Thanks to Glenn Beck, independent conservatives now have someone to hate. Democrats have Republicans to hate. Republicans have Democrats to hate. Marxists have Capitalists to hate. It's only fair that independents who are conservative have somebody to hate. Now, Glenn Beck has given them "Progressives".
I've defended Glenn Beck several times on this blog before. I can no longer do so. His obsession with the social justice movement and its association with liberation theology, and his constant insistence that the Obama administration and "Progressives" (who, according to him are actually most of the politicians in office in the U.S. and around the world today) want to create a new world order is very unfortunate given the fact that we need more honest dialogue debate, not more stereotyping or playing the blame game.
Recently Glenn Beck has turned his attacks, and unfortunately his vitriol, toward religious leaders. It seems every day that Glenn Beck adds more and more people to the list of those who are part of a grand conspiracy. Most recently he has spent an inordinate amount of time attacking Jim Wallis, whom I've had the honor of hearing speak before. Glenn Beck, unfortunately, uses guilt by association often, and cherry picks comments and sound bites to impugn the character and beliefs of those who he disagrees with, often distorting what they really believe.
Glenn Beck is a Christian. I cannot and I will not question his faith. I don't hate him. I don't even dislike him. However, I do question his constant lampooning of those he disagrees with, his questioning of the faith of others, and his characterization of Progressivism as a "cancer". This is a strange way of demonstrating and expressing the love of Jesus. Sadly, instead of being a proponent of more a unbiased, responsible, and civil dialectic, he simply has bought into blaming a segment of the population who he disagrees with for our problems. How lame.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tiger Woods
Mercy for Tiger Woods came from a seemingly unlikely source this week, coming from the mouth of Rosie O'Donnell. Too often O'Donnell has seemed angry, biter, and unforgiving- especially towards conservatives and Christians. But this time she displayed tremendous forgiveness and grace, saying she feels sorry for Tiger, and that "we all have our inner demons to battle". She also noted that she was one of the few peoples she knows that feels bad for him.
Mel Gibson has also come out and said he feels bad for Tiger. He, much like Rosie, said that "we all have our flaws", and felt sorry that the media is" beating the hell out of him". Whoopi Goldberg has also made similar statements.
Perhaps their sympathy is because they have all have felt the pressure that is put on them, created by the media and the public, and because they have both publicly struggled with their own inner demons and seen first-hand the nastiness of the media.
I saw a clip with Joy Behar and several of her hosts lambasting these statements O'Donell and Gibson made, with one guest even saying she wants to break [Mel Gibson's) heart, and followed it up by saying that he simply wants sympathy from the public for his flaws, and lampooned that they could "talk all night about [Mel's Gibson's] flaws". Meanwhile, Kirstie Alley got into a nasty Twitter fued with Behar, complaining that she (paraphrasing) "wanted to hurt Joy Bewhore". It's a shame in spite of this terrible situation it has to lead to more hate and anger. Instead of people looking at themselves and their own flaws, they use these time to feel better, at others' expense.
I can expect this self-righteous attitude from the media. The media has built up many of these celebrities as larger-than-life, as some sort of gods, setting them up for controversy and scandal, and then blowing the story up when they make a mistake. They love scandals like this. It means good ratings. The media and many people seem to forget that these celebrities, or anybody in the limelight, is NOT God, and has their issues, just like anyone and everyone else. Rosie O'Donnell, Mel Gibson, and Whoppi Goldberg were absolutely right on. It does no good for all the pundits to put on a facade and act like they're perfect. This is a classic case when it is important for Christians to remember Matthew 7:3-5, which says, " Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your own eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hyprocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. I very much applaud all three for the statements they made, especially in light of the heat they have taken for it.
For Christians, it is very important that we don't laugh at Tiger Woods to make ourselves feel better, at his expense. It is crucial that he is not the butt of a joke. We should be humble and realize that any of us call fall under the influence of our own temptations. Christians should the first to show mercy and forgiveness to him and others in his situation, not offering their laughs or judgement, but their prayers. For, as John 13:35 says, they will know us by our love.
Mel Gibson has also come out and said he feels bad for Tiger. He, much like Rosie, said that "we all have our flaws", and felt sorry that the media is" beating the hell out of him". Whoopi Goldberg has also made similar statements.
Perhaps their sympathy is because they have all have felt the pressure that is put on them, created by the media and the public, and because they have both publicly struggled with their own inner demons and seen first-hand the nastiness of the media.
I saw a clip with Joy Behar and several of her hosts lambasting these statements O'Donell and Gibson made, with one guest even saying she wants to break [Mel Gibson's) heart, and followed it up by saying that he simply wants sympathy from the public for his flaws, and lampooned that they could "talk all night about [Mel's Gibson's] flaws". Meanwhile, Kirstie Alley got into a nasty Twitter fued with Behar, complaining that she (paraphrasing) "wanted to hurt Joy Bewhore". It's a shame in spite of this terrible situation it has to lead to more hate and anger. Instead of people looking at themselves and their own flaws, they use these time to feel better, at others' expense.
