud lots. Grass doesn’t even come into the equation, as their feed consists of various animal parts, even including cow meat. This particular abomination is what gave rise to the mad cow problems being experienced, particularly in Britain, a few years ago. One of the most frequent disorders affecting dairy cows is mastitis, a painful inflammation of the mammary glands, in part due to the automated milking systems employed by high-yield dairy farmers. Here’s something particularly disturbing from PETA factsheets:
Studies have shown that providing cows with cleaner housing, more space, and better diets, bedding, and care lowers the SCC of their milk and their incidence of mastitis.(15) A Danish study of cows subjected to automated milking systems found “acutely elevated cell counts during the first year compared with the previous year with conventional milking. The increase came suddenly and was synchronized with the onset of automatic milking.”(16) Yet instead of improving conditions on factory farms or easing cows’ production burden, the dairy industry is exploring the use of cloned cattle who have been genetically manipulated to be resistant to mastitis.(17)
Rather than consider a little bit of kindness or compassion, dairy farmers are trying to make Frankencows.
We shouldn’t kid ourselves. Eggs and dairy aren’t harmless, especially when we don’t pay attention to where they come from. It isn’t easy to give up, or even cut back on, the foods we love. But that omelet may come at the price of everything that’s supposed to be good in humanity.
And if the suffering of animals doesn’t bother you, you should see what the livestock industry is doing to people.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
And now for something brief and frivolous. . .
I hate bumper stickers. If you want to brag that your kid is an honor student, fine, though don't expect me to really care. If you want to put some insulting, pseudo-funny one liner on your car, go for it. You'll come off like a shmuck, but hey, that's your business. The sports you love, the country you're from, some reference to your profession, be my guest. But political and missionizing bumper stickers really shouldn't exist. Granted, the ones that piss me off are the ones I disagree with, but I'm fair enough to say that even the stickers I like shouldn't be on cars. This is not a question of freedom of speech. I firmly believe that people should be able to shout their opinions from soap boxes, blogs, and letters to the editor, even if they happen to be offensive or wrong. But the problem with bumper stickers is that, unlike the above-mentioned venues, they provide no opportunity for a dissenting response, no opening for discussion. I could honk my horn at you perhaps, or key your car in the parking lot, but that's not really appropriate nor does it actually count as legitimate debate. The political or prosletyzing bumper sticker isn't just supporting your cause, it's a slap in the face to any driver behind you who disagrees. You're saying, "you have to care about my opinion, but I don't have to care about yours." Moreover, it's cowardly; you remain in complete anonymity, giving no one a chance to confront you about your opinions (yes, I use a pseudonym for this blog, but you still have access to me through email and the comments setting on this blog). And really, whose mind do you think you'll change with a bumper sticker anyway? As I think a comedian once said, "I don't get the bumper stickers that proclaim the divinity of Jesus. Really, how gullible do you think the Jews are that all it takes is a bumper sticker to convert?" Or something like that. So keep your politics and your religious beliefs off your car. It's classier that way.
Monday, July 24, 2006
In the meantime. . .
So, it would seem by now that I should have written subsequent entries on issues relevant to vegetarianism. But, I haven't. You should learn that I sometimes get really behind in this sort of thing. Especially since I have tried to make these entries reasonably articulate and to get my facts straight when I am citing facts. It's always easier when I can just spew out my numerous opinions and not feel obligated to quote statistics. However, if anything I wrote in the last entry touched you, please go to www.farmusa.org or www.peta.org. Yes, PETA can be a little crazy at times, but they're a good resource for getting started.
Watching this "American Dad" episode makes me think that an upcoming entry will also be devoted to issues of sex-ed, and also probably the current war on birth control. At any rate, just a heads up, since I feel like I've been remiss in my updating.
Some topics for discussion in the meantime: Why would cartoonists draw udders on male cows? How stupid can a person be? And also, reflect on this line from Hoodwinked: Critters have feelings too.
--Aine Bina
Watching this "American Dad" episode makes me think that an upcoming entry will also be devoted to issues of sex-ed, and also probably the current war on birth control. At any rate, just a heads up, since I feel like I've been remiss in my updating.
Some topics for discussion in the meantime: Why would cartoonists draw udders on male cows? How stupid can a person be? And also, reflect on this line from Hoodwinked: Critters have feelings too.
