I am happy to say that Dave has accepted to be a co-blogger here and so we can look forward to his posts as often as possible. I have great respect for Dave after listening to his story. This is someone who put his life and actions where his mouth is and is taking a stand for what he believes.
You can listen to a radio interview where he talks about his vegan-ism and how it effects his life . LISTEN HERE
I do think it is important to tell the truth especially in school and if we keep the truth from our children and "feed" them lies how can they become independent intelligent thinkers.
Animals rights, ending torture and abuse that is on a large scale connected to commerce and habits and money is something that will define us as humans in this century.
It's a daunting task to change habits created over centuries, but just because something has been done for centuries does not make it right or good (think of examples of religious customs and believes that are centuries old and we would all agree are wrong or inhumane. Oppression of women or stoning them comes to mind) and when the evidence is mounting that our health and our social behaviour is directly related to how we treat animals we can't just ignore it, cover it up or wish it away. We especially have a responsibility to our children to give them all the information so they can make a choice and yes I do think children should have a choice in what they eat.
I remember vividly how absolutely I hated milk as a child and I did not like meat. I had a natural aversion to it. I was forced to eat it and drink milk to a point where I felt like I had to trow up. When I could and mother did not look, I pored the milk down the drain, so did my brother. I also hated butter it made me gag and interestingly I also deplored eggs. Because I was forced to eat that stuff I eventually got used to some of it, I guess it's called acquired taste.
I NEVER was able to drink milk, the ghastly smell of cows milk, that I had to get, directly from the "Bauer" never left my nostrils.
I remember when I was a child thinking many times that I could not wait to grow up, so I would not have to eat all that stinky stuff like kidneys, and liver and brains and meat and blood sausage and milk. I hated it with a passion.
Maybe children have a natural aversion because we were never meant to eat meat and drink milk or eat butter or eggs in the first place but we are forced by previous generations in to these same habits. Generational tyranny about food.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Another killing machine graduates
By Dave WarwakWhere is the outrage? Where is the genuine care? We are talking about bottling our outrage - not me! I find it very disturbing that schools hide veganism from children and promote false dairy industry advertisements. School administrators have proven they do not care to change - even when children's lives are at stake.
Welfare only teaches young people that killing is acceptable as long as we do it nicely. We have seen the videos and know factory farming could give a shit about cows or ethical treatment. Even if we spend our lives fighting for welfare laws, in the end, the meat and dairy industries will do what they want. It is already against the law to drag cows around with forklifts, yet they do it anyway. Laws are a waste of time. Attitudes change the times, and then laws follow. Trying to change the law first rarely works. Attitudes change laws.
I am sick of what is going on and can't go along with, "We're not ready yet". We will never be ready. Vegans need to start getting uppity like people did in the sixties. No revolution was ever comfortable.
It is as if we willingly adopt meat-eaters' attitudes that say their choice is a personal one and children are too young to chose wisely. This is exactly why we need to speak up for the voiceless, as those in charge have chosen poorly for our children. Do you remember, the 143 million pound Hallmark Westland Beef Recall? People need to focus more on the real issues, not on larger cages - it is about priorities. Welfare misses the mark.
If you lived during slavery, would you spend your life fighting for abolition or would you spend your life fighting for better living conditions for slaves? Which strategy do you think the slave-owners would hope you would choose? Today's animal rights activist--who has devoted their life toward welfare issues--transplanted in time would confirm slavery is acceptable as long as it is done a certain way and would further explain, "Take your time changing, I understand you are not ready".
More people need to stand up and say the confinement, torture, drugging, and murder of innocent creatures is unacceptable and needs to stop now. Furthermore, stop feeding that crap to children. This attitude with an AR strategy that focuses on children would bring real change.
Unfortunately, meat-eating is on the rise and we are losing ground everyday by ignoring the children. A meat-eater is born every ten seconds in the USA. How many meat-eaters have you converted in the last 10 seconds? How many in the last 10 days? In the past 10 months? Meanwhile, a meat-eater is born every 10 seconds in the USA. We are losing. Welfare is no help. The chicken in the cage will still get its throat slit after being tortured, confined, and drugged whether in a 15" cage or a 14" cage. Welfare issues are just delay tactics that distract otherwise productive activists, which pleases the bad man to no end.
