Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Interesting article
This is a really interesting article. I am not endorsing or condemning the view point expressed in it. I just think it's really thought-provoking. I may choose to comment more thoroughly on it when I'm not supposed to be working. :-)
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Starbucks: Insert Clever Subtitle Here
I'm not a frequent coffee drinker. However, occasionally I feel the need for some caffeine and there happens to be a Starbucks nearby. I mean, there almost always happens to be a Starbucks nearby. You could be a town with a population of three and you've got a post office and a Starbucks. But I digress. So, I went and got some Starbucks this morning. I didn't even bother to order fair trade as I thought I was ordering a frap (I mis-ordered because I'm a super-spazz)and they are pre-mixed. However, as I looked at the menu, I couldn't even tell if there was a fair trade option at this particular 'bucks. If anything was labeled as such, it was done in really tiny letters (I have pretty good eyes, so verrrry tiny). So, as it is practically impossible to boycott Starbucks (sometimes you just need a cuppa and as I mentioned earlier, they are everywhere), I'm proposing that my readers write letters. Hurrah! My first ever injunction to write letters! Anyway, here's the contact 411:
Starbucks
2401 Utah Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134 USA
Phone: 206-447-1575
Web: www.starbucks.com
Also, you can check out Co-op America's Starbucks Responsible Shopper Profile for more dirt on Starbucks.
Starbucks
2401 Utah Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134 USA
Phone: 206-447-1575
Web: www.starbucks.com
Also, you can check out Co-op America's Starbucks Responsible Shopper Profile for more dirt on Starbucks.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Like Pink, I Am Not Dead
Hey, everyone. I know it's been a while since I posted anything. Even longer since I've posted anything, y'know, good. Sorry. I may have something in the works about eco-friendly cleaning products (which also happen to be more human-friendly) in the works.
In the meantime, I'd love to get people's opinions on the following issue:
The major race for the presidential Democrat nomination seems to be between Clinton and Obama. I find myself completely in the dark about who is the better candidate. I'm hoping to improve my knowledge before the primaries, but I was wondering if any of my readers (what are we up to now? 4?) are leaning one way or the other, and for what reasons. I know that ultimately a third-party candidate would be better, but part of making change is sometimes going for the compromised win instead of the uncompromised loss. So I tend to vote Democrat. Though, this time around, if there is a Green candidate, I may vote green since my state's electoral votes go blue the vast majority of the time. So, seriously folks, weigh in.
Finally, Safeway makes tasty organic peanut butter and Silk's new line of soy yogurts seem no better than the old line, but the flavor selection seems to have expanded.
In the meantime, I'd love to get people's opinions on the following issue:
The major race for the presidential Democrat nomination seems to be between Clinton and Obama. I find myself completely in the dark about who is the better candidate. I'm hoping to improve my knowledge before the primaries, but I was wondering if any of my readers (what are we up to now? 4?) are leaning one way or the other, and for what reasons. I know that ultimately a third-party candidate would be better, but part of making change is sometimes going for the compromised win instead of the uncompromised loss. So I tend to vote Democrat. Though, this time around, if there is a Green candidate, I may vote green since my state's electoral votes go blue the vast majority of the time. So, seriously folks, weigh in.
Finally, Safeway makes tasty organic peanut butter and Silk's new line of soy yogurts seem no better than the old line, but the flavor selection seems to have expanded.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Shorter Showers
Decreasing the length of showers is important, since that much heated water takes a lot of energy. This is probably much harder for women than men, and I've been trying to think up a few ways that my showers could go faster. For one, switching to leave-in conditioner. This way I don't have to take the time to put it in and rinse it out with the water running. One could probably help by getting tangles out of long hair before a shower, so wetting and washing goes more quickly. Also, I've always been one to shave in the shower, but I figure it can probably be done afterward. Also, sugaring might be a reasonably good alternative if one has the patience and the deftness for it (Ideal Bite had a tip on sugaring not too long ago). And of course, the obvious action of using a timer to keep from losing track of time.
Plus, since it's winter and we are all generally less sweaty and smelly, we could probably do with fewer showers anyway.
Anyone else have suggestions for saving water?
Plus, since it's winter and we are all generally less sweaty and smelly, we could probably do with fewer showers anyway.
Anyone else have suggestions for saving water?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Co-op America's 12 Steps for Reducing Carbon Emissions
The following is courtesy of Co-op America:
Each of these steps would reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2054. Implementing at least seven of them brings us to the scale necessary to meet the climate challenge, but we have to start now, and move quickly. We have a ten-year window in which we need to be well on the way to achieving these steps.
The good news is that we have the technology and know-how to accomplish all of these steps right now. The best news is that we don't just save the climate with these steps. They bring us real energy security, more jobs, a cleaner environment, real progress on the war against poverty, and a safer world. Let's get started today.
1. Increase fuel economy for the world's 2 billion cars from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. (Current US averages are a woeful 22 mpg.)
2. Cut back on driving. Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30-mpg cars from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year, through increased use of mass transit, telecommuting, and walking and biking.
3. Increase energy efficiency by one-quarter in existing buildings and appliances. Move to zero-emissions plans for new buildings.
