This Situation is Morally and Ethically Wrong

http://abcnews.go.com/US/suicide-rutgers-university-freshman-tyler-clementi-stuns-veteran/story?id=11763784&page=1

Really? You broadcasted live a sex video of your roommate? You really did that? Knowing that even if it was a girl, it could potentially ruin his career? You know that being gay in our society is hard enough right? Even without screw-ups like you? And you still decided to out your roommate before even the first month of school was over? Really?

Where is the sanity here? How could anyone think that posting a sex video of someone, regardless of sexual orientation, be ok? There is enough literacy, especially on a college campus, to know the damaging effects that such a video can create.

To make matters worse, he were OUTTING HIS ROOMATE. VIA SEX TAPE. WTF?
How could this possibly be construed as ok? or funny? or ethically right?
What was his thinking? "Uhhhh I'm a stupid teenage boy and gay sex is funny, especially since it's with this guy I live with...uhhh...lemme scratch my balls now and hock a lugee..."


As for the possibility of five years in prison? Five years for privacy violations? Sure, but I think there needs to be a torture charge here too.  Ravi emotionally tortured Clementi for absolutely no good reason. To the point of suicide.

I think that warrants a heavier sentence.

BALLS!

Wooooo!

http://www.balls19.com/

BALLS is awesome!

Movie Recomendation!

http://www.crudethemovie.com/

I recently had the oppertunity to view this documentary as well as hear Joe Berlinger himself speak about the film.  During the question and answer period after the documentary was shown, Berlinger was asked what what image has stayed with him the most that he was not able to put into the film.  His answer was surprising, even after watching the film: That when visiting these indigenous people's land, so far away from any civilization, the people who had for so long subsisted on the Amazon for food and life, had to eat canned tuna because the fish in the river were either all dead or poisonous.

The other surprising thing Berlinger talked about was how fair he tried to make the film for both sides. That he strived for an equal balance of both the plaintiffs and Texaco (now Chevron). 

The thing is, even though he strived for fairness in legality issues, the questions of ethical and moral responsibility and obligation seem to have a clear answer...


Check it out!

Suck it up!

 First read this!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/science/earth/19clean.html?_r=1&hpw

I admit that when I think of how to get something really clean, I think of harsh chemicals scouring away all potential dirt and microscopic life forms...But I also associate these products with protective gloves and such because they give rashes.  I never really stopped to consider what it meant...

This semester I am taking a "Makeup for Motion Pictures" class (I'm going to have the best scary, gorey Halloween costume ever!). I'm not that into make up, but I do occasionally put some on...What I am really excited for is learning all the crazy alterations that one can use to distort and enhance features. In any case, when explaining about all the different kinds of make up, the thing that our professor stressed most to us was that you should never put anything on your face that, when put up to your nose or mouth, you find repulsive.  He explained that when makeups are strong smelling or distasteful (literally), it means that they have harsh chemicals that you probably don't want on your skin.

In fact, if you don't want them on your skin, you probably don't want to ingest them either...which means that you probably DON'T want phosphates in or around your plates/food, regardless of the environmental concern (which is completely valid and reasonable).  If you care so much about the appearence of your dishes that you are going to get terribly upset if they have water marks when they come out of the dishwasher, you need to suck it up.  If you really care that much, wash your dishes by HAND (of course only running the water when it is necessary)!

As the article points out, cleaning employees were made physically sick by the toxic chemicals found in most "cleaning" supplies.


That doesn't sound too healthy, now does it?

For the love of sugar!

Oh corn syrup...do you really think you will fool anyone by changing your name to corn sugar?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/?hpw
...
...
...
Corn sugar that is syrupy and looks exactly like corn syrup?
Do you really think you will get away with this???

*sigh*
You probably will.


(wooo unprocessed (or less processed) sugar!)

A forgotten post from late summer that never managed to get up here...until today!

I hate beverage containers that are not waterproof. I hate them so much. If you are going to design something to hold liquids, wouldn't it follow that you would like that container to NOT LEAK?

 

Yesterday I ate yummy take out thai food, and got a thai iced tea to go along with it. Because it was somewhat late when I got the tasty tea, and there is loads of sugar and caffine in it, I decided to save half of it for this morning.

 

So I woke up this morning, grabbed my tea from the fridge, grabbed a metal coffee container with a lid that has rubber sealing on the top, and I put the tea in. My tea was all sealed up, but because I have had issues in the past, I ALSO put the coffee mug in a plastic bag.  I get in the car. I drive 20 minutes.  I arrive at bart.  I get out of the car. I walk up stairs. I tag my card. I walk down stairs.  I wait for the doors to open. The doors open and I walk in. I sit down to get my reading material.  When I pull it out, IT IS COVERED IN TEA. "ASS BALLS," I think. WTF IS GOING ON.

 

To my horror, the entire bottom of my bag is swimming in liquid. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? The coffee container is still upright, the socks I put in to keep it upright in my bag are still there, still holding it upright (and are now bright orange from the tea). Luckily my bag is waterproof, so none of it is leaking out on to me on the subway. BUT WTF. HOW DID ALL THAT LIQUID GET OUT FROM A CONTAINER THAT IS SUPPSED TO (SUPPOSEDLY) CONTAIN LIQUIDS?? Contain them I say!

