Pledge to Be Vegan for Lent! TODAY's conveniences make it HARDLY seem 'religious' in the sense of self-denial

Pledge to Be Vegan for Lent! "As we do to the least, so we do to Him." Help make this world a kinder place for all God's creatures by pledging to be vegan for Lent.

 

 

This time of year, many men and women of God will choose to abstain from various foods or practices in observance of Lent, and I am giving up animal products by going vegan.

There's never been a better time to cut the meat and other animal-derived products out of your diet.

With the huge selection of delicious vegan meats and alternatives to dairy foods and eggs that are available, it's never been easier to go vegan!
To take action on this issue, click on the link below:
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?s_oo=_l878arEcQk8B0DtcJJR5w..&id=2847

You have just taken the first step toward a healthier and more compassionate life. Being vegan has never been easier, and we're here to help! For delicious recipes and nutritional information, visit our "Vegetarian Starter Kit" online.
A vegan diet is truly a lifesaver: Vegans and vegetarians are less likely to suffer from heart disease, obesity, and several types of cancer, according to the American Dietetic Association. Plus, vegan foods are delicious!
The following are our "Top Five Tips for Making the Switch":
1. Make vegan versions of your favorite meals. "Veg up" your favorite recipes simply by replacing the meat with other foods. For example, replace the beef in burritos with beans, guacamole, and grilled veggies, or try vegan beef crumbles from Morningstar Farms or Boca. Make spaghetti with marinara sauce and add roasted vegetables as well as vegan meatballs or sausage (try Nate's brand or GimmeLean).
2. Explore delicious vegan recipes.
You'll be amazed by the variety of tasty vegan options, from classic American dishes to Italian and Creole. People tell us all the time that being vegan exposed them to an array of flavors and foods they never knew existed.
3. Try tasty faux meats and dairy alternatives.
Sample the ever-growing lineup of mock meats - including vegan burgers, hot dogs, turkey deli slices, riblets, and chicken patties - and the vast array of tasty alternatives to dairy products, like vegan cream cheese, yogurt, and ice cream. Some of the most popular brands include Boca, Gardenburger, Morningstar Farms, and Silk.
4. Sample microwaveable meals and convenience foods.
Always on the run? Check out the variety of vegan microwavable meals in your local grocery store's freezer aisle, like Amy's Black Bean Enchilada With Spanish Rice, Fantastic Foods' Vegetarian 3-Bean Chili, and Yves' Thai Lemongrass Veggie Chick'n. There are many quick and easy vegan snacks, including basics like fresh fruit and PB&J and unique options like Tofurky Jerky and Silk Live! soy-yogurt smoothies.
5. Find vegan-friendly restaurants in your area.
Whatever your budget and wherever you live, you can enjoygreat vegan meals. Many national chains, like Johnny Rockets, sell tasty veggie burgers and other animal-friendly options.
Thank you again for taking the Pledge to Be Vegan for Lent, but there's no reason that your vegan diet has to last only 40 days. During and after the Lenten season, please visit VegCooking.com and GoVeg.com to find all the resources that you'll need to stick with your cruelty-free diet.
Best of luck!
Sincerely,
Jenny Lou Browning
Vegan Special Projects Coordinator

Not being sidetracked by particulars

The recent (Wednesday, January 27, 2010) death of 26-year-old Kansan Daniel Shaull in Portland, Oregon, who set himself afire downtown outside a fur store to protest the wanton and callous cruelty of the fur industry and of those who buy from fur stores and who engage in supporting the fur industry, has promoted much discussion on the Internet.

Man Sets Himself on Fire at Portland Fur Store

A man set himself on fire Wednesday outside Ungar Furs in Portland, Oregon. After dousing himself with gasoline, he attempted to enter the store, shouting “There are animals dying! Animals dying!” After police extinguished the flames, he was taken to Legacy Emanuel Hospital where he later died. The man was identified as 26-year-old Daniel Shaull from Kansas. Among the local activists I have spoken to, none are familiar with Shaull by name, nor recognized him as being a part of the active, long-running campaign against Ungar Furs. Yet the location and witness reports strongly indicate this man sacrificed himself to bring attention to the horrific treatment of animals on fur farms…..

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/man-sets-himself-on-fire-at-portland-fur-store/

2. The Defendants have literally gotten away with murder…

The courts are no friend to underdogs. They are ostensibly objective, but ultimately, they exist to protect the “rights” of the rich and powerful to bully the rest of the world, including the poor, minorities, immigrants, the working class, and, last but not least, nonhuman sentients and those who fight for them. Grand juries, which are often witch hunts and sometimes violate their victims’ Constitutional rights by imprisoning them indefinitely without charging them with a crime, and stalking orders, which are becoming frequently employed tools of judicial over-reach and creative law enforcement, are the repressive measures of choice that the corporate-state is using to attempt to intimidate and shut-down legal, above-ground animal rights activists….
http://gahc.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/the-defendants-have-literally-gotten-away-with-murder/

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/man-sets-himself-on-fire-at-portland-fur-store/

Nuancing this sacrifice correctly is going to be a challenge to the AR movement, particularly activists in Portland because, even though Daniel may have wanted to the horrible things being done to animals (albeit rodents, we're often reminded), the attention has been on the burning of oneself.

Ethicists always focus; we focus on the (statistically-frequent) cruel interface between humans and nonhumans for whom some uses, often trivial and indefensible uses, have been invented.

We abolitionists don't separate defensible and indefensible human uses of others against their willful consent; many consequentialists do such a conceptual distinction.