4. Decrease tropical deforestation to zero, and double the rate of new tree plantings.
5. Stop soil erosion. Apply "conservation tillage" techniques to cropland at 10 times the current usage. Encourage local, organic agriculture.
6. Increase wind power. Add 3 million 1-megawatt windmills, 75 times the current capacity.
7. Push hard for solar power. Add 3,000 gigawatt-peak solar photovoltaic units, 1,000 times current capacity.
8. Increase efficiency of coal plants from an average of 32 percent efficiency to 60 percent, and shut down plants that don't meet the standard. No net new coal plants; for new plants built, an equal number should close.
9. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal with natural gas, a four-fold increase in natural gas usage over current levels — a short-term step until zero-emissions renewable technologies can replace natural gas.
10. Sequester carbon dioxide at existing coal plants. Sequestration involves storing carbon dioxide underground, an unproven technology that may, nonetheless, be better than nothing.
11. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.
12. Develop biomass as a short-term replacement for fossil fuel until better carbon-free technologies are developed — but only biofuels made from waste, and made without displacing farmland and rainforests.
Each of these steps would reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2054. Implementing at least seven of them brings us to the scale necessary to meet the climate challenge, but we have to start now, and move quickly. We have a ten-year window in which we need to be well on the way to achieving these steps.
The good news is that we have the technology and know-how to accomplish all of these steps right now. The best news is that we don't just save the climate with these steps. They bring us real energy security, more jobs, a cleaner environment, real progress on the war against poverty, and a safer world. Let's get started today.
1. Increase fuel economy for the world's 2 billion cars from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. (Current US averages are a woeful 22 mpg.)
2. Cut back on driving. Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30-mpg cars from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year, through increased use of mass transit, telecommuting, and walking and biking.
3. Increase energy efficiency by one-quarter in existing buildings and appliances. Move to zero-emissions plans for new buildings.
4. Decrease tropical deforestation to zero, and double the rate of new tree plantings.
5. Stop soil erosion. Apply "conservation tillage" techniques to cropland at 10 times the current usage. Encourage local, organic agriculture.
6. Increase wind power. Add 3 million 1-megawatt windmills, 75 times the current capacity.
7. Push hard for solar power. Add 3,000 gigawatt-peak solar photovoltaic units, 1,000 times current capacity.
8. Increase efficiency of coal plants from an average of 32 percent efficiency to 60 percent, and shut down plants that don't meet the standard. No net new coal plants; for new plants built, an equal number should close.
9. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal with natural gas, a four-fold increase in natural gas usage over current levels — a short-term step until zero-emissions renewable technologies can replace natural gas.
10. Sequester carbon dioxide at existing coal plants. Sequestration involves storing carbon dioxide underground, an unproven technology that may, nonetheless, be better than nothing.
11. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.
12. Develop biomass as a short-term replacement for fossil fuel until better carbon-free technologies are developed — but only biofuels made from waste, and made without displacing farmland and rainforests.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Hey Mikey!
In my numerous recent failures to avoid eggs, dairy, and crappily-sourced chocolate, I have become increasinlgy frustrated. Not only with myself, but with everyone I know. Because I have realized that going vegetarian is so ridiculously easy compared to trying to go organic, sustainable, or sweat-shop free. Most foods are pretty obvious about being meat-based. And even when they aren't, they're all required to have ingredients listed on the side. Same with clothes. Labels say what they're made of: leather, fur, silk, wool. And most malls and grocery stores carry some form of vegetarian merchandise; not always so for organic, fair trade, etc. And electronic books are becoming more readily available (the glue used for binding books isn't animal friendly). Vegetarianism is practically a cake walk.
So, here's my challenge: go one week, no meat. It's good for the animals, good for the planet, good for humanity, and good for you. C'mon, just try it. You may even like it.
Fair warning: hostess uses animal fat in their products.
Also, here's a small thing we can all do to help the planet. When you leave a room, shut off the lights. It's that simple. ;-)
So, here's my challenge: go one week, no meat. It's good for the animals, good for the planet, good for humanity, and good for you. C'mon, just try it. You may even like it.
Fair warning: hostess uses animal fat in their products.
Also, here's a small thing we can all do to help the planet. When you leave a room, shut off the lights. It's that simple. ;-)
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Buy Buy Baby
This Washington Post article relates a new development in the baby business. Now prospective parents can order pre-made embryos after carefully reviewing the contracted egg and sperm donors. All egg donors must be in their twenties and have at least some college education. Sperm donors must have an advanced degree. Both are vetted for their medical histories, for example making sure there's no familial history of mental illness.
And it is so very, very scary.
Of course, this business is only marginally scarier than what has preceded it. In a modern world where socio-economic class is becoming continually more of an issue, paying for embryos is a bad idea.
Though I have never been in a situation where I wanted children and could not have them, and therefore cannot possibly understand and thereby reject the feelings and efforts of infertile couples seeking to have children, my first response to all of these infertility clinics is that they are churning out babies that the world doesn't need. As a firm believer that the world needs to achieve zero population growth, I cannot be fully comfortable with the amount of effort that goes into producing pregnancies. This is hardly going to be a popular stance. I don't even like it much myself. Except that here I am not talking about people who are trying very hard to have their own biological children. These people are already outsourcing, they're just choosing parents to create a designer baby, rather than adopt one of the desperate infants (or older foster children) populating the world.
