The Week in Sharia: Mama Grizzly Edition | Mother Jones

Um. Really? Banning Sharia law from United States courts? What's next? Banning consideration of the Vulcan High Command?

No state court in the United States of America is bound by Sharia law. That being said, that so many conservatives seem to think that (theocratic) Sharia law is in some magical danger of bearing on court decisions here really should tell you something about what these same folks think about the separation of church and state here at home.

The Week in Sharia: Mama Grizzly Edition | Mother Jones: Legislators in Wyoming, South Carolina, and Arkansas introduced proposals to ban Islamic Law from state courts, bringing the total number of states that have moved on the issue to 11. Of note: State rep. Gerald Gay, who introduced the Wyoming measure, ran for office last fall on a platform of shooting abstract theories with high-powered weaponry; the Arkansas bill, meanwhile, was sponsored by state senator Cecile Bledsoe, who you may remember as one of Sarah Palin's 'Mama Grizzlies.'

Off to the vet | EDIT: All good!

I'm off to a vet appointment this morning to have the beast seen to. Fell apart a bit on the phone with Mom last night. If she's seriously ill (she doesn't seem it, but this cough hasn't gone) I don't think I'll be able to deal with it. Anyway. Cross your toes.

EDIT: She's fine! The vet says she has feline asthma and gave her a steroid injection. I'm very - VERY - relieved.

Friends of Animals | Urgent Alert: Help the Bison Get Home

Please take action on this:

Friends of Animals | Urgent Alert: Help the Bison Get Home: "As you read this, a group of formerly free-living bison are trapped and await their fate at the hands of ranchers’ protectors in the U.S. government. Al Nash, spokesperson for Yellowstone National Park, has just told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that the park will announce what will be done with some of these bison by the end of this week. [ See article. ]"

"Weekday Vegan" as a commitment to animal rights?

Over on www.thisdishisvegetarian.com I ran across a new-ish pseudo-vegan rationalization in this (I'm sure) well-intentioned piece by Elizah Leigh, in which she purports to show all she's learned being a "weekday vegan." This makes about as much sense as Mark Bittman's "vegan before six" construct, which is to say none at all, but the thing that jumped out at me were Leigh's stated reasons for her "vegan" transition: 

My motivation for test driving weekday veganism involves so much more than a concern for my own personal health and well-being. The first issue that weighs heavily on my mind is the factory farming industry’s utter lack of regard for the countless living creatures that are perceived as ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ commodities.

http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/01/10-things-ive-learned-about-being.html

How this squares with being non-vegan on the weekends is anyone's guess, but it still makes no sense at all. As Leigh herself allows, she's only "test-driving" her own version of semi-veganism. This totally ignores the ethical position that underlies veganism itself. We have to oppose this if we're ever to have any chance of communicating that ethical position itself. If veganism can be "test driven" (and part-time, at that) then it's just another diet. The ethics don't much matter, here. 

Think it through: would we applaud this construction on any other sort of social justice claim? Can one claim to be opposed to racism or sexism "part-time?" Can one claim that the treatment of animals weighs heavily on one's conscience and then that moral concern can be discarded on a whim, when the almighty tastebuds win out, but hey, we're limiting it to the weekends, so let's all join hands and call this progress for animal rights...and make no mistake, Leigh would like folks to think at least part of her concern is, indeed, animal rights. 

I know that I am not presenting a model view of veganism, but as someone who is incredibly moved by health, environmental and animal rights issues, I want to make a sincere effort to change my lifestyle habits.

Then why not make a sincere effort? Does your need for milk chocolate or whatever your trigger food really is justify animal consumption so long as you tell yourself you're making "progress" by limiting your consumption to Saturdays and Sundays? Are you really committed to the RIGHTS of nonhumans you exploit for your trivial tastes? Can you really rationally make this claim? 

Of course not.

Now then: if the folks at This Dish had called the piece "Weekend Vegetarianism" or something similar, there wouldn't be much point in objecting. Given that "vegetarian" has become so diluted as to be meaningless, I'd have (regretfully, perhaps) left it be. But words matter. Meaning matters. An ethical consideration that animals are not ours to eat or wear was why Donald Watson coined the term vegan in the first place. Veganism is not a diet. It's not about eating healthier, or living in a smaller ecological footprint or even reducing factory farming. It may incidentally include those things, but ultimately, veganism is a moral commitment that animals do not exist for us to exploit for food, clothing and trivial, easily avoidable human conveniences. Any claim to "part time" veganism removes this ethical consideration and makes veganism just another fad diet that one can try on for size when one wishes to lose some weight or "get healthy" or "live green" or other such ego-fulfilling cliches...but ultimately it simply means that the folks promoting this notion haven't fully considered animal rights ethics, no matter how much they may claim to support those ethics. 

Ex-SeaWorld Trainers Expose Orca Abuse | PETA.org

Isn't it about time we stopped pretending that Sea World and similar animal entertainment ventures were doing something good for "conservation" or "education?"

Ex-SeaWorld Trainers Expose Orca Abuse | PETA.org: Two former trainers at SeaWorld have released a report that includes firsthand information about the stress that killer whales endure in captivity—stress that the ex-trainers feel led to the deaths of at least two SeaWorld employees.

We see this time and time again. Animals in circuses turn and attack their "trainers." Animals in marine "parks" like Sea World attack theirs. We are torturing these animals and depriving them of their natural lives for our entertainment - nothing more.

Sometimes Larry And Sergey Don't Tell Eric Schmidt About Google's Acquisitions Till Later

This probably goes a long way to explaining why Schmidt is out as Google's CEO.

Sometimes Larry And Sergey Don't Tell Eric Schmidt About Google's Acquisitions Till Later: "Google CEO Eric Schmidt confessed at a press conference in New York today that he didn't know his company acquired Keyhole -- now known as Google Earth -- until after the fact. The same goes for Android."

Invisible Campaign | Talking Points Memo

Gingrich has announced for 2012? Newt Gingrich? Surely the right has more sense than this.

Invisible Campaign | Talking Points Memo

TPM: Mitt Romney Wins New Hampshire GOP Straw Poll

Of course it's far too early to read much into this, but Romney wins the New Hampshire straw poll...I can't help but wonder what this means for the 2012 Republican field.

The leaders of the New Hampshire Republican Party have spoken, and they have given Mitt Romney the early presidential lead in the Granite State. In the first-of-its-kind straw poll of members of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, Romney drew 35% of the total vote. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) came in second with 11%.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/mitt-romney-wins-new-hampshire-gop-straw-poll.php?ref=fpa

Does this mean Romney's more moderate positions he held as Governor of Massachusetts will get pushed even further to the side? Can we hope that he'll tack more toward the center to try and win swing democratic votes?

Mother Jones Mojoblog on the administration's gun control efforts

From Mojo: 

The Tucson massacre has prompted gun-control advocates to promote several measures to regulate certain firearms or ammo. But it has not moved the Obama White House to propose any such initiatives. And the White House appears to have no plans to do so.

Well, not to ask the obvious question, but why not? 

As Rachel Maddow's (Jan 13th show, MP3) been saying since the shootings happened, what the NRA has to say on gun control isn't the last word in anything. 

Coping With Depression

by Bhakti Tirtha Swami

Reposted from Krishna.com

Mental Illness on the Rise

In their 2001 World Health Report, the World Health Organization reported on the condition of mental health around the world, estimating that 450 million people on the planet have a mental or behavioral disorder. Furthermore, depression is now a leading cause of disability around the world, and, among the ten leading causes of the global burden of disease, it ranks fourth. The World Health Organization estimates that, in the next twenty years, depression will move up the list to become the second leading cause of disease. They also report that one million people commit suicide every year and between ten and twenty million make an attempt.