--Aine Bina
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Go Vegetarian, Part I
Well, I put it off for several months, and I think I deserve some recognition of my restraint. But here is my exhortation to go vegetarian. First, a note on etymology: vegetarian comes from “vegetare” which is Latin and means “to enliven.” It comes up sometimes, so just FYI. Also, if you remain completely unmoved by what I’m about to tell you, don’t ever ask a vegetarian if she eats animal crackers. It’s the dumbest, most annoying joke imaginable.
Vegetarianism is the right thing to do. The first, but most certainly not the last, reason to eschew meat, and perhaps even eggs and dairy if you have the strength and dedication, is that to consume animal products causes animal suffering. At a very basic level, death is something that all animals try desperately to avoid. Animals die for you to eat meat, and even if one could imagine that there are completely painless, fearless ways to slaughter an animal, and it seems unlikely, you are robbing them of the enjoyment of life. And animals do enjoy it. If you have a pet, you know this.
But if needlessly killing a sentient being doesn’t bother you, then what about the acute suffering that animals go through as they are raised for your plate? Unless you are buying certified organic and cruelty-free, then you are contributing to the life-long torture of farm animals. According to FARM (www.farmusa.org), some 300 million turkeys and 9 billion chickens are slaughtered for human consumption. In factory farms, poultry is housed in sheds with roughly 10,000 birds to a shed. The animals are fattened up as quickly as possible, and many collapse under their own weight, and are then unable to get food and water or protect themselves from the mass of other birds. The sheds aren’t kept clean, and there develops a build-up of sulfides, methane, and ammonia. The birds are only taken out of these sheds to be crammed into wooden cages for transport to slaughter. I’ve seen rescued turkeys who had to be supported by a sling (for more stories of animal rescues, visit www.animalsanctuary.org ).
Then there are the cows. Beef cattle are kept in feed lots, where there is no shelter, no grass, no space; there are tens of thousands of cows kept in a single lot. Cattle are dehorned, castrated, and branded without anesthetic.
And of course, the pigs. Breeding sows are kept pregnant almost all of the time, the only respite is the 2-4 weeks (as opposed to the natural 12 weeks) of nursing 10-12 pigs. The gestation crates are so narrow that the sows cannot move. The farrowing pens are not much better. After 3-4 years the sows are sent to slaughter. After premature weaning, the piglets are put in tiny crates and fed synthetic formula, where they, like the cattle, are castrated and tagged without benefit of anesthesia. They are then moved to overcrowded feeding lots for six months before slaughter.
During transport, animals are deprived of food and water for hours. If they’re too weak to walk to the killing floor, they’re dragged. Sometimes animals are skinned, dismembered, or even boiled alive while still conscious.
And I haven’t even gotten to the egg-layers and dairy cows.
Vegetarianism is the right thing to do. The first, but most certainly not the last, reason to eschew meat, and perhaps even eggs and dairy if you have the strength and dedication, is that to consume animal products causes animal suffering. At a very basic level, death is something that all animals try desperately to avoid. Animals die for you to eat meat, and even if one could imagine that there are completely painless, fearless ways to slaughter an animal, and it seems unlikely, you are robbing them of the enjoyment of life. And animals do enjoy it. If you have a pet, you know this.
But if needlessly killing a sentient being doesn’t bother you, then what about the acute suffering that animals go through as they are raised for your plate? Unless you are buying certified organic and cruelty-free, then you are contributing to the life-long torture of farm animals. According to FARM (www.farmusa.org), some 300 million turkeys and 9 billion chickens are slaughtered for human consumption. In factory farms, poultry is housed in sheds with roughly 10,000 birds to a shed. The animals are fattened up as quickly as possible, and many collapse under their own weight, and are then unable to get food and water or protect themselves from the mass of other birds. The sheds aren’t kept clean, and there develops a build-up of sulfides, methane, and ammonia. The birds are only taken out of these sheds to be crammed into wooden cages for transport to slaughter. I’ve seen rescued turkeys who had to be supported by a sling (for more stories of animal rescues, visit www.animalsanctuary.org ).
Then there are the cows. Beef cattle are kept in feed lots, where there is no shelter, no grass, no space; there are tens of thousands of cows kept in a single lot. Cattle are dehorned, castrated, and branded without anesthetic.
And of course, the pigs. Breeding sows are kept pregnant almost all of the time, the only respite is the 2-4 weeks (as opposed to the natural 12 weeks) of nursing 10-12 pigs. The gestation crates are so narrow that the sows cannot move. The farrowing pens are not much better. After 3-4 years the sows are sent to slaughter. After premature weaning, the piglets are put in tiny crates and fed synthetic formula, where they, like the cattle, are castrated and tagged without benefit of anesthesia. They are then moved to overcrowded feeding lots for six months before slaughter.