 

Rude. Upon arriving at work, I grab paper towels and start sopping up the insides of my bag. It appears my coffee container is leaking from the bottom, which is a mystery because the insides are one piece of metal with no visible cracks or imperfections. Upon closer inspection I see a little "RBS Lynk" logo - which makes me angry.  If this company is trying to woo me with their free give-aways, this is not the way to do it. 

 

Their blatant disregard of the beverage consumer is irritating. Are we supposed to put their coffee mug on a pedestal and never use it?

 

Apperently so.

Is grass fed better?

An interesting story on grass-fed beef:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125722082

Aaaand 5,000 counts of Animal Cruelty, 5,000 for Animal Endangerment...

A couple days ago I was reading through our school newspaper. In addition to news and opinion pieces, they have a summary of local news, and one blurb struck me, figuratively, across the face.

Apparently a woman in Inglewood left her dog in a car, with the windows closed, for hours.  The dog died from heat stroke. The woman is going to be tried for one count of animal cruelty and one count of animal endangerment resulting in great bodily injury.  It goes on to say that if the woman is convicted she will face up to three years in state prison.

Obviously this is a straight forward case of animal abuse – woman leaves pet in car, pet dies, woman is charged with crime and will likely go to jail and pay a fine.

How about this though?  Man leaves pets in confined space, pets are malnourished, do not have enough room to move around, and live in their own fecal matter.  As such, ALL of the pets are given low-doses of antibiotics to keep them from getting sick.  Some of this man’s pets are so sick they cannot stand up, but the man does nothing for them.  Eventually the man’s pets get old and he slaughters them, then he sells their remains for people to eat, even his sick pet’s remains.  However, he doesn’t tell the people eating his pet’s remains that the pets were sick.

His poor pets! The man should be taking better care of them! They should at least be kept clean, and fed food that is good for them! The man should give them more space, and even if he kills them for their own good, he should at least tell the people who are buying his pets meat that the pet was sick.

Reasonable demands, no?

Well I guess not. And as you probably guessed, the above is a typical situation in factory farming.  In 2009, a Federal judge temporarily blocked a California Law stating that Meat Producers were banned from using sick or “downed” cows in the slaughter supply in response to a lawsuit from the Meat Association and the American Meat Institute

According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the lifting of the ban was neutralized, and the law was actually strengthened, by an intervening motion filed by the ALDF, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Farming Association, that exposed the torture and abuse of downed cows in a Southern California Slaughterhouse.  Something even more disturbing: the plant is the nation’s #2 producer of ground beef for the National School Lunch Program.

If a woman leaving her dog in a car to die of heat-stroke can face up to 3 years in state prison for animal cruelty, it seems almost ironic that the heads of big agriculture and factory-farming businesses can go unscathed. It seems obvious that putting the profits of selling sick and horribly abused cow meat (that often harbors salmonella and mad-cow diseases) over the health and well being of school children. 

But this also serves as a wake up call. If you think eating meat is morally upstanding, by all means go for it.  But consider this; that the meat industry is not a bunch of happy cows, and that in consuming, you are risking your health.  It is clear from the last couple meat scandals that safety is not the number one priority here, nor is animal welfare.

Food for thought.

Like a Pathogen!

Vegetarianism is spreading.

Once thought of as a fringe, hippie group, veggies are becoming more mainstream.  The increase in factory farming has lured many an animal-lover/moral crusader over to the plant side.  Environmental impacts of factory farming have baited many ecologists and "greenies."  But one of main attractions of vegetarianism for many people has nothing to do with global warming, or ethics for that matter - it has to do with health.
Once thought of as a fringe, hippie group, veggies are becoming more mainstream.  The increase in factory farming has lured many an animal-lover/moral crusader over to the plant side.  Environmental impacts of factory farming have baited many ecologists and "greenies."  But one of main attractions of vegetarianism for many people has nothing to do with global warming, or ethics for that matter - it has to do with health.

Meat, in general, has less calories than not-meat.  I myself like to indulge every once-in-a-while with a good, ole fashioned, humongous burrito from chipotle. This tasty monstrosity I like to get with all the fixins’ that one wants in a burrito – obviously a tortilla, and rice and beans (black ones please!), but then also the fajita mix (onions and peppers), pico de gallo, tamatillo salsa, guacamole, sour cream, lettuce, and let’s not forget extra cheese…mmm! Now that is one tasty meal, albeit ginormous, meal…and I am madly in love with it.  However, this particular burrito happens to be a special splurge in my diet for me, not because it holds a whopping 970 calories and 45 grams of fat, but because after I eat a burrito that is almost a thousand calories, I feel like it is nap-time for the next day and a half.

Now just imagine what adding meat would do! If you add steak, you are adding 190 calories, and 7 more grams of fat, which, in a thousand calorie burrito, doesn’t make too much of a difference, does it? Does it??
Ahh but it does.  Meat is dense in protein, fats, and saturated fats, which means the breakdown of it takes a longer time.  Which is GREAT if you are hunting wooly mammoths and need that mammoth burrito to keep your body running until your tribe gets around to finding another wooly mammoth - but what’s not so great is if you eat that mammoth burrito for your 3 geometrically shaped meals a day.

To get down to it, most people would be just fine if they cut meat out of their diets. “Meh,” you say. “Why does it even matter?”

I’ll tell you why! Because more meat consumed means more meat produced…supply and demand at its very core.  More people want meat, more meat is made for them.  This means more greenhouse gasses from cow farts…n cow farts contain the deadly chemical…METHANE! Ok, so it’s not deadly, but it is 23% more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide, and it smells bad.  Not a good combination. 