Considering these points, it is very important for us as spiritualists to understand mental illness so that we can help people who suffer from some of these problems. By understanding the effects of these mental disturbances on the consciousness, we will increase our effectiveness. This knowledge is a way that individuals with a higher level of consciousness can assist in many environments and bring in God consciousness. The spiritual warrior must protect the healthy and serve the wounded. In order to equip ourselves, we will examine mental illness and specifically depression from a psychological, physiological, and of course spiritual perspective.

Causes of Depression

Psychosomatic Diseases

Psychosomatic diseases distinctly develop from the mind, and, in certain instances, a person's mind literally causes them to experience a disease or repress the symptoms of a particular type of sickness, even to the degree of paralysis. Psychoneuroimmunology is a medical and psychological science, which studies the influence of the mind on the body. What does this topic have to do with depression? Psychosomatic diseases illustrate the power of the mind and are important for us as we try to understand depression. Just by recognizing the process of thinking, feeling, and willing, we understand how thoughts lead to actions. If we repeatedly maintain certain thoughts in our minds, they will eventually turn into words and then actions.

Furthermore, when a person feels alienated or unloved, it affects the mind. More specifically, it activates the neurotransmitters, which then send messages throughout the whole body and consequently cause an attack on the cells and organs in our own bodies. Many diseases actually develop due to the mind?s frequent attacks on the cells and organs in the body. The mind has just that kind of power. Conversely, when a person feels cared for and loved, their physical and psychological immune system actually gets stronger. Love literally heals, protects, and gives longevity, and a lack of love literally kills.

Biological Factors

Some types of mental illness as well as depression actually have a biological origin or counterpart. There are many different types of ailments, diseases, or problems that can cause a mental disturbance. Sometimes a physical imbalance such as sugar diabetes or low blood sugar can lead to an imbalanced mental state. A lack of certain vitamins or nutrients can create problems, even a thyroid problem. Some studies suggest that many people in mental institutions actually have a biological problem.

The Dark Night of the Soul

Christian theology has a term called “the dark night of the soul” or a period of serious testing which applies to all serious spiritual seekers. At certain times during our spiritual progression, we may go through periods of rapid advancement and growth although we may find it hard to perceive the situation in this positive way. We might reach a point in our lives when we begin to think, “I am chanting; meditating; praying; fasting; reading the scriptures; visiting the temple, church, synagogue, or mosque; and following the spiritual laws and principles, but I am miserable! Where is God?” At this point, one even begins to seriously doubt Krishna’s mercy and attentiveness. Such a person might feel that even God has forsaken them.

Many times we fall into a state of depression because we have been acting in the right way and our level of consciousness has become more elevated, but we fail to understand the seemingly negative circumstances and challenges in our lives. However, the Supreme lets us burn up that karma so that we can move into another chapter. If you look back through your lives, you may even recall times when you have in fact experienced such a period and began to question God’s existence or His fairness. However, when you look back now, you realize the purpose of such events in your life because they have helped you to increase or elevate your consciousness. Often, the result of intense suffering is elevation in consciousness. Such suffering gives us the intensity to break through the last layers of mundane consciousness.

The Influence of Subtle Entities

In some cases, different subtle entities actually affect the body. Some people’s thoughts, desires, and activities are so degraded and low that they invite or allow very negative and sinister entities to enter into their bodies and influence them to partake in extremely negative activities. Therefore, individuals who are not becoming more spiritual are gradually losing some of their freewill and their creative expression of consciousness. The bombardments of different types of influences and propaganda intrusion will have a greater affect on them. These increasing phenomena also can cause mental illness.

Women More Prone to Depression

Women usually suffer from depression more than men and have a greater susceptibility to fall into states of depression. One reason is that they usually have less control of their environments and tend to be more emotional. When a person has issues such as economic, political, social, or religious problems, it will affect them a little less if they have some control of the situation. However, when a person finds him or herself in the middle of a problem and must simply remain at the mercy of the situation, it causes so much more stress on the consciousness.

The World Health Organization reports that 20% of the world’s female population has been physically or sexually abused by a man at some time in their life. If a woman has repressed certain aspects of her past, these memories may begin to surface between her late thirties and forties which can lead to some disturbances in the mind or consciousness. A man may not understand the woman’s struggles during this period since some of her problems stem from issues of abuse during her childhood.

Misuse of Vedic and ancient cultures is another serious area that leads to problems and facilitates depression. A culture, which adheres to the idea that the man provides and dominates in a monarchial or autocratic arrangement, can become very destructive if the people abuse this philosophy. Instead of caretaking and facilitating the women, the men can create a completely opposite situation, which then leads to various types of abuse. When this happens, it of course produces great depression among the women. In many cases, the men just accept the arrangement as traditional culture without thinking deeply on the matter or feeling at fault.

Healthy Ways to Cope with Depression

Spiritually Minded Therapists

We now want to spend some time looking at solutions or at least ways of dealing with depression in a healthy manner. First of all, we have a need for spiritually minded therapists, or therapists who are appreciative of the spiritual culture, and most importantly, who are actually following such a culture. Although some of these mental challenges are physiological or biological, other mental disturbances stem from the mind, which means that talk therapy can help a person work through them. However, it can be dangerous to go to a therapist who does not understand or appreciate the spiritual dimension because they can even make one’s situation worse.

For instance, when a saintly person starts speaking in a spirit of humility, the average therapist will categorize this as low self-esteem and begin to treat the problem as low self-esteem. They do not understand that humility is a part of the wealth of a saintly person. The saint’s gratitude and closeness to God ultimately make him or her humble. The aspiring spiritualist may be fixed in simplicity and renunciation, but the therapist may see this as anti-social behavior. The saint may be pursuing chastity or celibacy, but the therapist may see this as unhealthy sexual repression. The list goes on and on. For these reasons, there is a need to have godly devotees with special expertise so that they can service their own communities and keep the devotional focus.

Maintaining Both the Body and Soul

We sometimes think that we can solve all of our problems simply through the execution of the rituals, and actually such practices can provide the essential help if we perform them with sufficient depth and purity. However, since such depth is very rare, additional help is needed to assist the practitioner in the removal of various blocks. As spiritual institutions and communities expand all around the world, we need to maintain body and soul together. The Vaishnava saint, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, explained that, in order to develop a healthy community, we need to balance the following four needs:

• We need to take care of the body.
• We need to properly stimulate the mind.
• We need to have a sense of social well-being.
• We need to study the sastra.

As we embark on the devotional path and experience certain types of challenges that go along with normal association, we should also seek out help, and if possible, search for those in the community who have a little more understanding of the physical and psychological needs as well as the spiritual aspects.

The Enemies of the Mind

Imagine a situation in which six enemies constantly surround you and incessantly wait for the opportune moment to attack when you put your guard down. The six enemies are lust, anger, greed, bewilderment, intoxication, and envy. These are some of the ways in which depression, anxiety, gloom, and frustration affect the mind. As soon as you become lackadaisical, they will swiftly approach. However, we can try to sufficiently reinforce ourselves and strengthen our weak spots if we know that maya will attack us in these weak areas. If we know the enemy’s hiding place—the mind, we can keep our distance instead of remaining in an insecure position or allowing the enemy to constantly attack from an ambush.

Many mental breakdowns deal with the mindset of lust because unsatisfied lust turns into anger and then turns into great illusion and confusion. We can also understand depression as anger turned toward oneself. Enviousness also creates an imbalance within us. We should be param-duhkha-duhkhi-kripam-buddhi which means that we should feel the misery of others as well as their happiness. We should feel happy for another person when we see something positive happen in their life. Actually, we should feel the same happiness for them that we would feel for our own selves in that same situation. This type of mindset can help prevent depression and mental disturbance. If we learn how to weed out these negative tendencies, we will find that it will lead to some wonderful solutions.

