This is a great article that is among the best defenses of the Welfare State economic model that I have ever read.
"When people can fulfill their potential they become innovators," Dr. Himanen argues. "The innovative economy is competitive and makes it possible to finance the welfare state, which is not just a cost, but a sustainable basis for the economy, producing new innovators with social protection."
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Trains powered by the entrails of a cow…
Me:
Would this be a violation of your vegetarianism?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4373440.stm
Friend:
It may sound to some like making the best use of a cow that was already being slaughtered. Hence, ethically mandated rather than just ethically permissible. On the other hand, it affirms the moral position that cows and other animals are simply here to be utilized by man for whatever economic value can be made of them. Now, there is another economic argument for continuing this position if not strengthening it, even while there is less economic, and nutritional, argument for the industrialized slaughter of animals for human use.
Short answer, though, is I would ride the train.
Me:
With the methane gas that cows release, it could be argued that it is not only economic manipulation but environmental protection to slaughter them. I don't buy that argument. I enjoy meat though prefer free range cattle to the "veal stalled" industrial cows.
Have you ever seen The Meatrix website? http://www.themeatrix.com/
It doesn't inspire you to go out and have a burger...
Friend:
The huge population of cows exists solely because we propogate them for our use. In the wild, what are their chances?
The fundamental point is whether, morally, humans can look at animals principally for economic value and then exploit them within an industrialized system of production. If those answers are yes, then ethically we are obligated at least to do the best we can to make good use of them, subject presumably to some reasonably humane treatment from birth to death.
If the question then is one of humane treatment, there is a problem. Industrialization is a word that I think sums up the mentality of the majority today, in the production and consumption cycle. Those who participate in that production & consumption cycle do so wittingly and are accountable for it: The "I didn't know" or "My consumption doesn't matter" defenses don't exist, because to not know is willful indifference if not disdain for life. So if you are going to participate in any process -- liking eating cows -- doing so outside of the industrial production/consumption cycle is the best way, yes?! This is part of taking ourselves outside of economic determinism and respecting life and the mutual interdependency of all beings and species. Killing itself is not what is necessarily immoral, but does easily become immoral. This, I would contend, was part of Jesus’ message and was a complete rejection of the old testament Judaism. It was certainly Buddha's message.
I have no problem with people humanely raising their own animals, or cooperatively raising animals, for food. The point I think is important is that if you eat animals, please cultivate as direct a connection to life's processes as you can. From this, I believe that, more often than not, respect for life and its wonders/miracles grow (as does vegetarianism). And a deep appreciation for the sacrifices necessary for life. And that is very much part of a good life.
Being part of any process based upon slipping cows/pigs/chickens onto an assembly line, into a mechanized slaughter house, with cubes coming to people in styrofoam containers is not part of any path to a good life that I am aware of. And I mean "good" in its fullest sense.
Agree??
Me:
I think your utopian model is valid, but it is not sound in the current context. We can't all raise livestock, grow crops, make barrels, be smithies, or provide services to these people like doctors, lawyers and teachers. This model became obsolete with the Industrial Revolution. I would argue that this was a bad development and many societal woes are a result of the collapse of the community "structure". Certainly, many problems predate this paradigm change, but I think we can agree that problems become larger in a "larger world". Humans are better equipped to deal with issues on a tribal/community level. This is why I am a huge proponent of municipal control of most issues. Certainly some issues require a more global approach. Many environmental challenges in the gloablized world cannot be solved by the City and County of Honolulu (I would argue that most problems cannot be solved by that group). Climate change is a good example. The actions of people in Indiana and Ohio have a direct and very real effect on farmers in New England.
To wish to go back to this old style, as I once did, is not completely realistic, but holding on to the principles and applying them when appropriate is a way to stay true to these ideals. Slaughtering a cow is not something that I could do. In your model, I should then either be a vegetarian or grow some wheat to trade with my neighbor that raises cattle. I could certainly live with this, though it I might have a legitimate complaint if Apartment #905 had a cow in his apartment, or on the roof (reference Blade Runner: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the book that inspired the movie).
I do not have a moral dilema with using cattle for food. Just like a shark doesn't have a moral dilema over using humans for food in the ocean. We are all products of our genetic dispositions. And, I could not agree more that humans need to treat animals humanely and give them a "good life" for the time that they are here. I think the mistreatment of livestock should be a crime, but I won't gain much traction in the Senate where the farm belt delegation would laugh me out the door.
"Killing itself is not what is necessarily immoral, but does easily become immoral." That is a great line and a great summary of Jesus' views, but I must say could only have been typed out by the fingers of a lawyer. Very nice! I will not go further into the common misinterpretation of Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist teachings because I could write a PhD on it. One need only look at our administration to see all the examples of people who are "illiterate" trying to interpret the word of God. What a mess!