During transport, animals are deprived of food and water for hours. If they’re too weak to walk to the killing floor, they’re dragged. Sometimes animals are skinned, dismembered, or even boiled alive while still conscious.
And I haven’t even gotten to the egg-layers and dairy cows.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth
Do you know how many polar bears drowned due to global warming last year? Al Gore does, and the statistic is part of his presentation on global warming that, intercut by interviews and images of Al Gore on his environment crusade, is presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Al Gore is funny, engaging, and heartfelt in this movie which presents global warming in a way that is easy to absorb for the average viewer, even if you aren't a scientist or a hard-core environmentalist. Well, at least I think. I am a pretty hard-core environmentalist (or at least a poseur of one) and have a reasonably good understanding of science. The graphics are wonderful and scenes from Al Gore's political past of trying to fight this in America will touch and infuriate you. Gore comes across not so much as preachy, but coaxing and supportive.
This movie was particularly helpful for me because, though I've never been skeptical about global warming, I have been unclear as to how scientists were distinguishing this from normal warming trends in the Earth's history. And now I know. Though we are currently at about the same level as previous peak temperatures of long ago Earth, as determined by ice sample analyses, the carbon levels in the atmosphere are at all time highs and are continuing to grow, and we know that heat and carbon go together. Which means that current heat is not abnormal, in the scheme of the great geological past, but it will get hotter. Every scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal agrees with this evaluation. It is only in the lay-world that there is doubt about global warming. And we must not doubt any longer. I cannot convince you to care about the extinction of species, or the houses that are collapsing in greenland as a result of melting permafrost, or future generations of refugees who will be forced to leave coastal areas, but you should know that you are responsible for this.
To learn more about global warming and what you can do to reduce your carbon emissions visitclimatecrisis.net Go see the movie. It's worth it.
This movie was particularly helpful for me because, though I've never been skeptical about global warming, I have been unclear as to how scientists were distinguishing this from normal warming trends in the Earth's history. And now I know. Though we are currently at about the same level as previous peak temperatures of long ago Earth, as determined by ice sample analyses, the carbon levels in the atmosphere are at all time highs and are continuing to grow, and we know that heat and carbon go together. Which means that current heat is not abnormal, in the scheme of the great geological past, but it will get hotter. Every scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal agrees with this evaluation. It is only in the lay-world that there is doubt about global warming. And we must not doubt any longer. I cannot convince you to care about the extinction of species, or the houses that are collapsing in greenland as a result of melting permafrost, or future generations of refugees who will be forced to leave coastal areas, but you should know that you are responsible for this.
To learn more about global warming and what you can do to reduce your carbon emissions visit
Thursday, June 08, 2006
A Marriage of Equals
Here are two pieces from the Washington Post:
Gay Marriage amendment Fails in Senate
Washington Sketch
The first is an article, the second an editorial. Both concern the re-introduced marriage amendment. All I can say is, I am ashamed for my country. Let us ignore, for the moment, whether I support gay marriage or not. This matter is not for the federal constitution. Marriage is a matter of interpersonal relationships, not a crucial government issue. If the marriage amendment, which would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, became a part of the Constitution, it would be the only constitutional article of its kind. To incorporate marriage into the Constitution is to say that the very structure of our government and our nation is dependent upon a particular type of personal relationship among our citizens. How incredibly weak and ridiculous does that make the USA sound?
Now to what the amendment is about. To define marriage as the union between one man and one woman is to leave democracy behind and turn the USA into a theocracy. There is no secular reason to keep homosexuals from marrying. After all, partnership is partnership. Two people of the same sex can have a joint household, combine their assets, and care for each other in times of need just as two people of opposite sexes can. There is no anthropological reason to assume the necessity of the nuclear family with one father, one mother, and 2.3 children. In fact, societies where there is traditionally strong ties between extended kin generally have lower incidences of major depression.
