Read this first before watching the video.
I promote people's health and the respect for our Nature.
Organic agriculture is supposed to encompass this with principles of biodiversity, biodynamic, sustainability and the rejection of GMO.
People and nature over profit, that's how it should be.
How can the current organic agriculture be improved?
I am sure we can create better and in the meantime we can do better.
But are the actual laws permitting this transition?
Are they promoting and financing better and organic agriculture?
The answer is: very little, too little!
Greediness is the antagonist.
Keeping this in mind, I ask to myself: Where's the connection between Veganism and Organic agriculture?
Are they allies or enemies?
A good percentage of organic farmers use products such as animal blood, fish meal, bone meal, animal manures or slaughterhouse by-products to replenish the soil or using the livestock rotation system.
This is ultimately animal exploitation from an animal rights point of view and can be very unhealthy from a pragmatic aspect.
There are Organic farmers that use 100% organic and clean manure but you must make sure with them that's the case.
A study done by the Elm farm research centre in England proved that animal manure can be eliminated, no animal farming, no energy, time, food and water for them, fossil fuel to transport this manure have to be invested.
Instead green manures are used, made of mulch, grass clippings, old hay, comfrey etc.
“There is nothing mysterious or magical about manure,
“Manure is nothing more than the grass or grains that are growing on the farm, cycled through a cow’s digestive system.
By Ron Khosla, owner of the veganic farm in New York (Huguenot street farm) at the link above.
Also for more info on this veganic method visit: veganorganic.net
Excerpt from the site which is very informative and explanatory :
"There is no certification standard for Veganic Agriculture at the present time, but the basic concept couldn't be simpler. Really, we are just "cutting out the middle man." The middle man in this case is the cow, chicken, horse, pig or whatever. What is their manure made from anyway but plant materials? There is no "magic" that goes on inside the animal that makes their manure better for the soil or plants than if we used the base material. In FACT, it is quite the opposite if you are using factory-farmed wastes! Besides disease, pesticide and steroid residue, salts (most especially in chicken manures) are in high enough concentrations that they can salinate heavier soils -disturbing the delicate micro-ecology that is so essential to the long-term health of the soil -and US!
Vegetable-based amendments, called "Green Manures" on the other hand ENCOURAGE microbial activity. Their carbon-to-nitrogen ratios are much more in balance. While the process is somewhat slower... the net increase in overall Organic Matter can be several times greater when a farmer uses green manures instead of animal manures. We have the soil tests to prove it! "
They are not certified Organic because they go beyond.
Excerpt:
"As the years have gone on, and our disapproval about the safety of some approved-for-organic practices has grown, our growing practices have actually strayed farther and farther from the textbook definition of Organic and towards something that I'm not really sure how to qualify but I believe is far more sustainable and healthy for us, the soil and our customers than current organic standards".
The meat consumption is not only one of the biggest destroyer of our world as it causes deforestation, hunger, poverty, desertification, water contamination, water scarcity, species extinction and the death of the indigenous people but farmers like Khosla are showing that biodiversity and soil's health can be accomplished without animal use.
Climate change could end, all of these catastrophic consequences above could end...
Continue below in the first responseRead this first before watching the video.
I promote people's health and the respect... more
Today, October 15 is the official Blog Action Day in which nearly 7,000 bloggers worldwide will blog about the subject of Global Warming in an attempt to increase awareness and generate change! Now this is an exciting event and with that number of participants you would think I would be ecstatic—and I was—until I noticed another number 45. 45 is the number of food bloggers participating. Why is this depressing to me? Because the single most effective way an individual can decrease global warming is by changing the food they eat. I know some of my friends are shaking their heads as they get behind the steering wheels of their hybrids and while I good naturedly kid you all that my Veganism trumps your Prius…..here are the facts about animal agriculture and the environment.......Today, October 15 is the official Blog Action Day in which nearly 7,000 bloggers... more
Finding fierce shoes that DO NOT use animal byproducts like leather or suede and aren’t TOTALLY FUGLY takes research. Tucking my Minnetonka fringe boots away this fall will be tough, but as you will see, there are a plethora of fabulous options for the ethical fashionista!Finding fierce shoes that DO NOT use animal byproducts like leather or suede and... more
Buying organic produce can be costly and nowadays, we have to question whether our "organic" foods are even organic at all.
It doesn't get much more organic or LOCAL than making compost in your very own backyard. Compost is the result of decomposed organic materials, yielding a rich fertilizer for your soil. I'm Melissa--a green vegan in Long Island, New York, and I'll show you how to get started!Buying organic produce can be costly and nowadays, we have to question whether our... more
TERRORIST - SHAC 7 chronicles the journey of a group of grass-roots activists up to and through their trial for Domestic Terrorism. Dark truths about The Patriot Act, the First Amendment, questionable science and political activism all come to light as we live, laugh and fear with the defendants, attorneys, witnesses and law enforcement professionals involved in this precedent setting case. Produced in partnership with Finngate Pictures.
