Vegetar- Ian

More from the book...

2010-09-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

This section is the final part of the philosophy chapter. I spend the entire chapter discussing what other people think, so this is what I think.
_________________________________________________
Now I turn to my own thoughts. Fashioned by hours of reading about what other people think, I have sat down and come up with something both revolutionary and unoriginal. Revolutionary, because if adopted it would change the world and make it better; and unoriginal, because it is what countless other people have said and is, frankly, rather obvious.

The starting point for any scheme to protect animals is to see how other people ground their theory and why there are problems with it. The key issue is that all theories have problems whether in application or structure. Flawless theory is like coherent hippies: impossible. Rights offer a reasonable starting point although it does feel a little formal and miss the point somewhat. To ask the question ‘what is wrong with killing animals?’ and get the answer back that it violates their rights makes you sound about as compassionate as Hannibal Lector. The reason that it is wrong is that it causes harm to another being who doesn’t deserve it. If, for example, I were to approach someone in the street and for no reason punch them in the face, I would deserve the resultant shoeing. However, if I were walking along the road, minding my business listening to my favourite Renee and Renato[1] cd and someone clouts me, I would feel rightfully aggrieved and sob very loudly and blow snot bubbles into my embroidered handkerchief. The case of animals is similar to the latter example as animals are blameless and are essentially being punished despite having done nothing wrong; I should point out at this juncture that although there are similarities in the examples, most animals are not as much of a girl’s blouse as me.

The next obvious thing to point out is that animals are beings whose interests can be negatively affected by human actions. If we were talking about a begonia or table, there’s nothing we can do to it that will matter to it itself. You can’t hurt a plant or inanimate object and even if you put weed killer on the begonia and ask Pavarotti to sit on the table, it doesn’t matter to them. The owner of the plant might become aggrieved and you would probably remonstrate with the singer suggesting that he gets his fat Italian posterior off the furniture, but the objects themselves remain unmoved by such treatment. By contrast, animals show us every day that they are not happy with their lot: dogs move away from something they don’t like, birds fly away from things that scare them and cats…well, cats are just cats.

Pulling these two strands together and tying my best knot to ensure they are secure, it is clear that animals are creatures who can be negatively affected by human action and this is something they don’t deserve. I have looked at a couple of the rationales for why this could be legitimated but these have been found wanting (in Leahy’s case, they have been wanting a good kicking). The maxim to live by could be expressed as ‘do unto others as you would have done to you’, if you are of a Biblical persuasion, or, perhaps ‘treat others as you wish to be treated’. A more robust expression could take the form: ‘just be nice, for Christ’s sake’.

_________________________________________________
1. If you don’t know who Renee and Renato were, and have not experienced their contribution to popular culture, you really don’t want to research them. The effects of doing so will make you regret not heeding this advice until your dying day.

Kant, animals and attempting to think your way out of a wet paper bag

2010-09-11T08:35:00.000-07:00

This passage fits into the general discussion of philosophy and animal rights. Kant, for the uninitiated, is a celebrated philosopher whose work has influenced the progression of this discipline. The question is begged: how much had he had to drink when he wrote about animals?
__________________________________________________

Kant believed something different to Bentham (Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer and writer). I use the word ‘believe’ although I can’t imagine that he actually believed the rubbish he wrote regarding our relations with animals. For a man rightly respected for the elaborate and well-argued work he produced during his life, the stuff he wrote about animals was as convincing as an Iraqi Information Minister. This is what he wrote (readers likely to injure themselves through violent laughter are warned to pace themselves): we have indirect but not direct duties to animals. What he meant by this was that when we are cruel to animals we don’t so much injure them as ourselves. If we are cruel to animals it leads to be hard hearted with fellow humans. There is one tiny problem with this idea: it’s bollocks. What he was trying to establish is that when humans are cruel to other animals it makes us more likely to be cruel to humans[1] . In the background it is fairly obvious that Kant thought that humans were superior to other animals in a way that most people do, or at least act. This prejudice is rarely argued, it is just assumed. Most agree that the redneck idiocy of the ruling dimwits in Apartheid South Africa was risible, but we accept similar nonsense in dealings with animals. Now, before anyone gets excited and does something extreme like think, I am not saying the two instances are exactly the same; if I thought they were the same I would say so, and I haven’t. All I am saying is that this alleged supremacy is assumed and not questioned in both cases.

So, Kant believed that it was perfectly okay to use animals in any way we like but if we use them cruelly we are more likely to treat fellow humans badly. So, this implies a number of things but most importantly it shows that parents have been getting it wrong since the year dot. When little Johnnie grabs the cat’s tail and pulls it and the mother shouts, “Don’t do that, it hurts Felix”, she has made a grave error: how could she be so stupid? What she should have said, according to Kant, is “don’t do that Johnnie, if you do that to the cat then you might be more likely to do it to Kylie next door who is morally considerable as opposed to Felix who isn’t”. You see, simple and obvious: how can we have been so wrong for so long?

As is obvious from this, Kant believed that animals should be protected from harm, but realised that if he was honest and consistent it would call into question some of his, and others’, unsavoury habits. So he constructed an argument in which humans remain at the pinnacle and animals get some protection (in line with most people’s intuition). It is breathtaking that he thought that this idea would fly. It has as much chance of leaving the ground as Laker Airways. It seems like an honest attempt to square two intuitions i.e. humans are most important and animals do matter a bit. But it fails in all aspects, except making Kant look a bit of a tit.
__________________________________________________
Footnote.
1. The absurdity of this idea is further illustrated by the agreement that came a couple of hundred years later from Peter Carruthers, who will be discussed in more depth later. Carruthers wrote that a driver failing to stop for a dog who he has just hit was cruel, leading him to be more likely to be cruel to humans. Hands up anyone who believes that the wrong in this scenario is the future conduct of the driver rather than the injury caused to the dog. Any hands? Didn’t think so…

Excerpt from Animal rights: a comic defence.

2010-09-05T03:52:00.000-07:00

This section appears in the Philosophy of animal rights chapter. It discusses the philosophies of Peter Singer and Tom Regan, who are probably the prominent philosophers of animal protection. Apart from me: OBVIOUSLY.
__________________________________________________

Peter Singer is the most famous bioethicist and philosopher in the world. Most people won’t have heard of him but at least he is in the media occasionally. He has courted controversy mostly for his views on disability. To sum up his opinions very quickly and clumsily he believes that if a child is likely to be born with a disability, the parents should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Disability rights advocates responded and have got rather hot under the collar; anti-abortionists have also got into a bit of a tiz about this, but it doesn’t take much to get them to open their mouths – a camera usually does the trick. So Singer is plagued by people shouting obscenities and calling him Hitler, which is a little ironic as Singer is part Jewish. I can’t say that I have much of a problem with this but there is another strand of his theory that is a tad unsettling. He believes that if people’s conditions are so bad that life is really not worth living, for instance if you have degenerative and painful disease, are losing your marbles or haven’t got any marbles to lose, you should be allowed to say “goodbye cruel world” and be killed by the professionals (any mention of the words ‘Lewis’ and ‘Collins’ will result in a clip round the ear). To be fair, the NHS has been preparing for this day for years by sending relatively healthy individuals with minor ailments back home in a box. So Britain is now fully prepared and we’ll have to send consultants to other countries to help out.

So, the public face of Singer revolves around his disability work, but earlier in his career he was antagonising an entirely different demographic. The publication of Animal Liberation was quite an event and it was widely reviewed. It seemed that people hadn’t thought about the issues raised. Presumably people before 1975 thought that meat was derived from cows and pigs staying at the Dorchester with room service, and hens laid two sets of eggs: one for her and one she sold to the farmer and fish were flooding like lemmings to throw themselves into supermarket freezers. In short it was greeted by a collective, “What? Reeeeaaaalllllly?” Of course this was disingenuous, as people have always known what happens to animals on farms. The fake outrage that accompanies newspaper exposes of appalling conditions on farms is nauseating. The same people who fund the farmers by buying the remains of an animal are saying “oh isn’t that terrible?”. Yes it is terrible and it’s your bloody fault.

So there was a reasonably good reception for the book, perhaps because of its novelty. Before this, talk of animals revolved around pets, sports or nervous laughter to distract an infant away from two dogs shagging on the television. It was little old ladies who were involved with animals, from the collecting tin in the street to living alone in a self-created sanctuary. But now the issue had become serious, as it had entered the academe. Of course, talk of good receptions does overstate the case. It caused a stir in philosophy, which is not particularly representative of society at large. Everyone else just carried on as though pen had never touched paper.

His argument was a slight rewriting of old Jezzer. Singer is a utilitarian which means that morality consists simply of weighing the pros and cons of an issue and if there is more pro than con, it is the correct course of action. It is frequently called consequentialism as it is the outcome, or consequence, that dictates the correct course of action. At the core of utilitarianism is impartiality. The same level of pleasure counts the same no matter who experiences it. To illustrate this point: say there was a utilitarian polygamist who had two wives, let’s call them Sharon and Tracy. He decides that he must divorce one of these women so he looks at their pros and cons. After hours of deliberation he decides that, while they are very similar, Sharon was more likely to improve the family’s finances by becoming heavyweight champion of the world so that tipped the scales in her favour. When he explained the process to Tracy he said that he had taken into consideration all her good points: stamp collection, ability to down a pint and close control with a football but had no choice but to be impartial so she is be the one to go. As soon as he emerged from intensive care he could resume the relationship with the woman he so objectively selected.

This trading of pros and cons is used widely. It is supposed to be the method by which decisions are reached in the issue of vivisection but no one but the most feeble-minded simpleton believes that this actually is the case. It is also how law is drafted in this country: politicians and their lackeys review all the possibilities on an issue and then conduct an intensive cost: benefit exercise in which the best option is identified. This is then discussed in the corridors of power where the great and good employ their vast experience and wisdom to slur some advice and, finally, the Government implement whatever knee jerk, right wing, reactionary nonsense is in vogue with tabloid editors that week.

Everyone does this sort of decision-making every day; perhaps not as formally as Singer in his work but I can guarantee you that he doesn’t get his calculator out when faced by the chips versus boiled potato conundrum. We all have these issues to deal with: for example, if your sofa becomes a little threadbare you have to decide whether the purchase of a new one is possible, trade off the expense for the comfort and look of a new place to plant the collective family behind. There’s the perennial problem of deciding whether to watch Saturday night television: this is, of course, traded against eating your own excrement. I have faced this one down a number of times and I have thought long and hard about. Nonetheless, the shit[1] wins every time.

This relates to animals in a very simple way: pretty much everything we do to animals should be stopped immediately. To be honest does it really take someone to sit down and contemplate to see that whatever pleasure Josephine Public gets from her morning egg cannot get within hailing distance of the pain and distress, both acute and chronic, of the battery hen? I will discuss this at length later but as I am limbering up I should like to say that buying free range doesn’t make much difference. It’s similar to when you get violently assaulted by the police; you still get seven bells kicked out of you, but they forego the pleasure of a final kick in the nuts.

If it is important to a person to have a calculation mechanism for making ethical choices this appears to fit the bill. Looks can be deceptive, as I will now show. I am about to show the problems with one of the most prominent animal protection theories and some people, perhaps not well versed in academic matters, may think that an animal rights supporter having a pop at an animal rights theory is a bit stupid. A lot stupid, in fact. It is believed by most academics that better theory cannot be generated unless previous attempts are rigorously picked apart and the minutiae criticised. That’s what they think. Personally, I do it to show that I have read a few books and know some long words.

The main problem arises with the calculations. Utilitarianism is based on generating a numerical representation of the elements to be set against each other: this needs to happen to compare the competing elements. But you can’t do that. For example, in the case of a vivisection, a panel of free-thinking, decision-making puppets need to decide whether to allow a study of the effects of cheesy wotsits on the foot[2] . Their calculation will tot up the countless benefits of this work including all the lives to be saved particularly in the developing world ravaged by Wotsititis and the immense contribution to the bank of human knowledge. Against that they would have to assess the effects on the animals, mice in this case. This is influenced by the experimental protocol demanding the shoving of wotsits up the bottoms of mice with a red-hot poker. Just like the case of the lawmakers, they try to tally them, realise they can’t because nobody with an IQ greater than a bar of soap’s thinks that you can quantify and then compare two separate experiences of two separate individuals, and give up and say “yes”. That is quite a problem for utilitarianism i.e. being completely impossible to apply. But that doesn’t dampen the spirits of Singer and his fellow utilitarians. As a theory, it works reasonably well but when you actually try to apply it, it’s about as much help as a brain cell in the rave club.

So, utilitarianism doesn’t work. Never mind, plenty more where that came from. Whenever philosophy undergraduates are exposed to the issue of animal rights they are asked to contrast the work of Singer with the work of Tom Regan. The only exception is if the academic leading the class has written a book on the subject. It is a sad fact that thousands of academic texts are published each year that nobody buys. This is because they are specialist texts i.e. crushingly dull. The way that academic entrepreneurs get around this is by hosting a series of lectures with bored 18 year olds in which they wrote the key text. I am hopeful to cash in on this should ‘Sarcasm Studies’ ever get on the syllabus.

Regan published a book in the early 1980s called ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ and has published further books and articles defending his position. The major problem with refuting Regan in a face-to-face debate is that he looks like god. He really should play to this when on the media or in debates; when people say “but animals can’t have rights” he should respond by saying “yes they can and I know ’cos I’m omniscient”. This strategy might raise a few hackles but, equally, it will probably raise a few laughs so well worth a shot.

Regan believes that animals are capable of possessing rights. To the layman, or indeed anyone with half a brain cell to rub together, this is blindingly obvious. Not so, as I shall explain. Regan states that most animals are subjects of a life which, removing all the philosophical jargon, means that they can actually experience their life and affect it; compare this to plants and Freemasons, which cannot. Most agree that if a being has certain capacities, they could be allocated certain rights. The debate turns on whether animals can possess these capacities. Regan draws on scientific data to back up his argument. It is ironic that Regan uses such data as most of them are gathered in horrific animal experiments. This leads to a rather confusing position where Regan has proven that animals have rights using the data from these experiments but, assuming animals have rights, these experiments should not have been performed. I think I need to go for a lie down.

Put very simply, the argument goes that humans are beings who possess rights and animals are very similar to humans and possess similar capacities so animals have rights (with the possible exception of the dog who took a dump right outside my house today). There are a number of ways to question this. A potentially successful strategy would be to go down the pub, drink eight pints and say “no they don’t”. If you look tough and have tattoos across your knuckles you are unlikely to lose the argument. The second is to question whether rights exist at all. In a real sense they don’t, as they are merely tools to explain our relations and responsibilities and the means that kids use to extort more pocket money. This debate is pointless, although it did generate that petulant line from Jezzer quoted above, so all is not lost. Most people think that rights exist so, for simplicity’s sake I think we can assume they do (although that dog has the right to having his bum sewn up). The final objection is that of a slippery slope argument. This is the same as that raised a couple of centuries ago that goes, roughly, if you give the vote to women, who knows where it will end? They’ll be asking for rape to be outlawed next and I didn’t get where I’ve got today…blah blah blah. This claim is just ridiculous, as it’s not as though thousands of sheep are going to descend upon Whitehall; well, not unless our esteemed countryfolk are whinging again. All movements that have succeeded in bringing societal change have to face the charge that life would be unbearable if successful. I’m sure that in certain households doing the washing up generates such spirited defences. The simple fact is that society would change but so what? If society didn’t evolve we wouldn’t have the Spice Girls, Starbucks and representative democracy (okay, okay, bad examples, but you get the general drift).

There is the vexed question of which rights animals have. Jettisoning the word ‘animals’ and discussing individual species’ rights, even rights within species, could tidy up this question. Clearly different species have different needs. Put simply, the rights that most species have demand curtailing human harassment and destruction of habitat. In an age that recognised animal rights perhaps that vital road through pristine virgin forest so that the manufacturer of mindless tat can reach the consumer could be rethought? While the final generation of domestic animals live out their last few years there would need to be legislation to ensure that their rights were recognised. This is where the opponents of animal rights demonstrate further knuckle-dragging. “So”, they say, “dogs are going to have the right to attend school, to vote and to equal pay?” Ha flipping ha! Very witty, as this is supposed to show that, therefore, the entire concept of animal rights fails. Well, as ever, their objection misses by a country mile. Of course all do not have the same rights. Humans don’t have the same rights. Not all are entitled to attend university: you have to pass exams or be thick and a member of the ruling classes. I can’t see a long line of men, petition in hand, walking up Whitehall to demand the right to a cervical smear getting too far. Or feminists tying themselves to the gates of Downing Street distraught at their lack of right to a testicular examination. You can only claim a right to something you can actually have. I may try to exercise my right to be transported to the Zircon 5 colonies, but I suspect what I’ll get is an express ticket to a padded cell. Dogs need food, exercise and companionship, amongst other things. Sheep need to have their needs met including immediate passage away from sexually deviant farmers. These arguments are all very quaint, but it would be nice if the discussion could be conducted with a little less dimwittery.

Regan goes on to discuss the impact on a society in which animals have rights. You won’t be shocked to learn that life would be very different. Scientific research would have to change inasmuch as they’d have to start using models that in some way resemble the species for whom the research is designed to help, the hunting fraternity would need to find another way of gratifying their perversions and fast food outlets would have to start selling stuff that is half way edible. Our entertainment industries would change and no longer be allowed to show scenes of animal cruelty like bull running in Pamplona and Big Brother. But life wouldn’t end, it would change but it’s not as though something catastrophic had happened like a decent film starring Michael Douglas. People would have to be reskilled, although for some rural folk it is a stretch to imagine what they could do. They complain about the changing nature of the countryside and the loss of jobs to demand sympathy from the public. I don’t remember in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was strip mining the mining industry that there were hoards of country people on the picket lines. No, they were all at the breakfast tables behind their Daily Telegraph shouting “go on, Maggie, get the buggers”. So in short: hard luck.

There are obvious benefits like no longer having to sit through the news as some malnourished reporter parades a dog or horse whose owners thought feeding was optional. No more facile debates on vivisection where the panel of six consists of five supporters and one opponent who can’t form a sentence. And finally I could go to the supermarket without having to read every label in case they’ve started putting lard in the orange juice.

This change is seized upon by opponents to show the ridiculous nature of the proposition: you would have billions of animals on Day One kicking about with nothing to do. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, of course it wouldn’t happen that way. The change would be incremental and the various animal abuses could be phased out. Of course perversions like fox hunting and hare coursing could be abandoned immediately. That will be a day that my video will get some extensive use. In other fields, like agriculture, the next generation will not be born because the previous has been sterilised (while you’re at it you could improve the average IQ in the UK by lopping off farmers’ gonads).

I have not yet mentioned perhaps the most compelling argument for extending rights to other animals: the argument from marginal cases[3] . This is an argument that takes objectors’ views head on. Opponents state that only humans (1) have complex rationality, (2) can read, (3) have a culture and (4) know right from wrong. I shall deal with each very briefly.

1. You’ve never met a hippy, obviously.
2. You’ve obviously never met a hippy’s kids. Hippies believe that raising a child with any skills to deal with everyday life is “bad karma, man”.
3. Petri dishes have more culture than a hippy commune. Unless of course you believe that weaving mystical baskets, believing that they can communicate with the deceased and grotesquely misusing the English language are indicative of culture.
4. All British governments post 1979 and both Bush Administrations. Also, hippies think everything that squares, i.e. well adjusted people, do is wrong and that ‘right’ is a word, like ‘man,’ that may appear at any point in a sentence.

Furthermore, removing hippies from the equation as there was a rather unpleasant odour forming, not all humans have these characteristics. Babies, the incurably senile and rugby players have either been cruelly robbed of these cerebral capacities or haven’t yet developed them. So if we want to make morality some sort of a beauty contest where you have to possess certain characteristics in order to be let into the club, there are numerous humans who fail the test too. Therefore, surely it is better to include animals in the group of rights holders than exclude these vulnerable humans? Except rugby players who are more than capable of looking after themselves.

Some feel they can avoid this objection by stating that as the majority of humans have this greater rationality, those who fail this test should be allowed in because they once possessed it, will go on to have it or are related to people who have it and would be distressed by their being treated like animals. To you I say: well done, an excellent piece of back-pedalling. Lance Armstrong would have some serious competition if you could do the Tour De France in reverse. You agree that only people with the requisite needs should be given rights and now you are saying that if the majority have that capacity or need everyone should get it. Excellent, as the majority of humans are female I look forward to applying for my cervical smear. Thanks a lot guys, this will really improve my health. Sorry though ladies, as you are the majority there’ll be no testicular exams for you. Oh my god, how many women will die as a result?

To further illustrate the absurdity of this idea, we can assume at any given time that most people are not ill. All British people, without exception, are carriers and sufferers of 'mustn't grumble', but the symptoms are fairly mild; "just don't get me started..." For example, most people do not have kidney stones at any given moment. If you take the logic of these people, the majority of people don't have kidney stones so, therefore, we should treat those who do in the same way; i.e. don't treat them at all. I think I can now consider the point laboured.

So, in summary, Regan’s rights position, along with subsequent refinement, is a reasonable place to start if you want to create a systematic animal protection model. It’s not perfect, but what is?
_________________________________________________
Footnotes
1 Oh dear, I may have confused some readers. In this context I use the word ‘shit’ to denote excrement rather than weekend telly.

2 It should be noted that not all experiments are in areas as serious as this.

3 Roughly, some non-humans have similar cognitive capacities as some humans; ergo, these non-humans should be accorded rights. The devil is always in the detail when discussing rights but, as a kick-off, I don’t think that weasels have the right to a bear arms. Of course, it is painfully obvious by taking a cursory glance at murder statistics in certain countries, that no-one should be given that right.

Swings and roundabouts...

2010-01-18T12:10:00.000-08:00

I spent new year in Laos. It is a beautiful country and I had a great time catching up with friends who I don't see very often.
The above picture was taken of a sign at a sports field owned by the Ambassador to Laos from the US. Despite the fact that no-one seems to ever use the field from the Embassy, the local kids are barred from using it and have to play in the road.
On the upside, the country that the Ambassador represents no longer carpet bombs Laos. This is an example of a super power being the model of restraint: imagine the sort of carnage that could be caused by a nation whose only exports are sticky rice and beer.

So there you have it: I hope that the children who play in the streets realise how lucky they are. I bet they don't, though...

Dublin Marathon

2009-11-05T14:13:00.000-08:00

Above are a few shots from the recent marathon I did with my friend, Steve. The unpleasant action shot is merely to illustrate that I actually did run around the course. The final shot shows that, given enough time, I can find my glasses. I finished in 03:23:27, which wasn't too bad.
The disappointment of the day was the pathetic 3 hours it took from the finish line to the pub. Very, very poor.
It was a good course, well marshalled and full of that repulsive sports drink nonsense that gets you around.

Just on the off-chance that you need a reason to not vote Tory

2009-10-31T04:05:00.000-07:00

Conservatives 09: Cutting out meat is not green solution
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/10/05/118192/Conservatives-09-Cutting-out-meat-is-not-green-solution.htm

Read the article and revel in the fact that this individual is squirming. He's clearly not a fan of the bleeding obvious. In fairness* I will allow Herbert 2 quotes and I will briefly summarise his position.

"Wild horses wouldn't stop me from eating meat and we shouldn't be telling people they can't eat it either," Mr Herbert said.
Wild horses, you say? Mr Herbert, you have been awarded the mark of: Idiot.