Methane bad, ozone in ozone layer good! Keep bad methane away! Eating less meat equals less cows for meat! Which means less greenhouse gasses! And less factory farming! And less cow farts!

The moral of the story is that if you eat less meat, the world will smell better, obviously.

Happy Eating!

A Vegetarian in London

This spring break, I had the amazing opportunity to visit one of my friends who is doing a year-long internship in Parliament! So on my very long, 11 hours to be precise, flight from LAX to LHR, I thought a little bit about food (in addition to sleeping of course!)

Originally, I thought I would have to eat meat while spending time in London, as the Brits aren’t exactly known for their veggie dishes (Can anyone say ‘meat pies?’).   It’s basically fish ‘n chips ‘n meats – all sorts of meats…From sausage rolls, aka “bangers,” to steak and kidney pies, to beef this-and-that, and the list goes on…and on…

I was basically psyching myself up for a night of tummy-aches and lamenting the distance of lovely California fruits and veggies…Boy was I wrong.

Since I just sort of leapt into the food without doing any research, I was trying to keep my mind clear of any explicit expectations (except of course the worry of the meats).  I have never really had any true experience with “British” food in the past, except for this one British restaurant I went to a while back and got amazing potatoes at, but really, I was hoping not to subsist on potatoes all week.

Here is the lovely part! I had a FABULOUS time there, and the food was great!  In fact, I always had options when it came to the menu, and good options at that.  I had plenty-o-pies too, my favorite being the feta, pindnut, and roasted red pepper version.  In the mornings I usually had yogurt, or as some would say, “yoghurt.” For dinner a variety of pies…I even had a vegetation “toad in the hole,” which at first, I must admit, I was quite intimidated by (it ended up being quite yummy!).

One of the defining characteristics of the Big American Breakfast is Meat.  Think about it: on February 9^th, Denny’s gave away free “Grand Slams” to eager Americans, waiting in line all night to get in on this free deliciousness (and as a college student, I can tell you that free food always somehow tastes better).  Pancakes, eggs, bacon, sausage: a foursome that most Americans would be drooling over more than…Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, and Catherine Zeta-Jones?  Last year, more than 2 million cashed in on this deal, and that tells me that Americans love 1. free breakfast, and 2. free breakfast with meat.  Sausage, bacon, and ham are breakfast staples, and that list gets bigger if you include the ground beef “necessary” for breakfast burritos. 

So I was dying to have the English equivalent of the Big Breakfast Bash, because, let’s face it, the vegetarian version of the “grand slam” is the grand slam sans meat.  Yes, yes, you’re dying to know how it was: IT WAS GREAT.  Scrambled eggs, sautéed portabella mushrooms, toast with honey, roasted tomatoes, and white beans with the most delicious sauce ever. 

I never even thought vegetarian. All I was thinking was how to fit more of it in my stomach.  I almost went back to ancient Pompeian rituals for a moment (though I didn’t!).  My dietary restrictions (though self-imposed) were never a problem.  They neither hindered me in my tourista activities nor in my search for delicious eats.  Though this may be the most prevalent example, my unfounded fears of eating meat turned out to be completely wrong, much to the delight of my stomach and conscious.

Good food doesn’t mean meat, it means tasty deliciousness.  :D

Man Meat

True Life: How I became a vegetarian, and thus follows the inevitable questions…

“Soooo, Why are you a vegetarian anyhow? How did you even decide to be that? Don’t you miss the tasty, tasty meats? Mmm meat, wouldn’t you like some? Oh come on, I won’t tell anyone if you don’t…I’ll just put some on the side of your plate…”

The short story: I became a vegetarian because one of my good friends in high school was one and I thought she was cool.  I stayed as such because of the healthful, social, and environmental impact that my decision made. 

It was even pretty simple, I didn’t like beef that much and my family ate a lot of fish and veggies Side note: I consider myself a vegetarian rather than a pescetarian because I rarely eat fish, though then I would have been considered a pescetarian back then). 

If my parents were making meat for dinner it would be expressed to me beforehand and I would have to make my own food, and that it would have to be a legitimate substitute for meat (no hot pockets or just eating veggies) which wasn’t really that hard anyway, since I was expected to help with food, but it did force me to look up and find tasty recipes without meat.  My family was sort of intrigued by the whole thing, treating it as an experiment not only in the kitchen, but also in my own growing to adulthood (awww, she’s making her own decisions!). It was amazing how many dishes we were surprised to find did not have meat, spaghetti, curries, risottos, veggie dishes, etc, without having to get near tofu.  It was pretty awesome.

Except for one thing – my brother.  My brother and I get along well, we both like dumb movies, being outdoors, doing exciting things, etc, but in this case, when I first went veg, he took it upon himself to “make up for all the animals that weren’t going down my gullet.”

He is more subdued about the subject now, and certainly has stopped the IMMA EAT ALL MEAT RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW phase, but it was interesting to see how much it affected him...

Which got me thinking – in American culture, meat is manly.  Think about a Carl’s Jr. add for a second – and it's easy to see how eating meat makes you manly. Barbequing makes you manly, the more types of meat in a meal equates to something like an increased factor in machoness, or something (*cough cough size cough*).  Its like, if you have a bacon wrapped, double beef triple burger smothered in cheese it automatically makes you not only more manly, but also more desirable.  "Bringing home the bacon," now has a new level of meaning..in fact, it seems like bacon, sirloin, tri-tip, chicken legs, sasuage, pork, and all sorts of meat producers are using the stereotype of manliness to market their package. 