In a recent comment thread here at Change.org, site member and animal advocate Gary Loewenthal responded to a version of the sentiment expressed in the title of this post, some varieties of which argue that animal advocates are all urbanites with not a clue about rural farming culture or that animal advocates really know nothing about farmed animals in general or that they have no concept of what really goes on in animal ag. With permission, I share Gary's thoughtful response to some aspects of this argument below.
But before I do, I will also say (as I have before, I know) that this kind of dismissal from proponents and defenders of animal ag also ignores that some of the animal rights movement's most compelling and passionate advocates are and have been former farmers (small- and large-scale alike), former hunters, former slaughterhouse workers; many others of us are originally from farming communities or families. The undercover investigators who see, time and time again, what "really" happens on farms would also disagree that they don't know what they're talking about. And then, finally, there are these excellent points from Gary (who is too humble about his knowledge of animal issues; I am consistently impressed by his knowledge and ability to articulate it thoughtfully):
-----
Many animal advocates, such as me, volunteer at farmed animal sanctuaries. At those wonderful places (which I recommend everyone visit), I submit that we are able to see animals in ways that farmers virtually never experience.
A) We never look at the animals in terms of what they can produce, or as disposable business assets. I think that way of looking at individuals blocks your ability to truly appreciate their uniqueness, their moods, and their nuances. We see the sanctuary animals as unique individuals, sometimes as friends, and to varying degrees we sense and share in their joy and sadness.
B) We see and get to know animals who, for all practical purposes, don't exist on farms: geriatric animals, blind calves, lame turkeys, hens with terminal ovarian cancer (caused in part by being engineered to lay so many eggs).
C) We experience aspects of the animals that are unlikely to be seen on farms. We witness the formation and endurance of long-term friendships between animals. We see the resilience and recovery of animals who were lucky enough to escape slaughter at the last moment.
To be an animal advocate practically requires that you gain some expertise in animal agriculture, cooking, nutrition, and other disciplines because you are asked about those things week after week, year after year.
Like many other animal advocates, I've done considerable research to maintain credibility when doing outreach and to give informed answers and opinions. I've talked to farmers and ex-farmers, ex-slaughterhouse workers, ex-USDA slaughterhouse inspectors, ex-animal lab inspectors, current USDA and animal lab employees, people who rescue hens from battery cages, circus employees, breeders, egg producers, vegan dieticians and chefs, and a host of other people involved in animal-related pursuits. I've also read quite a bit on the history of animal agriculture, the food industry, nutrition, animal cognition, and other topics. (I also live with a rabbit who is similar to those used by the fur, meat, and vivisection industries.)
I don't mention this to toot my own horn. In a room of animal activists, this sort of continuing education is very common. Many activists know far more than I do; they put me to shame. The public is deeply vested in eating meat, dairy, and eggs. The average person, IMHO, is afraid of dropping those items from his or her diet. People get very defensive about their meat-eating in particular. Very often, they're looking for ways to dismiss our views, or to deem us uncredible, as a superficial excuse to continue their habits. So we find out very quickly that we have to be prepared, knowledgeable, and credible in order to have any impact.In a recent comment thread here at Change.org, site member and animal advocate Gary... more
If you are already vegan, you do not need to watch this as it is horrible. If you still consume eggs, please watch the video above. -AL
Update: to those of you claiming that "free range" solves the problem, please go here: http://current.com/items/90840728_the-free-range-myth.htm
_________________
...
Today, you can see clearly for yourself what happens at the hatcheries, how and where large egg farms and backyard operations alike get the female chicks they will use as egg-laying hens -- and what happens to the other half of the hatched chicks, who are unfortunate enough to be male and of no economic value to the industry (because they have not been bred to grow fast enough for the flesh industry). Mercy for Animals has just released the following video obtained during an undercover investigation at the world's largest hatchery for egg-laying operations: "Thrown, dropped, mutilated, and ground-up alive. This is the shocking reality faced by hundreds of thousands of chicks each day at the world's largest egg-laying breed hatchery."
Please watch. And please remember -- this is not an investigation revealing unusual cruelties. These are the standard, accepted, long-known-about, and defended practices across the egg industry. Read and see more from the undercover investigation on MFA's site dedicated to it. Now is the time to kick the egg habit.
Image and video courtesy of Mercy for AnimalsIf you are already vegan, you do not need to watch this as it is horrible. If you... more
With the economy being at its lowest since The Great Depression of the late 1920's and 30's, Americans are looking for ways to cut costs and maximize their dollar. Veganism is the practice of abstaining from all animal products and by-products and avoiding products that test on animals or exploit animals for entertainment (zoos, circuses, aquariums, rodeos, etc.) In this case, the vegan diet specifically will help your family eat healthily and save a bundle.
It's often thought that to eat healthy, you must dole out a huge wad of cash for your daily digs. But this is simply untrue if you are smart about it. Of course, it's cheap to sustain yourself (temporarily) on a 99-cent box of Mac and Cheese product but we all know that for maximum health maybe the processed Kraft product isn't the best solution. Enter the whole foods approach to great prices!!