Of course, these potential children are being chosen over existing children because with the embryos-r-us retailer, they can get a designer baby. With adopting a child from a third-world country, who can say what you're getting? You might have to love a child inspite of it being flawed. A fate to be avoided, most definitely.
Well, what's wrong with wanting to choose who parents your child? Isn't that what we're essentially doing when we have children the natural way? No, not really. When you choose a mate, you look for mutual attraction, shared values, a sense of security with each other. Generally speaking, we don't check their medical histories or go back through their family tree. We want to have children with our partners because we love them, not because we weighed and measured them and decided they scored high enough. And in our society, it is inconceivable that if we all chose exactly what we wanted in our children that we wouldn't vere towards the same sorts of traits: athletic, smart (probably of a scientific bent), attractive, with the standard rule of beauty at the moment being tall and thin.
And if everyone were like that, would that necessarily be terrible? Well, not everyone would be like that. You see, mail-order embryos are something that can only be afforded by the rich (or at least, relatively rich on the global scale). So the rich would have these children, carefully selected to have been born from healthy, attractive, well-educated (and therefore assumed to be intelligent) parents, and the poor would just have regular kids. And who is going to move up in the world? Joe Schmo, born of his parents love (or drunken one-night stand and broken condom) or Joseph Schmoington III, born of strangers carefully screened for genetic fitness? This is why it is eugenics. Because not only does this process entail cold-bloodedly deciding which genes are worthy and which are unworthy, but it also involves exclusion. And this is only with pre-screened parents. This particular issue of the Abraham Institute, or whatever it's being called, doesn't even touch on the fact that embryos are being screened for genetic fitness. I can understand why one wants to rule out some damaging and painful congenital disorders, but people can choose the sex of the baby, and it's not stopping there. I don't believe for a minute that it's stopping there.
I'm exhausted and terrified just thinking about the implications of where our society is taking reproduction. And that's without going into issues of the objectification of women and the consequences of sex determination in misogynistic cultures.
And it is so very, very scary.
Of course, this business is only marginally scarier than what has preceded it. In a modern world where socio-economic class is becoming continually more of an issue, paying for embryos is a bad idea.
Though I have never been in a situation where I wanted children and could not have them, and therefore cannot possibly understand and thereby reject the feelings and efforts of infertile couples seeking to have children, my first response to all of these infertility clinics is that they are churning out babies that the world doesn't need. As a firm believer that the world needs to achieve zero population growth, I cannot be fully comfortable with the amount of effort that goes into producing pregnancies. This is hardly going to be a popular stance. I don't even like it much myself. Except that here I am not talking about people who are trying very hard to have their own biological children. These people are already outsourcing, they're just choosing parents to create a designer baby, rather than adopt one of the desperate infants (or older foster children) populating the world.
Of course, these potential children are being chosen over existing children because with the embryos-r-us retailer, they can get a designer baby. With adopting a child from a third-world country, who can say what you're getting? You might have to love a child inspite of it being flawed. A fate to be avoided, most definitely.
Well, what's wrong with wanting to choose who parents your child? Isn't that what we're essentially doing when we have children the natural way? No, not really. When you choose a mate, you look for mutual attraction, shared values, a sense of security with each other. Generally speaking, we don't check their medical histories or go back through their family tree. We want to have children with our partners because we love them, not because we weighed and measured them and decided they scored high enough. And in our society, it is inconceivable that if we all chose exactly what we wanted in our children that we wouldn't vere towards the same sorts of traits: athletic, smart (probably of a scientific bent), attractive, with the standard rule of beauty at the moment being tall and thin.
And if everyone were like that, would that necessarily be terrible? Well, not everyone would be like that. You see, mail-order embryos are something that can only be afforded by the rich (or at least, relatively rich on the global scale). So the rich would have these children, carefully selected to have been born from healthy, attractive, well-educated (and therefore assumed to be intelligent) parents, and the poor would just have regular kids. And who is going to move up in the world? Joe Schmo, born of his parents love (or drunken one-night stand and broken condom) or Joseph Schmoington III, born of strangers carefully screened for genetic fitness? This is why it is eugenics. Because not only does this process entail cold-bloodedly deciding which genes are worthy and which are unworthy, but it also involves exclusion. And this is only with pre-screened parents. This particular issue of the Abraham Institute, or whatever it's being called, doesn't even touch on the fact that embryos are being screened for genetic fitness. I can understand why one wants to rule out some damaging and painful congenital disorders, but people can choose the sex of the baby, and it's not stopping there. I don't believe for a minute that it's stopping there.
I'm exhausted and terrified just thinking about the implications of where our society is taking reproduction. And that's without going into issues of the objectification of women and the consequences of sex determination in misogynistic cultures.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Resolutions
I did my grocery shopping at Marks and Spencer today. It's not exactly MOM (My Organic Market, a mini-chain in Maryland), but they do seem to try hard to be responsible. For starters, they only use cage-free eggs, for sale or for producing their packaged goods. There's a lot of excess packaging issues over here though.
