Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade” 4 Posted 3 hours, 14 minutes ago
Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change 4 Posted 6 hours, 37 minutes ago
The localization of agriculture 1 Posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
Oprah off the meat-free wagon
Well, Oprah is no longer a caffeine-free, sugar-free, gluten-free vegan. She says her "21-day cleanse" has been "enlightening."
I will forever be a more cautious and conscious eater. That's my commitment for now. To stay awakened.
Hopefully along the way she's also enlightened some of her million-bajillion faithful followers.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Jonathan Safran Foer on his book “Eating Animals”
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show
Comments
View as Flat
PermieWriter Posted 10:36 am
17 Jun 2008
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:58 pm
17 Jun 2008
I think Oprah has done her fans a disservice by suggesting that going vegan is a "diet" that one can do for 21 days to "cleanse" oneself. Rediculous. I guess not for a talk show host, though.
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 1:06 am
18 Jun 2008
It's unfortunate she's back to eating meat and other animal products, but at least it's raised awareness about the many benefits of a vegan diet.
Some of her audience members probably had never even heard of the word "vegan."
But I don't think 21 days is long enough for an attempt at a vegan diet. You probably still have cravings after 3 weeks, but after a few months you stop having cravings for such items as ice cream, at least for me anyway. Then animal products just become disgusting. And it takes a few months to discover all the great veg-friendly products, restaurants, and stores available. Once I discovered Soy Delicious ice cream, I never looked back.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:35 am
18 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:44 am
18 Jun 2008
Karen is absolutely right that when we talk up veg*nism, we must emphasize that it is a new, joyful, fulfilling lifestyle; it is NOT a form of self-denial, penance and suffering.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:33 pm
18 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 10:57 pm
18 Jun 2008
If I said that I believed in protecting the earth but said that driving a Hummer and living in a 8,000 foot home was part of my "lifestyle", what would you think?
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 11:48 pm
18 Jun 2008
Concerning meat, the meat I eat grazes naturally. One steak does not require one thousand gallons of water. Where did you get that from? Not that it matters, because I live in a place that is VERY well watered. The animals here are not taking water away from anyone.
Secondly, they don't require ANY fossil fuel as well. Once they are butchered, the delivery to the market might require minimal transport costs - just like the Lentils (which I can't buy here) would.
If you said that your drove a HMMWV I would question your taste in motor vehicles.
I don't believe in "protecting the earth." I believe in making sure that our capacity to exploit it is sustainable.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 9:44 pm
23 Jun 2008
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:35 am
24 Jun 2008
But whatever ...
Hey John former Marine, we will be driving around the Gaspe' peninsula toward the end of July (seeing how this is l'anniversaire quatre-centieme de la ville splendide de Quebec: we are starting out there, then Michael has family he wants to visit in Halifax -- not the best of years to do a big driving trip, but there we are). We have reservations for a couple of nights in Carleton, and a night in Miramichi. So come on over for a bit. There is that Canadian national park near Carleton that I am hankering to see ...
cheers,
CC
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
askantik Posted 12:39 am
24 Jun 2008
I am looking at visiting Bhutan and one site about the country said this: "Buddhism has been the predominant religion since the 7th century and has inculcated deeply the value that all forms of sentinent life, not just human life, are precious and sacred. Given such a prevailing ethos which respects the natural environment, it is not surprising that the Bhutanese have lived in harmony with nature and that the nation has its environment still pristine and intact today."
Just something to think about.
Now, no one has even said anything about this, but I feel compelled to say it anyhow-- that gets me in trouble a lot. However, please know that I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone, but rather I'm trying to explain why I'm vegan in an intelligent matter so that no one thinks that all vegans are insane PETA people who throw paint on your fur coat or ALF people who burn down buildings :). So the final thing is: for anyone who thinks that locally-raised meat is 'humane,' I'm not trying to be an overbearing ass or anything, but please remember that the word humane means to be treated as a human. Raising something for the sole purpose of slaughter (when we don't need it to survive), no matter how good of a life it lived, is not treating it like a human. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't do it, but I just get a little miffed when I see ads online for "humanely raised" beef. What is humane about killing something when we don't have to?
You can flame me, but just remember I never asked you to watch "Meet Your Meat." :P
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:58 am
24 Jun 2008
However, she may have promoted many people to look up the word vegan, to research into it and to understand it better themselves. The next time a middle state house wife hears the word vegan, it won't come as such as shock maybe.
Its not prefect, but its an increase in awareness. Some may even be curious enough to actually understand the real meaning to be a vegan. Or others may even have more vegan meals.
On a side note, in this months issue of Self mag, there was a tiny article about "part time vegans". People that eat vegan meals Monday to Friday. Yeah its kinda pathetic, but again, its an increase in awareness.
I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change.
--- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:00 am
24 Jun 2008
2. of or pertaining to humanistic studies.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:02 am
24 Jun 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:56 am
24 Jun 2008
Pathetic is in the eye of the beholder and awareness works both ways.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:23 am
24 Jun 2008
I'd love to be up there (chez n'z'ottes) for the summer but alas, I just started a new job in the "Heart of Darkness" (DC). I've been begging my wife to leave careers and cities behind but it's hard to make a living up there in the woods.
