Hey all y'all,
Apologies for the lateness of this post. I hope the article to which I'm referring has not been taken down by the time you, dear reader, come across it:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Swine+turns+dream+farm+into+slaughterhouse/1581664/story.html
I stumbled across this a while ago and, really, it flat-out irritated me. The article is about an Alberta pig farmer who had to quarantine, and eventually kill, 500 pigs because they were infected with H1N1. The article talks about how he came over from Holland and the wonderful life he made for himself in Alberta before the tragedy struck. What I take serious issue with it the definition of "tragedy."
I think the part of the article that most bothers me is the title: Swine flu turns 'dream' farm into slaughterhouse. Because the slaughterhouse is the exact place the pigs would have been sent next if they hadn't come down with swine flu.
The supposed tragedy, then, is not that these pigs were killed--it's that no profit was made from these pigs being killed. I'm sure you could also make an argument for wasted "food," but I obviously take at least some issue with that.
I know picking on a poor farmer who just lost thousands of dollars is not going to make me the most favourable of folks. It certainly doesn't make me happy to hear about Van Ginkel, or any other farmer for that matter, losing large sums of money. But at the end of the day ( I'm paraphrasing a quotation from the movie, Your Mommy Kills Animals here), him making a profit off of those animals would have ensured more animals would have been moved in to take their place. At least now, there's a bit of uncertainty on that.
I would also like to add that there's a lot of speculation that factory farming might have played a major role in creating the Swine flu outbreak:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/swineflufarm/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/30/did-factory-farming-cause-the-swine-flu-outbreak/
For those of you who don't think factory farming is an issue in Alberta, here's one for you:
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/06/factory_farm.html
That is a 2001 article, so that 1/3 number has probably changed. One thing history tells us about factory farms is they grow almost as fast as the sickly animals on their farm.
And on that note, I'm officially going to continue calling it Swine Flu whenever possible.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
A Vegan Preamble
Hello anyone who might be listening,
I'm planning on a series of blogs based around my beliefs regarding veganism and animal rights. I just wanted to explain myself before I do for all the people who don't understand that my belief in animal rights doesn't have to coincide with me being a crazy.
I'm not radical... in any real way. I've never really been a contrarian, nor have I ever really wanted to offend anyone. I don't particularly like debating, because I think it's pretty useless for the most part. People don't really listen to you anyway and they're going to believe what they're going to believe.
The reason I do debate, however, is for that rare person who is actually willing to listen or take what was said and think about it and do their own research. If they don't come to my conclusion, fine, but at least they've considered it and are truly better for having given whatever issue a reasonable amount of thought.
I feel the way we eat has become such a mindless process to most people because we're so far removed from the system of production. I obviously think that's dangerous from an animal rights perspective, but also from a health perspective--and what we call the Standard American Diet (SAD). I'm no nutritionist, but I find people's concepts of health have become these vague statements about how we "need a ton of protein" or about how milk "does the body good." The more I read on these subjects, the more I take issue with them.
But I had these same preconceptions and, after reflecting on where they might have come from, the only thing I could come up with is from advertisements. But I digress.
The extent of my "radicalism" can be summed up as follows:
1. I want to minimize suffering in any living being wherever possible.
2. Meat, dairy and egg production--or any production that involves animals--almost invariable results in suffering.
3. It is very much possible to live and thrive without eating or wearing anything that comes from an animal.
I'm not trying to shake the system to its core, nor do I think everyone is going to all of a sudden turn vegan--but if I can make just one person think about the philosophy behind such consumption than I am happy.
Thanks for reading.
I'm planning on a series of blogs based around my beliefs regarding veganism and animal rights. I just wanted to explain myself before I do for all the people who don't understand that my belief in animal rights doesn't have to coincide with me being a crazy.
I'm not radical... in any real way. I've never really been a contrarian, nor have I ever really wanted to offend anyone. I don't particularly like debating, because I think it's pretty useless for the most part. People don't really listen to you anyway and they're going to believe what they're going to believe.
The reason I do debate, however, is for that rare person who is actually willing to listen or take what was said and think about it and do their own research. If they don't come to my conclusion, fine, but at least they've considered it and are truly better for having given whatever issue a reasonable amount of thought.
I feel the way we eat has become such a mindless process to most people because we're so far removed from the system of production. I obviously think that's dangerous from an animal rights perspective, but also from a health perspective--and what we call the Standard American Diet (SAD). I'm no nutritionist, but I find people's concepts of health have become these vague statements about how we "need a ton of protein" or about how milk "does the body good." The more I read on these subjects, the more I take issue with them.
But I had these same preconceptions and, after reflecting on where they might have come from, the only thing I could come up with is from advertisements. But I digress.
The extent of my "radicalism" can be summed up as follows:
1. I want to minimize suffering in any living being wherever possible.
2. Meat, dairy and egg production--or any production that involves animals--almost invariable results in suffering.
3. It is very much possible to live and thrive without eating or wearing anything that comes from an animal.
I'm not trying to shake the system to its core, nor do I think everyone is going to all of a sudden turn vegan--but if I can make just one person think about the philosophy behind such consumption than I am happy.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Edmonton Questions 9/11, Along with Its Sanity
So I was walking down the street the other day in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, (AKA not New York or anywhere near New York), and I noticed a series of posters that exclaimed Edmonton Questions 9/11.
Edmonton.
Now my thoughts on 9/11 aside (though I'd say it's somewhere between this and this), what, exactly, is Edmonton questioning 9/11 going to do? Do the supposed conspirators have a map of the world with little bulbs that light up when a city with a population over 1 million (which Edmonton just has) is "on to them?" Will Dick Cheney be casually strolling through our fair city, on his way back from checking out the now-fourth-largest mall in the world, see the poster and realize he must finally break down and tell everyone the truth? Will Edmonton be the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel's proverbial back?
A part of me suspects this is not the case (the "brain" part). I have a small, but growing, suspicion that the... maybe 200 people, (I bet a dollar that none of them are structural engineers or established scientists) will not bring this thing crumbling down.
Or maybe I'm just in on it.
Disclaimer: (If this note comes off as patronizing (which it most assuredly will), let the record show that is not my intention. I know people who I consider quite intelligent who believe 9/11 was an inside job. While I certainly understand, and even share, their mistrust for government, I personally find the evidence flimsy. Furthermore, when you have no direct evidence of something, you're forced to accept whatever news reports you have access to. If you look at many of those clips, articles and videos outside the context of Loose Change or 9/11 Truth or Everyone is a Liar but Me, and still believe what you believe, than fine. I've made up my mind, and you're entitled to make up yours.
I do think it's kind of irrelevant, in that it was eight years ago, in a different country. I think it takes people's attention away from what's far more important, say... working to make this a functioning, participatory democracy.)
Edmonton.
Now my thoughts on 9/11 aside (though I'd say it's somewhere between this and this), what, exactly, is Edmonton questioning 9/11 going to do? Do the supposed conspirators have a map of the world with little bulbs that light up when a city with a population over 1 million (which Edmonton just has) is "on to them?" Will Dick Cheney be casually strolling through our fair city, on his way back from checking out the now-fourth-largest mall in the world, see the poster and realize he must finally break down and tell everyone the truth? Will Edmonton be the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel's proverbial back?
A part of me suspects this is not the case (the "brain" part). I have a small, but growing, suspicion that the... maybe 200 people, (I bet a dollar that none of them are structural engineers or established scientists) will not bring this thing crumbling down.
Or maybe I'm just in on it.
Disclaimer: (If this note comes off as patronizing (which it most assuredly will), let the record show that is not my intention. I know people who I consider quite intelligent who believe 9/11 was an inside job. While I certainly understand, and even share, their mistrust for government, I personally find the evidence flimsy. Furthermore, when you have no direct evidence of something, you're forced to accept whatever news reports you have access to. If you look at many of those clips, articles and videos outside the context of Loose Change or 9/11 Truth or Everyone is a Liar but Me, and still believe what you believe, than fine. I've made up my mind, and you're entitled to make up yours.
I do think it's kind of irrelevant, in that it was eight years ago, in a different country. I think it takes people's attention away from what's far more important, say... working to make this a functioning, participatory democracy.)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Having it all figured out...
Today, I realized that I'm happy I have things figured out well enough to know that I have nothing figured out. It's a good place to be.
I'm going to start posting short posts more often. This is a step in that direction. Go me!
 “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” | |
I'm going to start posting short posts more often. This is a step in that direction. Go me!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Trying to make the Daily Jason a little more... "daily"
Hey all (or none, perhaps),
I've been intending to write more in my blog, but I haven't been horribly motivated to do so. If you read my second blog entry, you know that time is, as always, what seems to bring me down (as I type, I get closer and closer to being late for work, for example). But time is, in essence, all we have. If not for this moment, what is there? I've heard people talk about killing time and I just think that is the most ludicrous thing in the world (apparently, existence of rap artist ludacris has made me forget how to spell "ludicrous." I figured it out eventually, though).
I think time needs to be resurrected--we need to breathe new life into these moments. If there is time that you feel needs killing, examine what is wrong with the situation to prevent you from appreciating the one thing you have (which is, essentially, that moment, because outside of the current moment, nothing exists). Examine what aspect of yourself is preventing you from enjoying your whole world, as it exists in that moment. Then change it.
I could probably quote the song Raise a Little Hell here, but as I said, time is of the essence so I'll get to the point of this entry. The next couple of entries will be short, sweet posts (sweeter than this one, even). So... look out for that.
And... now I'm late.
I've been intending to write more in my blog, but I haven't been horribly motivated to do so. If you read my second blog entry, you know that time is, as always, what seems to bring me down (as I type, I get closer and closer to being late for work, for example). But time is, in essence, all we have. If not for this moment, what is there? I've heard people talk about killing time and I just think that is the most ludicrous thing in the world (apparently, existence of rap artist ludacris has made me forget how to spell "ludicrous." I figured it out eventually, though).
I think time needs to be resurrected--we need to breathe new life into these moments. If there is time that you feel needs killing, examine what is wrong with the situation to prevent you from appreciating the one thing you have (which is, essentially, that moment, because outside of the current moment, nothing exists). Examine what aspect of yourself is preventing you from enjoying your whole world, as it exists in that moment. Then change it.
I could probably quote the song Raise a Little Hell here, but as I said, time is of the essence so I'll get to the point of this entry. The next couple of entries will be short, sweet posts (sweeter than this one, even). So... look out for that.
And... now I'm late.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Who is Dave Coulier (AKA Joey Gladstone)?
Someone told me a couple of days ago that the album Jagged Little Pill by Alanis Morissette was mostly written about Dave Coulier, better known as Uncle Joey from Full House. It blew my mind just a little bit.
At first, I was amazed at someone so seemingly uninteresting and extremely unfunny could have such a remarkable impact on popular culture. He was on a TV show that's finale was viewed by 25% of TV watchers in America and he was the subject of the second-best selling album of the 1990s (the best-selling was Shania Twain's The Woman in Me).
But then I thought... maybe Dave Coulier isn't so bland. I mean, if he was even partially responsible for turning her from this: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ar7afdfBHj4
into this: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnbc64XQ1DI(and both him and Alanis have at least hinted that the latter song was about him), it's impossible that he is who we all think he is.
Some songs on Jagged Little Pill seem to describe the clean, unfunny Coulier of our childhood--for example, Head Over Feet ("I've never felt this healthy before//I've never wanted something rational") and All I Really Want ("Why are you so petrified of silence//Here can you handle this... did you think about your bills, your ex, your deadlines or when you think you're gonna die//or did you long for the next distraction").
But others, the obvious being You Outta Know but also, Wake Up (A more obscure track that features the lyrics, "There's an apprehensive, naked little trembling boy with his head in his hands") hint that Mr. Coulier was profoundly fucked up, or at least, in the context of his relationship with Alanis. The latter song is the one I find the most fascinating on that album, with respect to its new Coulieriness (Coo-lee-ey-ee-niss).
I suspect Wake Up wasn't as popular because of its specificity: The first line is "You like the snow but only if its warm." But, assuming it is, in fact, about Coulier (and the fact that it's so specific makes me think it is), it paints a pretty vivid portrait of a man who consistently takes the path of least resistance. Suddenly, I had Dave Coulier completely figured out.
If you want to be a comic, what is that path of least resistance? Family-friendly, "clean" comedy. If you're trying to make people laugh, what is the easiest way to do so? Impressions of already established characters like Elmer Fudd and ET. Even You Outta Know fits with this line of thinking: he left Alanis Morissette because she was... too fucked up. He went with somebody older, more mature. She thought he was going to save her--and maybe he did too, before he realized that it would be easier not to. That's why she resented him so much, and that's why I think Dave Coulier is the perfect metaphor for America.