I've also been good about line drying all of my clothes, rather than using a dryer. And I'm pretty sure I'm washing all of my stuff in cold water. The washing machine here is a little tricky though. :-) I'm used to home where you just press the cold button.
So, it is that time for (cue big TV announcer voice) New Year's Resolutions. So here are some of mine, perhaps to inspire some of yours:
1. Continue to try and reduce environmental footprint
2. Buy only fair trade, organic chocolate
3. Switch investments to all socially responsible funds
Anybody out there have any good resolutions born of their dedication to environmentalism and/or social responsibility? Feel free to share.
I've also been good about line drying all of my clothes, rather than using a dryer. And I'm pretty sure I'm washing all of my stuff in cold water. The washing machine here is a little tricky though. :-) I'm used to home where you just press the cold button.
So, it is that time for (cue big TV announcer voice) New Year's Resolutions. So here are some of mine, perhaps to inspire some of yours:
1. Continue to try and reduce environmental footprint
2. Buy only fair trade, organic chocolate
3. Switch investments to all socially responsible funds
Anybody out there have any good resolutions born of their dedication to environmentalism and/or social responsibility? Feel free to share.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Redesign!
As I mentioned in the previous post, I'm overhauling my somewhat bloated blogger life. The first step is to do something a bit different with "The Tree of Knowledge," which will now become "Just Living," (it's a bit of a play on words). I will still be writing articles on grander issues like vegetarianism and feminism, and all those other lovely and not-so-lovely isms. However, I will also be trying to blog regularly about my efforts to live by the ethical guidelines that I think are worthy. This will feed into my efforts to start a magazine about the same sort of subject. The other blogs which are attached to Aine Bina will probably fall by the wayside, though I'm not deleting them just yet.
So, my first entry along these lines: I'm struggling at the moment, because I have recently uprooted myself and moved to London. Being a vegetarian here is generally easier than in the states. I am also traveling almost exclusively by train and underground, so that's something as well. I'm somewhat nomadic at the moment, so I've been eating in cafes, pubs, and restaurants with no attention paid to fair trade, organic, or locally grown. However, I am surprised by the number of times I've stumbled into some place and seen a sign saying the management strives to use fair trade, GMO free, locally produced, cage-free, etc. Not to sound like yet another liberal denigrating the US, but the UK is definitely a lot quicker to pick up on the new wave of progressiveness. And then the UK is somewhat more backward than some other countries in the EU.
The biggest issue I have been having is that there is a serious dearth of public recycling bins. This is especially problematic given that there are several free papers available every week day. I also receive daily candy emails, and I've noted that the London subscription is much more likely to feature sweatshop free or organic than the NYC or Washington, DC subscriptions were. Sadly, I've fallen very far behind in my Ideal Bite and Greenlife daily emails.
And so the struggle goes on. . .
So, my first entry along these lines: I'm struggling at the moment, because I have recently uprooted myself and moved to London. Being a vegetarian here is generally easier than in the states. I am also traveling almost exclusively by train and underground, so that's something as well. I'm somewhat nomadic at the moment, so I've been eating in cafes, pubs, and restaurants with no attention paid to fair trade, organic, or locally grown. However, I am surprised by the number of times I've stumbled into some place and seen a sign saying the management strives to use fair trade, GMO free, locally produced, cage-free, etc. Not to sound like yet another liberal denigrating the US, but the UK is definitely a lot quicker to pick up on the new wave of progressiveness. And then the UK is somewhat more backward than some other countries in the EU.
The biggest issue I have been having is that there is a serious dearth of public recycling bins. This is especially problematic given that there are several free papers available every week day. I also receive daily candy emails, and I've noted that the London subscription is much more likely to feature sweatshop free or organic than the NYC or Washington, DC subscriptions were. Sadly, I've fallen very far behind in my Ideal Bite and Greenlife daily emails.
And so the struggle goes on. . .
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Things are in the works
I'm moving to Britain in a number of days. I have an interview with an animal welfare group, which is pretty cool, but you know, nothing is certain but death and taxes (and non-refundable plain tickets). So, that's why things have been so slow on the update front lately. Moving from state to state, nation to nation, finishing up work on the upcoming issue for the magazine I was working for, dealing with Thanksgiving, doing my final project for the class I have been taking... I have been one busy (non-) blogger.
So, there may be some blog changes coming up. I will probably be deleting the "experimental blog." This blog may be reformatting a bit. You'll see what I'm talking about soon. That reminds me, I still have that thing about factory farming screwing over people in the works. I'm sure It will be written eventually. Really.
In the meantime, keep watching the stars. Or something.
ETA: I finished the factory farming piece. It is published under the date I started it on, 10/28, a few entries down.
So, there may be some blog changes coming up. I will probably be deleting the "experimental blog." This blog may be reformatting a bit. You'll see what I'm talking about soon. That reminds me, I still have that thing about factory farming screwing over people in the works. I'm sure It will be written eventually. Really.
In the meantime, keep watching the stars. Or something.
ETA: I finished the factory farming piece. It is published under the date I started it on, 10/28, a few entries down.
Monday, November 13, 2006
FYI
If you check out my profile, you'll notice I recently added a new blog about the magazine I am trying to start.