Meat and dairy can be expensive items and when you look at the standard American diet, you will see these things are not just luxuries, but staples. Cheaper alternatives include dried beans, peas, and lentils, tofu, grain products, and of course, fruits and vegetables. And don't think these are boring, these things only take a little creativity to turn into wonderful meals.
Dried legumes are inexpensive and a variety of dishes can be made from them. Soups, stews, refried beans, bean salads, dips, burritos, and curries are just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many interesting meals that you can fashion out of the often overlooked bean. At a local Smart & Final store you can find a ten-pound bag of dried pinto beans for under $10 and on sale at about $5. These beans, when soaked and boiled, become twice the size of their original form. Just imagine how many meals you can make from a ten-dollar, ten-pound bag of beans!
Grain products like rice, barley, pasta, couscous, and quinoa are all really cheap, especially if you buy them in bulk. Look for a local store that has bulk bins where you package the dry product yourself (Whole Foods Markets, health food shops, and Asian and Middle Eastern stores are great places to look for these.)
Fruits and vegetables may be expensive sometimes, especially if you opt for organic produce, but you can still save money if you buy a few fresh items and the rest from the frozen variety. You can get so much more frozen broccoli for a lower price than fresh. Berries can be quite pricey, but their frozen counterpart is easily doable and makes for great smoothies, or simply set out to thaw for dessert toppings.
If you go vegan and you don't rely on overpriced meat-substitutes you will see results not just in your bank account but also in terms of how you feel. Not to mention that vegan diets are better for the animals and our streams, soil, and air.
Provided is a relatively simple and cheap recipe for vegan refried beans that you can make for burritos, tacos, a dip for chips, or just eat coupled with some rice and hot sauce.
Delicioso, vegano, frijoles refritos:
(Yields about 6 cups of refried beans)
2 cups dried pinto beans (about 1 pound)
1 can of beer or 1-1/2 cups veggie broth if you're a teetotaler
1 tsp. salt
2 tsp. ground cumin
hot sauce, to taste
For dried beans, you must reconstitute them and then cook them for them to be edible. The following may sound difficult but you will get the hang of it quickly. You have two options. Firstly, you may sort through them, picking out any small stones or twigs, then place them in a large pot and add water until there are a few inches of water above the beans. Let them hang out while you go to work. They are best left to soak for 6-10 hours. Second method is to sort the beans then place them in a pot with several inches of water above the beans and bring to a boil. Boil for two minutes, then turn off heat, cover, and let sit for 2 hours. After the initial soaking or boiling time, it's time to drain and rinse the beans... full article at linkWith the economy being at its lowest since The Great Depression of the late 1920's and... more
On a Wednesday night, four people are gathering boxes of vegetables from a dumpster behind an organic foods market near Scottsdale. The scavengers — four 20-somethings known as John Greentree, Ghost, Dee Dee, and Mr. Pink — have dumpster-dived here numerous times before. They've already put several boxes in the van when somebody sees approaching headlights.
"It's security," Mr. Pink says.
Despite the fact that these four have been on dozens of similar escapades over the past five years, nobody has ever discussed what to do if they get caught. So as the security officer drives up to the dumpster in a golf cart, everybody does the first thing their instincts tell them to do: run.
In what looks like a Chinese fire drill on fast-forward, Mr. Pink and Greentree, both dressed in dark, baggy jeans, sprint a full circle around the van to avoid being seen by the guard and then swiftly leap in the front doors. As the security guard pulls to the rear of the van, the smallest of this ragtag group of neo-hippies, 5-foot-tall Dee Dee, is caught walking out of the dumpster area.
The security guard, a heavy-set female, says hi to Dee Dee. Dee Dee nervously says hello back. Then the security guard asks, "Can you do me a favor?"
No one answers or waits around to hear what the favor is. Ghost, who's been stuck in the dumpster since security pulled up, suddenly comes tearing through the gate as if he's on fire. He takes a flying leap and propels himself six feet through the air and into the back of the van, clearing 10 big boxes of food. Dee Dee's right behind him. Within seconds, everybody's in the van, and Mr. Pink's burning rubber out of the shopping plaza.
"Ghost, that dive into the van was awesome," Greentree says.
"I felt so epic!" Ghost says.
"I wonder what the favor was that she wanted?" Dee Dee asks.
"I don't know. I think next time, we should talk to her," Greentree says.
"Should we even come back here?" Mr. Pink asks. "I mean, do you think there'll be a next time?"
Oh, there'll be a next time.
John Greentree is homeless by choice. His family lives in Phoenix, and he's apparently always welcome to sleep at his parents' home. Sometimes he does, but most of the time, he couch-hops at friends' houses or sleeps outside. He doesn't have what you'd call a job. It's all part of his utopian vision of a post-consumer society.