The religious reason lies in the belief of orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims that sexuality cannot be separated from procreation without being sinful. Hence the protester quoted in the editorial who cites the danger of homosexuality encouraging masturbation. After all, one cannot create children through masturbation, so masturbation is sinful. Edited to add, in response to a note: I know that Orthodox Jews do not consider sexuality per se sinful, and that enjoyment of the sex act is considered necessary for both partners and that physical and spiritual fulfillment in this case are intertwined. However, my understanding is that Orthodox Jews understand the story of Onan and Tamar as an injunction against masturbation, and of course Leviticus forbids a person to lay with a man as with a woman, which is hard to interpret in any way that doesn't relate to homosexuality. So sex only becomes legitimate in a procreative model, i.e., man and woman. However, I do not know what the opinion of Orthodox Jews on birth control is, so I am more than willing to be educated on this, or corrected if my understanding about the Orthodox Jews and the Onanian dogma is wrong.
This belief is incredibly archaic. We live in an era where contraceptive is safer and more reliable than ever, AIDS is sweeping through Africa and India, and the globe is becoming grossly over-populated. Besides which, how is this anyone's business? How did these "activists" ever get the idea that what goes on in other people's private lives is their concern? If I choose to marry another woman, how does that affect anyone else? It certainly doesn't demean heterosexual marriages. Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, has a divorce rate of 2.81 per 1000 people, as opposed to the prejudiced USA's number of 4.95 per 1000 people.
The truth is that numerous kinds of sex acts, including masturbation and homosexuality, are known in nature. In fact, anyone who has ever had a dog hump his leg knows this. So there goes the belief that homosexuality is unnatural, practiced only by degenerates. Of course, there are some who would argue that the bestial nature of these acts is what makes them so reprehensible. In which case, I can only suggest that these people stop eating, sleeping, or going to the bathroom.
Modern marriage is the joining of two individuals who enter into a partnership not because they need each other, but because they want each other. Today women can work and men can stay home and raise children. As we have dispensed with strict gender roles, so have we negated the need to only consider marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. We live in a nation which was one of the earliest to separate church and state. So why should the religious convictions of some be allowed to affect the civil liberties of others?
I'd like to conclude with a link to Glaukopis's satire and this thought: we are created in God's image, so why not revere our bodies in all the ways possible?
Gay Marriage amendment Fails in Senate
Washington Sketch
The first is an article, the second an editorial. Both concern the re-introduced marriage amendment. All I can say is, I am ashamed for my country. Let us ignore, for the moment, whether I support gay marriage or not. This matter is not for the federal constitution. Marriage is a matter of interpersonal relationships, not a crucial government issue. If the marriage amendment, which would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, became a part of the Constitution, it would be the only constitutional article of its kind. To incorporate marriage into the Constitution is to say that the very structure of our government and our nation is dependent upon a particular type of personal relationship among our citizens. How incredibly weak and ridiculous does that make the USA sound?
Now to what the amendment is about. To define marriage as the union between one man and one woman is to leave democracy behind and turn the USA into a theocracy. There is no secular reason to keep homosexuals from marrying. After all, partnership is partnership. Two people of the same sex can have a joint household, combine their assets, and care for each other in times of need just as two people of opposite sexes can. There is no anthropological reason to assume the necessity of the nuclear family with one father, one mother, and 2.3 children. In fact, societies where there is traditionally strong ties between extended kin generally have lower incidences of major depression.
The religious reason lies in the belief of orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims that sexuality cannot be separated from procreation without being sinful. Hence the protester quoted in the editorial who cites the danger of homosexuality encouraging masturbation. After all, one cannot create children through masturbation, so masturbation is sinful. Edited to add, in response to a note: I know that Orthodox Jews do not consider sexuality per se sinful, and that enjoyment of the sex act is considered necessary for both partners and that physical and spiritual fulfillment in this case are intertwined. However, my understanding is that Orthodox Jews understand the story of Onan and Tamar as an injunction against masturbation, and of course Leviticus forbids a person to lay with a man as with a woman, which is hard to interpret in any way that doesn't relate to homosexuality. So sex only becomes legitimate in a procreative model, i.e., man and woman. However, I do not know what the opinion of Orthodox Jews on birth control is, so I am more than willing to be educated on this, or corrected if my understanding about the Orthodox Jews and the Onanian dogma is wrong.
This belief is incredibly archaic. We live in an era where contraceptive is safer and more reliable than ever, AIDS is sweeping through Africa and India, and the globe is becoming grossly over-populated. Besides which, how is this anyone's business? How did these "activists" ever get the idea that what goes on in other people's private lives is their concern? If I choose to marry another woman, how does that affect anyone else? It certainly doesn't demean heterosexual marriages. Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, has a divorce rate of 2.81 per 1000 people, as opposed to the prejudiced USA's number of 4.95 per 1000 people.