Indeed, phrases like, "Beef, it's what's for dinner," have a sort of 1950s feel about them; the strong - manly - husband figure bringing home meat for his family.  On one hand, it is a stereotype that has permeated all layers of American society, making us feel both comfortable with the social hierarchy and disturbed by it all at once. 

And if you are a woman, it seems like meat makes you stronger, sometimes manlier, but usually in a good way...the ability to put large quantities of meat if your mouth is, let’s face it, an...admirable...trait in today's society.  So perhaps by not eating meat I am asserting my anti-chauvinistic femininity? Rebelling against the male-dominated society we live in?  Iunno, about the percentage of truth in those statements, but I'm sure they play some sort of role in my subconscious. 

Maybe my desire to be vegetarian is a desire to see the world from a different angle than my meat-eating counterparts, perhaps one that is not as clouded by cultural taboos or innuendos.  By choosing to not eat meat, I believe I certainly view it differently - by trying something different from the norm, I feel I see through a different lens. The prescription is only a slight difference, but one that has been important in my life.

So cheers, brother. N now let's eat some pasta, with tomato sauce. :)

Fish Food

I am a vegetarian.  (*wince* no stones? Ok…here I go…)

Actually I am technically a pescetarian.  When all by my lonesome, I never eat fish, usually stick to tofu, veggies, soymilk, the whole nine yards.  When I do eat fish, it is either because I am back home and my parents are worried about my diet (though this is starting to change) or I have gone out to dinner with friends and there is nothing on the menu for me except fish (this amounts to probably 1 or 2 times a month).

 

I find fish to (generally) be a suitable option because fishing practices and techniques are more transparent than the land-meats industry.  Although over-fishing is a HUGE problem, I’ve found it’s pretty easy to find out which fish are safe and environmentally stable to eat, where the fish are from, and (sometimes) how it has been caught (Obviously this does not apply to fast-food fish, but on social, political, and environmentally conscious principles I try and stay away from that). The Monterey Bay Aquarium even publishes a “Pocket Guide” for fish-eaters to help guide them in their choices (updated for every season), and even gets as detailed as what is OK where –  eating one thing in California might be different from eating that same thing in New York. 

But the way most Americans look at and eat fish is just plain weird.  Take Tuna.  Tuna is one of the most popular and highly consumed foods in the country.  Over 88% of American households eat canned tuna, and about 23% serve it more than once a week.  That is a ton of fish.  Actually, it’s more like 500,000 short tons (or 1 BILLION pounds). Per year.  Whoa. 

So why is this weird? Because tuna are predators.  They are carnivores, i.e. they eat other fishes.  Yeah yeah, but what is the problem with eating carnivores on such a large scale?  Think of it this way: eating tuna is a bit like eating lions (rawr!).  Lions, like tuna, hunt in packs.  It takes huge amounts of land to support just a few lions, because they eat other animals in their territory.  Therefore, when you eat a lion, you are also using up all that space that is needed to support them, in addition to all those resources that make it possible for the prey animals the lions eat to be available for the lions to eat.  So it’s much more energy intensive, and hence more destructive to the environment, to eat higher up on the food chain.  Same is true with tuna.  We are eating 1 billion pounds of sea “lions” and most people take it as normal. 

Weird? Yes. Ethically aware? No. Should we be aware of the environmental impacts of our strange eating habits? Definitely.   

Food for thought.

Bookmarking Soulmate

To infinity, and beyond! My epic quest to find more useful information for my blog continues.  And it has led me to search for my soulmate, my blogging/tagging soulmate that is.  As I was wading through the vastness of internet tags on diigo and del.icio.us, I was trying to develop of a list of tags I was looking for…”ethics” and “food” being obvious ones, maybe “sustainable farming” or “vegetarianism” or even “politics.”  The list kept getting longer, and just as I was starting to lose hope, I found her…

Heather Chi tags things that I like.  She tags sites related to politics and food, the epidemic of poverty, food inflation, and more.  Most profiles on del.icio.us and diigo who have bookmarked sites using tags like “food” and “ethics” have a variety of “vegetarianism” sites bookmarked.  Almost exclusively vegetarianism sites.  Though I’m all for that, I want more variety, Vegetarianism is great, but if you can’t back it up with tags like “ethics,” “politics,” and perhaps “sustainability,” you don’t even have the basis for an argument. 

And Heather’s tags show exactly that: her top ten (according to del.icio.us) are (drum roll please…”

“Food” (with 581 tags)

“Environment” (with 550 tags)

“Agriculture” (with 285 tags)

“Health” (with 205 tags)

“Politics” (with 161 tags)

“USA” (with 145 tags)

“Economics” (with 137 tags)

“Community Development” (with 130 tags)

“Art” (with 125 tags)

“Video” (with 118 tags)

And with a whopping 1504 pages bookmarked and easy-to-understand tags, Heather has helped me find new-and-improved sites to research and explore!  Two of such pages are TreeHugger and Grist, which both discuss the play between food, ethics, and politics. 

TreeHugger bills itself as a “discovery company” – with posts about do-it-yourself science, research articles, news about science, politics, and the environment, and food!