Daniel, who may have said to others that he was going to 'do something' that day and had previously expressed that the (social) world is not as it should be (he has the world's religions and ethical philosophies backing him up there), still seems to have decided and acted on his own (and even his father commented in one interview that his son had never presented himself to his family as being an animal rights activist, though he had presented himself as being troubled about the state of the (social) "world" around us that was filled with so much wanton cruelty.

Whatever solutions we offer need to be adopted as sustainable solutions (such as abandoning ALL animal wearing - I suggest for items other than shoes, though we know quite easily that we can do without leather shoes) and recognizing the personhood of nonhumans - rather, acknowledging that what makes each of us humans persons is something that is not unique to us - individual corporeality, complex nervous systems that coordinate as individual self-aware selves capable of complex outlooks on the world and complex emotions regarding other persons, including persons of other species (demonstrated, WE think and many others think, too) in nonhumans widely.

However, the attention has been reassigned to Daniel's mental status, a mental status that IMHO remains fully capable of recognizing when something is dreadfully wrong with how one class of humans (from whom we expect moral accountability) treats another class of beings (who are structurally marginalized by the society of the dominant species).

This needs the kind of attention that will NOT marginalize or dismiss the atrocity of their even BEING industries of animal exploitation and abuse and will NOT let the definition of the situation drawn tightly around one individual's presumed mental status (a designation made by a relative, not a mental health professional).

"I'm not a big fan of self-sacrifice" in any way, and I've commented often in public spaces to that effect, but some desperation is triggered when society's moral condition reaches such overt depths of depravity that we wear bodies of tortured animals as symbols of status and glamor and pride.

The longstanding issue is NOT the mental status of Daniel Shaull; it's (a) the grave injustice of animal exploitation and abuse AND (b) the moral depravity of a species who, beyond all consequentialist calculations, continues to abuse where there IS no defensible rationale.

This is the year 2010.  Are YOU still eating and wearing dead animals?  [If so, grunt !]  It's time for a profound change in our understanding of our moral relationships with self-aware persons of all kinds, not merely symbolic readjustments or the same-old same-old dismissive marginalizations.

 

Crossposted from http://maynardclark.spaces.live.com

Living in the garage

On late night TV, Sigourney Weaver talked about how she lived in a tree while she was a student at Stanford University in Stanford, just next to Palo Alto, California.

Her jokes about how 'everyone was doing that sort of thing' reminded ME of MY college years living in an ELABORATELY-refurbished garage (in the SF Bay Area) with large picture window with thick lined pleated draperies, fancy door and doorstep, nicely shrubbed, with a private bathroom and three walls lined with bookcases filled with my textbooks and other books.  

My faithful Redstone House Noah, who waited in the mint patch for me to return from the university, slept at night at the foot of my bed.  My best friend parked his camper van in the driveway in front and drew electricity from my garage apartment, and the two of us farmed backyard and made a lush organic garden on land that had once been a highly-productive farm on a mountaintop, with clear views of the San Francisco Bay and the Peninsula, and the roadlway down the steep mountainside curving into the neighboring mountain.

World Day for the Abolition of Meat

It's global.

World Day for the Abolition of Meat

Organize your event in your city and post info on the Facebook wall (below)

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=254021199199&ref=mf

• The next World Day for the Abolition of Meat will be held on 30th January 2010 (Saturday).
• This day is intended as a means of promoting the idea of abolishing the murder of animals for food. Worldwide six million sentient beings are killed for their meat every hour!
• That figure doesn't even count the fish and other sea animals, which of course are included in the demand for the abolition of meat.
• Meat consumption causes more suffering and death than any other human activity and is completely unnecessary.
• Many groups will mobilize to promote the abolition of meat (and other animal products). They will not only advocate vegetarianism and veganism to individuals but will call for society to abandon the practice of killing animals for food. We hope that this initiative will strengthen the animal rights movement over the years.
• It is important to address people not only as consumers but also as citizens like the anti-slavery activists who, although only a small minority, not only sought a boycott of sugar produced by slaves but also clearly expressed the idea that slavery should be banned.

It is important today to question society as a whole about the murder of animals for food so that it can no longer avoid a public debate on the legitimacy of this practice.
On 30 January conferences, street actions, leafleting, and information stands will be organized to spread the idea that the consumption of meat cannot be justified ethically and should therefore be abolished just as human slavery was in its time.

You CREATE an event.  Have you created an event where you are?

I suggest a do-it-yourself event like a barrage of any set of media sources with carefully-crafted e-mail messages about how meat is needless, tastes for meet can be satisfied TODAY with other foods (and in vitro meat is in the offing, which means that even carnivorous animals can have food without killing other animals - in the foreseeable future; no ETA is yet available), and a world without animal agriculture is the kinder, gentler world that the survival and development of human life requires.

That simple rationale can be endorsed by all dietary vegans without violating any humans 'rights' or claims or preferences or socially-conditioned tastes, which I think is ALL that most resistance to the abolition of animal agriculture is about.

Personalism

I have long thought that personalism is an ideal conceptual or philosophical 'vehicle' for expressing per-personal (and thus pro-animal) sentiments conceptually, abstractly, philosophically.  The later Peter A. Bertocci, a well-known Personalist, taught at Boston University.  He is often cited in papers about complex moral matters, particularly about sex and love, but the moral status of the person in distributed moral obligations is a concern for principled persons of all kinds, including those of us with profound respect for personhood in every species.

Peter Anthony Bertocci

May 13, 1910-October 13, 1989

Borden Parker Bowne Professor of Philosophy, Boston University, where he taught for thirty-one years. B.A., Boston (1931); M.A., Harvard (1932); Ph.D., Boston (1935).  Dissertation: The Empirical Argument for God in Late British Thought (published in 1938 by Boston University Press; advisor: Frederick Robert Tennant - the process metaphysician).

Other books include 
The Human Venture in Sex, Love, and Marriage (1949); 
Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (1951);
Free Will, Responsibility, and Grace (1957); 
Religion as Creative Insecurity (1958);
Sex, Love, and the Person (1967); 
The Person God Is (1970); and 
The Goodness of God (1981)

On This Site:a

• The Person, Obligation, and Value [1959]
  
• Susan K. Langer’s Theory of Feeling and Mind[1970]
  

Materialism: Failing before Life’s Challenges

In 1951, Bertocci wrote:

“. . . no matter how narrow the gap between the chemical and the living becomes—and discoveries about the nature of viruses and colloids do indeed narrow that gap—we must remember that the gap is a qualitative and not a spatial one.  Suppose we consider the colloids the ‘missing link’ between living and dead matter.  This may impress our minds with the wondrous continuity of degree between one order of being and another.  But let us take a closer look.  Has the gap between life and matter really been crossed, let alone explained?  Even though a colloid may reproduce as living things do, it otherwise behaves like a chemical.  But a cell acts throughout like a living being and not like a chemical.  The fact still remains that when life appeared,life appeared. . . . This collocation of events, this close interrelation of living and nonliving beings, is an opaque fact unless we postulate a purpose which uses one order as an aid to the continuance of another.  Obviously this appeal to a broader purpose will not explain how the food enters the stomach becomes part of the living blood, bone, nerve, and brain.  Any biochemist can give us the sequence, but he is as silent before this fact of transmutation as we are.  However, we’re not trying to introduce a Purposer to describe what science has not so far described; here we seek to explain the harmony between two orders of being, the harmony between two differing and interacting qualities of existence.   We are seeking a view which, far from denying established scientific facts, will allow them to fit into a broader scheme which decreases the mystery.  What mystery?  The fact that living beings should appear and be so closely interconnected with nonliving beings—especially if all there was to begin with was the nonpurposeful, nonliving, nonthinking hustle and bustle of units of energy. . . .”

“. . . Our interest here is to emphasize the greater coherence which comes into our thinking if we consider the interrelation of the physical universe and life and the developing evolution of species as the handiwork of a creative Intelligence intent on producing a world rich in life, and, in the existence of man, rich in mind and value.  The evidence so far adduced enables us to envisage a Mind which is responsible not only for the ultimate physical preparations for life but for the first appearance of life in its many forms and for the additional mutations and variations discovered by our scientists.”

Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 1951, pp. 333-34, 337 (italics in the original).

Fifty years later, the atheist Antony Flew wrote:

“[We may now know] how—by evolution through natural selection—one or more very primitive kinds of organism evolved into the enormous variety of species now known either still to exist or to have existed during some period in the past.  But that is a very different thing from knowing the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life or even of any life.  For, so far as I know, no one has as yet contrived to produce any plausible conjecture as to how even the most primitive kind of organism with a disposition to reproduce and thus to expose itself to natural selection might have evolved from a mixture of the many kinds of complex molecule which are now known to be required for that construction.  [My italics; Flew has been dealing with these issues for over fifty years.]

“Conway sees here a threefold challenge to the materialist, of which I consider two of the elements to be much more formidable than the third.  The first of these two is to produce a materialistic explanation for ‘the very first emergence of living matter from non-living matter. In being alive, living matter possesses ateleological organization that is wholly absent from everything that preceded it.’  The second challenge . . . is to produce an equally materialist explanation for the emergence, from the very earliest life-forms which were incapable of reproducing themselves, of life-forms which a capacity for reproducing them-selves.”

Review of David Conway, The Rediscovery of Wisdom, Philosophy, January 2001, p. 161.

Posted October 13, 2007

New York Times "Distinguished Journalism in Public Health" for Series on Distracted Driving HONORED by HSPH

Press Releases

2009 Releases

Harvard School of Public Health Honors The New York Times for "Distinguished Journalism in Public Health," Citing Series on Distracted Driving