The truth is that numerous kinds of sex acts, including masturbation and homosexuality, are known in nature. In fact, anyone who has ever had a dog hump his leg knows this. So there goes the belief that homosexuality is unnatural, practiced only by degenerates. Of course, there are some who would argue that the bestial nature of these acts is what makes them so reprehensible. In which case, I can only suggest that these people stop eating, sleeping, or going to the bathroom.
Modern marriage is the joining of two individuals who enter into a partnership not because they need each other, but because they want each other. Today women can work and men can stay home and raise children. As we have dispensed with strict gender roles, so have we negated the need to only consider marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. We live in a nation which was one of the earliest to separate church and state. So why should the religious convictions of some be allowed to affect the civil liberties of others?
I'd like to conclude with a link to Glaukopis's satire and this thought: we are created in God's image, so why not revere our bodies in all the ways possible?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Is there a dead angel in the garage?
This past Sunday, May 14, "The Simpsons" aired an episode called "The Monkey Suit." Flanders and Rev. Lovejoy go to war on teaching evolution in public school science classes. Lisa expresses her outrage to her mother and Marge replies, "well, I think both views should be respected and get equal time." And Lisa says "You have to chose between science and faith," or something like that. This characterization, which is not unique to the writers of Simpsons' episodes, is patently false. The fact is that science and religion are dealing with two completely different types of truth, and to say that one can disprove the other is nonsense.
Science is the effort to understand natural laws through evidence that can be gathered by sensory perception. In other words, things that can be understood by seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and/or touching them (in some cases with the help of tools). Evolution is science as not only can the fossil record be experienced this way, but evolution can actually be observed as it is happening in certain bacteria. Scientific fact must stand up to the same test of proof repeatedly, and it can be manipulated in manner x with predictable result y. This is why evolution is scientific fact, and should be taught in science classrooms.
Religion and mythology are means of understanding the world for which no scientific evidence can be gathered. This is to address the unanswerable question. Science tells us how, religion seeks to tell us why. Evolution can explain how we emerged from a single living cell into the vast range of lifeforms we have. But Genesis has a story for why we live, why have souls, why there is suffering in the world. Of course there are other mythologies than the Biblical one with different stories, but their purpose is the same: to gain an understanding of what it means to be human.
I am not suggesting that you have to accept the religious explanations you have been given. Where science can only have one reigning truth at any given time ("facts" may eventually be disproven with better evidence), religion can have infinite truths, as each individual tries to understand their place in the world. And your religious truth may be that there is no God, we are here as a result of cataclysmic coincidence, and all life is random. But, science can't prove that to be true anymore than it can prove it to be untrue.
So, I suppose I agree with Judge Snider's ruling in "Lisa the Skeptic": "As for the case of science vs. religion, I am issuing a restraining order. [Religion] must stay 500 feet away from [science] at all times." I switched the two, as I feel that many of the ongoing battles have more to do with religion trying to insinuate itself into the science classrom than science trying to insinuate itself into houses of worship. Everyone is free to hold the beliefs that are dearest to them, but you have to accept that creationism is not science, and that intelligent design is not good science. And that's okay. Because the whole point of faith is that you don't need hard evidence. It's true to your spiritual being, and that's good enough.
Science is the effort to understand natural laws through evidence that can be gathered by sensory perception. In other words, things that can be understood by seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and/or touching them (in some cases with the help of tools). Evolution is science as not only can the fossil record be experienced this way, but evolution can actually be observed as it is happening in certain bacteria. Scientific fact must stand up to the same test of proof repeatedly, and it can be manipulated in manner x with predictable result y. This is why evolution is scientific fact, and should be taught in science classrooms.
Religion and mythology are means of understanding the world for which no scientific evidence can be gathered. This is to address the unanswerable question. Science tells us how, religion seeks to tell us why. Evolution can explain how we emerged from a single living cell into the vast range of lifeforms we have. But Genesis has a story for why we live, why have souls, why there is suffering in the world. Of course there are other mythologies than the Biblical one with different stories, but their purpose is the same: to gain an understanding of what it means to be human.
I am not suggesting that you have to accept the religious explanations you have been given. Where science can only have one reigning truth at any given time ("facts" may eventually be disproven with better evidence), religion can have infinite truths, as each individual tries to understand their place in the world. And your religious truth may be that there is no God, we are here as a result of cataclysmic coincidence, and all life is random. But, science can't prove that to be true anymore than it can prove it to be untrue.