Friends always get the final word:
Final words? Nah. Anyway, as Andy Dick so eloquently says in his Bushvideo sendup, "What speaks louder than words? No words!"If you have not yet seen that, you have to. It is sidesplitting.
Me:
For those of you who have not seen the speech bit yet, you can find it at:
http://www.devilducky.com/media/23894/
Enjoy!
Would this be a violation of your vegetarianism?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4373440.stm
Friend:
It may sound to some like making the best use of a cow that was already being slaughtered. Hence, ethically mandated rather than just ethically permissible. On the other hand, it affirms the moral position that cows and other animals are simply here to be utilized by man for whatever economic value can be made of them. Now, there is another economic argument for continuing this position if not strengthening it, even while there is less economic, and nutritional, argument for the industrialized slaughter of animals for human use.
Short answer, though, is I would ride the train.
Me:
With the methane gas that cows release, it could be argued that it is not only economic manipulation but environmental protection to slaughter them. I don't buy that argument. I enjoy meat though prefer free range cattle to the "veal stalled" industrial cows.
Have you ever seen The Meatrix website? http://www.themeatrix.com/
It doesn't inspire you to go out and have a burger...
Friend:
The huge population of cows exists solely because we propogate them for our use. In the wild, what are their chances?
The fundamental point is whether, morally, humans can look at animals principally for economic value and then exploit them within an industrialized system of production. If those answers are yes, then ethically we are obligated at least to do the best we can to make good use of them, subject presumably to some reasonably humane treatment from birth to death.
If the question then is one of humane treatment, there is a problem. Industrialization is a word that I think sums up the mentality of the majority today, in the production and consumption cycle. Those who participate in that production & consumption cycle do so wittingly and are accountable for it: The "I didn't know" or "My consumption doesn't matter" defenses don't exist, because to not know is willful indifference if not disdain for life. So if you are going to participate in any process -- liking eating cows -- doing so outside of the industrial production/consumption cycle is the best way, yes?! This is part of taking ourselves outside of economic determinism and respecting life and the mutual interdependency of all beings and species. Killing itself is not what is necessarily immoral, but does easily become immoral. This, I would contend, was part of Jesus’ message and was a complete rejection of the old testament Judaism. It was certainly Buddha's message.
I have no problem with people humanely raising their own animals, or cooperatively raising animals, for food. The point I think is important is that if you eat animals, please cultivate as direct a connection to life's processes as you can. From this, I believe that, more often than not, respect for life and its wonders/miracles grow (as does vegetarianism). And a deep appreciation for the sacrifices necessary for life. And that is very much part of a good life.
Being part of any process based upon slipping cows/pigs/chickens onto an assembly line, into a mechanized slaughter house, with cubes coming to people in styrofoam containers is not part of any path to a good life that I am aware of. And I mean "good" in its fullest sense.
Agree??
Me:
I think your utopian model is valid, but it is not sound in the current context. We can't all raise livestock, grow crops, make barrels, be smithies, or provide services to these people like doctors, lawyers and teachers. This model became obsolete with the Industrial Revolution. I would argue that this was a bad development and many societal woes are a result of the collapse of the community "structure". Certainly, many problems predate this paradigm change, but I think we can agree that problems become larger in a "larger world". Humans are better equipped to deal with issues on a tribal/community level. This is why I am a huge proponent of municipal control of most issues. Certainly some issues require a more global approach. Many environmental challenges in the gloablized world cannot be solved by the City and County of Honolulu (I would argue that most problems cannot be solved by that group). Climate change is a good example. The actions of people in Indiana and Ohio have a direct and very real effect on farmers in New England.
To wish to go back to this old style, as I once did, is not completely realistic, but holding on to the principles and applying them when appropriate is a way to stay true to these ideals. Slaughtering a cow is not something that I could do. In your model, I should then either be a vegetarian or grow some wheat to trade with my neighbor that raises cattle. I could certainly live with this, though it I might have a legitimate complaint if Apartment #905 had a cow in his apartment, or on the roof (reference Blade Runner: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the book that inspired the movie).
I do not have a moral dilema with using cattle for food. Just like a shark doesn't have a moral dilema over using humans for food in the ocean. We are all products of our genetic dispositions. And, I could not agree more that humans need to treat animals humanely and give them a "good life" for the time that they are here. I think the mistreatment of livestock should be a crime, but I won't gain much traction in the Senate where the farm belt delegation would laugh me out the door.
"Killing itself is not what is necessarily immoral, but does easily become immoral." That is a great line and a great summary of Jesus' views, but I must say could only have been typed out by the fingers of a lawyer. Very nice! I will not go further into the common misinterpretation of Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist teachings because I could write a PhD on it. One need only look at our administration to see all the examples of people who are "illiterate" trying to interpret the word of God. What a mess!