Relinquish Selfishness

If we find ourselves in a state of depression, we can also examine our degree of self-centeredness. There are two ways to play God. We play God when we see ourselves as superior and as the most important person. We also play God when we place ourselves in the center by thinking of ourselves as the most inferior or most unfortunate person. Other times people play God by considering that everything revolves around their problems. If you ask them, “How are you?” they will respond, “I am so glad you asked! I have a headache, stomachache, and a pain in my leg. I need a raise and my son is giving me such problems.” By focusing too much on our misfortunes, it will reinforce our problems rather than eliminate them. On the other hand, if we try to help someone else or try to go beyond our own immediate situation, we will see that Krishna will give us the help we need and even take away our own particular issues. Depression means that we are focusing too much on our own problems and withholding our love from others.

Faith is Most Important

We will not have the ability to persevere without faith but we cannot fake faith. When certain aspects of a person’s life are not going so well, his or her faith does get weaker. Our faith relates to what has happened in the past, what is happening in the present, and more directly with what we are anticipating in the future. If our past has been rough and our present is incoherent, our faith in the future will be weak. However, if we see positive events around us that we feel good about, we will have strong faith. Only a rare person can maintain strong faith when they have had a difficult past and a rocky present. In our communities, we want to create environments that will energize us and help increase our faith.

Gratitude as a Way of Life

Sometimes our mental challenges become very stagnant because we do not move through them. We do not appreciate the past, but the more we have gratitude, the more we create auspiciousness in the future. Sometimes the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives to us and sometimes He takes away. As devotees, we want to have such a grateful mindset that when God gives us so much wealth, we say thank you. When God takes it away and puts us into a state of impoverishment, we thank Him for protecting us from false pride. We thank Him for any situation that allows us to keep a simple life.

If we can just develop this consciousness and constantly thank the Supreme in any situation, we will be able to learn and grow from any circumstance. We will make the auspicious situations more auspicious and we will turn any inauspicious situations into auspicious ones. It will become a learning experience, and as we honor it with gratitude, Krishna will naturally make arrangements for us.

Conclusion

The mind is the greatest enemy although we can make it our greatest friend. It all depends on attitude. Setbacks happen in institutions, families, and to us individually but we want to avoid getting too depressed, discouraged, and disappointed. We should try to thank the Lord and try to learn from our circumstances. We wait for the Supreme to do more than we could have done for ourselves. This means that we need steady faith and perseverance. We can all encourage each other by first trying to have that faith and that faith will spill over and help someone else. In this way, we all inherit the Kingdom of God.

Isn't it about time you reconsidered eating animal flesh?

From the PETA Files:

A meat processing plant in British Columbia found itself in deep doo-doo after a whistleblower let it slip that the company had covered up test results that found dangerous E. coli in a product sample. E. coli resides in animals' intestinal tracts and ends up in meat when—and there's no nice way to put this—their guts are ripped open during slaughter and their feces spill out onto their flesh, contaminating it.

Isn't it about time? Go vegan.

NPR Says "Vegans Take America"

NPR affiliate OnPointRadio just posted a show on veganism. Looks like a great panel:

Kim O’Donnel, journalist, chef and author of The Meat Lover’s Meatless Cookbook. Her food column for USA Today is Family Kitchen.

Isa Chandra Moskowitz, author of the “Post Punk Kitchen” blog and author of the new book Appetite for Reduction: 125 Fast and Filling Low-Fat Vegan Recipes. You can read an excerpt.

Mollie Katzen, best-selling cookbook author. Her books include Moosewood Cookbook and The Enchanted Broccoli Forest.

Susan Nitzke, chair of the department of nutritional sciences at the University of Wisconsin, where she also is a researcher in diet and nutrition. For nutritional information on vegan diets, she recommends going to the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group.

See the show page: http://www.onpointradio.org/2011/01/vegans-america

(Via Vegan Soapbox)

Chris & Kerri's Christmas

My lovely friends Chris & Kerri spent Christmas at Kerri's Aunt Sue. Sue's posted gallery looks loverly.

New AR Podcast! Woot!

Michael Tiedeman's new podcast was just added to iTunes. The first episode is definitely worth a listen.

http://avoice4animals.blogspot.com/2011/01/voice-4-animals-podcast-episode-1.html

(His blog is worth a follow, as well. Hehe)

It's what they say, not how they say it

Spot on analysis of calls for the "new civility" in the political landscape in the wake of the Arizona shootings.

It's what they say, not how they say it | SocialistWorker.org http://bit.ly/frmpqh

The central point is important:

Obama didn't refer directly to Palin or the controversy about the extent to which the right wing's hate-filled rhetoric should be held responsible for what happened. He didn't have to--most people who heard Obama's call for " a more civil and honest public discourse" would have filled in that blank for themselves. 

But what he did say directly was telling – that Americans should rise above their differences and unite around "all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together." 

That begs the question: How are Sarah Palin's "hopes and dreams" for the world bound together with those of the targets of her bigotry? Why should people whose lives are being ruined by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression "rise above their differences" with Republicans like Palin – or with Democrats like Obama? 

This is the whole issue. Civility is nice, but not if it's an excuse for inaction. Bipartisanship, the administration's mantra-like refrain, is a tool for getting policy done, not a goal of being in office. 

I'm not sure I'm thrilled with Valleywag outing Tim Cook

Um. Hmm.

I'm not sure I'm entirely thrilled with Valleywag essentially outing Tim Cook. He isn't in a position to legislate against LGBT folks. Much as I think he'd be happier if he were publicly out, and much as I'm not thrilled with the double standard that suggests gayness is something that ought to be kept secret, it is still Cook's decision.

Meet Apple's New Boss, The Most Powerful Gay Man in Silicon Valley http://gaw.kr/gT20Cu

Boy - Amazing Grace

I can't believe this has been out for months and I haven't talked about it yet. Such a return to form for Boy, and his voice is sounding better than it has in ages. The radio edit is a bit throbby, but it's such a lovely track, I don't care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb1MUO0ZBBE

Klaus Nomi - Lightning Strikes

I only had the barest idea who Nomi was before The Nomi Song (which is eminently worth Netflixing).

Oola is fierce. Yes. She is fierce.

OMG. So good. Jen's Potato Noodles

I keep making these. They're fantastic and Jen rocks. You need to make them, too. Now. Go. Now. Stop reading this and go read the recipe. Make them. You will thank me. (You should thank Jen, but I'm needy. Thank me. Hehe.)

http://veganised.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/potato-noodles/

Meet In The Middle

Meet in the Middle, May 30, 2009. More pix on Flickr.

Michael Steele on Rachel

It's late, I can't sleep and I'm re-watching tonight's Rachel Maddow show. The interview with outgoing RNC chairman Michael Steele is interesting, but Steele seems to be as blind as ever about his mismanagement of the RNC the last two years. Maddow, god love her, is essentially softballing on the finance irregularities the show's been reporting on for more than a year.

I suppose it's asking too much for a reflective Steele to allow that it wasn't just the power brokers in the party with an agenda against him: some of what went wrong were choices he made. Maddow is usually less willing to let that kind of evasiveness slide.

So, rather than asking Steele on the show to discuss issues that - as Maddow's own reporting points out really beg some explanation - instead we get half the interview on the fact that Steele didn't appear on the show. Steele laid the blame at unnamed folks within the party who - Steele says - also forbade him from appearing on his "buddy" Bill Maher's show.

See? Pretend the last two years of red meat tossed at the party's base didn't really happen; Steele's been a closet moderate all along. No, really. He watches Rachel and everything.

Pretend the incredible disappearing chairman didn't really happen. Did the same minders forbid Steele from being in front of a camera for the whole election cycle? There's a ton left just barely unsaid that begs a followup, which, atypically we just didn't get.

Maddow is usually so spot on with this kind of interview. A bit of a disappointment, this, I'm sorry to say.