An article that I am especially attracted to is “Looking at the Beef in the Vegetarian Argument,” which clearly outlines six key points of vegetarianism and why, including links to outside research sources.  AND urges people to have a conversation about it in the comments.  I <3 conversation starters!

Grist is all about environmental news and commentary.  It has wit, good research, and hilarity.  The articles are serious, to the point, and well-researched, yet the information is presented in funny and easy-to-understand language.  Talk about a difficult, dynamic duo!  One of the articles that Heather tagged is about Michael Pollan and the Daily Show.  For those who don’t already know…anything on or about Pollan is usually amazing.  I wont tell you what it’s about (cause you should go read it yourself!) but I will give you a hint…FOOD!

Happy reading and eating!

Trifecta

Voice Lessons

On to round 3…

I’m still searching around the blogosphere for inspiration for my own blog, and so far have come across quite a few…(by quite a few I mean tons).

One that struck me particularly was “A Philosopher’s Blog: A Philosophers View of the World…assuming it exists.”  It is written by Michael LaBossiere, a Philosophy professor at the Florida A&M University.  Even just by reading his bio you can get a sense of his writing style, witty, informed, and casual without sounding uneducated.  He talks about Ethics in general as well as in terms of food, but although his decisions and writings come from a thoroughly backed knowledge and research base, the opinions are decidedly his own. 

In “Eating the Happy Dead,” LaBossiere talks about vegetarianism and how some “vegetarians” have now expanded their diet to include meat when it is raised in a kind, environmentally stable and enduring environment.  He likens the difference between a death-row prison with cramped cells, abominable food, and hostile living space and a death-row prison that has spacious cells, decent food, and a kind environment to the difference between a factory farm and a farm where the animals are treated humanely.  This powerful example illustrates just how important the issue is to LaBossiere, and in turn how important the issue of factory farming should be to us as readers.  Even though the two outcomes are the same (death), does that mean that we can justify torture of humans before death?  Most people would say that we cannot, and LaBossiere says that the same should ring true for animals.  Through this example, we can see how serious of an issue this is and the dedication of the writer to the subject.

LaBossiere uses rhetorical questions, actual questions, and analogies to make his point stronger and get it across more clearly.  He relates the topic back to himself, and by doing so includes the reader in his discussion further –

“The fact that the animals, happy or sad, end up as meat might be seen as what is important to the ethics of the situation. This seems reasonable. After all, if someone intends to kill me my main concern is with my possible death and not whether the killer will be nice or not?”

By bringing the subject to himself, LaBossiere is essentially thinking our thoughts aloud for us – though we should also be concerned with torture, the ultimate death of yourself is what you’re really worried about.  In this way he makes a far-away idea seem tangible and meaningful. 

Because his writing is sort of looming between scholarly and casual, these personal antidotes make the reading more interesting and involving.  In addition, he links out to other websites almost once a sentence – something that when I first reading blogs didn’t really like.  However, the more I read, the more I like the links out – they serve to further the topic or explain something without doing it yourself.  They can also be used in an ironic or thought-provoking sense:

“In my previous post I mentioned that reading an article in Newsweek entitled “Vegetarians Who Eat Meat”, got me thinking about two issues. The first is whether a person can be a vegetarian and also eat meat. The second is whether the way the meat animal is raised impacts the morality of eating it. I addressed the first issue in that post and I now turn to the second issue...”

Now, I know you are thinking, “Whoa there, slow down and actually write something for once…I can’t read all my tabs at once as it is!”  Never fear blog readers, you will discover the wonders of the hyperlink just as I have. By using the links, LaBossiere has you covered for everything you need to know in order to read (and understand fully) the rest of his blog, as well as more information for topics you might be unfamiliar with or wish to know more about (funny note: I actually found LaBossiere’s blog in a hyperlink from one of my other favorite blogs). 

One of the ways to appeal to the “everyman/woman” is irony, because “everyone” appreciates it (har har).  One of my favorite parts of this post is the ironically funny link to the “meat” tab (see above). Instead of just pushing a wikipedia article about animals, it linked to a wiki about investment.  How money is scaring the meat market into the corner with a cleaver.  In a food/ethics blog. 

In the words of the internet,

lolz

I'll definitely be reading more of his blog soon.

Tribute

This week I’ve decided to do a sort of “tribute” bit about my newfound favorite blogger, “Wayne Yuen,” and his blog, “Piles of Philosophy.”  Yuen updates once every few days, and explores everything philosophical from goth kitties to fish and beyond.  One topic that shows up quite often in his posts is our relationship between ethics and the way we eat food.  Whether you are a carnivore, omnivore, “demi-vegetarian,” vegetarian, vegan, or fruitarian, you will probably be intrigued with what he has to say.  

Because there are so many ways to confront the ethics of eating, it seems almost daunting to pick a subtopic…how about political effects? Social? Health related?  When Yuen talks about the ethics of eating, it is usually related to food production and how it influences his own dietary choices and why.  You might ask, “why does it even matter what I ingest on a daily basis?”  Well for starters Yuen looks at the mass-produced method of factory farming, and the morality involved with killing, confining, and keeping animals in inhumane circumstances.  Do we really want to and do we even have a right to treat animals this way? 