I don't know when you'll get the piece on how factory farming affects people. It's just not on the top of my priority list right now. Perhaps if you left notes it would motivate me. Sort of like clapping and saying "I do believe in fairies" brings Tinkerbell back to life.
Oh well, can't blame me for trying.
I don't know when you'll get the piece on how factory farming affects people. It's just not on the top of my priority list right now. Perhaps if you left notes it would motivate me. Sort of like clapping and saying "I do believe in fairies" brings Tinkerbell back to life.
Oh well, can't blame me for trying.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
In the meantime. . .again. . .
I have a post in the works about humans and factory farms, but it's hard to write. I'm just not in the mood for researching right now.
At any rate, Sadam Hussein was sentenced to hang today. It's very creepy. It's not a question of whether he deserves to die. I don't really believe in the death penalty no matter what. The death penalty, as an immutable sentence, requires an infallible justice system. And the justice system cannot be infalliable as it is based on the judgments of men. Moreover, it erases any chance that the criminal might have to atone. Sure, their atonement during life in prison might be state-compelled rather than born of any true repentance, but I believe the balance needs to be redressed. Criminals should be put to work redressing the balance. Another failure of our justice system.
I am really bothered by Hussein's sentence though because it was inevitable. From the moment this trial started, I knew that he would be found guilty. I suppose I have a hard time believing that it was possible he got a fair trial. And it's just creepy knowing that someone is going to die at a designated time and place. It gives me a chill. And I suppose it also feels odd because at this point, Hussein is a dwindled man. It's easy, or easier, to think of killing a man when he's a horribly powerful dictator. But now he's an embattled defendant staring at his own mortality. I'm not saying this erases his crimes, but it certainly complicates my image of Hussein, and therefore complicates my feelings of comfort with his ultimate demise. I don't remember having this problem with other capital punishment cases. But maybe I was just much younger or they were much less publicized. I don't know.
I just know it's creepy.
At any rate, Sadam Hussein was sentenced to hang today. It's very creepy. It's not a question of whether he deserves to die. I don't really believe in the death penalty no matter what. The death penalty, as an immutable sentence, requires an infallible justice system. And the justice system cannot be infalliable as it is based on the judgments of men. Moreover, it erases any chance that the criminal might have to atone. Sure, their atonement during life in prison might be state-compelled rather than born of any true repentance, but I believe the balance needs to be redressed. Criminals should be put to work redressing the balance. Another failure of our justice system.
I am really bothered by Hussein's sentence though because it was inevitable. From the moment this trial started, I knew that he would be found guilty. I suppose I have a hard time believing that it was possible he got a fair trial. And it's just creepy knowing that someone is going to die at a designated time and place. It gives me a chill. And I suppose it also feels odd because at this point, Hussein is a dwindled man. It's easy, or easier, to think of killing a man when he's a horribly powerful dictator. But now he's an embattled defendant staring at his own mortality. I'm not saying this erases his crimes, but it certainly complicates my image of Hussein, and therefore complicates my feelings of comfort with his ultimate demise. I don't remember having this problem with other capital punishment cases. But maybe I was just much younger or they were much less publicized. I don't know.
I just know it's creepy.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Vegetarianism, Part III: Inhumanity to Man
So, the end of my last Vegetarianism post I indicated that I would be talking about the effects of the meat industry on people. This post is not about the implications a meat-based diet has for your health. This is about how industrial farming affects people, notably, though not exclusively, industry employees and local communities.
What is the experience of a worker in a factory farm or slaughter house? Well, it's not dissimilar from the experience of animals in factory farms, as workers' needs go unmet in areas of sanitation, health care, safety, and comfort. The fatality rate for farm workers is five times higher than the all-industry rate (factoryfarming.com). OSHA rates meat-processing as one of the most hazardous jobs in America. Assuming full-time employment, most workers fall on or below the poverty line, and many employees do not get work or wages during seasonal slow-downs. Many employees are illegal immigrants who feel they have no recourse to help; they cannot complain to their bosses, lest they get fired, nor to the government lest they get deported.
It is intuitive that the nature of the work is dangerous: live, usually terrified animals and tools such as large blades and air-powered knocking guns aren't exactly baby-proofed. Many workers get kicked by cows and pigs. However, the working conditions in factory farms involve many more dangers than the nature of the work makes inevitable. Rampant bacteria and toxic gasses lead to some unpleasant diseases. For example, Johns Hopkins Bloomburg School of Public Health found that in a sample of chicken catchers, more than 40% tested for campylobacter bacteria, which can cause diarrhea, stomach cramps, and fever (goveg.com). Factory Farm laborers also spend all day inhaling dust from confined animals, which causes respiratory problems. And then there's the ammonia from all the excrement that doesn't get cleaned up, which also gets inhaled. Plus, Factory Farms use large-scale industrial chemicals, like pesticides.
Then of course there are the local communities who are affected by these plants: "Factory farms have been linked to health problems for farm workers and neighbors, and contaminated water and air in surrounding communities. The stench alone can ruin rural communities, as residents rush to shut their windows and bring their children indoors when the wind shifts. These communities have been fighting lonely, uphill battles against operators that take advantage of lax enforcement of zoning and environmental laws.