I can expect this self-righteous attitude from the media. The media has built up many of these celebrities as larger-than-life, as some sort of gods, setting them up for controversy and scandal, and then blowing the story up when they make a mistake. They love scandals like this. It means good ratings. The media and many people seem to forget that these celebrities, or anybody in the limelight, is NOT God, and has their issues, just like anyone and everyone else. Rosie O'Donnell, Mel Gibson, and Whoppi Goldberg were absolutely right on. It does no good for all the pundits to put on a facade and act like they're perfect. This is a classic case when it is important for Christians to remember Matthew 7:3-5, which says, " Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your own eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hyprocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. I very much applaud all three for the statements they made, especially in light of the heat they have taken for it.
For Christians, it is very important that we don't laugh at Tiger Woods to make ourselves feel better, at his expense. It is crucial that he is not the butt of a joke. We should be humble and realize that any of us call fall under the influence of our own temptations. Christians should the first to show mercy and forgiveness to him and others in his situation, not offering their laughs or judgement, but their prayers. For, as John 13:35 says, they will know us by our love.
State of the Union
I watched some of Barack Obama's State of the Union address this year. Right after the one year mark of his inauguration, it's fitting to discuss his first year in office. It should be remembered, however, that it is only THE END OF HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE. Everything can totally change in just a few months span. As a (very) independent voter, it's only fair that I think about what both parties have done this year.
Obama had lots of great rhetoric and made lots of promises during his campaign and transition to the White House. Unfortunately, he has failed to fulfill most of his promises so far. Ending "Don't ask, don't tell", which I am very much in support of doing, was supposedly an important issue. Yet he has barely touched on the issue during the first year, and has made no substantive effort in that area. (The LGBT has been very upset with him the fist year for a variety of reasons.) Shutting down Guantanamo Bay was also supposedly a major issue, and one I thought was important. (I very much support closing it.) And while there were some steps taken in that direction, the issue has been on the backburner and has many lingering issues that the administration has failed to address this year.
However, ending "enhanced interrogation techniques" (aka torture), like waterboarding, was also major campaign promise. He has ending the practices, which I applaud him for. This was an extremely important decision. I also applaud him for listening to Leon Panetta and the CIA in overturning his previous (and incredibly ridiculous and unwise) decision to publicly release the videos of the interrogations in which those techniques were employed.
There was a great deal of controversy at Attorney Journey Eric Holder and the Justice Department's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) in the civilian court system, and even more the decision to hold the trial in New York City. Though I don't feel as strongly as some on the issue, I think the decision is unwise. I think it would be safer and more wise to try him in under a military tribunal, but I certainly see the value, especially from a public relations standpoint, of trying him in the civilian court system. Even moreso, I don't agree with doing it in New York, where it brings up memories of the attack and most citizens polled disapprove of the idea. The trial will cost an estimated 100 million dollars to deal with major security concerns during the proceedings.
I admire some of Barack Obama's attempts in the education realm, and am happy he has shown some willingness to dialogue with more conservative educators (and not just teachers unions), especially on the issues of merit pay and vouchers.
Healthcare was a very important issue for Obama during the campaign. I give him credit for fulfilling his promises of trying to bring his idea of healthcare reform to reality. However, I disagreed very much, as did almost all Americans, with the way it was done. While Obama did show some willingness to talk to about their ideas for healthcare reform (especially tort reform and transferring all medical records to electronic systems), too often, on this issue and others, Republicans didn't have a seat at the table and weren't given a chance to be truly engaged on these issues. Some of the big government solutions, which would radically alter the healthcare infastructure and medical apparatus in the United States, were widely unpopular with the majority Americans, yet the Obama administration pushed hard for them, until many of them became untenable and their plans collapsed. Furthermore, there was widespread corruption and bribery throughout the process, with the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback", the buyoff by many of the Big Phrama companies that prevents the widespread importation of pharmaceutical drugs, and the lack of transparency throughout. This whole process, which the President and the Democrats made the central issue of the year and the central front of their agenda, turned most voters off and was a big part of the election of Bob McDonnell in Virginia, Chris Christie in New Jersey, and, of course, Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
I was disappointed by the president's advancements in the environmental realm. While I have mixed feelings about cap and trade, I would have liked to see more done in the research and development alternative, sustainable energy. While the issue certainly has gotten some attention, with oil prices now at under $74 a barrel and questions about the stability of the Middle East, efforts in the area should really been a top priority. I would like to see a more organized, collaborative effort in that area. I was happy to hear that the president finally mentioned an earnest desire to pursue nuclear energy.
I was disappointed in the president's approach to the economy. Unemployment increased to over 10.8%, despite the President's claims it would not rise above 8% if the stimulus bills was passed. I am very disappointed that the president and his aides keep invoking George Bush, blaming him, when he has had no real control of the economy for almost the last year and a half. (President Obama voted for the bailout, he can't complain Bush did that.) Moreover, even more tiresome is how he constantly blames the big baks and their "fat cats", despite his connections to the banking industry (particularly Goldman-Sachs) and the fact that the government has been the ones asleep at the wheel the last few years, deregulating the banking industry to allow the financial collapse. The administration's extreme spending, which hopefully will not cause hyperinflation, is extremely concerning. Raising the debt limit was somewhat symbolic of what's wrong with Washington.