Deities and Deity Worship

Reposted from Krishna.com
http://www.krishna.com/deities-and-deity-worship
No copyright infringement is intended.

Deities play an important part in most temples of Krishna. But what is the significance of Deities and Deity worship? One thing to understand is that all the images or Deities in the Vedic pantheon, as found in the temples, are made according to explicit details and instructions found in the Vedic texts. Then they are installed in the temple in an elaborate ceremony wherein the Divine personalities are called to appear in the form of the Deity. Some of the Deities are demigods, while others, such as Krishna, Vishnu, or Ramachandra, are forms displaying various pastimes of the Supreme Being.

Some people, however, do not believe that God has a form. But many verses in the Puranas and particularly the Brahma-samhita establish that the Supreme Being does have specific forms according to His pastimes. These texts also describe His variegated features, which include His spiritual shape, characteristics, beauty, strength, intelligence, activities, etc. Therefore, it is considered that the authorized Deities of the Supreme that are shaped according to these descriptions provide a view of the personal form of God.

Those who have no knowledge of God or His form will certainly consider the temple Deities as idols. But this is because they think that the Deities are simply the products of someone’s imagination. Of course, there are those who say that God has no form, spiritual or material, or that there is no Supreme Being. Others think that since God must be formless, they can imagine or worship any material form as God, or they regard any image as merely an external representation of the Supreme. But images such as those of the demigods are not additional forms of an impersonal God, nor are they equal to God. All such people who think in the above mentioned ways have resorted to their own imagination to reach such conclusions and are, therefore, idolaters. The imaginary images and opinions of God that are formed by those who have not properly learned about, seen, or realized God are indeed idols, and those who accept such images or opinions are certainly idolaters. This is because these images or opinions are based on ignorance and are not a true likeness of the Supreme Being’s personal form.

Nonetheless, God is described in the Vedic literature, which explains that God is sat-chit-ananda vigraha, or the form of complete spiritual essence, full of eternity, knowledge, and bliss, and is not material in any way. His body, soul, form, qualities, names, pastimes, etc., are all nondifferent and are of the same spiritual quality. This form of God is not an idol designed from someone’s imagination, but is the true form, even if He should descend into this material creation. And since the spiritual nature of God is absolute, He is nondifferent from His name. Thus, the name Krishna is an avatara or incarnation of Krishna in the form of sound. Similarly, His form in the temple is not merely a representation, but is also qualitatively the same as Krishna as the archa-vigraha, or the worshipable form.

Some people may question that if the Deity is made from material elements, such as stone, marble, metal, wood, or paint, how can it be the spiritual form of God? The answer is given that since God is the source of all material and spiritual energies, material elements are also a form of God. Therefore, God can manifest as the Deity in the temple, though made of stone or other elements, since He can transform what is spiritual into material energy, and material energy back into spiritual energy. Thus, the Deity can easily be accepted as the Supreme since He can appear in any element as He chooses. In this way, even though we may be unqualified to see God, who is beyond the perceptibility of our material senses, the living beings in this material creation are allowed to see and approach the Supreme through His archa-vigraha form as the worshipable Deity in the temple. This is considered His causeless mercy on the materially conditioned living beings.

In this manner, the Supreme Being gives Himself to His devotees so they can become absorbed in serving, remembering and meditating on Him. Thus, the Supreme comes to dwell in the temple, and the temple becomes the spiritual abode on earth. In time, the body, mind and senses of the devotee become spiritualized by serving the Deity, and the Supreme becomes fully manifest to him or her. Worshiping the Deity of the Supreme and using one’s senses in the process of bhakti-yoga, devotional service to the Supreme, provides a means for one’s true essential spiritual nature to unfold. The devotee becomes spiritually realized and the Deities reveal Their spiritual nature to the sincere souls according to their spiritual development. This can continue up to the level in which the Supreme Being in the form of the Deity engages in a personal relationship and performs reciprocal, loving pastimes with the devotee, as has previously taken place with other advanced individuals.

At this stage, having darshan or seeing the Deity is not simply a matter of looking at the Deity in the temple, but to one who is spiritually realized it is a matter of experiencing the Deity and entering into a personal, reciprocal relationship with the Supreme Personality in the form of the Deity. At that stage, you may view the Deity, but the Deity also gazes at you, and then there is a spiritual exchange wherein the Deity begins to reveal His personality to you. This is what separates those who are experienced from those who are not, or those who can delve into this spiritual exchange and those who may still be trying to figure it out. For those who have experienced such an exchange with the Supreme or His Deity, at this stage the worship of the Supreme Being in the Deity moves up to a whole different level, with no limits as to the spiritual love that can be shared between the devotee and the Deity.

Adding some oldies but goodies...

In my ongoing efforts to consolidate the 219 blogging/social media platforms I've tried out and abandoned over the last three or four years (sigh), I'm reposting some oldies but goodies from elsewhere that ought to be kept around now that I'm safely back in the comfy chair that is my old Blogger account. Hehe.

Gun control...please? Please, people...

I've listened to right-wing bloviation blaming the victims. (Check Salon. I'm not willing to give these idiots a click through). With that, I don't feel it's out of place to speak up.

Can we please, please dispassionately and intelligently re-examine the Second Amendment? Is it possible – just POSSIBLE, mind – that a provision that made sense to the framers more than two centuries ago might not have the same relevance in our modern democracy? While we're at it, can the NRA ratchet down the hypocrisy and stop pretending that gun ownership is under some kind of organized assault at the hands of the evil, nasty left? The NRA is one of the most massively funded, and widely successful lobbying organizations in history. But their default position - even as Glorious Leader feels like the most appropriate first response to the Virginia Tech shootings is to throw some red meat action their way - is to act like this will be the end of guns for all those law-abiding members of the citizenry who really, REALLY need an assault rifle. For hunting.

The Right in this country goes into heat threatening a new Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, prohibit gay marriage and make flag burning a crime punishable by death just about every 14 seconds these days.

Can those of us on the Left get over our fear of upsetting these idiots and start calling for a serious re-examination of the right to bear arms?

Who let them trannies into the club?

To start, see the John Avarosis piece here...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/lgbt/index.html

John Avarosis gets in a rant over on Salon about passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and transgender inclusion. You may want to go read the piece yourself, because I don't plan to do a comprehensive summary here, but apparently his sticking point seems to be thus:

While he says he "supports" transgender rights -- just, you now, not right now, or anytime in the near future -- dropping gender identity from the version of ENDA now working its way through the House was precisely the right move, because we've got the votes for an LGB-protecting bill, but not an LGBT-protecting bill.

From there, we scurry down the rabbit hole. He uses that bit -- which has some serious critical errors I'll get to -- to meander around the whole "problem" of including transpeople in the LGBT alphabet soup in the first place...because, as everyone knows, transfolk really have nothing in common with gay people.

Where by "gay people," I suppose we really should say, "Gay men like John Avarosis."

Avarosis supposes that trans-inclusion was something that was "forced" on the gay community from the outside ("outside" here meaning the evil, nasty politically correct queens running national LGB-rights groups. Since we've got to scapegoat someone in this, it may as well be folks running national lobbying and activist organizations; that or any transgendered or transsexual person you happen to have handy will do, thanks).

The fundamental problem in Avarosis' line of thinking, of course, isn't that transfolk have been somehow magically added to the queer community -- they've been part of it all along. Including the T in LGBT is merely a recognition of the facts on the ground, no matter how hard gay men like Avarosis may want to pretend otherwise, or pretend that such recognition is being "forced" on us from above.