In his blog post “Why I am not Demi-Vegetarian,” Wayne argues for the case that it is impractical (and almost impossible) for morally-minded omnivores to find out where their meat has been and how it was treated before it got to their plate.  In most all instances, if the label doesn’t say where the meat has been, it has probably come from a factory farm, where animals are piledohsoclosetogether.  They are usually feed inorganic feed and usually ingest superfluous amounts of hormones to fend off the diseases that come from living in too-close-proximity to each other and their filth.  And yet most people still accept this as just another way of life for these animals.  Why? Because this type of farming is profitable.  Animals=money. 

And it only gets worse…Wayne introduces the idea that even though a package might say “cage-free” or “organic,” doesn’t mean that the animal was treated humanely.  This was something that hadn’t occurred to me before…when they say cage-free for chickens, the farm can still take the liberty of crowding the animals in too closely, or still practice “beak searing” and selective genetic mutation…what good is a “cage-free” label when the chicken has been so genetically mutilated in search of enhancement of specific traits (such as breasts and thighs) that they cannot even stand up or fly?  I was honored this thanksgiving by getting to spend it with both sides of my family (thought it was A LOT of food!).  My uncle on my dad’s side, being quite environmentally and health conscious, decided to get a turkey that was breed on a small farm in Washington State.  After researching the farm himself, he ordered one for thanksgiving…and it was showing in comparison to what my grandparents on the other side served.  Though I don’t actually eat meat, just seeing the two birds side by side (in my head) was enough.  The one that ran free looked like an animal, it had big legs, a smallish breast, and plenty of dark and white meat, while the run-of-the-mill supermarket turkey had the tiniest legs and hugest breast I have ever seen…there is NO WAY that thing could have ever stood up on its own. 

And even when the package boasts all these humane labels, Yuen points out that who is to say they are telling the truth or that the meat is even safe to eat? (think about how many E. Coli and Salmonella infections from beef you’ve seen recently…)(Hint: it is a lot!)

What does this boil down to? According to Wayne,

“There can't be a middle ground on this until the meat industry is willing to make food production transparent.  Only then can we really be assured that the animals we're eating are humanely treated, and a middle ground, demi-vegetarianism, becomes reasonable.  Until then, the argument for demi-vegetarianism is a good one, but not one that is practicable by the majority of people.”

Being a Philosophy (Ethics) major myself, it delighted me that in some of his posts, instead of random philosophical musings (as philosophers are wont to do) Wayne Yuan actually uses different teachings of philosophy to better understand the relationship between ethics and food.  In his post “Will the Real Nietzsche Please Stand Up,” he is hypothesizing what Nietzsche would think about vegetarianism and if he would approve…

Long story short Wayne thinks it’s a wash…if being vegetarian is what breaks you apart from the crowd in terms of morality and rules, than good for you.  If you can justify your behavior in eating meat, that’s also ok, but I think I agree with Wayne when he argues that in some ways (especially in American culture) the more difficult path to define yourself is vegetarianism…but as he says.

“When it comes to food, we really only have two present choices, an omnivorous diet, or a vegetarian diet.  I think there are plenty of reasons for saying the vegetarian diet is the more ethically responsible, healthy diet than the omnivorous one.  Does that make a person a morally bad person for eating meat?  I don't think so, but I think we can be better people by not eating meat.”

Wayne Yuen’s convincing, rational, and detailed arguments, backed up with concrete evidence is what really makes this post for me.  He has the ability to be witty and serious about the topic at the same time, and lends a sort of dignity to those animals whose dignity has been, so far, stripped away from them.

Hello, World!

Om nom nom…

I love food.  No, I love food.  I love making food and I love eating food – all and any type.  From Thai to Japanese to French to Ethiopian to British to American – there and back again you might say.  But one of my favorite things to do with food is to think about it – how does it affect my surroundings, environment, and political landscape? How does something as basic and universal as food shape our view of the world?

Now, on to something completely different…or is it?  When I first say “ethics,” what do you think of? Usually it’s Big, World-Changing, Life-Or-Death, People-Dying-by-the-Thousands types of problems. But wait!  Upon closer examination, it seems as if ethics has wormed its way into our everyday life choices, and that sometimes those small, pesky issues like food (gasp!) are even harder to face than the Big ones.

In this blog, I want to explore the nature of food and how it is related to ethics. Food you say? How can eating food even be considered close to a moral decision making process?

Upon closer examination, the whole process of food (say from the field to your mouth to your intestines) seems to impact almost every aspect of society.  Because everyone needs to eat, it would seem that Food means big business.  And billions of hungry people means that food has a tremendous impact on the global community, whether that be social, political, environmental, medical, or otherwise (whew!).

Some of the social ramifications of our changing diet in the 21^st century are easy to see – such as the growing number of fast food chains and the growing number of people who eat fast food on a regular basis in turn affecting the growing waistlines of people not only in the US, but around the world.  The associated diseases and health issues that are related to this “obesity epidemic” alone are skyrocketing.  Some of the more obvious, such as diabetes and heart disease, are causing ever increasing strain on our nation’s healthcare system, putting pressure on politicians. One might think that all the pressure would force governments to put limits on consumption or turn to other “big brother” tactics. But as we can see from history, those with money usually get to do whatever they want…and with more Americans every day investing in and eating fast food, corporations like McDonalds have more of that power.

Ethics in food is a particularly hairy subject, but to get started, here are a few sites that I found helpful and interesting on my quest for knowledge and to sort out my own opinions…

Wikipedia is often my first go-to when I want to explore any such topic, but although they try and give a well-rounded view of many of the view points, I believe there is yet so much more to discuss in detail about the aspects that relate to our diet.