"The issue is about developing the capacity and the technology to deal with climate change without leaping to the conclusion that we have to stop having meat because I don't agree with that."
This comment just shows why free marketeers shouldn't be allowed within hailing distance of environmental decisions. The final mark for this round is: Idiot to the power of infinity.

*Must be going soft...

Oh dearie, dearie me

2009-10-23T10:23:00.000-07:00

Jesus wept: if this idiot is the leader of the master race, we are truly in trouble.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2694537/BBCs-Question-Time-panellist-Bonnie-Greer-wanted-to-slap-Nick-Griffin.html

Nick: the Sun thinks you are not the sharpest flick knife in the neighbourhood. That tells you everything you need to know.

This is so obvious...

2009-10-10T10:14:00.000-07:00

...even I can't be arsed to take the piss. And that is truly saying something.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8296464.stm

(I wonder how well my 'How wet is water?' research funding proposal is going...)

School lamb is killed Mk2

2009-09-23T14:30:00.000-07:00

Shock, horror The Times write something coherent... I'm sure the web editors were having a heavy day...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6837108.ece
Marcus the martyred lamb of Romney Marsh did not die in vain

Not a promising title. However, the article raises some good points about this bizarre story.
However there are a couple of points of logic I will raise at this juncture

...Ms Charman [the headmistress] would have done no favours to Britain's millions of farm animals if she had relented and let Marcus live.
Not really true as I can think of at least one of the millions of victims who would have benefitted from a retreat back to civilisation.

One of the parents at Lydd Primary confirms that her daughter Liberty, 10, has now turned vegetarian. Take a bow, headmistress.
That is genuinely good news. I hope this girl keeps up her new diet and I will note in passing that she is much more mature and compassionate than I was as a 10 year old.
However, it remains for me to point out that the headmistress is an utter (utter, I tells yer) dipshit.

Education or propaganda...?

2009-09-14T11:24:00.000-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8255125.stm
School row lamb sent to slaughter

This is the sort of story that really, really gets on my tits. School raises animal to 'teach' kids some 'realities of the world'. Is that true? Is it bollocks.
What these programs do is normalise morally aberrant behaviour.

The head teacher is quoted as saying:
"The children have had a range of opportunities to discuss this issue, both in terms of the food cycle and the ethical aspect."
I think you can imagine the quality of the ethical discussion if you have already decided to kill a perfectly healthy individual.

AND
"It is important for everyone to move on from this issue, so the children can focus on their education."
So, in short: shut up. Truly taking advantage of (and I quote): a range of opportunities to discuss this issue.

Let's not forget that a sheep is dying for this purported lesson in life. There's one born every minute. Give me strength.

Object lesson in the bleedin' obvious Part 2,035,476. Apparently...

2009-08-25T06:35:00.000-07:00

... Low-carb diets 'damage arteries'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8218780.stm

The low-carb diet did not affect cholesterol levels, but there was a significant difference on the impact on atherosclerosis - the build-up of fatty plaque deposits in the arteries that can lead to heart attacks or strokes.

Who'd have thought that eating lots of fat would lead to fatty deposits building up? This study was conducted on mice, which leads to the inevitable:

Ellen Mason, from the British Heart Foundation, said it was difficult to apply the findings to humans.

Really, Ellen? You mean that applying the results found in rodents to humans may be not 100%
accurate?

However, the prize has to go to Joanne:

Joanne Murphy, from the Stroke Association, agreed following a balanced diet was the best advice.
"We know that foods such as red meat and dairy products, which are high in protein, also contain high levels of saturated fat. These fats then cause the build up in the arteries."
But she added the research was still at an early stage and she wanted to see more work done on the subject.

More work done on the subject? Why, exactly? We've proven the blindingly obvious so what next? Perhaps we'll discover that lardy goodness is a health-giving panacea.
Or, of course, perhaps not...