What do I have in common with a transgendered MTF? We're both gender variant. We both get an awful lot of shit for that fact from the culture at large, and truth be told, from lots of gay men who really ought to know better, but don't, as the continued promotion of this line of thinking indicates. Avarosis isn't saying anything really new, here; he's just trying to have it both ways - exclude trannies, but really "support" them, whatever that really means. If we're willing to excise transsexuals and transgendered folks from the queer community on supposedly pragmatic grounds, really, who's next? The queeny boy or the butch dyke? At what point does it become immoral or wrong to do something just for the sake of theoretical expedience?

Make no mistake, it is entirely theoretical. While the ENDA - in its current trans-excluding form - may have some chance of passing the House, its chances in the Senate are by no means assured, and there's always the strong possibility of a Bush veto. That Bush hasn't yet said anything about the bill doesn't mean he'll automatically sign it (that Bush hasn't yet threatened a veto of the bill somehow makes it just a slam dunk for passage in Avarosis' estimation). Bush isn't the idiot Democrats like to think he is. He's more than aware of who's funding the Republicans in the next election cycle.

What this fundamentally boils down to is this: do we want a queer community that can throw its some of its members under the wheel for the sake of expedience, or the slim possibility of passage of one bill? What does that bill really do for us, if it specifically excludes legal protections for gender-variant folks who arguably need its protections most?

Avarosis tries to make hay out of the notion that black people fought for civil rights just as incrementally, but frankly, that argument really holds no water. Black people fought for - and won - antidiscrimination laws that protected everybody, including white people, by being race-neutral in their language. An antidiscrimination law that outlaws discrimination based on race doesn't make exceptions for Latinos or Asians, which is really what Avarosis' defense amounts to.

Finally, for those Democrats who can't wrap their brains around supporting a trans-inclusive gay rights bill: you're doing us no favors. Stop taking our money and pretending you support us.

Avarosis can suck it (though he's probably too much of a man to admit that he'd actually like to)

Susan Striker wrote a well-thought rebuttal to the crap Avarosis Salon piece I wrote about a couple of days ago, that makes several of the points I was trying to make much more coherently:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/11/transgender/

Striker corrects Avarosis bullshit view of queer history, for one thing, and rightly calls him on the claim that trans-inclusiveness isn't something being forced on the queer community "from above" as Avarosis has repeatedly tried to claim (apparently he's really on a roll over on his own blog; I'm loathe to give the idiot the clicks, but some of the comments to Stryker's piece on Salon are fairly telling).

I suspect, though, that what's really going on here is that Avarosis is one of a long line of "straight-acting" gays who really wish the gay movement would get back to providing him with fuckable nuggets of appropriately butch, straight-acting man candy instead of peskily bothering with equality for queers Avarosis has no particular interest in sleeping with.

Fundamentally, this comes back around to the question of just what we really mean by equality. Straight acting fags assume that conditional tolerance is good enough, but that comes at the cost of genuinely supporting gender variant people (gay, bi, straight or otherwise) who can't or won't conform to social expectations of gender. You simply cannot claim to "support" the rights of transgendered and transsexual persons while simultaneously claiming that they're expendable in your quest for "pragmatic" political action. There's no such thing as a scarcity of justice (to steal and rephrase an excellent point from one of the Salon commenters). Justice for all means absolutely everybody, which is an idea that even conservative gays like Avarosis ought to get behind, but he (and they) won't...because the dirty little truth here is that he simply doesn't believe in justice for everybody.

Hmm. Maybe it's time.

I hate to say this, but maybe the trans community needs to organize itself, separate and apart from the gay (and here, I think I very specifically mean gay-as-in-gay male) community.

I've been debating the pragmatic vs. idealistic argument with regard to the ENDA with several people, and I'm slowly coming to the realization that relying on the gay community for anything at all is probably going to end only in frustration for transfolks. The ironic thing is that gay people themselves have been told the same thing for decades. This exact argument - precisely the same - has been used by supposedly progressive Democrats in the past with specific regard to nearly any gay positive state or federal legislation. For more than two decades - or, nearly the entire time the US has had a visible lesbian and gay civil rights movement - gay people were told by (supposedly) well meaning straight folks in positions of power that we'd just have to wait for our time to come, and that now just wasn't the time to try and pass a hate crimes bill or add "sexual orientation" to a nondiscrimination law. We'd have to wait until society caught up. We swallowed this until we simply refused to keep swallowing it. A generation of people my age and younger, who grew up in a post-Stonewall world, radicalized by AIDS activism were simply unwilling to wait for society to catch up.

What painfully short memories we have.

Or maybe there are just more folks like John Avarosis out there in the world and I've been giving the gay community credit it doesn't actually deserve. Maybe most gay people really only care about protecting against sexual orientation discrimination and nothing else. Folks have made this claim, publicly, before - Somewhat famously, Roseanne did, not long ago, and was excoriated for it in gay circles.

Maybe it's true.

Maybe it's time for the trans community to stop asking for acceptance from a GLB community that from appearances doesn't understand T* folks, and actively resists trying to. I'm ashamed of us queers for even coming to this place, but I've been beating my head against a wall with gay people who (I've said) really ought to know better.

You know what? We ought to know better.

But we don't.

We don't want to. Or, at least, we sure as hell seem not to.

I wish this wasn't where my head was at around these issues, but for better or worse this is where I'm at.

But I'll tell you this: the first pissed-off tranny who gets radicalized around ENDA - or whatever the next signal event happens to be - and starts a separate movement will have a few queer supporters throwing dollars his or her way. Because, ultimately, if it really does take a separate trans* movement to pry open the brains of the queer community at large, the organized GLB money machine won't be getting any more of mine.

PIP Trip to Pismo

PIP Printing's Christmas trip to Pismo Beach, in California. Dec. 2007. (More on Flickr.)

On Chanting Hare Krishna

Excerpt from Krsna Consciousness The Topmost Yoga System
© Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA KRISHNA KRISHNA, HARE HARE, HARE RAMA, HARE RAMA, RAMA RAMA, HARE HARE is the sublime method for reviving our transcendental consciousness. As living spiritual souls, we are all originally Krishna Conscious entities, but due to our association with matter—since time immemorial—our consciousness is now adulterated by the material atmosphere. The material atmosphere, in which we are now living, is called Maya, or illusion. Maya means that which is not. And what is this illusion? The illusion is that we are all trying to be lords of material nature, while actually we are under the grip of the stringent laws of material nature. When a servant artificially tries to imitate the all powerful master, it is called illusion. We are trying to exploit the resources of material nature, but actually we are becoming more and more entangled in her complexities. Therefore, we are engaged in a hard struggle to conquer the stringent laws of material nature, but we are ever more dependent on it. This illusory struggle against material nature can be stopped at once by revival of our eternal Krishna Consciousness.

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare is the transcendental process for reviving this original pure consciousness. By chanting this transcendental vibration, we can cleanse away all misgivings within our hearts. The basic principle of all such misgivings is the false consciousness that I am the lord of all I survey.

Krishna Consciousness is not an artificial imposition on the mind. This consciousness is the original energy of the living entity. When we hear the transcendental vibration, this consciousness is revived. This simplest method is recommended for this age. By practical experience also, one can perceive that by the simple chanting of this Mahamantra, or the great chanting for deliverance, one can at once feel a transcendental ecstasy coming through from the spiritual stratum. In the material concept of life we are busy in the matter of sense gratification as if we were in the lower animal stage of life. A little elevated from this status of sense gratification, one is engaged in mental speculation for the purpose of getting out of the material clutches. A little elevated from this speculative status, when one is intelligent enough, one tries to find the Supreme Cause of all causes—within and without. And when one is factually on the plane of spiritual understanding, surpassing the stages of sense, mind and intelligence, he is then on the transcendental plane. This chanting of the Hare Krishna Mantra is enacted from the spiritual platform, and thus this sound vibration surpasses all lower status of consciousness—namely sensual, mental, and intellectual. There is no need, therefore, to understand the language of the mantra, nor is there any need for mental speculation, nor any intellectual adjustment for chanting this Mahamantra. It is automatic, from the spiritual platform, and as such anyone can take part in vibrating this transcendental sound vibration without any previous qualifications. In a more advanced stage, of course, one is not expected to commit offenses on grounds of spiritual understanding.