For immediate release: Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Boston, MA -- The Harvard School of Public Health’s Center for Health Communication will honor The New York Times for “distinguished journalism in public health” at a luncheon event at the Harvard Club of New York City on Friday, December 4, 2009. The Center’s newly established journalism award cites The Times’ path-breaking series “Driven to Distraction,” which drew widespread public attention to the dangers associated with driving while texting or phoning. HSPH Dean Julio Frenk will present the award to Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times.
The December 4 luncheon also will celebrate the “21st Birthday” (i.e., legal drinking age) of the National Designated Driver Campaign to prevent drinking and driving, which was launched by HSPH’s Center for Health Communication in late 1988.
Dean Frenk commented, “The New York Times’ in-depth series on the dangers of distracted driving has catapulted a previously neglected public health issue to a position of prominence on both public and policy agendas. Research has shown that distracted driving is like drunk driving in the danger it represents, and it is the new 21st century challenge to safety on our highways. The Times’ coverage of distracted driving constitutes a compelling example of distinguished journalism in public health.”
The Times’ reporting included the disclosure of previously suppressed research documenting serious hazards associated with the use of cell phones and other electronic devices while driving. The Times’ “Driven to Distraction” series led to enactment of new state laws and promulgation of new federal policies, as well as greatly enhancing the public’s awareness of the problem.
The Times’ reporting team was led by Matt Richtel, a correspondent in San Francisco. It featured unique online features by Chief Producers Gabriel Dance and Tom Jackson, working with Producer Danielle Belopotosky, and photographs by Chang Lee and others, as edited by Picture Editor Merrill Oliver. The series was edited by Deputy Business Editor Adam Bryant and Assistant Managing Editor Glenn Kramon, in consultation with Business Editor Lawrence Ingrassia.
The HSPH Center for Health Communication’s innovative Designated Driver Campaign was created by Jay A. Winsten, HSPH Associate Dean and Frank Stanton Director of the Center, in 1988, and was conducted throughout the early 1990s in partnership with leading TV networks and Hollywood studios. The campaign successfully demonstrated how a new social concept—the “designated driver” —could be rapidly diffused through American society via mass communication, catalyzing a fundamental shift in social norms. The campaign broke new ground when TV writers agreed to depict the use of designated drivers in more than 160 prime-time episodes of programs such as Cheers, L.A. Law, and The Cosby Show. Public opinion polls found that a majority of Americans embraced the designated driver concept, contributing to a sharp decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
Jay A. Winsten commented, “In celebrating the “21st Birthday” of the Designated Driver Campaign, we are cognizant of the unfinished work in traffic safety, including the growing problem of distracted driving which The New York Times almost single-handedly brought to the forefront. In launching the Center’s new award for distinguished journalism in public health, and presenting the inaugural award to The New York Times, we hope to encourage other news organizations to commit the necessary resources to tackle other pressing issues in public health.”
(Additional information on the Designated Driver campaign is available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/chc/harvard-alcohol-project/.
(To view the “Driven to Distraction” series on NYTimes.com, go to http://www.nytimes.com/driven.)
For more information:
Robin Herman
617-432-4752
rherman@hsph.harvard.edu

The HSPH Center for Health Communication ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/chc)  is widely recognized for its pioneering contributions to the field of mass communication and public health. In addition to the Designated Driver Campaign, the Center created initiatives to curb tobacco smoking, youth violence, alcohol abuse, and domestic violence, and sponsored a mid-career journalism fellowship.  Currently, the Center is spearheading a national media campaign to recruit volunteer mentors for at-risk youth, and is planning a major initiative on global health.
###
Harvard School of Public Health is dedicated to advancing the public's health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children's health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu

Win and let win

Or is that 'live and let live'? Depends on who in your 'space' is winning but not cutting you in on it...as if you or I really NEED that person to 'cut us in on' her or his 'win' (or SEEMING win).

Meat and Cancer: Lecture at the Harvard School of Public Health

HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Department of Nutrition

Meat and Cancer
Rashmi Sinha, Ph.D.
Senior Investigator, Deputy Branch Chief Nutritional Epidemiology Branch Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute, NIH

Monday, November 23rd, 2009
12:30-1:20 p.m.
Harvard School of Public Health
Kresge Building, Room 502
651 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts

Contact Colleen Bertrand for more information (617-432-1851, cbertran@hsph.harvard.edu)

Meat and Cancer: Lecture at the Harvard School of Public Health

HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Department of Nutrition

Meat and Cancer
Rashmi Sinha, Ph.D.
Senior Investigator, Deputy Branch Chief Nutritional Epidemiology Branch Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute, NIH

Monday, November 23rd, 2009
12:30-1:20 p.m.
Harvard School of Public Health
Kresge Building, Room 502
651 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts

Contact Colleen Bertrand for more information (617-432-1851, cbertran@hsph.harvard.edu)

What makes 'confidence schemes' ethically problematic for ethically sensitive persons?

Cruelty to persons around the world and throughout natural history is pretty awful.

Aesthetically, that makes ANY kind of metaphysical confidence pretty darn difficult for us mere mortals.

Even if some observable PROGRESS - moral progress, not merely technical improvements in methods and mechanisms - devices and dynamics - could be evident, the needless suffering and victimization make 'lipservice' to prior conceptualizations seem pretty unethical to sensitive folks like us.

But then, who really knows?

What makes 'confidence schemes' ethically problematic for ethically sensitive persons?

Cruelty to persons around the world and throughout natural history is pretty awful.

Aesthetically, that makes ANY kind of metaphysical confidence pretty darn difficult for us mere mortals.

Even if some observable PROGRESS - moral progress, not merely technical improvements in methods and mechanisms - devices and dynamics - could be evident, the needless suffering and victimization make 'lipservice' to prior conceptualizations seem pretty unethical to sensitive folks like us.

But then, who really knows?

World Public Gives China, US Low Marks on Climate Change: Hu Jin Tao, Obama Prepare to Talk TogetherMaynard.Clark.GooglePages.com

Go to Printer Friendly Version...   Email to a friend...

As Hu Jin Tao, Obama Prepare to Meet, World Public Gives China, US Low Marks on Climate Change

November 11, 2009

Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

With President Barack Obama on his way to meet his Chinese counterpart in Beijing for talks on global climate change and a range of other issues, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that publics in more than half of 20 nations disapprove of the way China and the United States are dealing with global warming.

(Photos: Pete Souza/White House Photo, Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)

The poll asked respondents to grade China and the US on several dimensions. China gets poor marks for how it handles human rights--on average 52% say China does not respect human rights while just 36% say it does. The US does better, with 50% saying it is respectful and 38% it is not.

People around the world regard both superpowers as cooperative, but they also see both countries, especially the US, as using the threat of military force to coerce other nations.

Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to focus on climate change, economic concerns, and nuclear issues related to Iran and North Korea when they meet Nov. 16 and 17. The climate change question is of particular importance in the run-up to December's conference in Copenhagen, where 192 countries will attempt to conclude a new treaty on climate change. All eyes will be on China, the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, and the United States, which long held that distinction.

The WPO poll, conducted during April and May, finds that people in 11 nations disapprove of how [China] is "dealing with the issue of climate change." Clear majorities in six nations -- France (74%), Britain (73%), Germany (72%), the United States (69%), South Korea (69%), and Egypt (58%) -- are disapproving, along with pluralities is five other nations. Only in Pakistan (93%), Nigeria (69%), Kenya (64%), and Indonesia (55%) do majorities approve.

Likewise, majorities in six nations disapprove of the US handling of global warming--Egypt (68%), Britain (65%), France (62%), Pakistan 62%), Turkey (56%), and Germany (56%) --, as do pluralities in five. Nigeria, Kenya, South Korea, India and Indonesia are the only countries where majorities express approval.

Across the 20 nations polled, approval of China's record on climate change is somewhat lower than for the US. On average, 34% approve of China (42% disapprove) while 39% approve of the US (41% disapprove).

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,349 respondents in 20 nations that comprise 63 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Throughout the poll, some groups of countries consistently favored one superpower and were critical of the other. Most notably, people in most Muslim countries gave China positive ratings and the US negative ratings. Among European countries, the US tended to rate high and China low. Kenya and Nigeria hold consistently positive views of the two superpowers, and Turkey has consistently negative views of both.

China and the United States are both seen as cooperative. Asked "if you think each is or is not generally cooperative with other countries," an average of 59% responded positively with regard to the US, and 53% for China.

On a nation-by-nation basis, the US is judged cooperative by 15 nations and not cooperative by four nations. China is seen as cooperative by eleven nations and uncooperative by seven.

At the same time many nations see these big powers as using "the threat of military force to gain advantages." This is especially true of the US: all nations polled, including the US itself, sees the US this way--on average 77%.

Views of China are less sharp: on average 46% say China does the same, while 41% say it does not. Ten nations say China uses military threats, eight say it does not. Among its neighbors majorities see China as threatening in South Korea (75%), and India (54%) and views are divided in Indonesia.

An area in which people around the world judge China considerably more harshly than the United States is respect for human rights. Majorities in nine countries say China does not respect human rights -- especially France (88%), Germany (88%), South Korea (87%), the US (86%), Britain (86%), and Poland (80%). However, seven, say China does respect human rights: especially Pakistan (91%), Nigeria (77%), and Kenya (67%).

The United States respects human rights in the view of 12 nations, especially. Majorities who disagreed were found in 6 nations, especially the Muslim nations of Pakistan (79%), Turkey (70%), Egypt (68%), and Iraq (60%), but also Mexico (61%).

Asked overall whether China or the US "is playing a mainly positive or negative role in the world" views are mixed. On average the split is dead even for the US, with 40% of respondents overall seeing a positive role and an identical number seeing a negative one. The overall positive response for China is higher, 44%, but still short of a majority, while 34% respond negatively.

Only in Kenya, Nigeria and South Korea do clear majorities say that both China and the US play a positive role in the world. A Majority in Turkey sees both superpowers playing negative roles.

Despite tense relations, Taiwanese views of China are not as negative one might expect. Large majorities believe China uses the threat of military force to gain advantages (70%) and does not respect human rights (76%). However slightly more than half (51%) say that China is playing a mostly positive role in the world. The same number agrees that China is mostly cooperative with other countries in the international arena.

Publics in China's special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau have very favorable views of Chinese policies. Overwhelmingly majorities agree that China is playing a mainly positive role in the world (81% Hong Kong, 81% Macau) and that China usually cooperates with other countries (85% Hong Kong, 89% Macau). Roughly two-thirds of both publics reject any notion that China uses its military power to intimidate other countries (68% Hong Kong, 69% Macau). A slight majority in Macau (51%) and a plurality in Hong Kong (45%) support China's actions in combating climate change.

The exception is on human rights. A large majority in Hong Kong (62%) say China is not respectful of human rights while views in Macau are mixed with many declining to answer.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

Share article on:

  Twitter                      Facebook
  Digg                        del.icio.us
  StumbleUpon          Newsvine

Go to Printer Friendly Version...   Email to a friend...

World Public Gives China, US Low Marks on Climate Change: Hu Jin Tao, Obama Prepare to Talk Together

November 11, 2009

Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

With President Barack Obama on his way to meet his Chinese counterpart in Beijing for talks on global climate change and a range of other issues, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that publics in more than half of 20 nations disapprove of the way China and the United States are dealing with global warming.

(Photos: Pete Souza/White House Photo, Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)

The poll asked respondents to grade China and the US on several dimensions. China gets poor marks for how it handles human rights--on average 52% say China does not respect human rights while just 36% say it does. The US does better, with 50% saying it is respectful and 38% it is not.

People around the world regard both superpowers as cooperative, but they also see both countries, especially the US, as using the threat of military force to coerce other nations.

Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to focus on climate change, economic concerns, and nuclear issues related to Iran and North Korea when they meet Nov. 16 and 17. The climate change question is of particular importance in the run-up to December's conference in Copenhagen, where 192 countries will attempt to conclude a new treaty on climate change. All eyes will be on China, the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, and the United States, which long held that distinction.