Someday we'll meet on the Allagash River though. You've got a canoe, right?
Halifax is a beautiful city...I envy you. Have a wonderful time in the maritimes and Gaspesie.
My family is from St. Basile/Madawaska area. It's a beautiful place with deep roots but pretty depressing since there's nothing but the paper mill.
Have a good trip,
John
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:27 am
24 Jun 2008
I agree that eating less animal products is good. Eating meat 30% of the time is certainly incredibly better than 100% of the time.
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:32 am
24 Jun 2008
In this case, he clearly missed the very important information about the word's etymology. "Humane" is obviously a variant of "human." And we are justified to understand BOTH words to mean, "what is appropriate for human beings."
And so, AskAntik (who may or may not be naive/idealistic about what the people of Bhutan are up to, but he will find out in time) is entirely right to criticize the use of "humane," when it is applied to dead, slaughtered animals.
It may indeed be possible to slaughter animals with minimal pain. But that does NOT make the act of slaughter "humane." And we are lying to ourselves (as we so love doing, no?), if we think that the moral burden is lifted from our choice of "humane" meat in a food store or restaurant.
The ethical elephant in the room, which carnivorous human beings go delicately pirouetting around, is the huge question: Why do human beings think they come first?; or, why do human beings think their rights/interests/feelings count, when those of non-human animals do not?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:01 am
24 Jun 2008
You are right, humane does indeed come from the word human, it would be silly to argue that. And yes, humane indeed used to mean human (as I had found out).
But that is the fallacy of using that word. If you were to stick to the dictionary definition of the word, you may have more of an argument: to be compassionate is to not kill.
But to use a word as meaning to treat like a human is to suggest that there should be little regard for their well-being. Lots of people are stuck in CAFOs (i.e. offices), lots of people have been tortured, killed, genocides still occur, etc.
We are not divine: 'to err is human, to forgive divine'. To describe someone as human means that we describe the great qualities of humankind, such as literature, art, poetry, love, as well as the negative ones, such as brutality, invasion, rape, murder. Many ancient and extant cultures worshipped strengths, which led to great atrocities, yet these same cultures produced great jewels of thought, and to the present day, they created what is now our culture. Without strengths, these values would not have been possible. Name a great civilization, or a great leader, and I will name a great crime that has been committed.
In as much as that may sting our senses, that is the way that it has been, the way it is and the way that it will be. Humane treatment of animals implies my definition of the word, not yours, because if your definition prevailed, any current treatment of animals would be considered 'humane'.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:01 am
24 Jun 2008
You are right, humane does indeed come from the word human, it would be silly to argue that. And yes, humane indeed used to mean human (as I had found out).
But that is the fallacy of using that word. If you were to stick to the dictionary definition of the word, you may have more of an argument: to be compassionate is to not kill.
But to use a word as meaning to treat like a human is to suggest that there should be little regard for their well-being. Lots of people are stuck in CAFOs (i.e. offices), lots of people have been tortured, killed, genocides still occur, etc.
We are not divine: 'to err is human, to forgive divine'. To describe someone as human means that we describe the great qualities of humankind, such as literature, art, poetry, love, as well as the negative ones, such as brutality, invasion, rape, murder. Many ancient and extant cultures worshipped strengths, which led to great atrocities, yet these same cultures produced great jewels of thought, and to the present day, they created what is now our culture. Without strengths, these values would not have been possible. Name a great civilization, or a great leader, and I will name a great crime that has been committed.
In as much as that may sting our senses, that is the way that it has been, the way it is and the way that it will be. Humane treatment of animals implies my definition of the word, not yours, because if your definition prevailed, any current treatment of animals would be considered 'humane'.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:32 am
24 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 5:34 am
24 Jun 2008
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 5:36 am
24 Jun 2008
But again, I am willing to take some thing versus nothing.
I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change.
--- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---
Permalink
mat Posted 5:43 am
24 Jun 2008
listen MAD MAC,
your ideas are typical of what is wrong with humans, and this planet, in general.
you appear to be self-indulgent and misinformed (MOST typical of Americans, and yes i am American,
always have been).
by the way, you DO know that humans are OMNIVORES,
by definition, not CARNIVORES??!! humans can be prefectly healthy without consuming animals and animal by-products. get yourself a set of
encyclopedias and look it up. sheesh.....
Permalink
javaearth Posted 5:44 am
24 Jun 2008
I think you are misunderstanding my words. Its like if people want to eat less meat - great! thats good news. However why do people need to use a title "Part time vegan". you either are a vegan or not. - Its like saying part time pregnant. SEE WHAT I AM SAYING?
Plus its awareness, because atleast main stream mags are writing about this stuff.
Plus, I think you actually knew me, you would know I write the way I talk, - which is a very lose conversation style. - with a hint of "attitude". I hope you can see that. and if not oh well!
I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change.
--- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:34 am
24 Jun 2008
Well, that is up in Ulster, in the Orange neighborhoods. "Sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph!"
We must be careful to enunciate, dear Mat, when we are speaking from the heart, no?
Be not afraid. In five minutes, your roof may collapse, and they may not find your body for weeks.
Which I think is why I love my new friend Mad Mac. We do not agree on all kinds of things; nevertheless he has got terrific style. So does agreement matter so much, so long as we like talking one with another? We are on this Earth, in this existence, a very very short time, after all.
Anyway, HE used the word "carnivore" to describe himself, honestly and directly: he feeds on meat. I.e., the flesh of killed animals who used to be as alive as you and he and I. He apparently eats other stuff too; but he bravely refuses to do the cowardly two-step and hide behind the vanilla term "omnivore." (And anyway, so-called "omnivores" are not truly "omnivores," unless they are, say, eating the scrapings off of walls, and the remains of what is excavated up from on top of and between pavement slabs; or, making salads out of autumn leaves -- yum!)
So, I shall lay down the law (all you free-spirited English-speakers, please pass and ignore):
If meat is regularly present in your diet, and if you consider a meal a true meal only if meat is a main item, then in fairness you should call yourself a "carnivore."
If you eat meat, occasionally, even often, but are perfectly satisfied with meatless meals, and do not consider a meal unsatisfactory if it does not contain some meat, then you may indeed refer to yourself by that vanilla-wafer word, "omnivore."
Ego dixi.
And to quote the most famous of all ancient Romans, Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:40 am
24 Jun 2008
you are quite right. Touche'! We human beings do indeed treat our fellow human beings abominably.
Still, there are at least a few of us who are horrified by, say, the genocide in Darfur and Chad, and the neglect of monsoon victims in Burma. But there are far fewer who give thought to the billions of trapped, miserable, frightened animals caught up in the meat industry.
We do what we can. Every moment we draw breath is another moment of friendship -- for what it is worth -- for the animals.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
CountBlah Posted 12:42 pm
24 Jun 2008
Pigs revert to feral quite rapidly, but that is not true of all animals raised for consumption. It would be unethical to let these animals fend for themselves. But back to the wild pigs. While wild boar are commonplace in certain areas, wild pigs have wrecked havoc in many areas where they do not belong, killing other animals and plants as well as posing a threat to humans.
I know there are some that see the next life for domestic livestock as pets. Excuse me, but there is already a real problem with irresponsible pet owners. If you thought animals suffered awaiting for slaughter, just wait until you see how people neglect and abuse them as pets.
Think I am heading down a slippery slope? Tune into any version of Animal Cops.
Okay, back to reality. Not everyone is going to be a vegan, so it is time to stop preaching it. There are several dietary options that can prove less ecologically intrusive than eating factory farmed meat. I had been a vegan for three months in the early ninties in a podunk town. Not easy. Didn't have the kind of dietary variety one should have. Yes, it is much easier for one to go vegan today. However, if a person has certain dietary restrictions (as I do, due to interstitial cystitis), it can be down right impossible. Choosing sustainable, organic, and free range meat and dairy products is a step in the right direction. And oh, by the way, vegans are not exempt from buying organic. However, despite being a more conscious consumer about animal products, it is still a good idea to cut back on meat consumption. For your health and the health of the planet. Opting for ecological fish is also important. Refer to the NOAA or Monterey Bay Acquarium Web site for a list (noaa.gov or http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp). There is another eco meat to consider: insects. Entomophagy has been a big part of the diet of mankind throughout the ages, yet we have gotten away from the notion. Not only are you eating a sustainable source of lean protein, you are helping to alleviate the devastation caused by certain insects. Hey, if you can eat a lobster, you can certainly eat crickets. So, it may be time to add some crunchy arthropods to your diet. Then let's see how many preachy vegans start to cry out the sentient being remark. Of course, they are. As long as something has a nervous system, no matter how simple, it is sentient. But that doesn't mean that they can't be lunch.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 2:06 pm
24 Jun 2008
However I would like you to consider the following points about a vegan world.
People would never just all of sudden stop eating animals. It would a gradual effect.
The gradual consumption in animals would decrease the demand, hence decreasing the supply, as it would not be as profitable.
As demand drops, animals would not be unnaturally breed as they are now.
The fewer animals would gradually go back to the way they use to live before humans captured and caged them. No animal was born into a cage, before humans made it a profiting business.
I am not saying that everyting would be prefect, but the current system is not working either!
Please remember animals were fine before we got involved. And they will be fine when we stop messing with them. With time animals are very adaptive.
Its us human animals that do not know how to change!
I enjoyed reading your opinion and I hope you can learn form mine. - if you ever want vegan or vegetarian recipes, I would love to share!
I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change.
--- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:16 pm
24 Jun 2008
Do I agree with Canis that factory farming animals is wrong? Yes. Do I agree with the rest of the left wing nitwit crowd that believes that meat consumption is bad morals and bad for the planet? No. In my view eating free range meat is fine. And I fully intend to do it with apologies to no one.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink