Jesus Fried Chicken

I came across this fucked up little item over at the Raw Story. Basically, a conservative christian (or as I like to say 'willfully ignorant') group in the US named The American Family Association is encouraging it's misguided members to eat more fried chicken at the chain Chick-fil-A. Why? Because slightly less ignorant students at an Indiana university want to have all Chick-fil-A's products removed from campus.

See, Chick-fil-A is run as a christian business. They play christian music in their restaurants, close on Sundays, and... oh yeah, donate heavily to anti LGBT organizations:

Chick-fil-A, which has 1,550 locations in 39 states, has been accused of having deep financial ties to nationwide organizations that oppose marriage equality and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. According to an investigation by the progressive blog EqualityMatters, the restaurant chain's charitable division has provided more than $1.1 million to anti-LGBT organizations, including the Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council.

I'm all for LGBT rights. You are what you are and fuck who you fuck. As long as we're all consenting adults it's none of my business. But really, if we're going to talk about rights why is no one mentioning the chickens? Oh wait, Chick-fil-A, in an obtuse way, does:

Chick-fil-A's corporate purpose states that the business exists to "glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us" and "have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

"We have no agenda against anyone," Dan Cathy, President and COO of the fast food chain, said in a statement from January. "At the heart and soul of our company, we are a family business that serves and values all people regardless of their beliefs or opinions."

A faithful steward? Really? Slaughtering millions of innocent, sentient creatures for your own enrichment is faithful? Hmm. A positive influence? Really? Fried chicken is one of the most unhealthy things a person can force into their stomach, not to mention instilling in people the notion that animals exist solely for our use and abuse.

Please explain how you value my beliefs as a vegan, besides having a token salad on the menu. I'd love to hear it. Serve me something with black kale and almonds, damn it. And no,  not deep fried free range chicken raised on kale and almonds.

And just to illustrate how confused and willfully ignorant this corporation is, check out their website and their 'Eat Mor Chikin' campaign (their spelling not mine). See, ha, we're going to eat cows anyway, but why not eat more chicken? Cuz ther even stoopider then cowz. Stoopid fukin chikins.

Assholes.

Anyway, I'm all for the boycott. Whether or not you are LGBT, boycott these bastards.

Can We Please Dispose Of The Word Vegetarian Already?

I'm asking nicely.

Look up the word 'vegetarian' and you will quickly realize that there is a lot of confusion about the term. For some, being a vegetarian includes eating fish and chicken. For others it means eating no meat but allows for the consumption of milk, cheese and eggs. Hardly ever will you hear about the use of animals for clothing or laboratory testing in conjunction with the word.

It's all very willy nilly. Half-assed even. I mean, what's the point? If you call yourself a vegetarian and then scarf down some New England clam chowder (ugh) you're really calling yourself nothing. The label has no meaning. It's morally meaningless and behaviorally inconsistent.

Anyone who calls themselves a vegetarian is really an omnivore. Sure, maybe you don't eat red meat, or even any meat, but you'll happily suck back a milkshake or an omelet thinking all the while how healthy and righteous you are when in fact you are as responsible as Ronald McDonald for the exploitation and suffering of animals. You're doing nothing positive for your health by limiting yourself to milk or yogurt. If you want to drink deadly bacteria and pus then go for it, just don't pretend that what you are doing is any different than the guy eating the Meat Monster in Japan.

It's really just a way for omnivores to feel better about themselves while not doing anything to justify that feeling.

Don't be half-assed. Go V E G E T A R I A N!

Badge + Evil Corporation = Bananaguns

Man, I really like bananas. They're yummy, nutritious, convenient and sexy. They go great with peanut butter and chocolate and they're perfect for sweetening and thickening up a a smoothie. There's no plastic packaging to deal with (except in this insane marketing gimmick) and they match my blog's color scheme. Just fucking awesome all around.

So awesome that some people will kill for them. See, Back in 2007 Chiquita Brands International, Inc., they of the singing and dancing bananas, were indicted by the US Justice Dept. for doing business with the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC. The AUC was in fact a terrorist organization, designated as such by the US Govt., who engaged in the repression and murder of poor indigenous farmers and peasants in Colombia, largely in order to control cocaine production. Chiquita managed to skip away from the charges with a plea agreement that saw them pay a $25 million fine, but having to admit no responsibility for anything. They didn't have to admit that they received any goods or services for the over $1.7 million in payments they made to the AUC, claiming the money was extorted from them, thereby (Chiquita hoped) heading off any questions that would result from an admission that they did get something in return after all.

But things are starting to look a bit more grim for the singing banana. As part of the sentencing agreement, along with the fine Chiquita had to turn over thousands of confidential internal memos. And these tell a different story than than the one we've heard. According to Micheal Evans, from the National Security Archives:

The documents provide evidence of mutually-beneficial "transactions" between Chiquita's Colombian subsidiaries and several illegal armed groups in Colombia and shed light on more than a decade of security-related payments to guerrillas, paramilitaries, Colombian security forces, and government-sponsored Convivir militia groups. The collection also details the company's efforts to conceal the so-called "sensitive payments" in the expense accounts of company managers and through other dirty tricks.

(By the way, Chiquita used to be known as The United Fruit Company, a textbook study of corporate power, racism, exploitation and violence)

At the same time as the criminal charges were brought, Chiquita was sued by its victims (currently the suit is waiting the desicion on a motion of dismissal by Chiquita). From Democracy Now:

The American fruit giant Chiquita has been hit with a new lawsuit on behalf of victims of Colombian paramilitaries. Earlier this year Chiquita admitted to paying one point seven million dollars to a right-wing Colombian paramilitary group on the U.S. terrorist watch list. On Wednesday, nearly four hundred Colombian plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking almost eight billion dollars in damages. Plaintiff attorney Jonathan Reiter said Chiquita should be held accountable for the killings it helped fund.

Chiquita says it fell victim to an extortion attempt and made the payments only to protect its employees. But a private investigator hired by the plaintiffs disputed Chiquita’s denials. The investigator, William Acosta, says his findings leave no doubt over Chiquita’s complicity.

Chiquita is already facing another lawsuit from relatives of one-hundred forty-four people killed by Colombian paramilitaries. The company has paid a twenty-five million dollar fine to the U.S. government but none of the money has gone to the victims’ families.

So here we have a corporation who's operations in Colombia rely on co-operation with paramilitary groups to protect their assets. Coincidentally, Colombia is at the center of the US' s misnamed war on drugs, with billions flowing into that country to supposedly combat cocaine production. A cursory glance at the correlation between the rising cost of the drug war and the rising use of cocaine in the US indicates the futility of the program (unless, of course, the purpose isn't to stop the drug trade but to control it, then it makes morbid sense).

Do you think that maybe one of the main reasons that there are paramilitaries in the first place is because of the war on drugs?

The real results of the drug war and corporate agribusiness are the marginalization and exploitation of the local populations, pitting them against each other using manufactured and artificial crises as part of a program of control and domination.

Vote Green! Ellen Michelson for MP in Toronto Central

So, it's been a week or so since I sent my questionnaire email to my potential MPs. Enough time, I think, for someone at all interested to take the 20 minutes or so to respond. The only respondent? Ellen Michelson of The Green Party. She was courteous enough to reply, and then later actually sent my some additions to her reply. She obviously put some thought into her answers.

Now, an argument could be made that she might have a bit more time on her hands, not currently holding office. But the same could be said for the unresponsive Conservative and NDP candidates as well. Only my current Liberal MP can use that excuse. But that's a ridiculous excuse. People are busy. Between the non responsive Conservative and NDP hopefuls, I'm particularly disappointed by the NDP. I never really expected the Conservative to respond, seeing that the questions I asked sort of hint at my political leanings (which, coincidentally, line up quite closely to the Green Party's). He may have glanced at them and decided it would be a waste of time to respond. But I definitely expected the NDP candidate to take the time. These are questions that the NDP I've known for most of my adult life would happily dig into.

Now, don't think that I'm basing my decision solely on the result of my little questionnaire. I'm a freakyvegangodlesspinko after all and the chances of me voting conservative are, ummm, zero. The thought of Stephen 'Beadyeyes' Harper and his obfuscative, megalomaniacal, anti-democratic and quite probably criminal government with a majority in parliament sends chills down my spine. The Liberals? Aside from being Conservative Light, and credit Chretien for putting in place relatively sane banking policies, it would be business as usual. And while I have a special place in my cynical heart for the NDP, Jack Layton makes me a little uncomfortable. I'm not sure exactly why but there it is.

And so, this blog and it's author officially support Ellen Michelson, Elizabeth May (who ties with Ignatieff for intellect, but wins the eloquence award) and the Green Party of Canada in the 2011 federal election.

Vote Green!

I'll Have A Bacteria Monster, Fries and a Coke Please

Burger King of Japan, in it's infantile wisdom, has unleashed the Meat Monster upon unsuspecting Japanese bystanders.

That's right. Godzilla reborn in fast food.

In this disgusting excuse for food, the meat grinder that is Burger King packs two cow patties, a chicken patty, 3 strips of pig and 2 slices of orange... something. Apparently the Japanese have decided that eating healthy is just stupid. I almost feel sorry for the wee bit of veggies trapped between dead flesh and some sort of pus filled cream sauce.

What the fuck is a "patty' anyway?

But it seems the Japanese, and everyone else who eats meat, are getting more than they bargained for. A study done by the Translational Genomics Research Institute found a drug resistant form of bacteria called Staphylococcus aureus in, get this, one quarter of US supermarkets. 1 in 4!

According to the study:

Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria that can cause skin infections, pneumonia, sepsis or endocarditis in people with weak hearts, was found in 47 percent of samples, said the study in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

"For the first time, we know how much of our meat and poultry is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Staph, and it is substantial," said Lance Price of the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, and senior author of the study.

"Antibiotics are the most important drugs that we have to treat Staph infections; but when Staph are resistant to three, four, five or even nine different antibiotics -- like we saw in this study -- that leaves physicians few options," Price said.

There's no reason to believe that Japan's or Canada's or anyone's meat is really any safer than the US's. Huge meat processing facilities mix dead animals from many locations into the 'patties' or 'strips' or 'fingers', with little or no oversight, that then get shipped all over the place. It's a gigantic killing factory that breeds deadly germs we have no defenses for. Clog your arteries and as a bonus, pneumonia!

Factory farming at it's finest!

Who Would I Rather See Live? How About Both

I bet the copywriter on whom the potential of 'rather' dawned is slapping himself backwards

This disturbing billboard has been polluting the brains of Americans recently. Being displayed in cities which have major medical or primate research facilities, it forces the viewer into an ethical question; in order for the girl to live the rat must die. Isn't it right, therefore, that we kill the rat?

But it's a false ethical question.

Perhaps an argument could be made that in the past, when our understanding of biochemistry and computer modelling were more limited, that there was some value in conducting research on animals. Perhaps. But today there really is no excuse. According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the value of using animals as test subjects for evaluating the effectiveness or safety of pharmaceuticals is dubious:

Ethical concerns are raised by the use of animals in experimental studies, particularly when they are subjected to painful procedures or toxic exposures. These concerns are accentuated by studies showing marked stress responses in animals undergoing common laboratory procedures. For example, routine handling, venipuncture, and gavage (the administration of test compounds through an oral tube) elicit striking elevations in pulse, blood pressure, and steroid hormone release that can persist for an hour or more after the event. Similarly, routine features of the laboratory environment—isolation, confinement, social disruption, noise, and restrictions on physical movement—have been shown to be noxious for animals. Together, these bodies of evidence indicate that even experiments that appear to be minimally invasive can be highly stressful for the animal subjects, and this finding applies to commonly used rodent species as well as larger and less frequently used animals. Stress effects are relevant to humane concerns as well as to the interpretation of scientific findings. Research on immune function, endocrine and cardiovascular disorders, neoplasms, developmental defects, and psychological phenomena are particularly vulnerable to stress effects.

And here is a list of examples of animal safety testing that didn't turn out so well.

Also, the speciesism implied in the billboard with the words 'researchsaves.org' is obvious. It implies that animal research saves lives while completely discounting the destroyed lives of animals. Also implied is that all research is conducted on animals, or that all research involves animals somehow.

I'll give the last word to Gary Francione over at  Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (from their FAQ):

Question: If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?

Answer: No, of course not. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.
The issue is not whom we care about or value most; the question is whether it is morally justifiable to treat sentient beings–human or non-human–as commodities or exclusively as means to the ends of others. For example, we generally do not think that we should use any humans as unconsenting subjects in biomedical experiments, even though we would get much better data about human illness if we used humans rather than animals in experiments. After all, the application to the human context of data from animal experiments–assuming that the animal data are relevant at all–requires often difficult and always imprecise extrapolation. We could avoid these difficulties by using humans, which would eliminate the need for extrapolation. But we do not do so because even though we may disagree about many moral issues, most of us are in agreement that the use of humans as unwilling experimental subjects is ruled out as an option from the beginning. No one suggests that we care more about those we are unwilling to use as experimental subjects than we do about the others who would benefit from that use.

 Yeah.

Questions for Politicians

So, Federal elections are coming up May 2nd. To get a better grasp on the situation I thought I'd ask each of my potential MP's (that's Members of Parliament for any Americans out there) a few questions that nobody else seems to be asking so far (considering what I believe are the importance of these questions, this strikes me as strange).

The questions are:

1- What is Canada's role in Libya, where do you stand on Afghanistan, and more broadly, what is the Canadian Military's role in the world?
2- What is your stance on biotechnology and genetic engineering, specifically pertaining to agriculture?
3- What is your position on biofuels and their impact?
4- What is or should be the role of corporations in Canadian society?
5- Do you believe that global warming is a fact? If so, what should be done about it?

So how did they respond? Read on...

More Biblically Inspired Violence

As if to prove my theory, first posited in the previous post, that religion gives some people the moral justification to submit animals to all forms of suffering, an old friend whom I hadn't seen in a few years popped back into my life.

This old friend, lets call him Ahab, called me up a couple of days ago saying that he was in my neck of the woods and we should go for a coffee. Great, I say. And so we do. There's a funky little cafe near my apartment that has super tasty vegan (and some raw vegan) treats, so I took him there.

Now, six years ago, if I had looked up a friend I hadn't seen in a while who had surprisingly become a raw vegan since we had last seen each other over a barbecue at my place, I'm sure I would have been as confused as Ahab was. Six years ago, like Ahab a few days ago, I had no concept of what a raw vegan was. It hadn't entered my consciousness. So I'll have to cut him some slack for being a little befuddled. My defense of veganism was largely falling on deaf ears, but I must have broken through the fog a bit because he eventually felt compelled to defend himself. Just as we were parting ways he said "Even fish? But why else did god put them here?"

I guess he forgot that I'm an atheist as well.

To be fair to Ahab, he had conceded earlier that eating more veggies and fruit was good for you and admitted to eating healthier than he did a year ago. "I'm eating way less red meat than I did before. Mostly fish and chicken," he told me, admitting without saying so that meat is unhealthy. But the thought of not consuming animals in any form was completely foreign. After all, god put animals here for us to eat. According to god we must consume animals. The concept of animal rights, or the right of an animal to a self determined life had never entered his mind.

Maybe I snuck it in.