The WPO poll, conducted during April and May, finds that people in 11 nations disapprove of how [China] is "dealing with the issue of climate change." Clear majorities in six nations -- France (74%), Britain (73%), Germany (72%), the United States (69%), South Korea (69%), and Egypt (58%) -- are disapproving, along with pluralities is five other nations. Only in Pakistan (93%), Nigeria (69%), Kenya (64%), and Indonesia (55%) do majorities approve.

Likewise, majorities in six nations disapprove of the US handling of global warming--Egypt (68%), Britain (65%), France (62%), Pakistan 62%), Turkey (56%), and Germany (56%) --, as do pluralities in five. Nigeria, Kenya, South Korea, India and Indonesia are the only countries where majorities express approval.

Across the 20 nations polled, approval of China's record on climate change is somewhat lower than for the US. On average, 34% approve of China (42% disapprove) while 39% approve of the US (41% disapprove).

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,349 respondents in 20 nations that comprise 63 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Throughout the poll, some groups of countries consistently favored one superpower and were critical of the other. Most notably, people in most Muslim countries gave China positive ratings and the US negative ratings. Among European countries, the US tended to rate high and China low. Kenya and Nigeria hold consistently positive views of the two superpowers, and Turkey has consistently negative views of both.

China and the United States are both seen as cooperative. Asked "if you think each is or is not generally cooperative with other countries," an average of 59% responded positively with regard to the US, and 53% for China.

On a nation-by-nation basis, the US is judged cooperative by 15 nations and not cooperative by four nations. China is seen as cooperative by eleven nations and uncooperative by seven.

At the same time many nations see these big powers as using "the threat of military force to gain advantages." This is especially true of the US: all nations polled, including the US itself, sees the US this way--on average 77%.

Views of China are less sharp: on average 46% say China does the same, while 41% say it does not. Ten nations say China uses military threats, eight say it does not. Among its neighbors majorities see China as threatening in South Korea (75%), and India (54%) and views are divided in Indonesia.

An area in which people around the world judge China considerably more harshly than the United States is respect for human rights. Majorities in nine countries say China does not respect human rights -- especially France (88%), Germany (88%), South Korea (87%), the US (86%), Britain (86%), and Poland (80%). However, seven, say China does respect human rights: especially Pakistan (91%), Nigeria (77%), and Kenya (67%).

The United States respects human rights in the view of 12 nations, especially. Majorities who disagreed were found in 6 nations, especially the Muslim nations of Pakistan (79%), Turkey (70%), Egypt (68%), and Iraq (60%), but also Mexico (61%).

Asked overall whether China or the US "is playing a mainly positive or negative role in the world" views are mixed. On average the split is dead even for the US, with 40% of respondents overall seeing a positive role and an identical number seeing a negative one. The overall positive response for China is higher, 44%, but still short of a majority, while 34% respond negatively.

Only in Kenya, Nigeria and South Korea do clear majorities say that both China and the US play a positive role in the world. A Majority in Turkey sees both superpowers playing negative roles.

Despite tense relations, Taiwanese views of China are not as negative one might expect. Large majorities believe China uses the threat of military force to gain advantages (70%) and does not respect human rights (76%). However slightly more than half (51%) say that China is playing a mostly positive role in the world. The same number agrees that China is mostly cooperative with other countries in the international arena.

Publics in China's special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau have very favorable views of Chinese policies. Overwhelmingly majorities agree that China is playing a mainly positive role in the world (81% Hong Kong, 81% Macau) and that China usually cooperates with other countries (85% Hong Kong, 89% Macau). Roughly two-thirds of both publics reject any notion that China uses its military power to intimidate other countries (68% Hong Kong, 69% Macau). A slight majority in Macau (51%) and a plurality in Hong Kong (45%) support China's actions in combating climate change.

The exception is on human rights. A large majority in Hong Kong (62%) say China is not respectful of human rights while views in Macau are mixed with many declining to answer.

David Roberts writes critically about PETA's PR: Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?

Vegetarianism and environmentalism

On PETA’s latest campaign 256

• 

  Posted 11:42 PM on 16 Sep 2007
  by David Roberts

  • More from this author
  • Author Feed

• Posted in

  • Food

• Read More About

  • animal welfare,
  • vegetarianism and veganism

• Print
• Share
• Comment

Just 'cause I love poking the hornet's nest, I thought I'd weigh in on this brouhaha about PETA, vegetarianism, and environmentalism. As I see it, there are three core questions:
1. Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
To me, the answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. I don't see how it can be seriously argued.
Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.
Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat.
So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.
Two additional notes:

• Yeah, yeah, the equation is different if you eat only humanely raised animals purchased from local farmers, or if you hunt and kill your own meat. But about 0.001% of Americans do that, and there could never be enough of that kind of meat to match current consumption levels, so it's a distraction from the real argument. At least for me, the argument for vegetarianism is not categorical; it's contingent on the actual state of industrial livestock farming.
• I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm a big fat hypocrite. I eat meat -- not nearly as much as the average American, but some. I choose local and humane when I can, but lots of times it isn't an option. My personal eating habits give me considerable incentive to justify meat consumption. But I'd rather acknowledge my hypocrisy than use a bunch of bullsh*t arguments.