Greentree's what many would call a "freegan" — a vegan who dumpster-dives for his meals — but he prefers the terms "post-consumer," "urban harvester," and "vegan reclamist." Everything he eats or owns is second-hand. He manages to live virtually money-free, but modern-day hunting and gathering is practically a full-time job. And for an anarchistic pursuit, it's getting more organized all the time; in the past three months, the growing freegan community has been organizing group dumpster dives across the Valley.
It's not just food — freegans salvage everything from furniture to electronics, sometimes fixing up and reselling their finds. At one time, Greentree was renting an apartment, and he says he made enough money to pay his rent — $420 a month — simply by salvaging paints and canvases from dumpsters and selling his creations downtown. Once, he found a guitar in the garbage. "The only thing wrong with it was it had two broken strings," he says. "So I replaced the strings, painted the guitar, and sold it for $350."
And it's not just hippie types like Greentree.
The freegan lifestyle has appeal, especially during an economic downturn. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that more than 96 billion pounds of edible food is disposed of in the United States every year. Much of that food — particularly the vegetables, fruits, breads, rice, and pasta that freegans seek — is still a week or more away from spoilage. The Phoenix freegans say they eat like kings and queens, collectively hauling in pounds of salvaged food and cooking weekly community meals.
...full article at linkOn a Wednesday night, four people are gathering boxes of vegetables from a dumpster... more
This is more of a question to spur discussion than an animal rights advocacy essay. I'm not defining what the moral imperative is, but posing the question, what, theoretically, would such an imperative be for you (those in particular who don't endorse AR) ? In other words, what specifically would convince you to embrace animal rights? What would you have to be convinced of to consider the interests of animals as being important enough to respect and protect?
For instance, would it have to be demonstrated that an animal has an everlasting soul? If you were utterly convinced that animals had souls, would they then be deserving of rights? Why or why not?
Would they have to meet a certain intelligence requirement? How intelligent? What sort of intelligence?
What about sensitivity to their surroundings? The richness of their experience? Their capacity for suffering or joy?
Would they have to be moral agents of some definition? Able to empathize with others? Display altruism?
Is it a dietary matter? Do you not believe that humans can subsist on a plant-based diet and remain healthy, putting the issue outside of moral consideration and making it instead a question of necessity?
Just what is it exactly that humans have that animals lack that put us in such a position of moral superiority? Where is the distinction? Or does the moral question totally disinterest you, and if so, does such nihilism extend to all facets of life, or merely this one?
Sincerely interested in responses.This is more of a question to spur discussion than an animal rights advocacy essay.... more
You may be a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian ,but here are some of the reasons that explains why being vegetarian is good for you ,and environment and global warming can be reduced by going vegetarian.You may be a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian ,but here are some of the reasons that... more
The BUAV, the UK’s leading organisation campaigning to end animal experiments, welcomes the announcements made by the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties to pledge to include a ban on the testing of household products on animals in their manifestos for the next election. The announcements were made at a BUAV Parliamentary Reception in Westminster on Tuesday 2 June.
The announcements follow a high profile political and public campaign by the BUAV as part of its Clean Up Cruelty campaign. The campaign aims to eliminate the cruel and unnecessary use of animals in the testing of the ingredients for household products such as washing-up liquid, bathroom cleaner, floor polish and air fresheners.
Major high street retailers are increasingly responding to public concern about this issue and signing up to the BUAV’s Humane Household Product Standard (HHPS) – the only internationally recognised scheme that enables consumers to easily identify and purchase household products whose ingredients have not been tested on animals. Already, all household products made by the Co-operative and Marks and Spencer have been approved under the HHPS. This clearly illustrates that it is unnecessary to test on animals to manufacture and sell safe and effective household products.
In 1997 the UK government made a small amendment to policy which instantly saved thousands of animals from suffering in needless cosmetics testing. The Clean up Cruelty campaign aims to do the same for household products.
Ian Cawsey, MP said: “I have been asked by Gordon Brown to look at all aspects of animal welfare policy and I am convinced that the ban we introduced on testing cosmetics on animals can be extended to cover household products. It will be central to my report to the Prime Minister and will be widely supported in the Labour Party to be in our manifesto for the next election.”
Andrew Rosindell, MP said: “Animal testing is one of the most significant and controversial areas of the animal welfare debate. It is crucial that, step by step, we make concerted efforts to reduce the numbers of animals used and the number of procedures undertaken.
“Following the successful ban on testing for cosmetic products, we must now look to see where we can extend this further. We are pleased to support the BUAV's Clean up Cruelty campaign and it is the Conservative Party’s view that we are now in a realistic position to ban the use of animals in testing on household products.
“This is the first step in the Conservative approach to continually reducing animal experimentation, there is still much ground to cover, and we will continue to press the case for greater emphasis on development into alternative methods of testing.”
Roger Williams, MP said: “The Liberal Democrats have had a long held belief that it is totally unnecessary to use animals for the testing of household goods and I am happy to support the BUAV’s campaign to ban their use.