Ending the war in Iraq was also a major campaign promise of Barack Obama. And, again, I do give him credit. He scaled down troop levels, and all combat troops will be out of the country by the end of August. While I think it is important that Obama not take his eye off the ball and neglect Iraq, he fulfilled his campaign promise. However, I am very concerned about his handling of the situation in Iraq. I do not think there should be troops in Afghanistan in the first place (because I'm generally antiwar), but even if I did agree with having troops there, I think the president failed to lead on the issue, and instead looked like a politician trying to compromise. First, he took too long to make the decision. He should have been prudent and taken a long look at the situation and all of the options, but three months, which he took, is rather absurd, and I think both sides would agree. Then he made a decision which had an embedded contradiction. He took agreed to send around 35,000 more troops, but said troops would start to be withdrawn by the July of 2011. If you add more troops, to win the conflict, then you're all in. You've played your cards. Then to also set a withdraw deadline at the same time, before you have even sent more troops in, and know the outcome of that maneuver, is silly. It makes no sense. Either you're there to win, or you shouldn't be there at all. Wartime is no time for a politician to waver; it is a time to show leadership. The decision showed the president was interested in being pragmatic, which is important, but taking so long and making such a confusing, contradictory decision appears like he is only trying to appease everyone. And because of that, the decision was pretty unpopular. It was also very important to me that the administration engage in a new kind of foreign relations that is more creating than building up the military and responds to threats not with "Cowboy Diplomacy", but with honest discussions, pushing pertinent, meaningful sanctions, and talking to any and all leaders, without preconditions. (Which of course, most Republicans objected to fervently.) He did this somewhat, but I don't think his vision for foreign relations has shown much clarity. Many Republicans also believed he should have responded more harshly to election protests and civil unrest in Iran. While I do think the president could have been more harsh, it's an extremely sticky situation, and one that I think he handled about as best he could. I do, however, think he should have certainly had more strong rhetoric in light of North Korea's missile tests.
Most importantly, I am disappointed in the politics that the president used. More than anything, Obama the candidate said he would set a new tone in Washington, working to promote bipartisanship, end corruption, earmarks, pork-barrel spending, kicking lobbyists out of town, and engage tough issues with new dignity. However, the president did a very poor job of this. In fact, he made the situation worse, often showing that he was more of a consequentialist. In attempting to pass the stimulus and healthcare bills, more earmarks than ever were tacked on to the bills. His supporting cast is filled with lobbyists and those who have ties to lobbyists. There was rampant corruption. And he certainly didn't change the tone. The administration's attack campaign Fox News certainly did great damage to his supposed attempts at to promote civility and bipartisanship. I would have respected him if he took on Fox News and called out MSNBC, which is more biased and vitriolic than Fox News. (But of course they support his politics, so he doesn't mention them.) He blamed Bush and the Republicans every chance he got. During the campaign he claimed there would be a new era of transparency, with complete CSPAN access and coverage of the healthcare proceedings and a vow to post all bills online for the public to read before they were voted on. Of course, neither of these things happened. Not surprising, considering during the campaign he promised a fair, open election when he would promised to take only public financing for the campaign, then broke his campaign and failed to do so. And showing great arrogance, and the height of hubris, he graded himself with an A- this year. It is incredibly inappropriate to grade himself, and shows incredible naivete and political imprudence to give himself such a high grade with so many Americans out of work and so many of his policies unpopular. The President has given LOTS of great speeches this year, but that's not good enough. Barack Obama has lots of great rhetoric, but it's time he live up to it. For his first year in office, I would give him a C-.
The Republicans, of course, have some blame and culpability as well. Too often they lacked vision, failing to offer or articulate alternative plans to the Democrats' big government proposals. Of course, sometimes they had hardly any choice, when they the Democrats had a supermajority and could have shoved legislation down their- and the American people's- throats, and they had such philosophical arguments that they just needed to stop Democratic proposals. (See healthcare.) However, they were often part of the problem, being just as corrupt as anyone and selling out, failing to live up to their responsibility as a watchdog. And while I think President Obama took too long to make a determination on Afghanistan, the Republicans very inappropriately put a tremendous amount of pressure on him to send additional troops, trying to rush him and giving him hardly anytime to think about the decision, which is the most important part of a Commander-In-Chief's job. Likewise, during the Iranian protests and North Korea missiles test some Republicans inappropriately made statements about his handling of the situation. For Obama's first year in office, I give the Republicans a C+.
Unfortunately this was a year of partisanship, in which the tone didn't change in Washington. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats were swept in office because of Republican corruption, extreme spending, and dense ideology. When the Democrats took control of Washington, they've done exactly the same thing. The record congressional approval ratings, the President's steep slid in approval, and the Tea Party movement show how upset people are. The The election of Republicans in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts is about big government, partisanship, and the status quo, and both parties better realize that soon.