Elie Wiesel wrote, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented".
We each have only one life to give, so we should choose the highest ground even if we never get there in our lifetime, at least we will know we fought for the ultimate goal--an ideal that helped achive liberation that much sooner--for if no one rallies for these ideals, they will never be heard or acted on.
Earth can't wait for welfare changes to heal the damage done. Damage that might already be too far past the tipping point.
Where are our priorites?
Dave Warwak is the author of Peep Show For Children Only and can be reached at dave@inslide.com
TVA Coal Ash Spill... spells disaster
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=GREEN
Excerpt
But long-term exposure is precisely what worries the plant's neighbors and environmentalists trying to calculate the damage the spill could do to fish and local wildlife. At other sites, long-term exposure to coal ash runoff has had devastating effects on local fish stocks. Young fish were born with eyes that had shifted to one side of their heads, or spines twisted into "s" shapes.
"If you were to drink that water, you'd be in trouble," said Shea Tuberty, associate professor of biology at Appalachian State University, who ran independent tests on the water and ash with similar results — arsenic levels 30 times or higher than the safety standard.
Tests on the sludge itself — the accumulated ash of coal fires at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant — showed unsafe levels of arsenic and vanadium and higher-than-normal levels of almost every other chemical and heavy metal found in coal: mercury, magnesium, selenium, sodium, cobalt and manganese.
"This is really toxic stuff," said Matt Wilson, who has a doctorate in ecology and directs programs for the group Appalachian Voices, which has been monitoring the disaster and conducting its own tests. "TVA has pledged to clean it up, but it's unclear the degree to which that can happen."
Read full story
Excerpt
But long-term exposure is precisely what worries the plant's neighbors and environmentalists trying to calculate the damage the spill could do to fish and local wildlife. At other sites, long-term exposure to coal ash runoff has had devastating effects on local fish stocks. Young fish were born with eyes that had shifted to one side of their heads, or spines twisted into "s" shapes.
"If you were to drink that water, you'd be in trouble," said Shea Tuberty, associate professor of biology at Appalachian State University, who ran independent tests on the water and ash with similar results — arsenic levels 30 times or higher than the safety standard.
Tests on the sludge itself — the accumulated ash of coal fires at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant — showed unsafe levels of arsenic and vanadium and higher-than-normal levels of almost every other chemical and heavy metal found in coal: mercury, magnesium, selenium, sodium, cobalt and manganese.
"This is really toxic stuff," said Matt Wilson, who has a doctorate in ecology and directs programs for the group Appalachian Voices, which has been monitoring the disaster and conducting its own tests. "TVA has pledged to clean it up, but it's unclear the degree to which that can happen."
Read full story
Animal Rights or I Want To Be Right?
Just a quick info because I have more important things to do "like" work or trying to get results in the animal rights cause.
A persistent animals rights blogger got his knickers in a knot over the fact that I created a cause/idea on change.org that actaully got people's attention.
The fascinating part is that when I look at his blog, he is actaully a very intelligent man with an obviously huge heart for animals. He has great information about animal rights or whatever the PC term is to properly talk about the issues. He has insightful articles right ups and links.
But yet when my cause went in to the 2nd round of voting on change.org he was so upset that he actaully send me a message about it. Not "how can I help?", or "how we can work together on helping animal?", but a condescending message in which one of the things he said was that "People Like me set the animal rights movement back 30 years". He was obviously very upset about my cause getting in to the top three in the first round. The animal rights blogger and moderator for the animal rights section on change.org also lamented over the three top. She openly supported this blogger's cause and she did have her own cause/idea as well, both of which did not make it in to the top three regardless how much she wrote about it in her blog. I did read his idea and while I agreed on the fundamentals, I think it was poorly worded, too philosophical, convoluted and offered no solutions, so it got simply zero attention. Even with a better title I still think the idea would have failed because of the poor wording.
In the 2nd round my idea did not get in to the final top 10. Well everyone had to compete with all the causes even non related ideas and some of the top idea were drug related, legalizing drugs forgive student loans and human right issues of course animals lose out at the end. It's always been like that. Nevertheless we got almost 4000 votes and that said something.
So here is this fellow who insists on picking on my idea so that he actaully wrote about it in his blog. In a response to a comment he called it "fluff'
I won't tell you all he wrote but here is a link so you can read it for yourself. CLICK HERE
I did sent a response but I don't know if it will be posted since it is a moderated blog. Here is my response that I wrote to him. I post it here because I doubt he'll post it in his blog. Maybe he'll prove me wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff,
This is the Ms. Callaway, it's actually Mrs. but that is not so important, that created an idea named "Stop The Live Skinning of Animals” and renamed it "Stop Animal Torture".
I can deal with people disagreeing and of course you have every right to do so. I am surprised however for someone of your intelligence that you would refer to my idea as "fluff" just because you think the title is too sensational.
So title goes over context. Do you also disagree, that skinning animals while they are alive should be stopped?
It only shows that you seem to be more concerned with semantics then with the issue and getting result.
If you had bothered to read everything I wrote all the links and pages I created and If you actually knew me you would never call it “fluff” unless you just very stubborn. But I think you made up your mind about me, my cause, idea in an instance in the same way you would probably object anyone judge you in the blink of an eye.
Believe it or not I do get what you say and the sensational headlines, the attention getting approach is often very upsetting. In news in general in the media and the world, but it is how it is done. I am willing to humble myself in to using methods that are not the highest social moral methods i.e “headline grabbing titles”, within the law, if it get me closer to results. Mainly to get animals rights written in to laws and enforced and finally to get our society to stop eating meat, wearing fur etc, I want results. I want people to see what I see and feel hat I feel and I want them to do it freely if possible.
I have high ideals too and if it were for me and me alone I would not have to use any headlines, because no animal would be used for monetary gain. But I live in a world that is different from what I wish it were.
I want to get the attention of people not for my but for any animal cruelty, torture, misuse, abuse, issue that you can think off and if I have to stand on top of a roof buck naked and scream bloody murder I would do that too. My husband would object and I reserve that drastic measure for when I ran out of other options.
So I used a headline that gets people attention. They may actually start to think, grow a heart and get a conscience. That is what I think has to happen in order for things to change. I wasn’t always Vegan and it was one of those headlines that got my attention so sue me, but it changed my life, my thinking and I glad I saw that headline, I am glad I saw what I really did not want to see but I saw it and I’m glad and it changed my life. You yourself don’t seem to be shying away from using pictures that can be disturbing and shocking or at least should be to most. What is different from using a Title that says “Stop the live skinning of animals” from using a picture that shows a skinned animal?
Taking the moral high road and belittling others may make you feel better but what is it getting done to get to your goal or is the your philosophical stands more important then ending suffering?
I think we really have to same goals but a different way of trying to get there.
A persistent animals rights blogger got his knickers in a knot over the fact that I created a cause/idea on change.org that actaully got people's attention.
The fascinating part is that when I look at his blog, he is actaully a very intelligent man with an obviously huge heart for animals. He has great information about animal rights or whatever the PC term is to properly talk about the issues. He has insightful articles right ups and links.
But yet when my cause went in to the 2nd round of voting on change.org he was so upset that he actaully send me a message about it. Not "how can I help?", or "how we can work together on helping animal?", but a condescending message in which one of the things he said was that "People Like me set the animal rights movement back 30 years". He was obviously very upset about my cause getting in to the top three in the first round. The animal rights blogger and moderator for the animal rights section on change.org also lamented over the three top. She openly supported this blogger's cause and she did have her own cause/idea as well, both of which did not make it in to the top three regardless how much she wrote about it in her blog. I did read his idea and while I agreed on the fundamentals, I think it was poorly worded, too philosophical, convoluted and offered no solutions, so it got simply zero attention. Even with a better title I still think the idea would have failed because of the poor wording.
In the 2nd round my idea did not get in to the final top 10. Well everyone had to compete with all the causes even non related ideas and some of the top idea were drug related, legalizing drugs forgive student loans and human right issues of course animals lose out at the end. It's always been like that. Nevertheless we got almost 4000 votes and that said something.
So here is this fellow who insists on picking on my idea so that he actaully wrote about it in his blog. In a response to a comment he called it "fluff'
I won't tell you all he wrote but here is a link so you can read it for yourself. CLICK HERE
I did sent a response but I don't know if it will be posted since it is a moderated blog. Here is my response that I wrote to him. I post it here because I doubt he'll post it in his blog. Maybe he'll prove me wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff,
This is the Ms. Callaway, it's actually Mrs. but that is not so important, that created an idea named "Stop The Live Skinning of Animals” and renamed it "Stop Animal Torture".
I can deal with people disagreeing and of course you have every right to do so. I am surprised however for someone of your intelligence that you would refer to my idea as "fluff" just because you think the title is too sensational.
So title goes over context. Do you also disagree, that skinning animals while they are alive should be stopped?
It only shows that you seem to be more concerned with semantics then with the issue and getting result.
If you had bothered to read everything I wrote all the links and pages I created and If you actually knew me you would never call it “fluff” unless you just very stubborn. But I think you made up your mind about me, my cause, idea in an instance in the same way you would probably object anyone judge you in the blink of an eye.
Believe it or not I do get what you say and the sensational headlines, the attention getting approach is often very upsetting. In news in general in the media and the world, but it is how it is done. I am willing to humble myself in to using methods that are not the highest social moral methods i.e “headline grabbing titles”, within the law, if it get me closer to results. Mainly to get animals rights written in to laws and enforced and finally to get our society to stop eating meat, wearing fur etc, I want results. I want people to see what I see and feel hat I feel and I want them to do it freely if possible.
I have high ideals too and if it were for me and me alone I would not have to use any headlines, because no animal would be used for monetary gain. But I live in a world that is different from what I wish it were.
I want to get the attention of people not for my but for any animal cruelty, torture, misuse, abuse, issue that you can think off and if I have to stand on top of a roof buck naked and scream bloody murder I would do that too. My husband would object and I reserve that drastic measure for when I ran out of other options.
So I used a headline that gets people attention. They may actually start to think, grow a heart and get a conscience. That is what I think has to happen in order for things to change. I wasn’t always Vegan and it was one of those headlines that got my attention so sue me, but it changed my life, my thinking and I glad I saw that headline, I am glad I saw what I really did not want to see but I saw it and I’m glad and it changed my life. You yourself don’t seem to be shying away from using pictures that can be disturbing and shocking or at least should be to most. What is different from using a Title that says “Stop the live skinning of animals” from using a picture that shows a skinned animal?
Taking the moral high road and belittling others may make you feel better but what is it getting done to get to your goal or is the your philosophical stands more important then ending suffering?
I think we really have to same goals but a different way of trying to get there.
This may be good news for animal rights
This could be good news for animals rights.
Obama Appointing Cass R. Sunstein as a Regulatory Czar could mean the interest of animals could count for something. I'm not sure if it is confirmed but I just learned of this so I am keeping my ears open for more on this story!
The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer
Cass R. Sunstein
THE LAW SCHOOL
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Cass R. Sunstein could be appointed by Barak Obama as a Regulatory Czar
In this video he talks about animal right he starts at about 39.04
If he gets appointed I will see how to contact him and write a letter and I hope many will do the same. As a matter of fact he will be on my speed dial so to speak!
Obama Appointing Cass R. Sunstein as a Regulatory Czar could mean the interest of animals could count for something. I'm not sure if it is confirmed but I just learned of this so I am keeping my ears open for more on this story!
The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer
Cass R. Sunstein
THE LAW SCHOOL
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Cass R. Sunstein could be appointed by Barak Obama as a Regulatory Czar
In this video he talks about animal right he starts at about 39.04
If he gets appointed I will see how to contact him and write a letter and I hope many will do the same. As a matter of fact he will be on my speed dial so to speak!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)