Friends always get the final word:
Final words? Nah. Anyway, as Andy Dick so eloquently says in his Bushvideo sendup, "What speaks louder than words? No words!"If you have not yet seen that, you have to. It is sidesplitting.
Me:
For those of you who have not seen the speech bit yet, you can find it at:
http://www.devilducky.com/media/23894/
Enjoy!
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
You want me to pay what?
Let’s face it, Judith Miller sucks! There is no kind or professional way to say it. She is a hack, she has a history of being a hack and I think her future prospects for being a hack look rather grim. Maureen Dowd wrote her recent column entitled “Woman of Mass Destruction” on her personal experiences with and impressions of Judith Miller. She does not paint a kind picture, though she rarely does.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the people that write for the New York Times, but if Miller’s editor told her that she was barred from writing any more pieces on Weapons of Mass Destruction, then how on Earth was she able to weasel her way back onto that beat? Say what you want about Miller and all the recent brouhaha over the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, in my opinion she made to two inexcusable mistakes.
The first mistake was the way she cozied up to some of the worst of the worst political operatives (not that they are not policy staff) in the Bush administration to get inside information during the lead up to the Iraq War. She wrote many, and I do mean many, articles about the case for WMD in Iraq based on the opinions of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and Ahmed Chalabi the former Iraqi exile with a score to settle with Saddam Hussein. All of the information was printed as fact without corroboration of other evidentiary sources. She basically swallowed the Bush gang’s line and then vomited it back onto the pages of the New York Times. This was partially her fault, for being a total hack, and partially the editors fault, for not bothering to do their jobs (like EDITING!).
Miller’s second mistake was her handling of confidential sources. At one point during the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, Miller agreed to attribute information leaked to her by Scooter Libby as having come from a “former Hill staffer”. While this is technically true, Scoots was a Hill staffer, it is disingenuous because he is, in fact, now a White House insider. This mistake was totally Miller’s fault and should get her fired by the New York Times for gross incompetence. She should not be given the opportunity to resign; she should be fired for cause.
The New York Times has had a rough go of it in the last several years. First Jayson Blair, now Judith Miller. The common theme is a lazy editorial staff that failed to scrutinize the news that they are publishing. If it is not possible to thoroughly research and confirm information by press time, perhaps they should publish less news. I am of the belief that less, more accurate news is better then unconfirmed, regurgitated press releases.
The most galling aspect of this whole charade is the new Times Select scheme which the New York Times has come up with for their online news portal. They expect me to pay $49/year to read the Times online. For $49/year I expect the news to be right damn it! Get your heads out of your collective asses!
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the people that write for the New York Times, but if Miller’s editor told her that she was barred from writing any more pieces on Weapons of Mass Destruction, then how on Earth was she able to weasel her way back onto that beat? Say what you want about Miller and all the recent brouhaha over the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, in my opinion she made to two inexcusable mistakes.
The first mistake was the way she cozied up to some of the worst of the worst political operatives (not that they are not policy staff) in the Bush administration to get inside information during the lead up to the Iraq War. She wrote many, and I do mean many, articles about the case for WMD in Iraq based on the opinions of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and Ahmed Chalabi the former Iraqi exile with a score to settle with Saddam Hussein. All of the information was printed as fact without corroboration of other evidentiary sources. She basically swallowed the Bush gang’s line and then vomited it back onto the pages of the New York Times. This was partially her fault, for being a total hack, and partially the editors fault, for not bothering to do their jobs (like EDITING!).
Miller’s second mistake was her handling of confidential sources. At one point during the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, Miller agreed to attribute information leaked to her by Scooter Libby as having come from a “former Hill staffer”. While this is technically true, Scoots was a Hill staffer, it is disingenuous because he is, in fact, now a White House insider. This mistake was totally Miller’s fault and should get her fired by the New York Times for gross incompetence. She should not be given the opportunity to resign; she should be fired for cause.
The New York Times has had a rough go of it in the last several years. First Jayson Blair, now Judith Miller. The common theme is a lazy editorial staff that failed to scrutinize the news that they are publishing. If it is not possible to thoroughly research and confirm information by press time, perhaps they should publish less news. I am of the belief that less, more accurate news is better then unconfirmed, regurgitated press releases.
The most galling aspect of this whole charade is the new Times Select scheme which the New York Times has come up with for their online news portal. They expect me to pay $49/year to read the Times online. For $49/year I expect the news to be right damn it! Get your heads out of your collective asses!
Recipe For Bad News!
There is a good Timeline from the New York Times on the Valerie Plame Leak to be found at this website. Educate yourselves on this as I will be teeing off on this subject and using Judith Miller’s head as the ball!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)