In the beginning, there may be the presence of all transcendental ecstasies—which are eight in number. These are: 1) being stopped as though dumb; 2) perspiration; 3) standing up of hairs on the body; 4) dislocation of voice; 5) trembling; 6) fading 7) crying in ecstasy; and 8) trance. But there is no doubt that chanting for a while takes one immediately to the spiritual platform and one shows the first symptom of this in the urge to dance along with the chanting of the Mantra. We have seen this practically. Even a child can take part in the chanting and dancing. Of course, for one who is too entangled in material life, it takes a little more time to come to the standard point, but even such a materially engrossed man is raised to the spiritual platform very quickly. When it is chanted by a pure devotee of the Lord in love, it has the greatest efficacy on hearers, and as such this chanting should be heard from the lips of a pure devotee of the Lord, so that immediate effects can be achieved. As far as possible, chanting from the lips of non-devotees should be avoided. Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has poisonous effects.

The word Hare is the form of addressing the energy of the Lord, and the words Krishna and Rama are forms of addressing the Lord Himself. Both Krishna and Rama mean the Supreme Pleasure, and Hara is the supreme pleasure-energy of the Lord. The Supreme Pleasure Energy of the Lord helps us to reach the Lord.

The material energy called Maya is also one of the multi-energies of the Lord. We the living entities are also the energy—marginal energy—of the Lord. The living entities are described as superior to material energy. When the superior energy is in contact with the inferior energy, an incompatible situation arises, but when the superior marginal energy is in contact with the Superior Energy, called Hara, it is established in its happy, normal condition.

These three words, namely Hara, Krishna and Rama, are the transcendental seeds of the Mahamantra. The chanting is a spiritual call for the Lord and His Energy to give protection to the conditioned soul. This chanting is exactly like the genuine cry of a child for its mother's presence. Mother Hara helps the devotee to achieve the Lord Father's grace, and the Lord reveals Himself to the devotee who chants this Mantra sincerely.

No other means of spiritual realization is as effective in this age of quarrel an hypocrisy as is the Mahamantra.

HARE KRISHNA,
HARE KRISHNA,
KRISHNA KRISHNA,
HARE HARE,
HARE RAMA,
HARE RAMA,
RAMA RAMA,
HARE HARE.

Flood Relief in Pakistan - Food for Life Global

October 2 -- Food for Life Global affiliate, SKBP team visited the Hyderabad district and set up an outdoor kitchen at one of the many refugee camps. Relief Spokesperson, Vanamali das said, "We made many types of vegan meals, including basmati rice, vegetable curry and biryani, and served 500 to 600 woman and children. Our main challenge at this time is a reliable vehicle to transport the meals and supplies. We are urgently appealing to Food for Life Donors to continue supporting our efforts and specifically to help us obtain a reliable van or truck." Please continue supporting this effort.

Please Donate to Food for Life Global. Any amount helps.

Photos of Relief Effort in Hyderabad (Pakistan) - Slideshow

View gallery on Picasa

From various FB interactions

A long discussion erupted in the wake of the Arizona shootings on Facebook that touched on issues of animal rights and speciesism. Some of my reactions to the matter...

Re: I'm a (lacto-ovo) "vegetarian" AND an "animal rights activist..."

If you still eat eggs and dairy, you're still contributing to intentional animal killing. No hens or dairy cows in the US are left to die of old age. There's no difference, simply as a matter of causing suffering, between eating a steak and drinking milk or eating cheese; there's no difference at all.

Re: How come you place less value on human life?

In this culture, all of us, men or women, have internalized sexism. All of us, black or white, have internalized racism. And all of us, from the most apathetic meat-eater to the most hardcore vegan ARA, all of us have internalized speciesism. WHY is it that we consider the deaths of humans "off limits" as a matter of taste or preference, but we - all of us - are blase about the deaths of a *million* pigs? Again, as a matter of total suffering caused, the deaths of six humans - however regrettable - does not begin to compare to the billions of dairy cattle that will die as a result of "lacto-ovo" vegetarians who fund the dairy industry, and so on, and so on.

Re: One man was a holocaust survivor for God’s sake...

And has been famously said, our treatment of nonhumans is a holocaust for animals. Only what we're doing isn't to six million humans, sixty years ago. It's to millions of nonhumans each and every day. Which is the greater tragedy? Which is more deserving of our moral outrage?

Re: I loathe Asian society for their inhumanity towards any and all animals...

It's hardly limited to one human culture. It's everywhere. For the million pigs buried alive that you saw on the news one day, millions of dairy cattle will be slaughtered each and every month. It's not limited to "asian" culture; it's human culture. It's everywhere. And if we say we care about the rights of nonhumans (not just their welfare, how we use them), we have a moral obligation to take ourselves out of that system of exploitation, or no matter how much we say we're "animal rights activists," we are part of the problem.

Bill of Rights for Animals

I generally agree with the following Bill of Rights for Animals:

1. All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence.


2. All animals are entitled to respect. Humanity as an animal species shall not arrogate to itself the right to exterminate or exploit other species. It is humanity's duty to use its knowledge for the welfare of animals. All animals have the right to the attention, care, and protection of humanity.


3. No animals shall be ill-treated or be subject to cruel acts.


4. All wild animals have the right to liberty in their natural environment, whether land, air, or water, and should be allowed to procreate. Deprivation of freedom, even for educational purposes, is an infringement of this right.


5. Animals of species living traditionally in a human environment have the right to live and grow at the rhythm and under the conditions of life and freedom peculiar to their species. Any interference by humanity with this rhythm or these conditions for purposes of gain is an infringement of this right.


6. All companion animals have the right to complete their natural life span. Abandonment of an animal is a cruel and degrading act.


7. Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering is incompatible with the rights of animals, whether it be for scientific, medical, commercial, or any other form of research. Replacement methods must be used and developed.


8. No animal shall be exploited for the amusement of humanity. Exhibitions and spectacles involving animals are incompatible with their dignity.


9. Any act involving the wanton killing of the animals is biocide, that is, a crime against life.


10. Any act involving the mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime against the species. Pollution or destruction of the natural environment leads to genocide.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/BillofRights.htm

"Friends" of Seals but not Fish - the usual silliness of single-issue animal welfare campains

So, I got myself involved in a back-and-forth on Twitter, like you do, with the twitter spokesbot for an ostensibly grassroots animal welfare, single-issue group calling for (wait for it) yet another boycott of Canadian seafood as the "only" way to end the Canadian seal hunt.
Never mind that the seal hunt has been going on for decades, and various boycotts of various Canadian products, including seafood, have also gone on for decades.

The underlying message, of course, is this:

• Don't upset non-vegans who might be moved to support us if we show pictures of cute, fluffy seal pups, but who still think nothing of eating fish (and cows, and chickens, and pigs, and...)
• The lives of marine mammals are significant. The lives of other marine animals are inconsequential.

This is part and parcel of the blantant speciesism that rules the entire animal welfare movement. Particularly glaring was this bit:

@wchanley The seal massacre is the largest marine mammal slaughter on the planet. If you don't want to be involved with any of the many people working to stop it, you don't have to. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/6ot6vi

...because, as usual, animal welfare advocates who still eat, wear and use animals can't handle the disconnect in their actions being pointed out, so anyone calling for ethical consistency must be doing "nothing."

How about promoting veganism full stop, instead of promoting fish consumption from other markets?

How about expanding your compassion beyond marine mammals you find cute?

Either you mean it or you don't: either you care about animals, all animals, not just the cute ones, or you're doing this to soothe your own ego.