Obama had lots of great rhetoric and made lots of promises during his campaign and transition to the White House. Unfortunately, he has failed to fulfill most of his promises so far. Ending "Don't ask, don't tell", which I am very much in support of doing, was supposedly an important issue. Yet he has barely touched on the issue during the first year, and has made no substantive effort in that area. (The LGBT has been very upset with him the fist year for a variety of reasons.) Shutting down Guantanamo Bay was also supposedly a major issue, and one I thought was important. (I very much support closing it.) And while there were some steps taken in that direction, the issue has been on the backburner and has many lingering issues that the administration has failed to address this year.
However, ending "enhanced interrogation techniques" (aka torture), like waterboarding, was also major campaign promise. He has ending the practices, which I applaud him for. This was an extremely important decision. I also applaud him for listening to Leon Panetta and the CIA in overturning his previous (and incredibly ridiculous and unwise) decision to publicly release the videos of the interrogations in which those techniques were employed.
There was a great deal of controversy at Attorney Journey Eric Holder and the Justice Department's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) in the civilian court system, and even more the decision to hold the trial in New York City. Though I don't feel as strongly as some on the issue, I think the decision is unwise. I think it would be safer and more wise to try him in under a military tribunal, but I certainly see the value, especially from a public relations standpoint, of trying him in the civilian court system. Even moreso, I don't agree with doing it in New York, where it brings up memories of the attack and most citizens polled disapprove of the idea. The trial will cost an estimated 100 million dollars to deal with major security concerns during the proceedings.
I admire some of Barack Obama's attempts in the education realm, and am happy he has shown some willingness to dialogue with more conservative educators (and not just teachers unions), especially on the issues of merit pay and vouchers.
Healthcare was a very important issue for Obama during the campaign. I give him credit for fulfilling his promises of trying to bring his idea of healthcare reform to reality. However, I disagreed very much, as did almost all Americans, with the way it was done. While Obama did show some willingness to talk to about their ideas for healthcare reform (especially tort reform and transferring all medical records to electronic systems), too often, on this issue and others, Republicans didn't have a seat at the table and weren't given a chance to be truly engaged on these issues. Some of the big government solutions, which would radically alter the healthcare infastructure and medical apparatus in the United States, were widely unpopular with the majority Americans, yet the Obama administration pushed hard for them, until many of them became untenable and their plans collapsed. Furthermore, there was widespread corruption and bribery throughout the process, with the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback", the buyoff by many of the Big Phrama companies that prevents the widespread importation of pharmaceutical drugs, and the lack of transparency throughout. This whole process, which the President and the Democrats made the central issue of the year and the central front of their agenda, turned most voters off and was a big part of the election of Bob McDonnell in Virginia, Chris Christie in New Jersey, and, of course, Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
I was disappointed by the president's advancements in the environmental realm. While I have mixed feelings about cap and trade, I would have liked to see more done in the research and development alternative, sustainable energy. While the issue certainly has gotten some attention, with oil prices now at under $74 a barrel and questions about the stability of the Middle East, efforts in the area should really been a top priority. I would like to see a more organized, collaborative effort in that area. I was happy to hear that the president finally mentioned an earnest desire to pursue nuclear energy.
I was disappointed in the president's approach to the economy. Unemployment increased to over 10.8%, despite the President's claims it would not rise above 8% if the stimulus bills was passed. I am very disappointed that the president and his aides keep invoking George Bush, blaming him, when he has had no real control of the economy for almost the last year and a half. (President Obama voted for the bailout, he can't complain Bush did that.) Moreover, even more tiresome is how he constantly blames the big baks and their "fat cats", despite his connections to the banking industry (particularly Goldman-Sachs) and the fact that the government has been the ones asleep at the wheel the last few years, deregulating the banking industry to allow the financial collapse. The administration's extreme spending, which hopefully will not cause hyperinflation, is extremely concerning. Raising the debt limit was somewhat symbolic of what's wrong with Washington.
Ending the war in Iraq was also a major campaign promise of Barack Obama. And, again, I do give him credit. He scaled down troop levels, and all combat troops will be out of the country by the end of August. While I think it is important that Obama not take his eye off the ball and neglect Iraq, he fulfilled his campaign promise. However, I am very concerned about his handling of the situation in Iraq. I do not think there should be troops in Afghanistan in the first place (because I'm generally antiwar), but even if I did agree with having troops there, I think the president failed to lead on the issue, and instead looked like a politician trying to compromise. First, he took too long to make the decision. He should have been prudent and taken a long look at the situation and all of the options, but three months, which he took, is rather absurd, and I think both sides would agree. Then he made a decision which had an embedded contradiction. He took agreed to send around 35,000 more troops, but said troops would start to be withdrawn by the July of 2011. If you add more troops, to win the conflict, then you're all in. You've played your cards. Then to also set a withdraw deadline at the same time, before you have even sent more troops in, and know the outcome of that maneuver, is silly. It makes no sense. Either you're there to win, or you shouldn't be there at all. Wartime is no time for a politician to waver; it is a time to show leadership. The decision showed the president was interested in being pragmatic, which is important, but taking so long and making such a confusing, contradictory decision appears like he is only trying to appease everyone. And because of that, the decision was pretty unpopular. It was also very important to me that the administration engage in a new kind of foreign relations that is more creating than building up the military and responds to threats not with "Cowboy Diplomacy", but with honest discussions, pushing pertinent, meaningful sanctions, and talking to any and all leaders, without preconditions. (Which of course, most Republicans objected to fervently.) He did this somewhat, but I don't think his vision for foreign relations has shown much clarity. Many Republicans also believed he should have responded more harshly to election protests and civil unrest in Iran. While I do think the president could have been more harsh, it's an extremely sticky situation, and one that I think he handled about as best he could. I do, however, think he should have certainly had more strong rhetoric in light of North Korea's missile tests.