“The British are a nation of animal lovers and the Government should reflect that by implementing steps that will lead to the eventual ban of unnecessary testing on animals. This has already happened with cosmetics and I see no reason why similar moves should not be made in the case of household goods.”
Caroline Lucas, MEP said: “The Green Party has pledged to continue campaigning to end the cruelty inflicted upon animals in the name of ‘safety’ and it is certainly timely for the progress that has been made with regard to cosmetics testing to be mirrored, and improved upon, with regard to household products.
“The Green Party fully supports BUAV’s campaign for a total ban on all testing of household products and I will be doing my utmost to press for a ban across Europe, as well as in this country.”
...full article at linkThe BUAV, the UK’s leading organisation campaigning to end animal experiments,... more
KFC calls its new Kentucky Grilled Chicken “the better-for-you chicken for health-conscious customers.” But recent PCRM tests of the new grilled chicken revealed substantial amounts of a carcinogenic chemical in all samples tested.
grilling chickenA PCRM scientist visited six different KFC stores, obtained two samples from each location, and sent them to an independent testing laboratory. All 12 samples were found to contain PhIP, a chemical classified as a carcinogen by the federal government. PhIP, part of a chemical family known as heterocyclic amines (HCAs), has been linked to several forms of cancer, including breast cancer, in dozens of scientific studies. No safe level of ingestion has been identified. Every sample also tested positive for at least one additional type of HCA.
The new KFC grilled chicken products were the focus of a controversial promotion by Oprah Winfrey, who offered coupons for free Kentucky Grilled Chicken meals on her Web site. PCRM has alerted Ms. Winfrey to these findings.
“Just as the fat and cholesterol in fried chicken have prompted concerns about heart attacks and obesity, the carcinogenic chemicals found in Kentucky Grilled Chicken raise serious concerns about cancer risk,” said Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., a PCRM toxicologist. “No parent would knowingly serve carcinogens to a child, and parents have no idea these chemicals are in KFC products. We are asking KFC to withdraw Kentucky Grilled Chicken.”
PhIP and other HCAs do not exist naturally in chicken; they form when animal muscle is cooked to high temperatures. The National Toxicology Program administered by the National Institutes of Health has identified PhIP as carcinogenic, as have the state of California and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
But KFC is not the only restaurant serving carcinogen-containing grilled chicken. Last year, PCRM filed suit against McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, Chili’s, T.G.I. Friday’s, Outback Steakhouse, Burger King, and Applebee’s for knowingly exposing customers to PhIP without warning them of its risks. The suit was brought under California’s Proposition 65, which states that consumers must be warned about products that contain known carcinogens.
The lawsuit is based on tests that found PhIP in 100 grilled chicken samples from the seven restaurant chains. The findings, compiled from independent laboratory tests commissioned by PCRM scientists, were published in the September 2008 issue of Nutrition and Cancer.
Burger King was the first of the restaurants to settle the lawsuit. As part of its agreement with PCRM, Burger King has posted warning signs in its California restaurants to alert customers that its grilled chicken products contain PhIP.
But the other six defendants that continue to fight the lawsuit—and KFC—have yet to inform customers about the cancer-causing chemicals in their grilled chicken products.
Visit www.PCRM.org to learn more about grilled chicken and PhIP.KFC calls its new Kentucky Grilled Chicken “the better-for-you chicken for... more
Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was murdered inside his church on Sunday, and the only suspect is Scott Roeder, a man The New York Times said “had professed an anti-government, anti-abortion philosophy.” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called the murder an “abhorrent act of violence,” but he hasn’t used the word “terrorism.” Not once.
Why?
As a bit of context, if you’re new to this website, the FBI labels the animal rights and environmental movements as the “number one domestic terrorism threat” even though those activists have never harmed a human being. At the very worst, underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have released animals from fur farms, destroyed SUVs and set fire to empty buildings.
When animal rights activists or environmental activists are arrested, though, the government immediately sends out press releases and holds press conferences trumpeting the arrest of “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists.”
So it’s pretty startling that government hasn’t used the T-word, considering that we’re talking about murder, and, as James Ridgeway notes over at Mother Jones, Roeder was also arrested in 1996 with ammunition, gunpowder, a blasting cap, and a fuse chord in his car. He was sentenced to two years of supervised probation. (By contrast, the SHAC 7 received years in prison for running a website).
What gives? Why hasn’t the murder of an abortion provider been labeled “terrorism”?
IT'S NOT A THREAT TO PROFITS. Time and again, we’ve seen that a driving force behind the domestic “War on Terrorism” is protecting corporate interests. The ELF, ALF and above-ground, lawful activists all directly target profits. As the Department of Homeland Security said in a memo, “Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.” Similarly, the State Department has warned corporations how to protect their profits from “eco-terrorists.”
HEALTH CLINICS AND NONPROFITS DO NOT HAVE THE LOBBYING POWER OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. NOW is already pushing to label this crime as “terrorism.” I wouldn’t be surprised if they also push legislation to label anti-abortion violence as terrorism. The problem, though, is that groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood don’t have the political influence (read: money) as Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, and all the other multinational corporations who push “eco-terrorism” legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
IT'S NOT THREATENING "THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE." In my reporting I’ve found that the word “terrorism” is typically applied to two types of crimes. The first are crimes that go up the chain of power (so, for example, the U.S. military bombing civilians is not terrorism, but an Iraqi civilian bombing the military is).
The second are crimes that challenge dominant American values. Let me explain: Attacking African American voters is not terrorism, right-wingers like Chuck Norris calling for armed revolution is not terrorism, Timothy McVeigh bombing the Oklahoma City building is not terrorism. Why? Because the values behind all of those actions– racism, capitalism, and Christian fundamentalism—are business as usual.
So, for example, if Dr. Tiller had been murdered by Muslim extremists proclaiming jihad against the West, the government would be labeling this “terrorism.” The exact same crime committed by Christian extremists is merely a “wicked deed in Wichita”Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was... more
Propagandhi, Winnipeg’s “progressive thrash” heroes, have just released a new album. Supporting Caste is twelve and a half songs of political passion and metal-tinged post-punk. Singer Chris Hannah discusses the issues inspiring their sixth full-length album.
Erin Empey: Do you think that Propagandhi has evolved since the release of Potemkin City Limits? What’s new with Supporting Caste?
Chris Hannah: I'd like to think so! At the very least, we added The Beave on second guitar to the line-up, so that's new, and in my opinion has added a lot more depth, dimension and atmosphere to our customary sonic pummelings.
Also, Jord has more gray hair on this record. I’m not sure if that comes through on the recording though.
Since you guys decided to fold your record label last year, how has working with Smallman been compared to G7 Welcoming Committee?
Well, considering we're in a time where the racket of selling recordings to people has been essentially eviscerated, it's been pretty good! We've known them for years, they understand where we're coming from and they live within choking distance. These are important factors.
G7 operated using Participatory Economics (parecon), where business decisions were made democratically and profits were shared equally among members. Based on your experience, do you think it could be applied on a larger scale?
After a decade of experience in a parecon-inspired enterprise that was subject to all the human frailties and palace intrigues that every single gathering of more than two people throughout history has always endured, I still can't come up with any good reason why people shouldn't endeavor to embrace parecon's core values of solidarity, equity, diversity and self-management in their workplaces. It makes sense and it is right.
The track “Human(e) Meat” opens with a howling Sandor Katz about to be cannibalized. Who is Katz and why do you want to eat him?
Sandor Katz is someone who talks and writes about food. He has a book called "the Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved" that is actually worth reading until you hit the absurd and utterly embarrassing chapter where he tries to rationalize torturing, maiming, killing and mutilating sentient animals for his personal enjoyment. It is the type of embarrassing new-age hippy nonsense that sets serious debate about food politics and human ethics back a decade every time it rears its hippy head.
We simply used his logic, step by step, and daydreamed me rationalizing torturing, maiming, killing and mutilating him for my personal enjoyment. Which is of course also absurd, which was the point of the illustration.
Apparently he has no sense of humour (or of his own irony for that matter) and is very upset about it. Poor persecuted meat eaters! Will they never be free from the tyrannical oppression of vegetarians?
In “Dear Coaches Corner” you lament Don Cherry using his platform to promote militarism. Do you think that there are ugly politics in hockey culture beyond Don Cherry's routines?
For sure. Cherry is just the emptiest and hence, the loudest barrel. The culture of professional hockey is essentially a propaganda wing of the western elite and their geo-political objectives. Why else would Jim Balsillie, head cocknose of the company that makes the Blackberry, appear on Hockey Night in Canada thanking Canadian troops in Afghanistan for "defending our lifestyle?" Wait, I thought it was about liberating Afghan women? Whoops!
...more at linkPropagandhi, Winnipeg’s “progressive thrash” heroes, have just released a new... more
We all make choices throughout the day that have enormous impact on others whether we realize it or not. Every time we chose what to eat, buy, and wear, our decision can support unfathomable violence and brutality towards animals. We know that by choosing Vegan food we not only make a delicious and nutritious choice, we make a Peaceful Choice.
We choose not to support cruelty to animals.
We choose to try the endless and exciting possibilities that a Vegetarian diet has to offer.
We choose not to support environmentally destructive animal agribusiness.
We choose to be aware of what we eat, not who we eat.
We choose to be healthy, educated, and compassionate consumers.
GREAT NEWS! Vegan living is easy, healthy, and it empowers you to save lives every time you eat, drink, and shop. Remember, every time you eat, you are either making a Peaceful Choice, or a destructive choice… the animals have NO choice.
Get your Vegan Starter Guide to learn how and why so many people are making vegan choices. It is loaded with information on the many benefits for the animals, the environment and your health; tips on nutrition; advice on shopping and dining out; helpful resources; and plenty of delicious recipes.
Order your Free Vegan Starter Kit today, Download a PDF copy, or click here to view Vegan Starter Guides available online.We all make choices throughout the day that have enormous impact on others whether we... more
From the article...LOS ANGELES -- Two animal rights activists were charged Monday with conspiracy, stalking and other crimes against researchers at University of California, Los Angeles and executives of a juice company.
Linda Faith Greene, 61, and Kevin Richard Olliff, 22, pleaded not guilty to the charges during their arraignment in Superior Court.
The Los Angeles County district attorney's office issued a statement calling the pair "alleged domestic terrorists" and describing them as associates of the Animal Liberation Front, an extremist animal rights group.
A county grand jury indictment was handed up March 27 and charged each with three counts of conspiracy to commit stalking, three counts of stalking, two counts of conspiracy to threaten a public officer or school employee and two counts of threatening a public officer or school employee. They were arrested Thursday.
The indictment alleges that an unnamed co-conspirator tried to place an incendiary device on the doorstep of UCLA professor Lynn Fairbanks' home in July 2006 but it was actually left at an elderly neighbor's house and failed to explode.
One of the overt acts in the conspiracy was Greene, acting as press officer for an animal rights Web site, posting a "communique" by the ALF which took responsibility for what it called a "moletov cocktail," according to the indictment.
Greene, Olliff and others conducted demonstrations at the professor's home and on the UCLA campus, during which they chanted threats through a bullhorn and disputed law enforcement claims that the wrong house was targeted, according to the indictment.
Greene is also accused of identifying Fairbanks as a "target" on a Web site, publishing her addresses and other personal information online.
The indictment alleges a similar campaign against a neurobiology professor, Dario Ringach, who later gave up primate research, citing harassment from animal rights activists and concerns for his young children.
A telephone message seeking comment was left Monday evening at the office of attorney David B. Rutan, who represented Greene and Olliff when UCLA got a temporary restraining order against animal rights activists.
Dr. Jerry Vlasak, an animal rights activist with North American Animal Liberation Press Office, said Monday that Greene and Olliff violated no laws.
"They're using their constitutional right to free speech. They're not breaking any laws or breaking in to sabotage or destroying vehicles or equipment," Vlasak said. "Everyone knows who they are. They're high-profile activists who never tried to hide their identities. Linda did TV interviews."
The indictment further alleges that Greene and Olliff stalked executives of Los Angeles-based POM Wonderful Juice Co., picketed at a corporate family picnic and conducted demonstrations at their homes.
Vlasak said the activists targeted POM because they believe the company was using animal experiments to support claims that pomegranate juice could improve erectile function in men with mild impotence problems.
A telephone message seeking comment from POM after hours was not immediately returned.
Greene was held on $450,000 bail and is due back in court Friday for a bail review hearing. Olliff was held on $460,000 bail.
Both defendants are scheduled for a pretrial hearing on May 20.
Over the past couple of years, animal rights activists have aggressively protested animal research at the homes of scientists.
Earlier this year, four people pleaded not guilty in connection with an attempted break-in at the home of a UC Santa Cruz breast cancer researcher in 2008. Last December, a man pleaded no contest to making harassing phone calls to UC San Francisco researchers at their homes and telling them that they would die the same way they made animals suffer.From the article...LOS ANGELES -- Two animal rights activists were charged Monday with... more
Perchlorate, a hazardous chemical in rocket fuel, has been found at potentially dangerous levels in powdered infant formula, according to a study [PDF] by a group of Centers for Disease Control scientists. The study, published last month by The Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, has intensified the years-long debate about whether or how the federal government should regulate perchlorate in the nation’s drinking water.
According to the CDC, perchlorate exposure can damage the thyroid, which can hinder brain development among infants. For nearly a decade, Democratic members of Congress, the Department of Defense, the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have been fighting about how much perchlorate in water is too much.
In the new study, CDC scientists tested 15 brands of infant formula and found perchlorate in all of them. The names of the brands weren’t revealed because the CDC says the study “was not designed to compare brands.” But the study does say that the formulas with the highest perchlorate levels are the most popular. The most contaminated brands were lactose-based as opposed to soy-based and accounted for 87% of the infant formulas on the market in 2000, the latest data available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The study points out that when perchlorate-contaminated powdered formula is mixed with water that also contains traces of the chemical, as many drinking water sources around the country do, the final concoction can become particularly harmful to babies.
“As this unprecedented study demonstrates, infants fed cow’s milk- based powdered formula could be exposed to perchlorate from two sources – tap water and formula. That suggests that millions of American babies are potentially at risk,” said Anila Jacob, a physician and a senior scientist with Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that posted the study on its Web site. http://www.ewg.org/report/CDC-Scientists-Find-Rocket-Fuel-Chemical-In-Infant-Formula
....WOW... this is an absolute disgrace.
Perchlorate, a hazardous chemical in rocket... more
Whether cattle are reared organically or with conventional farming methods, the end effect is bad for the environment, according to a new German consumer report. The agricultural lobby, however, is preventing politicians from tackling this massive source of greenhouse gas emissions.
REUTERS
A cow being measured for emissions. Cattle may be gentle creatures but farming them is contributing to climate change, says consumer group Foodwatch.
For most people, it's the very picture of rural bliss, of a life in tune with nature and the wholesome world of farming: the happy cow standing on a lush meadow, calmly chewing its cud, a calf at its side.
But for Thilo Bode, the sight of this gentle-eyed creature is everything but reassuring. Bode, the head of German consumer protection organization Foodwatch, warns: "The cow is a climate bomb."
Whether they are raised conventionally or organically, one thing cows have in common is that they burp and fart to their hearts' content. Like all ruminants, cows are constantly emitting methane -- a greenhouse gas that is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide -- from both ends. As malodorous as pigs may be, it is the gaseous emissions of billions of cattle, goats and sheep that are contributing to global warming.
Bode wanted to find out just how strong the effects of the greenhouse gases methane, nitrous oxide and CO2 are. On Monday Foodwatch published a comprehensive study of the effects of agriculture on the climate, the first study of its kind that differentiates between conventional and organic farming. The scientists who conducted the study, with Germany's Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IOeW), accounted for both the CO2 emissions resulting from the production of feed and fertilizers, as well as the land requirements and productivity of various production methods.
The results are enough to send diehard fans of steaks and burgers into a panic. Even if all farms and methods, organic or otherwise, were optimized to reduce their effects on the climate, Foodwatch concludes that the principal approach to making agriculture more climate-friendly would require a drastic reduction in beef production. This would mean a radical increase in the price of steaks and the like. "It's time we went back to the days of the Sunday roast," says Bode.
...full article at link...
The difference can be illustrated by drawing a comparison with automobile emissions. The production of one kilo of grass-fed beef causes the same amount of emissions as driving 113.4 kilometers (70.4 miles) in a compact car. Because of more intensive production methods, producing one kilo of conventional beef is the equivalent of driving only 70.6 kilometers (43.9 miles).
DER SPIEGELA kilo of cheese, produced conventionally, comes to 71.4 kilometers (44.3 miles) of driving, while organic cheese is somewhat more favorable, at 65.5 kilometers (40.7 miles). Producing a kilo of pork causes the equivalent of only 25.8 kilometers (16 miles) of driving, and only 17.4 kilometers (10.8 miles) for organic pork.
Vegans eat in a decidedly climate-friendly way. However, even opting to go without beef can significantly improve a person's carbon footprint.
...full article at link...By Michaela Schiessl and Christian Schwägerl
Whether cattle are reared organically... more
Part 1: Let's Be Reasonable
...
The benefits are so far-reaching that it's not an exaggeration to say that "going veg" is one of the best choices (if not the best choice) we can make to help solve the world's most pressing and stubborn problems. Huge benefits are available for an incredibly small price: a little effort to make the change and a little inconvenience while more restaurants and grocers continue to increase their options.
So why the resistance? Why are Americans the largest per capita meat consumers in the world (40% more than Europeans)? Eating meat is not motivated by our concern for health. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are America's top killers in large part thanks to meat, which is fiber-less, vitamin-free, cholesterol-filled, and saturated with saturated fat.
It's not like we don't have other options. There's plenty to eat without eating meat. Look closely, and you will notice that it is meat-defenders who are quick to deny hard facts as if they were Jim Perdue with billions to lose. Eating meat is not only emotionally motivated and habit-driven; it is also irrational and less sustainable.
Want proof?
There are many angles that could be highlighted in addition to health: pollution, water use, energy conservation, and perhaps the most pressing, global warming. The 2006 United Nations report "Livestock's Long Shadow" details the harm of animal agriculture, especially as the largest anthropogenic (human-induced) emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The UN is far too political to actually say "meat is the #1 contributor to global warming," but they do conclude that it contributes more GHGs than "all transport combined."
You don't need to be a climate change scientist to do the math. What "human-induced" cause could be greater than meat or transport? I don't know of any, and it seems that neither does the UN. For all practical purposes:
Meat GHGs › Transport GHGs → Meat = #1 human cause of global warming.
For agriculture to be sustainable, it must emit less greenhouse gas.
Meat Is Overconsumption
I could go on and on about pollution and global warming, but space (like food) is limited, and I want to explain why reducing global meat consumption is necessary to reduce global hunger for the poor and increase global food security for all.
In short, meat is resource-intensive, food scarcity is on the rise, and meat increases the cost of all food.
Animals are inefficient converters of food, consuming many more calories (and more protein) than they produce. Meat also requires massive amounts of energy, land, and water relative to plant-based options. This is well documented. Even meat proponents concede that vegetarian and vegan diets require less food and environmental resources to feed the world.
...
The question is not can we "clever" our way out of the environmental destruction and health consequences of increased meat consumption. The question is not how do we meet this increased "demand." Instead, the question is how do we reverse this destructive trend before it's too late? Advocating for reduced meat consumption, vegetarianism, or veganism should be on the agenda of those out to make the world a better place.