So, I suppose I agree with Judge Snider's ruling in "Lisa the Skeptic": "As for the case of science vs. religion, I am issuing a restraining order. [Religion] must stay 500 feet away from [science] at all times." I switched the two, as I feel that many of the ongoing battles have more to do with religion trying to insinuate itself into the science classrom than science trying to insinuate itself into houses of worship. Everyone is free to hold the beliefs that are dearest to them, but you have to accept that creationism is not science, and that intelligent design is not good science. And that's okay. Because the whole point of faith is that you don't need hard evidence. It's true to your spiritual being, and that's good enough.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Contrition (an apology for the last post)
I use the term apology in both its sense as an expression of regret and as a justification. Though I do not regret the sentiment that I was trying to express in the last post, I do regret that I expressed it somewhat poorly and thereby caused offense.
First, I would like to say that I was not trying to indict the extracurricular group that I mentioned. I was simply trying to use the scenarios I mentioned as an illustration of the larger sense of disconnect between majority and minority groups. I do not hold the group nor its leadership in any disregard, and feel that what happened was simply symptomatic of larger cultural issues and a natural bias that is very easy for all of us to develop and very hard to avoid. It is always easier to be aware of ourselves than others, but I think it is even easier when one is part of the dominant group. An American Protestant has a hard time being cognizant of what it feels like to be an American Jew, Muslim, Mormon, etc. As a white person, I have a hard time being fully cognizant of what it means to be Asian, Hispanic, African, etc, and am therefore capable of being inadvertently insensitive, as much as I hate to do so.
Another point that I intended, but ultimately failed, it would seem, to make, was that there is a certain uncertainty, at least I feel, to what degree a minority should assert their presence. I knew that some sort of leavened product would be served, yet I failed to contact the director to try to make special arrangements. Well, the practical thing to have done would have been to packed some sort of sack-lunch, but I never claimed to be immune to idiocy/sloth. At any rate, the reason why I didn't wish to make a special request was because it seemed presumptuous to ask someone to go out of her way for my special needs. Which may seem contradictory, since it never even occurred to me that the Jewish High Holidays wouldn't be taken into account (I'm spoiled, I grew up in an area densely populated with my fellow Hebrews). Which is why I wasn't actually upset about the bread, and I do regret that is the way I came across in the last post, merely reflective.
So hopefully that clarified things. I truly wasn't trying to be combative. I generally don't wish to take that particular tack, as I feel conversation goes nowhere when people are seeking to antagonize each other. Readers, please feel free to let me know when you feel I have been insensitive, though I ask that you try to keep to the same guidelines I am trying to hold myself to, which is to make discourse as courteous as possible.
First, I would like to say that I was not trying to indict the extracurricular group that I mentioned. I was simply trying to use the scenarios I mentioned as an illustration of the larger sense of disconnect between majority and minority groups. I do not hold the group nor its leadership in any disregard, and feel that what happened was simply symptomatic of larger cultural issues and a natural bias that is very easy for all of us to develop and very hard to avoid. It is always easier to be aware of ourselves than others, but I think it is even easier when one is part of the dominant group. An American Protestant has a hard time being cognizant of what it feels like to be an American Jew, Muslim, Mormon, etc. As a white person, I have a hard time being fully cognizant of what it means to be Asian, Hispanic, African, etc, and am therefore capable of being inadvertently insensitive, as much as I hate to do so.
Another point that I intended, but ultimately failed, it would seem, to make, was that there is a certain uncertainty, at least I feel, to what degree a minority should assert their presence. I knew that some sort of leavened product would be served, yet I failed to contact the director to try to make special arrangements. Well, the practical thing to have done would have been to packed some sort of sack-lunch, but I never claimed to be immune to idiocy/sloth. At any rate, the reason why I didn't wish to make a special request was because it seemed presumptuous to ask someone to go out of her way for my special needs. Which may seem contradictory, since it never even occurred to me that the Jewish High Holidays wouldn't be taken into account (I'm spoiled, I grew up in an area densely populated with my fellow Hebrews). Which is why I wasn't actually upset about the bread, and I do regret that is the way I came across in the last post, merely reflective.
So hopefully that clarified things. I truly wasn't trying to be combative. I generally don't wish to take that particular tack, as I feel conversation goes nowhere when people are seeking to antagonize each other. Readers, please feel free to let me know when you feel I have been insensitive, though I ask that you try to keep to the same guidelines I am trying to hold myself to, which is to make discourse as courteous as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