'In a 16 mile corridor we have dairy operations dumping five times the amount of raw sewage as that produced by the entire population of Seattle onto our fields,” said Helen Reddout, president of Community Association for Restoration of the Environment in Yakima County, Washington. “Contaminated waste on our fields is dangerous as we can see in the California spinach case.'" (foodandwaterwatch.org) Factory Farming in America has actually put over three million family farms out of business, according to David Grazia's A Very Short Introduction to Animal Rights (which I mentioned earlier) This happened in part because agribusinesses receives huge government subsidies (so, your meat isn't as cheap as you think it is).
In fact, the repercussions of the meat industry can be far-reaching, more so than any of us might think. According to A Very Short Introduction to Animal Rights, the misuse of resources involved in the meat industry can affect people on a global scale. It takes 8 pounds of hog feed to produce a pound of pork, 21 pounds of calf feed to produce a pound of beef. America, that's where your grain is going. The demand for meat in wealthy countries makes plant proteins unaffordable in poorer countries, since it's better business (meaning higher profits) to feed to the animals that get fed to the rich than to feed the poor. Poor communities than abandon sustainable farming practices to produce cash crops and meat. Non-sustainable farming means short-term business, short-term profits. Which means poor communities stay poor. If we didn't channel most grain protein into huge herds of livestock, we could easily feed all the people on earth. So why should we eat hamburgers and spare ribs when there are children in third-world nations are starving?
Here is another web page I found on the subject:
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/behind-closed-doors.asp (which for some reason features an image of a highland cow)
You can also check out http//:www.hfa.org or just google "factory farm workers."
What is the experience of a worker in a factory farm or slaughter house? Well, it's not dissimilar from the experience of animals in factory farms, as workers' needs go unmet in areas of sanitation, health care, safety, and comfort. The fatality rate for farm workers is five times higher than the all-industry rate (factoryfarming.com). OSHA rates meat-processing as one of the most hazardous jobs in America. Assuming full-time employment, most workers fall on or below the poverty line, and many employees do not get work or wages during seasonal slow-downs. Many employees are illegal immigrants who feel they have no recourse to help; they cannot complain to their bosses, lest they get fired, nor to the government lest they get deported.
It is intuitive that the nature of the work is dangerous: live, usually terrified animals and tools such as large blades and air-powered knocking guns aren't exactly baby-proofed. Many workers get kicked by cows and pigs. However, the working conditions in factory farms involve many more dangers than the nature of the work makes inevitable. Rampant bacteria and toxic gasses lead to some unpleasant diseases. For example, Johns Hopkins Bloomburg School of Public Health found that in a sample of chicken catchers, more than 40% tested for campylobacter bacteria, which can cause diarrhea, stomach cramps, and fever (goveg.com). Factory Farm laborers also spend all day inhaling dust from confined animals, which causes respiratory problems. And then there's the ammonia from all the excrement that doesn't get cleaned up, which also gets inhaled. Plus, Factory Farms use large-scale industrial chemicals, like pesticides.
Then of course there are the local communities who are affected by these plants: "Factory farms have been linked to health problems for farm workers and neighbors, and contaminated water and air in surrounding communities. The stench alone can ruin rural communities, as residents rush to shut their windows and bring their children indoors when the wind shifts. These communities have been fighting lonely, uphill battles against operators that take advantage of lax enforcement of zoning and environmental laws.
'In a 16 mile corridor we have dairy operations dumping five times the amount of raw sewage as that produced by the entire population of Seattle onto our fields,” said Helen Reddout, president of Community Association for Restoration of the Environment in Yakima County, Washington. “Contaminated waste on our fields is dangerous as we can see in the California spinach case.'" (foodandwaterwatch.org) Factory Farming in America has actually put over three million family farms out of business, according to David Grazia's A Very Short Introduction to Animal Rights (which I mentioned earlier) This happened in part because agribusinesses receives huge government subsidies (so, your meat isn't as cheap as you think it is).
In fact, the repercussions of the meat industry can be far-reaching, more so than any of us might think. According to A Very Short Introduction to Animal Rights, the misuse of resources involved in the meat industry can affect people on a global scale. It takes 8 pounds of hog feed to produce a pound of pork, 21 pounds of calf feed to produce a pound of beef. America, that's where your grain is going. The demand for meat in wealthy countries makes plant proteins unaffordable in poorer countries, since it's better business (meaning higher profits) to feed to the animals that get fed to the rich than to feed the poor. Poor communities than abandon sustainable farming practices to produce cash crops and meat. Non-sustainable farming means short-term business, short-term profits. Which means poor communities stay poor. If we didn't channel most grain protein into huge herds of livestock, we could easily feed all the people on earth. So why should we eat hamburgers and spare ribs when there are children in third-world nations are starving?
Here is another web page I found on the subject:
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/behind-closed-doors.asp (which for some reason features an image of a highland cow)
You can also check out http//:www.hfa.org or just google "factory farm workers."