Most importantly, I am disappointed in the politics that the president used. More than anything, Obama the candidate said he would set a new tone in Washington, working to promote bipartisanship, end corruption, earmarks, pork-barrel spending, kicking lobbyists out of town, and engage tough issues with new dignity. However, the president did a very poor job of this. In fact, he made the situation worse, often showing that he was more of a consequentialist. In attempting to pass the stimulus and healthcare bills, more earmarks than ever were tacked on to the bills. His supporting cast is filled with lobbyists and those who have ties to lobbyists. There was rampant corruption. And he certainly didn't change the tone. The administration's attack campaign Fox News certainly did great damage to his supposed attempts at to promote civility and bipartisanship. I would have respected him if he took on Fox News and called out MSNBC, which is more biased and vitriolic than Fox News. (But of course they support his politics, so he doesn't mention them.) He blamed Bush and the Republicans every chance he got. During the campaign he claimed there would be a new era of transparency, with complete CSPAN access and coverage of the healthcare proceedings and a vow to post all bills online for the public to read before they were voted on. Of course, neither of these things happened. Not surprising, considering during the campaign he promised a fair, open election when he would promised to take only public financing for the campaign, then broke his campaign and failed to do so. And showing great arrogance, and the height of hubris, he graded himself with an A- this year. It is incredibly inappropriate to grade himself, and shows incredible naivete and political imprudence to give himself such a high grade with so many Americans out of work and so many of his policies unpopular. The President has given LOTS of great speeches this year, but that's not good enough. Barack Obama has lots of great rhetoric, but it's time he live up to it. For his first year in office, I would give him a C-.
The Republicans, of course, have some blame and culpability as well. Too often they lacked vision, failing to offer or articulate alternative plans to the Democrats' big government proposals. Of course, sometimes they had hardly any choice, when they the Democrats had a supermajority and could have shoved legislation down their- and the American people's- throats, and they had such philosophical arguments that they just needed to stop Democratic proposals. (See healthcare.) However, they were often part of the problem, being just as corrupt as anyone and selling out, failing to live up to their responsibility as a watchdog. And while I think President Obama took too long to make a determination on Afghanistan, the Republicans very inappropriately put a tremendous amount of pressure on him to send additional troops, trying to rush him and giving him hardly anytime to think about the decision, which is the most important part of a Commander-In-Chief's job. Likewise, during the Iranian protests and North Korea missiles test some Republicans inappropriately made statements about his handling of the situation. For Obama's first year in office, I give the Republicans a C+.
Unfortunately this was a year of partisanship, in which the tone didn't change in Washington. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats were swept in office because of Republican corruption, extreme spending, and dense ideology. When the Democrats took control of Washington, they've done exactly the same thing. The record congressional approval ratings, the President's steep slid in approval, and the Tea Party movement show how upset people are. The The election of Republicans in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts is about big government, partisanship, and the status quo, and both parties better realize that soon.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Veggie-tari-N-ism
I've recently decided to become a vegetarian. I wrote this list to explains my reasons. It sounds nerdy, but hopefully it articulates my reasoning well...
Reasons for Vegetarianism:
1. Ethical-The way animals are horrendously [mis]treated, as well as the terrible conditions they are subjected to, is unethical. (Too put it nicely.)
2. Moral-The mistreatment of animals, as well as the sheer number of animals eaten, which forces them to be treated as commodities, devalues animals and is immoral.
3. Environmental- The meat industry is the biggest contributor to global warming. Even if you don't accept man-caused global warming (that's another discussion), there is no arguing that factory farming has lead to significant and extensive environmental degradation and pollution.
4. World Food Supply- As the world's population expands and the growth rate accelerates, and more developing countries can afford meat-intensive diets (like China and India, for instance), diets that include eating meat are simply unsustainable, and will lead to an increase in food shortages and global poverty.
5. Ecological Destruction- Besides the negative ecological impact of factory farms, aquaculture is destroying thousands of species of fish, mollusks, and algae, as well as causing significant destruction to the world's coastal and oceanic ecosystems.
6. Concerns over Food Safety
a. Concerns over many of the possibly harmful chemical substances, growth hormones, pesticides, antivirals, and preservatives used in meat production and storage.
b. Concerns over the presence of dangerous bacteria (especially enterobacteria, such as ecoli and salmonella), in meat, as well as the high possibly of the creation, mutation, and spread of such viruses as Swine Flu, Avian Flu, and other strains of influenza, prion-produced illnesses and diseases such as Mad Cow Disease, and other bacteria produced and foodborne illnesses.
c. Concerns over antibiotics used in animals, and the possibly of resulting reduced consumer immunity.
7. Worker Danger-
a. The majority of workers in the meat industry (i.e. factory farms and slaughterhouses) work in extremely poor and dangerous conditions, which numerous human rights organizations have designated as human rights violations.
b. Numerous mental health organizations have documented concerns over the psychological impact of contemporary factory farming and slaughterhouse methods on workers.
8. The Destruction of Family Farming- The growth of factory farming and the increased consolidation in the meat industry has forced a great number of "family farmers" out of business and has negatively transformed the meat industry.
9. Health- There are many studies that have concluded that well-planned vegetarians diets can actually be more healthy than diets which include meat consumption.
10. God's Ideal- From a religious perspective, I believe God's ideal, per Genesis (specifically Genesis 2:29-30 and Genesis 9:2), as well as many other verses throughout the Bible (such as Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 most prominently), is for animals to not be predators, or preyed upon and killed for food.
11. From a merely personal standpoint, I find it difficult to reconcile eating animals with my belief in the Consistent Life Ethic. (In fact, some include vegetarianism in the Consistent Life Ethic, which is why a large segment of the estimated 400 to 600 million vegetarians worldwide is comprised of Buddhists, Hindus, and Quakers who subscribe to this type of belief system.)
Reasons against Vegetarianism:
1. Eating meat is more socially accepted.
2. From a functionality standpoint, a carnivorous diet is unquestionably easier, despite what some vegetarians may say. (Though maintaining a vegetarian diet is becoming easier everyday.)
3. Meat is rather tasty. (Depending on which kind of meat you're eating.)
I don't agree with a good amount of the philosophy and methodology of the more "liberal" stream of the animal rights movement, which is largely based on deep ecology theory and/or ecofeminism, both of which I have significant disagreements with. I'm not attempting to answer the question, or even ask the question, "Has eating meat always been wrong, or is it always wrong?" I have no good answer for that question. However, I do believe that in the context of the way meat is currently raised and slaughtered (i.e. factory farming, as stated)), as well as viewed in the context of the current poverty and environmental crises we face, the number of reasons to NOT eat meat far, far, far outweigh the number of reasons TO eat meat. , which is hopefully demonstrated through my list.
Reasons for Vegetarianism:
1. Ethical-The way animals are horrendously [mis]treated, as well as the terrible conditions they are subjected to, is unethical. (Too put it nicely.)
2. Moral-The mistreatment of animals, as well as the sheer number of animals eaten, which forces them to be treated as commodities, devalues animals and is immoral.
3. Environmental- The meat industry is the biggest contributor to global warming. Even if you don't accept man-caused global warming (that's another discussion), there is no arguing that factory farming has lead to significant and extensive environmental degradation and pollution.
4. World Food Supply- As the world's population expands and the growth rate accelerates, and more developing countries can afford meat-intensive diets (like China and India, for instance), diets that include eating meat are simply unsustainable, and will lead to an increase in food shortages and global poverty.
5. Ecological Destruction- Besides the negative ecological impact of factory farms, aquaculture is destroying thousands of species of fish, mollusks, and algae, as well as causing significant destruction to the world's coastal and oceanic ecosystems.
6. Concerns over Food Safety
a. Concerns over many of the possibly harmful chemical substances, growth hormones, pesticides, antivirals, and preservatives used in meat production and storage.
b. Concerns over the presence of dangerous bacteria (especially enterobacteria, such as ecoli and salmonella), in meat, as well as the high possibly of the creation, mutation, and spread of such viruses as Swine Flu, Avian Flu, and other strains of influenza, prion-produced illnesses and diseases such as Mad Cow Disease, and other bacteria produced and foodborne illnesses.
c. Concerns over antibiotics used in animals, and the possibly of resulting reduced consumer immunity.
7. Worker Danger-
a. The majority of workers in the meat industry (i.e. factory farms and slaughterhouses) work in extremely poor and dangerous conditions, which numerous human rights organizations have designated as human rights violations.
b. Numerous mental health organizations have documented concerns over the psychological impact of contemporary factory farming and slaughterhouse methods on workers.
8. The Destruction of Family Farming- The growth of factory farming and the increased consolidation in the meat industry has forced a great number of "family farmers" out of business and has negatively transformed the meat industry.
9. Health- There are many studies that have concluded that well-planned vegetarians diets can actually be more healthy than diets which include meat consumption.
10. God's Ideal- From a religious perspective, I believe God's ideal, per Genesis (specifically Genesis 2:29-30 and Genesis 9:2), as well as many other verses throughout the Bible (such as Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 most prominently), is for animals to not be predators, or preyed upon and killed for food.
11. From a merely personal standpoint, I find it difficult to reconcile eating animals with my belief in the Consistent Life Ethic. (In fact, some include vegetarianism in the Consistent Life Ethic, which is why a large segment of the estimated 400 to 600 million vegetarians worldwide is comprised of Buddhists, Hindus, and Quakers who subscribe to this type of belief system.)
Reasons against Vegetarianism:
1. Eating meat is more socially accepted.
2. From a functionality standpoint, a carnivorous diet is unquestionably easier, despite what some vegetarians may say. (Though maintaining a vegetarian diet is becoming easier everyday.)
3. Meat is rather tasty. (Depending on which kind of meat you're eating.)
I don't agree with a good amount of the philosophy and methodology of the more "liberal" stream of the animal rights movement, which is largely based on deep ecology theory and/or ecofeminism, both of which I have significant disagreements with. I'm not attempting to answer the question, or even ask the question, "Has eating meat always been wrong, or is it always wrong?" I have no good answer for that question. However, I do believe that in the context of the way meat is currently raised and slaughtered (i.e. factory farming, as stated)), as well as viewed in the context of the current poverty and environmental crises we face, the number of reasons to NOT eat meat far, far, far outweigh the number of reasons TO eat meat. , which is hopefully demonstrated through my list.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Things I Love About Fall
Deliciously good things about the autumn season:
The changing color of leaves (of course).
Hot Chocolate (or hot cocoa if you prefer).
Football season.
Halloween, ghost stories, tales of all things haunted, and everything that comes with it!
A hot car on a cold morning.
Hot Apple Cider. (Or the even tastier carmel apple cider at Winans, made courtesy of the fine baristas there.)
The Baseball playoffs.
Bonfires.
Warm cookies.
The nearing of the holiday season.
Any good new fall movie or tv show.
The chilly feel in the air.
The start of the basketball season.
Long nature walks that you have to bundle up for.
A good book on a cold day.
The changing color of leaves (of course).
Hot Chocolate (or hot cocoa if you prefer).
Football season.
Halloween, ghost stories, tales of all things haunted, and everything that comes with it!
A hot car on a cold morning.
Hot Apple Cider. (Or the even tastier carmel apple cider at Winans, made courtesy of the fine baristas there.)
The Baseball playoffs.
Bonfires.
Warm cookies.
The nearing of the holiday season.
Any good new fall movie or tv show.
The chilly feel in the air.
The start of the basketball season.
Long nature walks that you have to bundle up for.
A good book on a cold day.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A Few Thoughts during Channel Surfing
I'm a habitual channel surfer, and last week when I was flipping through channels I stumbled upon Rachael Maddow on her MSNBC show complaining about the protesters of Obama's healthcare reform plans, and Glenn Beck, invoking the word "Nazi" in the argument. I agreed that the word has no place in American political discourse. However, I have seen very few protesters using the term. It's the media who emphasizes the one or two people with Nazi signs at these protests and talks about them. Do you ever notice that they also talk about the few angry people at the town hall meetings, instead of most who are calm and respectful? (Of course that wouldn't be much of a story.) Furthermore, this is a blatant, and very annoying, case of hypocrisy. For eight years, people called George W. Bush Hitler, a war criminal (if GWB is a war criminal, then comparatively so are the majority of U.S. presidents), and every other nasty name possible. Yet it's not until now Maddow and so many Democrats are calling for civility.
Maddow specifically singled out Glenn Beck for labeling Obama a Nazi. But the couple of times I've seen Beck lately and seen him talk about health care reform, he's explicitly said the health care reform, as well as Obama, are not Nazi-like. (I still don't understand how Nazism has anything to do with the health care reform plans Obama and the Democrats have.)
After I watched that segment, Maddow talked about how nutty Glenn Beck is. She discussed his recent show which he talked about the FEMA concentration camps that many believe the government has set up to imprison citizens and illegal aliens. The discussion made it sound like Beck believes that these camps exist and that the government is ready to use them. Except that Beck stated over and over on his show that the idea was idiotic and it was crazy to believe that there are these camps.
Then she had a Sarah Palin quote read with an annoying voiceover, clearly meant to demean Palin. That's how to promote civility and rational discussion, to mocking someone and acting as if they're stupid? Like many people I've seen lately, they talk a good game about not being hateful or dishonest, but then they do the exact same thing they claim they're trying to stop.
I like Maddow, and she seems like a she's probably be a cool person to hang out with, but I wish she'd be unbiased for once and get her facts straight. There is no difference in the games Democrats and Republicans play. Both play nasty. Instead of only telling half of the story, let's call it how it is.
After I watched that for a couple minutes, I flipped down to the next channel. Sean Hannity's Show; Hannity, was on. The former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who caused such a stir in the spring, was on, talking about her views on health care reform. Are Republicans really that desperate? Have they really stooped that low? I don't have a big problem with Prejean. She seems like a nice person and I respect her. (Though I think it could be questioned whether she, as a Christian, should have been in a beauty show and gotten breast implants to get ahead.) She handled herself well for everything she went through. But what authority does Ms. California have to talk about health care reform? And why would her opinions interest me?
Speaking of Glenn Beck, I hear a lot of people make fun of him and paint him to be some idiot, because he does some crazy stuff and cries a lot. I disagree with him often and think he's repetitive, just like most radio and talk show hosts; I'm no homer. He's definitely over-the-top, which is sometimes annoying, sometimes a little weird, but usually a entertaining. He's not an idiot; he went to Yale. His life's been filled with tragedy. What person, who's a recovering alcoholic and heroine addict, who has a daughter with cerebral palsy, and had a mother and brother commit suicide, another brother have a fatal heart attack, would not be a little crazy and overly emotional? Most people in his situation would probably be dead. At least he tries to bring some humor and fun to dull political topics. Yet it's alright for Democrats who disagree with him to make fun of him and act like he's stupid. It's good for promoting civility in political debate and surely good for the country.
I saw Tom DeLay, the former House Majority Leader, was recently announced as one of the participants for next's season's Dancing With the Stars. (To show you that I don't follow the show, I don't know anyone who's supposed to be on the year in the upcoming season, and I couldn't name the winner of any of the previous seasons.) Delay was ousted from office for allegations of bribery, and I'm wondering who he bribed here. It seems very strange that he would be on the show. I don't know why anybody would be interested in having him on there. He's not exactly a hot celebrity, or paparazzi material, and he's not very well-liked by a large segment of the population. Strange.
After a minute, I proceeded to flip on down to the Reds game, where they were losing what must have been their 500th consecutive game. ...I soon settled in on the Discovery Channel.
Maddow specifically singled out Glenn Beck for labeling Obama a Nazi. But the couple of times I've seen Beck lately and seen him talk about health care reform, he's explicitly said the health care reform, as well as Obama, are not Nazi-like. (I still don't understand how Nazism has anything to do with the health care reform plans Obama and the Democrats have.)
After I watched that segment, Maddow talked about how nutty Glenn Beck is. She discussed his recent show which he talked about the FEMA concentration camps that many believe the government has set up to imprison citizens and illegal aliens. The discussion made it sound like Beck believes that these camps exist and that the government is ready to use them. Except that Beck stated over and over on his show that the idea was idiotic and it was crazy to believe that there are these camps.
Then she had a Sarah Palin quote read with an annoying voiceover, clearly meant to demean Palin. That's how to promote civility and rational discussion, to mocking someone and acting as if they're stupid? Like many people I've seen lately, they talk a good game about not being hateful or dishonest, but then they do the exact same thing they claim they're trying to stop.
I like Maddow, and she seems like a she's probably be a cool person to hang out with, but I wish she'd be unbiased for once and get her facts straight. There is no difference in the games Democrats and Republicans play. Both play nasty. Instead of only telling half of the story, let's call it how it is.
After I watched that for a couple minutes, I flipped down to the next channel. Sean Hannity's Show; Hannity, was on. The former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who caused such a stir in the spring, was on, talking about her views on health care reform. Are Republicans really that desperate? Have they really stooped that low? I don't have a big problem with Prejean. She seems like a nice person and I respect her. (Though I think it could be questioned whether she, as a Christian, should have been in a beauty show and gotten breast implants to get ahead.) She handled herself well for everything she went through. But what authority does Ms. California have to talk about health care reform? And why would her opinions interest me?
Speaking of Glenn Beck, I hear a lot of people make fun of him and paint him to be some idiot, because he does some crazy stuff and cries a lot. I disagree with him often and think he's repetitive, just like most radio and talk show hosts; I'm no homer. He's definitely over-the-top, which is sometimes annoying, sometimes a little weird, but usually a entertaining. He's not an idiot; he went to Yale. His life's been filled with tragedy. What person, who's a recovering alcoholic and heroine addict, who has a daughter with cerebral palsy, and had a mother and brother commit suicide, another brother have a fatal heart attack, would not be a little crazy and overly emotional? Most people in his situation would probably be dead. At least he tries to bring some humor and fun to dull political topics. Yet it's alright for Democrats who disagree with him to make fun of him and act like he's stupid. It's good for promoting civility in political debate and surely good for the country.
I saw Tom DeLay, the former House Majority Leader, was recently announced as one of the participants for next's season's Dancing With the Stars. (To show you that I don't follow the show, I don't know anyone who's supposed to be on the year in the upcoming season, and I couldn't name the winner of any of the previous seasons.) Delay was ousted from office for allegations of bribery, and I'm wondering who he bribed here. It seems very strange that he would be on the show. I don't know why anybody would be interested in having him on there. He's not exactly a hot celebrity, or paparazzi material, and he's not very well-liked by a large segment of the population. Strange.
After a minute, I proceeded to flip on down to the Reds game, where they were losing what must have been their 500th consecutive game. ...I soon settled in on the Discovery Channel.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Places I'd Like to Visit
One thing I love is visiting new places and seeing new things. I've traveled to the majority of the states in the United States, but I've traveled outside the country only once. And sadly that was only right across the border into Canada for a look at Niagara Falls for a few hours. There many places I'd like to visit, but here's a top ten. Like David Letterman's Top Ten list, without the laughs. This is in no particular order.
United Kingdom (especially Scotland)
Brazil
Australia
Greece
Spain
Egypt
South Africa
France
Italy
New Zealand
Germany, Portugal, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, India, Jamaica, and Belize would be next on the list.
Jordan would be nice to visit just because I like the name.
United Kingdom (especially Scotland)
Brazil
Australia
Greece
Spain
Egypt
South Africa
France
Italy
New Zealand
Germany, Portugal, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, India, Jamaica, and Belize would be next on the list.
Jordan would be nice to visit just because I like the name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