Animal welfare groups, it's time to stop dithering. Stop indulging in mixed messages. Stop focusing on just animals you find cute, and ignoring so-called "food" animals.

Pollan's Empty Gesture

Erik Markus at Vegan.com comments on Michael Pollan’s usual idiocy (a recent Pollan piece in the New York Times). As usual, there’s plenty of silliness to comment on with regard to the original Pollan piece (as usual), but this one bit of Markus’ response jumps out at me:

Everyone except the goat had a marvelous time. There’s no reason this sort of communal meal needed to have victims. And I highly doubt that the slaughtered goat felt consoled that Pollan hoisted a glass in his memory to end the 36-hour feast. I know that kind of empty gesture always pisses me off. 

I've been making this case online and off, forever. Eating animals does not honor them. It satiates a desire for the taste of animal flesh. It's not honorable in the slightest to mislead yourself and claim that animals "died for" you. They didn't sacrifice themselves for you — you killed them (or you paid someone to do it for you). There's nothing remotely sacrificial about this exchange. Animals are not "honored" by modern humans killing and eating them, when the overwhelming majority of whom have the very easy means to go vegan, and stay vegan.

More on the specific Pollan piece when I've had a chance to go through it fully. 

CCTV in UK Abbatoirs? What happened to "better" welfare standards?

I came across this Guardian article (via this post on Vegan.com) about a proposal to require CCTV in all UK slaughterhouses, in the wake of an Animal Aid investigation that found significant abuses and acts of cruelty in six of seven slaughterhouses they secretly installed cameras in.
A few things to consider.

I think this points out the fundamental flaw in accepting, uncritically, the notion that better welfare laws magically equate to better conditions for animals. Without question, the legal standards for animal welfare are better in the UK (compared to the US) on several fronts. But does that actually mean anything? I'd argue no. It would appear that even given the UK's more stringent legislation, that doesn't actually mean anything if the legislation isn't enforced.

But Animal Aid is itself sending something of a mixed message; they've launched a campaign to get supermarkets to put pressure on UK abattoirs to install CCTVs in all slaughter facilities in the United Kingdom, and to pledge to only purchase from slaughterhouses that have cameras installed going forward.

Of course this is problematic on at least a couple of fronts.

If the legal welfare standards in the UK were actually effective, would Animal Aid have found significant illegal abuses happening in nearly every one of the slaughterhouses they investigated? If the UK's welfare standards aren't especially meaningful, why assume that this move to install cameras will be any more successful? If there's no particular oversight of the industry to enforce the existing welfare standards the animal welfare movement in the UK is so proud of, why should we assume that there will be much (or any) subsequent oversight of this particular CCTV measure?

Further, all we're still really saying with this is that animals don't care that we kill them; they only care how we treat them while alive. This is more of the same wrongheaded line of thinking that supposes that the act of eating animals is rendered morally neutral so long as we tell ourselves the animals in question have been well cared for (with standards of care as defined by us, largely for the sake of making us feel good - which the lax enforcement of the existing legislation drives home to me.
Animal welfare regulations are not about animal welfare. They're about making humans feel better about needlessly killing and eating animals.

The Animal Rights Movement is Failing Us

The animal rights movement is failing us - all of us - human and non-human.

I think what nailed the coffin for me in the last few weeks was the realization that PETA is really just an animal welfare organization. Rhetoric, naked celebrities and silly stunts aside, PETA’s actual, core message is no different than HSUS or ASPCA or the alphabet soup of welfare organizations we’ve had for generations.

It’s not that welfare folks are bad people. They’re just wrong.

They’re wrong on a couple of counts:

Welfare is factually incorrect.

Welfare is rationally inconsistent.

Welfarism is factually incorrect from an AR perspective in that we’re all constantly told that we can’t reach “everybody” and we have to do something “now” to help animals who are suffering.

The problem is that welfare isn’t doing that. Welfare is doing nothing - nothing at all - to address the problem of animal suffering. Welfare is simply rearranging the same dozen roses made of shit and calling it a different boquet.

Larger cages, “phasing out” gestation crates, and promoting CAK-killed chicken aren’t reducing torture, eliminating animal suffering and exploitation, or changing minds and attitudes about that suffering and exploitation. Those measures actively GET IN THE WAY of changing minds and attitudes, because those measures lead directly to the sense of complacency I’ve been talking about for days. We’re all fed this bullshit lie that this is all we can do, this is the best we can hope for.

If that’s true, then the animal rights proposition is already dead in the water, because we are never, ever, never never going to get an animal rights culture out of animal welfare movements. Not ever.

That’s because…

Welfare is rationally inconsistent.

It’s inconsistent in that it promotes the idea that one can discharge their moral responsibility to animals by saying that they care about animal issues and still exploit animals. It’s no surprise that the national organizations want to appeal to the non-vegan masses, because that’s where the money is. The problem is that these organizations have an overwhelming amount of influence on our thinking at an individual level.

I’m saying it’s time we really looked at the kool-aid we’re all drinking, and came to the realization that what we’re drinking is laced with shit.

Until we have a movement that is uncompromising in its message that animal exploitation is NOT okay, that meat, dairy and eggs are ALL products of torture, and that engaging in one kind of torture (to produce one animal product) is morally equivalent to engaging in every OTHER sort of torture (to produce any OTHER animal product), until we reject the thinking that it’s necessary that we beg for time, money and “support” from people who wish to engage in that torture for the sake of their tastebuds, we’ll never have an animal rights movement.

We’ll have several new animal welfare organizations that traffic in the language and theory of animal rights, but animal RIGHTS as a movement for social justice will remain something we write books about, something we may talk about and advocate on an individual level, but it won’t be something that will come from the top down, from large, national organizations that need, in every sense but chiefly in a financial sense, to cater to the whims and desires and selfishness of non-vegans.

We need a leaderless revolution, because our leaders are failing us, all of us, human and non-human, desperately.

On Honey

We had our monthly D&D game with some friends, and, as it usually happens, various issues around my veganism cropped up; a friend was making a curry sauce that called for honey (my friend kindly made me a vegan version using maple syrup instead) and naturally, the question of “What’s wrong with honey?” cropped up among our players.

I tried making the typical vegan animal cruelty case - at least some bees are inevitably killed in harvesting honey, we have plant-based substitutes that don’t involve the use of animals…the usual cases.

Of course, folks hearkened back to friends and family who raised bees themselves in small family farm, bee husbandry operations, where, perhaps unsurprisingly, bees were “never” killed.

Now then, we know this isn’t actually the case: just because beekeepers in small collectives or small bee farm operations may take extra care to minimize animals killed, it hardly makes any reasonable sense to claim that bees are NEVER killed even in these harvest conditions. Of course bees are killed. Bee husbandry isn’t being done for the benefit of bees; it’s being done for the collection of honey for profit. The lives of any individual bees are not even a secondary concern; maximizing profit is the issue.

...Because bees are seen flying free, they are also often considered free of the usual cruelties of the animal farming industry. However bees undergo treatments similar to those endured by other farmed animals. They go through routine examination and handling, artificial feeding regimes, drug and pesticide treatment, genetic manipulation, artificial insemination, transportation (by air, rail and road) and slaughter.

http://www.vegansociety.com/animals/exploitation/bees.php

Source: T. Hooper, ...Guide to Bees and Honey, Blandford, 1991

Of course, the larger issue is that a majority of honey produced for sale isn’t even coming from small “family” farming operations; it’s coming from the honeybee equivalent of the dairy, beef, and chicken factory farm.

Factory farmed bees suffer many of the same abuses and exploitation as any other factory farmed animal, from transport in suboptimal conditions (leading to significant numbers of animals killed) to bees killed during harvest, or arbitrarily killing the queen of a given hive to stimulate hives that are less commercially useful. Couple this with the fact that honey is one of the EASIEST animal products to actually avoid: there’s no nutritional requirement for humans to eat honey at all, and vegan substitutes like Agave nectar are readily available, and looks and tastes so much like honey that there’s simply no good reason not to use it.