Food Inc. is a film trying to tackle some of the big issues of ethics in food – including factory farming, use of pesticides, impact environmentally and in local communities, and in politics.

Fast Food Nation – The dirty little secrets of the fast-food industry, exposed! How the permeation of fast-food into American (and global) culture is taking its toll on health and ethics.

Super-Size Me is a movie exploring some of the health ramifications of eating fast food as a staple in one’s diet. It follows one mans journey to eat nothing but fast food for an entire month, and the physical results could serve as a cautionary tale to many…

Recently, the USDA has come under fire for inadequate inspection of meat and other animal and plant products, especially in regards to E. Coli. This is somewhat ironic, for when you look at the rules and regulations page of the USDA inspection (in this case, beef) the rules are ridiculously complicated and intense. Is this because we need harsher regulations? Or is someone slacking on the job?

Voice Lessons

On to round 3…

I’m still searching around the blogosphere for inspiration for my own blog, and so far have come across quite a few…(by quite a few I mean tons).

One that struck me particularly was “A Philosopher’s Blog: A Philosophers View of the World…assuming it exists.”  It is written by Michael LaBossiere, a Philosophy professor at the Florida A&M University.  Even just by reading his bio you can get a sense of his writing style, witty, informed, and casual without sounding uneducated.  He talks about Ethics in general as well as in terms of food, but although his decisions and writings come from a thoroughly backed knowledge and research base, the opinions are decidedly his own. 

In “Eating the Happy Dead,” LaBossiere talks about vegetarianism and how some “vegetarians” have now expanded their diet to include meat when it is raised in a kind, environmentally stable and enduring environment.  His analogy of a death-row prison with cramped cells, abominable food, and hostile living space versus a prison that has spacious cells, decent food, and a kind environment to the difference between a factory farm and a farm where the animals are treated humanely forces the reader to think of animals more like humans.  Maybe they cannot reason for themselves, but does that justify torture before death? (Though we are debating the living conditions before death, that doesn’t mean that the conclusion itself (death) is not ethical either.) (Does it?)

LaBossiere uses rhetorical questions, actual questions, and analogies to make his point stronger and get it across more clearly.  He relates the topic back to himself, and by doing so includes the reader in his discussion further –

The fact that the animals, happy or sad, end up as meat might be seen as what is important to the ethics of the situation. This seems reasonable. After all, if someone intends to kill me my main concern is with my possible death and not whether the killer will be nice or not?

Because his writing is sort of looming between scholarly and casual, these personal antidotes make the reading more interesting and involving.  In addition, he links out to other websites almost once a sentence – something that when I first reading blogs didn’t really like.  However, the more I read, the more I like the links out – they serve to further the topic or explain something without doing it yourself.  They can also be used in an ironic sense or thought-provoking sense:

In my previous post I mentioned that reading an article in Newsweek entitled “Vegetarians Who Eat Meat”,  got me thinking about two issues. The first is whether a person can be a vegetarian and also eat meat. The second is whether the way the meat animal is raised impacts the morality of eating it. I addressed the first issue in that post and I now turn to the second issue.

Now, I know your are thinking “Whoa there, slow down and actually write something for once…I cant read all my tabs at once as it is!”  Never fear blog readers, you will discover the wonders of the hyperlink just as I have. By using the links, LaBossiere has covered everything you need to know in order to read the rest of his blog, as well as more information for topics you might be unfamiliar with or wish to know more about. 

One of the ironically funny links was the “meat” tab. Instead of just pushing a wikipedia article about animals, it linked to a wiki about investment.  How money is scaring the meat market into the corner with a cleaver.  In a food/ethics blog. 

In the words of the internet,

lolz

I'll definitely be reading more of his blog soon.

Tribute

Hello all!

This week I’ve decided to do a bit about my newfound favorite blogger, “Wayne Yuen.”  His blog, “Piles of Philosophy,” which updates every few days, explores a bit of everything, but all is influenced (obviously) by his own practices and attitudes.  The topic that he talks about mostly is the relationship between ethics and the way we eat food.  Whether you be a carnivore, omnivore, “demi-vegetarian,” vegetarian, or vegan, you will probably be intrigued with what he has to say.  

Because there are so many ways to confront the ethics of eating, it seems almost daunting to pick a slant…should I pick one with a political slant? Social? Health related?  In my blog I want to explore all of these sides of the aspect and more, but Yuen usually talks about the ethics of food production and how it influences his own dietary choices and why.  Why does it even matter what I ingest on a daily basis you say?  Well for starters Wayne looks at the mass-produced method of factory farming, and the morality of killing, confining, and keeping animals in inhumane circumstances.  Is this how we really want to treat these animals?  I really liked this post, but thought there was a lot more detail was necessary to get the point across, so below I’ve tried to expand on the argument against factory-farming as well as for vegetarianism. 

In his blog post “Why I am not Demi-Vegetarian,” Wayne argues for the case that it is impractical (and almost impossible) for morally-minded omnivores to find out where their meat has been and how it was treated before it got to their plate.  In most all instances, if the label doesn’t say where the meat has been, it has probably come from a factory farm, where animals are piledohsoclosetogether, on top of each other.  They are usually feed inorganic feed and usually ingest superfluous amounts of hormones to fend off the diseases that come from living in too-close-proximity to each other and their filth.  And yet most people still accept this as just another way of life for these animals.  Why? Because this type of farming is profitable.  Because in the “industry,” animals are not regarded as such, and are instead seen as money. 

It gets worse…Wayne introduces the idea that even though a package might say “cage-free” or “organic,” doesn’t mean that the animal was treated humanely.  This was something that hadn’t occurred to me before…when they say cage-free for chickens, the farm can still take the liberty of crowding the animals in too closely, or still practice “beak searing” and selective genetic mutation…what good is a “cage-free” label when the chicken has been so genetically mutilated in search of enhancement of specific traits (such as breasts and thighs) that they cannot even stand up or fly?  I was honored this thanksgiving by getting to spend it with both sides of my family (thought it was A LOT of food!).  My uncle on my dad’s side, being quite environmentally and health conscious, decided to get a turkey that was breed on a small farm in Washington state.  After researching the farm himself, he ordered one for thanksgiving…and in comparison to what my grandparents on the other side served, it was shocking.  Though I don’t actually eat meat, just seeing the two birds side by side (in my head) was enough.  The one that ran free looked like an animal, it had big legs, a smallish breast, and plenty of dark and white meat, while the run-of-the-mill supermarket turkey had the tiniest legs and hugest breast I have ever seen…there is NO WAY that thing could have ever stood up on its own. 

And even when the package boasts all these humane labels, Wayne points out that who is to say they are telling the truth or that the meat is even safe to eat? (think about how many E. Coli and Salmonella infections from beef you’ve seen recently…)

What does this boil down to? I agree with Wayne when he says,

“There can't be a middle ground on this until the meat industry is willing to make food production transparent.  Only then can we really be assured that the animals we're eating are humanely treated, and a middle ground, demi-vegetarianism, becomes reasonable.  Until then, the argument for demi-vegetarianism is a good one, but not one that is practicable by the majority of people.”

Being a Philosophy (Ethics) major myself, it delighted me that in some of his posts, instead of random philosophical musings (as philosophers are wont to do) Wayne Yuan actually uses different teachings of philosophy to better understand the relationship between ethics and food.  In his post “Will the Real Nietzsche Please Stand Up,” he is hypothesizing what Nietzsche would think about vegetarianism and if he would approve…

Long story short Wayne thinks it’s a wash…if being vegetarian is what breaks you apart from the crowd in terms of morality and rules, than good for you.  If you can justify your behavior in eating meat, that’s also ok, but I think I agree with Wayne when he argues that in some ways (especially in American culture) the more difficult path to define yourself is vegetarianism…but as he says.

“When it comes to food, we really only have two present choices, an omnivorous diet, or a vegetarian diet.  I think there are plenty of reasons for saying the vegetarian diet is the more ethically responsible, healthy diet than the omnivorous one.  Does that make a person a morally bad person for eating meat?  I don't think so, but I think we can be better people by not eating meat.”

See you all next week!

Hello, World!

Now, when I first say “ethics,” what do you think of? Usually it’s Big, World-Changing, Life-Or-Death, People-Dying-by-the-Thousands types of problems. But on closer examination, it seems as if ethics has wormed its way into our everyday life choices, and that sometimes those are even harder to face than the Big ones.

In this blog, I want to explore the nature of food and how it is related to ethics. Food you say? How can eating food even be considered close to a moral decision making process? My answer: you might be surprised when you take a closer examination of what goes into your food, the processes that make it, and the impact it has on the global community, whether that be socially, politically, environmentally, medically, or otherwise.

Some social ramifications are easy to see – such as the growing number of fast food chains and the growing number of people who eat fast food on a regular basis relating to the growing waistlines of people not only in the US, but around the world, and the associated diseases and health issues that are related to this “obesity epidemic.” Some of the more obvious, such as diabetes and heart disease, are causing ever increasing strain on our nation’s healthcare system, and in turn that puts pressure on politicians. One might think that all the pressure would force the government to put limits on consumption or other “big brother” tactics. But as we can see from history, those with money usually get to do whatever they want…and with more Americans every day investing in and eating fast food, corporations like McDonalds have more power to do whatever they want, when they want.


Getting started: Web Information (sources and articles that influence):

Wikipedia is often my first go-to when I want to explore any such topic, but although they show many of the view points, I believe there is yet so much more to discuss in detail about the aspects that relate to our diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat

Food Inc. is a film trying to tackle some of the big issues of ethics in food – including factory farming, use of pesticides, impact environmentally and in local communities, and in politics.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Fast Food Nation – The dirty little secrets of the fast-food industry, exposed! How the permeation of fast-food into American (and global) culture is taking its toll on health and ethics.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yNFN1OpnkBkC&dq=fast+food+nation+book&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=lxxUS6qeM4X-sQPL6tz7Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=fast%20food%20nation%20book&f=false

Super-Size Me is a movie exploring some of the health ramifications of eating fast food as a staple in one’s diet. It follows one mans journey to eat nothing but fast food for an entire month, and the physical results could serve as a cautionary tale to many…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me and
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/

Recently, the USDA has come under fire for inadequate inspection of meat and other animal and plant products, especially in regards to E. Coli. This is somewhat ironic, for when you look at the rules and regulations page of the USDA inspection (in this case, beef) the rules are ridiculously complicated and intense. Is this because we need harsher regulations? Or is someone slacking on the job?
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act/index.asp