To be continued...
At first, I was amazed at someone so seemingly uninteresting and extremely unfunny could have such a remarkable impact on popular culture. He was on a TV show that's finale was viewed by 25% of TV watchers in America and he was the subject of the second-best selling album of the 1990s (the best-selling was Shania Twain's The Woman in Me).
But then I thought... maybe Dave Coulier isn't so bland. I mean, if he was even partially responsible for turning her from this: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ar7afdfBHj4
into this: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnbc64XQ1DI(and both him and Alanis have at least hinted that the latter song was about him), it's impossible that he is who we all think he is.
Some songs on Jagged Little Pill seem to describe the clean, unfunny Coulier of our childhood--for example, Head Over Feet ("I've never felt this healthy before//I've never wanted something rational") and All I Really Want ("Why are you so petrified of silence//Here can you handle this... did you think about your bills, your ex, your deadlines or when you think you're gonna die//or did you long for the next distraction").
But others, the obvious being You Outta Know but also, Wake Up (A more obscure track that features the lyrics, "There's an apprehensive, naked little trembling boy with his head in his hands") hint that Mr. Coulier was profoundly fucked up, or at least, in the context of his relationship with Alanis. The latter song is the one I find the most fascinating on that album, with respect to its new Coulieriness (Coo-lee-ey-ee-niss).
I suspect Wake Up wasn't as popular because of its specificity: The first line is "You like the snow but only if its warm." But, assuming it is, in fact, about Coulier (and the fact that it's so specific makes me think it is), it paints a pretty vivid portrait of a man who consistently takes the path of least resistance. Suddenly, I had Dave Coulier completely figured out.
If you want to be a comic, what is that path of least resistance? Family-friendly, "clean" comedy. If you're trying to make people laugh, what is the easiest way to do so? Impressions of already established characters like Elmer Fudd and ET. Even You Outta Know fits with this line of thinking: he left Alanis Morissette because she was... too fucked up. He went with somebody older, more mature. She thought he was going to save her--and maybe he did too, before he realized that it would be easier not to. That's why she resented him so much, and that's why I think Dave Coulier is the perfect metaphor for America.
To be continued...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Godless
Hey all,
For those of you who don't know, I work for a news channel called OMNI. I recently worked on a story about a group of students at the U of A who were offended by a particular line in the convocation ceremony: The line of offense has to do with using degrees for "the glory of God and the honour of your country." The group is the U of A Athiests and Agnostics Society.
It's causing quite a stir (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=7fe9a730-a295-4cb5-b9f1-8b77251f5d02).
It really made me think about how immersed we are in the language of religion. I mean, when my mom picked a school for me, the options were either Catholic or Protestant. It doesn't matter that I'm not religious. It doesn't matter that I've been to church once in my life outside of weddings and funerals, or that when I went, I thought it was hollow and ritualistic. I'm still choosing between two, fairly similar Christian religions. Even the word "atheist" means without theistic belief. I'm not trying to be a contrarian; it just doesn't... feel right to me.
I don't disbelieve in a higher power necessarily... I just don't understand how people can claim to know the absolute truth about said higher power.
I guess most of all, I just don't get why I'm the alternative for not believing in a talking snake in a tree.
For those of you who don't know, I work for a news channel called OMNI. I recently worked on a story about a group of students at the U of A who were offended by a particular line in the convocation ceremony: The line of offense has to do with using degrees for "the glory of God and the honour of your country." The group is the U of A Athiests and Agnostics Society.
It's causing quite a stir (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=7fe9a730-a295-4cb5-b9f1-8b77251f5d02).
It really made me think about how immersed we are in the language of religion. I mean, when my mom picked a school for me, the options were either Catholic or Protestant. It doesn't matter that I'm not religious. It doesn't matter that I've been to church once in my life outside of weddings and funerals, or that when I went, I thought it was hollow and ritualistic. I'm still choosing between two, fairly similar Christian religions. Even the word "atheist" means without theistic belief. I'm not trying to be a contrarian; it just doesn't... feel right to me.
I don't disbelieve in a higher power necessarily... I just don't understand how people can claim to know the absolute truth about said higher power.
I guess most of all, I just don't get why I'm the alternative for not believing in a talking snake in a tree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)