Fundamentally, animals are simply not an exploitable resource; we have alternatives. A quick five-second Google search on typical honey production practices yields the following:

...Unite weak colonies. Select the best queen of two colonies. Kill the less desirable queen…

http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G7601

...Basically what you are doing are forcing your bees into a population “explosion” without letting them get into a swarming mode…

http://www.tnbeekeepers.org/pubs/Optimizing%2520Honey%2520Production%2520-%25201999%2520ABF%2520Workshop.pdf

...The most common pesticide kill is to adult bees. The beekeeper may find a large number of dead bees in front of the bee hives in the apiary. On occasions the beekeeper may observe bees on leafs that seem to be drunk. Chemicals generally affect the nervous system so that bees have trouble flying, walking, or remaining upright.

http://www.beeclass.com/dts/201lessonten.htm

...Mail-order queens are usually available by the last week in March. Queens should be replaced if their brood production is lower than average. To requeen a colony, find, kill and discard the old queen, then introduce the new queen in her cage as described in the section…

http://www.ent.uga.edu/Bees/Get_Started/Honey_Bee_Management.htm

In which I respond (sort of) to Slate's James McWilliams

 

So, James McWilliams apparently finds himself surprised to learn that “humane” marketing is largely just marketing, in a recent article on Slate. Go read (I’ll wait):

http://www.slate.com/id/2221754/

Now then - he concludes with the following tidbits, worth some comment:

As responsible consumers, it’s easy to decide to avoid factory-farmed pork.

No, it’s just no longer possible to pretend that cruelty on a massive scale isn’t happening. It has nothing to do with consumers being more responsible; it has to do with the animal rights movement making the cruelty of standard industry practice unavoidable.

The hard part is what to make of the most acceptable alternative.

This after fretting for several paragraphs over which pigs to kill and eat, trying to decide which ones were “raised humanely” enough to assuage his own moral conscience. News flash, kiddo: killing any of them is inhumane. Period.

It’s not a difficult question in the least: go vegan. All of the rest of the tap dancing that follows simply ignores the most obvious, most effective choice if one’s ultimate concern is actually the better treatment of animals. The entire premise of this article points out what several of us have been saying: welfarist measures to “humanely” raise animals for meat only ever happen when they coincide with the commercial interests of the animal exploitation industries.The freedom that Iberico pigs enjoy is only in the interest of charging exorbitant prices for their flesh. The interests of the pigs do not matter, as McWilliams’ fretting over the utterly unsurprising “welfare” of the pigs in question illustrates. McWilliams may be surprised to learn that “humane” marketing is JUST marketing, but no one in the animal rights movement is surprised in the least.

Does free-range farming justify the mutilation that’s often required to keep pigs outdoors?

Of course it doesn’t, any more than it justifies the unnecessary slaughter of these animals. This seems to be treading on the worn-out myth that since meat eating “won’t ever” go away, we should do meaningless things that make us feel like the animals have been well-cared for instead. This utterly ignores the most obvious solution to this particular ethical dilemma: stop eating animals.

As an ethical matter, the question is open to endless debate. What the conscientious meat eater can take away from it is not so much a concrete answer as a more nuanced way to think about our food choices.

While you and the rest of your so-called “conscientious” carnivore cohorts are wasting time trying to tell yourselves that what you’re doing is somehow “humane”, millions of animals a day on factory farms are being kept and slaughtered in horrifying conditions, absolutely none of which is materially affected by your navel-gazing and worrying about whether the incredibly expensive delicacy meat you have the luxury of buying may not actually be quite the “humane” option it’s marketed to be. None of this faux concern for animal welfare changes anything: the vast majority of meat, dairy and eggs are still going to be produced on factory farms, no matter what happens on so-called “humane” farming operations.

In this age of deeply convincing attacks on factory farms, consumers must be careful not to immediately assume that every alternative to factory farming is as “all natural” or humane as its advocates will inevitably declare…

Again, this is a realization that’s only new or novel to you; it’s telling that you’re leaving out the most obvious, most easily resolvable solution to the ethical dilemma that these false claims of “humane treatment” actually demands: go vegan. Just stop eating animals, altogether.

Is it REALLY a "purist" abolitionism that's harming animal rights?

The growing adoption of abolitionism within the animal rights movement is causing considerable friction with the existing welfare/”neo”-welfare movement.

The problem here really is one of a fundamental difference, not just in tactics but in general outlook. If you can defend “welfare in the meantime” you’re really not objecting to welfare in any sense at all. I understand that this may be a difficult message to really hear, for some people (it was for me); it remains, however, somewhat inescapable. This isn’t to say that you must object to welfare, just that you shouldn’t claim that you do, if you do not, in fact, object to it. Just as a non-vegan cannot meaningfully claim to be vegan, a non-abolitionist is only muddying the waters if he or she claims to support abolition and welfare at the same time. They’re contradictory positions.

Imagine trying to resolve any two other pairs of contradictory ethical positions: I’m opposed to rape, but I think regulating the rape of women is an ethically good thing, since we can’t absolutely prevent rape in all cases.

I’m opposed to sexually abusing children, but since a future that’s free of any and all instances of sexual abuse is a long way off, I advocate a “realistic” approach that regulates some sexual exploitation of children “in the meantime.”

Where abolitionist animal rights and the welfare movement are concerned, the conflicting ideas are as follows:

• I do not support ANY exploitation of animals for human ends - regulated or otherwise
• I support/allow for the use of some animal exploitation, provided that it’s ‘well regulated

These are not resolvable positions.

People may claim that advocating for welfare is preparing the ground for a future adoption of an animal rights consciousness. This is absurd. Advocating for “humane” use of animals does not in any way argue that no use of animals is morally justifiable.

This is akin to saying, “rape is bad, but if you must rape, don’t beat the woman up afterward.” Sure, it’s “less” suffering for the rape victim if she is not also physically assaulted, but it makes no sense to claim that a “regulatory” approach to rape will somehow eliminate it. This fundamentally misses the point: there is no necessity to rape, period. There is nonecessity to eat animals. Accepting that welfarism is in any sense an acceptable strategy is to concede a flawed assumption at the outset. How does this make vegan advocacy easier? All I’ve ever heard, so far, as justification for this is a hope that at some unspecified future point society may have grown up a little. Maybe. That’s exactly the same future hope I have that society will change. So long as this rests solely on the speculated future outcome of each of our approaches, there’s nothing being offered here that really argues against abolitionist advocacy, or any of the welfare critiques that have been offered by the emerging abolitionist movement so far. The claims of “reduced suffering” of the welfare movement do not hold up to any real scrutiny.

It’s important to be unequivocal here: welfare advocacy is not in any sense aiding the animal rights cause, and in some very important respects that welfare advocacy makes it needlessly more difficult to actually advocate a rights-based position. Nobody has really addressed why animal rights advocates should be supporting the animal welfare movement. If we’re critical of the alphabet soup of welfare organizations, there is inevitably no shortage of welfare apologists who muddy the waters by claiming that we’re “bashing other activists.” We’re disagreeing with them. If you think that disagreement is unwarranted, please tell me why I should be doing what you’re doing, instead.

I’ve recently gotten into two separate discussions in which welfare apologists have argued that there’s “no good evidence” that either approach (neo-welfare and abolitionism) is more effective than the other.

I disagree, but I’ll accept the premise for a moment: fine. Assuming that’s the case, why should I agree with the welfare position in this that welfare advocacy is making anything any easier, particularly if I have direct experience - which, people probably won’t count as legitimate evidence of anything, but some folks are already on record saying there IS no good evidence either way - that it’s doing exactly the opposite?