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
AIDS: Helping the Gap Sell
I've got a beef. The Gap is featuring a new line of (Red) products to go to AIDS programs. Forget that the Gap is still being monitored by various environmental, sweatshop, and human rights groups. Let's just focus on the fact that certain companies, including The Gap, MAC cosmetics, and others, do these promotions where they create certain product lines with the inducement that part of their profits go to AIDS and breast cancer programs (for example). So now the burden is on me to buy the products that will donate to charities regardless of whether they are the products that I actually want. Meanwhile, The GAP looks like a good corporate citizen (which they aren't, though admittedly they seem to be working on cleaning up their act) and take a tax break on the donations. Why doesn't The GAP just donate a portion of ALL their profits to charity? Or better yet, a percentage of all their profits with a minimum guaranteed donation, so that it doesn't matter if people run to buy their products. Because, that's what genuinely good people do. And, if you really want to give, then skip the GAP shirt and just cut a check to your favorite organization devoted to AIDS relief (or the environment, or animal rights, or women's rights, or whatever). At least then you get the credit, instead of a big corporation who has shown more care for their bottom line than social responsibility.
By all means, shop with corporations you think have good corporate policy. But don't get sucked in by slick campaigns.
By all means, shop with corporations you think have good corporate policy. But don't get sucked in by slick campaigns.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Poll
Here's a poll:
Please feel free (or even compelled) to leave a note explaining your answer.
Also find the poll here: Take my poll!
Please feel free (or even compelled) to leave a note explaining your answer.
Also find the poll here: Take my poll!
Friday, September 29, 2006
We're here. We're SPCA. Get used to it.
"I'm sorry, but you people make me absolutely sick. A group of people from your organization goes all the way to Beirut, sees how a city has been demolished, witnesses, first-hand, the human catastrophe that took place and then proceeds to fly 300 dogs and cats to the United States?!?!
You should be prosecuted for for crimes against humanity."
The above was posted by someone on the Best Friends animal rescue organization's website (www.bestfriends.org). In all likelihood, they did it just to piss people off. However, this wouldn't be the first time that a person has belittled the efforts of animal welfare groups, citing all the people who need help.
First, at the risk of sounding catty, I wonder what these people are doing with themselves? It often seems to me that there are plenty of people who would rather see apathy and selfishness rather than any sort of sympathy directed towards animals. One woman who spent thousands of dollars on healthcare for her pet was sent angry mail about the human beings who have no healthcare. Yet how much money has that person given to charity? How much did they spend on their electronics or luxury cars? It seems that rarely do people say, "How dare they put so much money and effort into the Academy Awards ceremony when there are people starving in Africa?" At least, they aren't saying it in my hearing.
Second, animals have no voice. Yes, many human beings are disenfranchised and oppressed, but the option exists for rebellion and sedition. Animals don't have the capacity to organize a media campaign for support, to band together and rise up against their tormentors, to drastically manipulate their environment to better suit their own needs. Which means that when human endeavor endangers animals, it is up to human endeavor to save them. Would I argue that human aid organizations should instead direct their efforts to animals? No. However, I still contend that the efforts of animal welfare organizations are valid and perhaps equally important.
Finally, I feel these people need to be made aware that all victories for animal rights are victories for people as well. It's important to campaign against factory farming because humans are injured by its excesses. Actions to find alternatives to animal testing mean better, more innovative ways of developing treatments for humans. Maintaining the integrity of rare ecosystems means a healthier planet for people and a greater likelihood of making discoveries that are ultimately of benefit to humanity. There may be any number of yet to be studied plants in the rainforest with miraculous medicinal qualities, which means that the entire ecosystem must be saved, as all organisms are interconnected. And really, if the world guarantees that all animals have a right to freedom from suffering, how can anyone get away with denying humans the same?
You should be prosecuted for for crimes against humanity."
The above was posted by someone on the Best Friends animal rescue organization's website (www.bestfriends.org). In all likelihood, they did it just to piss people off. However, this wouldn't be the first time that a person has belittled the efforts of animal welfare groups, citing all the people who need help.
First, at the risk of sounding catty, I wonder what these people are doing with themselves? It often seems to me that there are plenty of people who would rather see apathy and selfishness rather than any sort of sympathy directed towards animals. One woman who spent thousands of dollars on healthcare for her pet was sent angry mail about the human beings who have no healthcare. Yet how much money has that person given to charity? How much did they spend on their electronics or luxury cars? It seems that rarely do people say, "How dare they put so much money and effort into the Academy Awards ceremony when there are people starving in Africa?" At least, they aren't saying it in my hearing.
Second, animals have no voice. Yes, many human beings are disenfranchised and oppressed, but the option exists for rebellion and sedition. Animals don't have the capacity to organize a media campaign for support, to band together and rise up against their tormentors, to drastically manipulate their environment to better suit their own needs. Which means that when human endeavor endangers animals, it is up to human endeavor to save them. Would I argue that human aid organizations should instead direct their efforts to animals? No. However, I still contend that the efforts of animal welfare organizations are valid and perhaps equally important.
Finally, I feel these people need to be made aware that all victories for animal rights are victories for people as well. It's important to campaign against factory farming because humans are injured by its excesses. Actions to find alternatives to animal testing mean better, more innovative ways of developing treatments for humans. Maintaining the integrity of rare ecosystems means a healthier planet for people and a greater likelihood of making discoveries that are ultimately of benefit to humanity. There may be any number of yet to be studied plants in the rainforest with miraculous medicinal qualities, which means that the entire ecosystem must be saved, as all organisms are interconnected. And really, if the world guarantees that all animals have a right to freedom from suffering, how can anyone get away with denying humans the same?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Some new links
A couple of new links in the link list. One is to my other blog, which I occasionally update with some randomness or see how certain html codes look. You know, when I'm being slightly less lazy than usual.
Also, a link to Wine Monkey, which is the blog of the managing editor of Bon Vivant, who happens to have an in with Aine Bina. I personally don't care about wine, but he does a lot so if you're looking for someone to tell you about which wines are good and which are bad, Wine Monkey is the guy.
Also, a link to Wine Monkey, which is the blog of the managing editor of Bon Vivant, who happens to have an in with Aine Bina. I personally don't care about wine, but he does a lot so if you're looking for someone to tell you about which wines are good and which are bad, Wine Monkey is the guy.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Give us the skinny?
Milan Fashionistas fear Spanish skinny model ban
When I went to Spain, I barely found anything to eat and I threw up in Madrid. Apparently too many models have been doing the same thing, because Madrid has imposed a ban on overly skinny models strutting the runways during fashion week. They have created a minimum bmi (body mass index) number which all models have to be over.
Milan's mayor has stated that she is considering bringing the same ban to Milan's fashion week. This apparently is not going over well with some of the fashion industry's movers and shakers. Riccardo Gay, an agent, says that the BMI limit will disallow 80% of the models looking for work. Apparently most models are encouraged to exercise, eat right, and get plenty of sleep. Mario Boselli suggests that anorexia is a rare issue in fashion and that the answer is better education programs and for everyone in the fashion industry to spread awareness.
Now that is tough to swallow. If a person is under a certain point on the BMI scale (with a little wiggle room), then they are unhealthily skinny. So if 80% of models are in that category, than the industry is most certainly not encouraging healthy bodies, and most definitely not sending that message to young women and teenagers.
More important, the fashion industry does not show a wide range of body types, so regardless of how skinny models actually are, they encourage a very narrow idea of beauty. This means that most of the women throughout the world are receiving, at best, subliminal messages that there are parts of them that need to be fixed.
Perhaps, rather than, or perhaps in addition to, imposing a BMI lower limit, cities hosting fashion weeks should require that models fall across a wide range of heights, weights, and ethnicities.
When I went to Spain, I barely found anything to eat and I threw up in Madrid. Apparently too many models have been doing the same thing, because Madrid has imposed a ban on overly skinny models strutting the runways during fashion week. They have created a minimum bmi (body mass index) number which all models have to be over.
Milan's mayor has stated that she is considering bringing the same ban to Milan's fashion week. This apparently is not going over well with some of the fashion industry's movers and shakers. Riccardo Gay, an agent, says that the BMI limit will disallow 80% of the models looking for work. Apparently most models are encouraged to exercise, eat right, and get plenty of sleep. Mario Boselli suggests that anorexia is a rare issue in fashion and that the answer is better education programs and for everyone in the fashion industry to spread awareness.
Now that is tough to swallow. If a person is under a certain point on the BMI scale (with a little wiggle room), then they are unhealthily skinny. So if 80% of models are in that category, than the industry is most certainly not encouraging healthy bodies, and most definitely not sending that message to young women and teenagers.
More important, the fashion industry does not show a wide range of body types, so regardless of how skinny models actually are, they encourage a very narrow idea of beauty. This means that most of the women throughout the world are receiving, at best, subliminal messages that there are parts of them that need to be fixed.
Perhaps, rather than, or perhaps in addition to, imposing a BMI lower limit, cities hosting fashion weeks should require that models fall across a wide range of heights, weights, and ethnicities.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Absolution
Today I went to a fashion show with my boss, as we work at a lifestyle magazine and this week is fashion week. She made a comment on our way in (or possibly out, I can't remember) that in a way it was sort of sad that all this was going on even though it was the anniversary of September 11th (would it be flip of me to say that we should consider a more appropriate name for this event?). My response was that the entire ethos of post-9/11 America was that the perpetrators of the destruction would not succeed in forcing us to change our lives. Which did not really seem to convince her. However, I stand by my belief that the entire nation does not need to dress in sack cloth and ashes, tear at their hair, and wail in the street every year come September. Though September 11th is indeed the anniversary of a tragedy, every day is the anniversary of someone's tragedy. Indeed, every day is the setting of someone's tragedy. Which is not to say that the destruction of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center should be ignored, but rather that to say that we must remember on the anniversary of a tragedy is artificial and sterile. I remember my grandfather or my pet frequently throughout the year, but rarely on the exact date of their deaths (infact, I don't even remember the exact date of my grandfather's death). Rather they are with me when I feel them with me, and so there are no self-recriminations when on a certain day of the year I do not feel sad. And I didn't feel sad today. It was a beautiful day, full of promise, and I am not a bad person for feeling that way (and neither are you, should you have felt similarly). In truth, dwelling on this day only because people died is not the perfect way to honor the memory of those who passed anyway. Better to go out and make positive change. If going to a memorial service helps you to make positive change, more power to you. But if all it is for you is paying lip service to a grief you feel obligated to have, then who does that really serve?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