2. Is it true that you cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist?
This is a deeply silly question. The term "environmentalist" is socially contingent and highly contested. Environmentalism has no metaphysical essence. "You aren't an environmentalist" is moral judgment masquerading as an assertion of fact.
Every discussion I've ever witnessed about who is or isn't an environmentalist, or what does or doesn't count as environmentalism -- and believe me, at this point I've seen plenty -- contains vastly more heat than light. Feelings are hurt, umbrage is taken, but nothing is ever learned, no consensus is ever reached. It's a peacock show through which everyone parades their biases and preconceptions.
What makes an environmentalist? Is it enough to care about (write about, advocate for) environmental policy, or must you also engage in activism? Must you take action to green your own life? If so, how much? Drive less, or not at all? Turn off lights, or go off grid? Eat less meat, or go vegetarian?
I don't know, or much care. There are lots and lots of things decent human beings should do. Nobody's able to do them all. We all do a little; we should all do more. Those of us on more or less the same side gain very little by furiously judging each other's personal choices in a futile attempt to define the tribal boundaries of environmentalism.
3. Is PETA's latest campaign counterproductive?
It's important when thinking about this question to disentangle your own response to the campaign from the question of its overall efficacy. I'll freely admit it bugs the crap out of me. Proclaiming who is and isn't an environmentalist bugs me. Using Al Gore as a foil bugs me. Using global warming opportunistically, as a convenient wedge, bugs me. The whole thing is irksome.
However, the campaign isn't designed to secure my moral or aesthetic approval, or yours. It's designed to spread awareness of something you and I already know: that eating meat is environmentally destructive and exacerbates global warming. A sober, fair-minded, carefully argued campaign would not achieve that goal. It would sink without a ripple.
As I've argued before (in connection to another PETA campaign), it's extremely difficult to make yourself heard over the din of pop culture and 24-hour media. There aren't many people looking around for information on the destructiveness of their most intimate habits. Virtually the only way advocacy campaigns can gain any traction is by generating some controversy. Despite what you may think, that's not all PETA does, but they do it a lot and they do it well. That's why you know who they are. That's why we're having a debate about vegetarianism and environmentalism.
As annoying as it is, I count the campaign a success, because of the hundreds of advocacy campaigns going on right now, this is the one we noticed. That's what PETA set out to achieve, and they achieved it.

• Comments

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

• Ask Umbra on canned and frozen foods 23
• Ask Umbra on sex ... chicken sex, that is 14
• More on No Impact Man and personal eco-behavior 11

Cheap Eats in the Area: Peace o’ Pie

Cheap Eats in the Area: Peace o’ Pie

Peace o’ Pie As we step into the tiny storefront home of Peace o’ Pie pizzeria in Allston, we are enveloped by the aromas of cheesy, tomatoey goodness. Gorgeous, bubbly-crusted pizzas occupy diners at nearly every shiny table. Walls in avocado green frame the scene. Behind the bamboo counter, a young chef scoops tantalizing pies from the oven. In short, everything about the place looks and smells like a regular, trendy pizzeria, but the ingredient list is far from standard. Peace o’ Pie is scrupulously vegan.

Read the full Globe review (Denise Taylor, Globe Staff)
Pictured, Vegan pizza at Peace o' Pie.
487 Cambridge St., Allston. 617-787-9884. www.peaceopie.com All major credit cards accepted. Entrance accessible; no restroom.
Get more information about Peace o’ Pie

The meaning of agnosticism

"I think we're really just guessing!"

"When you don't know, you don't know." - Maynard S. Clark

How many dumb animals died for THAT fur coat?

But how about cruelty-free nonleather animal-free product lines?

Remember (a) Aaron Feuerstein's Malden Mills, that made PolarFleece out of recycled plastics (including soda bottles and used water and milk jugs) AND (b) the fake furs with which he had made his millions before, from millions and millions of "tiny little polyesters" (which is the rejoined vegan animal rights activist Sylvia Vitale used to give when another ARA chided her for wearing a fake fur to an animal rights protest).

Q: And how many dumb animals died for THAT fur coat?
A: Millions and millions of "tiny little polyesters"

LA JOURNÉE MONDIALE VEGAN - 1er NOVEMBRE

Vegan Végétalien Mondial

LA JOURNÉE MONDIALE VEGAN - 1er NOVEMBRE
LE MOIS MONDIAL VEGAN - NOVEMBRE



WORLD VEGAN DAY - 1st NOVEMBER 2009
WORLD VEGAN MONTH - NOVEMBER 2009



Pour célébrer la création du mot 'vegan' par Donald Watson et Dorothy (Morgan) Watson et la fondation de la Vegan Society par Donald Watson, Elsie Shrigley et d'autres le 1er novembre 1944.



To celebrate the creation of the word 'vegan' by Donald Watson and Dorothy (Morgan) Watson and the foundation of the Vegan Society by Donald Watson, Elsie Shrigley and others on 1st November 1944.



The Vegan Society http://www.facebook.com/TheVeganSociety



World Vegan Day 2009

For people, animals and the planet

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=113913067294



World Vegan Day

The first of November every year

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=64142859879



VEGAN DAY / JOURNÉE VEGAN – réjouissons-nous, sans oublier les animaux !



« L'événement est partout et pour tous ! ☼

Réjouissez-vous chez vous, sans oublier les animaux ! »



[ En raison des malentendus, il fallait préciser que avec cet événement, nous souhaiterions seulement créer une communauté virtuelle afin d'élever la conscience, pas d'organiser une véritable fête. La "Journée Mondiale du Véganisme" organisée à Paris est tout à fait un événement réel ! ;D S&C. ]



[ Paris ] 22.11.2009



Paris World Vegan Day 2009 (Journee mondiale du veganisme a Paris 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134630658952



PARIS VEGAN DAY http://www.parisveganday.fr/

paris vegan day http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=280048595598



[ AnimaVeg ] Paris Vegan Day (Journee mondiale du veganisme a Paris 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160693887769



[ London ] 01.11.2009



World Vegan Day London

The 65th Annual World Vegan Day

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=102387973235



[ Veracious Vegans ] World Vegan Day Dinner 1st November

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=159766178867



[ Birmingham ] 24.11.2009



Animal Remembrance Day

The Paws For Peace Campaign

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=202175974672



[ Roma ] 01.11.2009



GIORNATA MONDIALE VEGAN

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=207235866144



[ Barcelona / Sevilla / Madrid ] 01.11.2009



Igualdad Animal / Animal Equality

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Igualdad-Animal-Animal-Equality/116189118344



Actividades en España por el Día Internacional del Veganismo

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188266594223



[ Melbourne ] 01.11.2009



World Vegan Day 2009

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124411087967



World Vegan Day 2009 - Melbourne

Come and explore the wonderful world of veganism!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=131931908253



[ Perth ] 01.11.2009



World Vegan Day Picnic

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=194660081744





[ Montréal ] 01.11.2009



The 2009 Montreal World Vegan Day Fashion Show

COMPASSION CONQUERS THE RUNWAY! LA COMPASSION EST A LA MODE!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=146051362981



[ Oslo ] 01.11.2009



Veganuke hos Vega i Oslo!

1. november er verdens vegandag. Dagen - og hele uken etter - vil bli feiret med en ren veganmeny på spisestedet Vega i Oslo.

http://www.vegetar.com/mt/2009/10/veganuke_hos_vega_i_oslo.html



WORLD GO VEGAN WEEK 25.10.2009-31.10.2009



World Go Vegan Week

Celebrate Compassion!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=128484714727



World GO VEGAN Week

Celebrate Compassion...

http://www.worldgoveganweek.com/



VEGAN EARTH DAY 21.06.2009



Dennis Kucinich Proclaims June 21st Vegan Earth Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMt9_qgDfLE



Vegan Earth Day! June 21st 2009

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=82448973790



Félicitations de l'équipe

Vegan Végétalien Mondial,

Camille et Salim.



Vegan Végétalien Mondial

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55331359593



We are all one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61BCB2-OmRY



Vegan Parenting (French subtitles)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtuB_KmSs8k



Support graphique en français pour annoncer la Journée Mondiale Vegan (World Vegan Day) du 1er novembre sur vos stands. Pour télécharger le PDF, cliquez ici http://www.international-campaigns.org/pdf/Vegan%20Day.pdf.

The Great Molasses Flood

Boston's Modern Must-Sees

Site of the Great Molasses Flood

On January 15, 1919, a gigantic tank filled with 2.3 million gallons of molasses burst, sending a crushing, 30-foot, 14,000-ton wave along the waterfront near the North End. The accident killed 21 people and injured 150 more. Today, a plaque commerates those who died; some say that on a hot, humid day you can still smell the molasses. (Globe file photo)
Location: Lagone Park in the North End, Boston
Public Transportation: North Station (Green or Orange Line) - www.MBTA.com
Cost and Hours: Free, open 24 hours/day

Hoffmanism

Hoffmanism is a philosophy propounded by Christian vegetarian minister, Rev. Frank L. Hoffman of Athens, New York.

The three points of Hoffmanism

Hoffmanism teaches 3 points:

1.     
1 - God loves all persons unconditionally.

2.      2 - We should realize this unconditional love and love every other person unconditionally.

3.      3 - All persons should be vegan (that is, to neither eat animal products, nor consume, wear, or endorse the production of anything that involves the suffering or involuntary use of another person, particularly nonhumans, who cannot voice their unwillingness to participate in uses that compromise their freedom and/or well-being).

The 4^th point of Hoffmanism seems to be, according to his followers’ interpretations, that it matters not whether we know anything, think anything, or do anything of significant personal or historical effort because God doesn’t really care what we do.

While this sounds at some points like hyper-Calvinism, Hoffman was ordained a Methodist minister, through reared Jewish.

Frank Hoffman’s Venues

After seminary, Frank Hoffman served without compensation in the Federal Church of Athens NY for about a decade.  Early in the 20th century, he started a web-site-based e-mail list called variously Veg-Christian or VC or VCList at http://www.All-Creaturers.org

Based upon his web traffic, one might be tempted to think that he boasts millions of followers (millions of unique site visitors, and the number of daily visitors seems to be increasing progressively.  With a US population of about 306 million, he could claim several percent of the entire US population with his minimalist ‘Christian vegetarian theology’.

Criticisms of Claims about Hoffmanism

(1) Critics of these presumptive claims of millions of Hoffmanites could easily point to the many pro-animal, animal rights, and vegan websites sub-hosted at www.All-Creatures.org.  However, Frank Hoffman himself does no claim any followers at all, no members, no explicit doctrine(s), and no behavioral requirements (including intellectual expectations).

(2) Other critics note that assumptions of ‘site visitors’ and occasional e-mail posters (that they’re on the right page (with the minimalist teachings) bears no resemblance to any kind of historical understanding called Christianity by any stable regularly-gathering faith community claiming to be Christian.  However, network associations with minimalist ‘consensus statements’ could, while not claiming to be ‘a church’ (as Hoffman at times claims – ‘an online church’, have some value.

(3) Further criticism is that some of Hoffman’s followers are merely emotionally needy vegetarians, but messages of love have long attracted folks with a particular spiritual need to be reassured that a culture of noninjury is socially, historically, and morally desirable.   Further, ad hominem criticisms do not address the legitimacy of a teaching.

What might emerge from Hoffman’s influence is very unclear.