To boldly educate

2009-06-14T04:50:00.001-07:00

Don't ask how I came across this but this is a magnificent documentary, filmed in 1982: Vegetarian World.

http://www.archive.org/details/vegeworld

It is a curious mix of kitsch and some pretty graphic scenes. William Shatner's delivery is compelling, without the whining that often accompanies this sort of film. I must admit that it is one of the better documentaries I have seen and it's never a bad thing to see Shatner before he became quite-so-orange.

Running for their lives

2009-05-20T15:41:00.000-07:00

Greetings.

I ran the London Marathon last month. It amazes me to witness the response to this. It is a biological reality that being prepared will result in you not dying. The plaudits are all very nice to hear but it's no more a miracle than breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide. If you do the training, it shouldn't be that difficult.

Nonetheless, I ran it in 3.40 and even saw a 'Go Vegan' banner on the way round. How many people were inspired to change their diet by vaguely glancing at this banner about 3 miles from the end, I don't know, but fair play to those who got off their arses and displayed it.

The sensible ones were the ones who either watched it on the telly or slept through the entire event. But thank you to everyone who sponsored me.

Suffice to say, the gentleman who is wearing the medal above is a great deal more attractive than moi, but I raised money for those brave people who protect mountain gorillas in the DR Congo.

Again, thanks for all the cash.

Ta * 1,000,000.

Is foie gras torture?

2009-04-04T10:42:00.000-07:00

This question is posed by the Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-02-18/news/is-foie-gras-torture/

As may be expected, the answer is: those nasty foreigners use barbaric methods and I won't touch it. Our production is fine, so don't worry and go back to sleep.

The journo concludes with this gem:
If I had seen with my own eyes that Hudson Valley produced foie gras by abusing ducks, this article would have turned out very differently. But that just wasn't the case.

Really? I suppose it's all relative. 'Torture' is an emotive term but doesn't seem entirely unsuited to describe even the most careful foie gras production.
It's fair to say that if the producers gave a toss about the well being of the birds, they wouldn't force grain down their necks.

Can't argue with this

2009-02-23T05:17:00.000-08:00

'Jail badger baiters' says Wilson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7905517.stm

Whilst it's baffling for most of us as to why this barbarism still exists, the law doesn't quite tally with this intuition.

Politician in 'making sense' shocker:
"Anyone with any sort of humanity about them at all must take this very seriously."

Couldn't put it better myself. Well done, Mr Wilson.

Flexitarians, or meat eaters as they are more commonly known

2009-02-22T12:04:00.000-08:00

In terms of pointless articles, you'd struggle to beat this little gem:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5772358.ece

I think we know that there are people who don't eat meat every day. Do they really need an identity? Is everyone a vegetarian (or a breatharian) when asleep?

This is a dizzyingly stupid quote:
Flexis, it seems, have the best of both worlds, benefiting from the potential health advantages of a vegetarian diet and still being able to order a pepperoni pizza when they get the urge.

Words fail me.

Oh, and the subtitle has to be read to be believed:
In the United States they call them flexitarians and while they may annoy the purists we can all learn a thing or two from their diets

Purists of the English language for example?
It is possible to write an article about the need of some people to cram fewer corpses down their necks without dressing it up in all this pathetic nonsense.

Apparently, Vegetarians have better sex

2009-01-29T11:21:00.000-08:00

Questionable publicity from PETA, as reported in an august journal:
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/science/2009/01/vegetarians-have-better-sex-ac.html

It says:
The ad concludes with the message "Studies show vegetarians have better sex."

Ian would like to help out, but unfortunately my memory isn't that good.

Books that make Ian smile

2009-01-11T03:15:00.000-08:00

Happy new year and all that.
Just finished Erica Fudge's excellent 'Pets'. To be honest, I've just finished it for the second time.
This is a lively and thoroughly engaging work and the only criticism I could possibly raise is that it had to stop. Yes, I appreciate that this is a stupid criticism. It's not often that you get the opportunity to be entertained and informed. I usually ruin the experience of reading by waiting for a flaw in the argument to triumphantly exclaim (to no-one) that there is, indeed, a flaw. In this case, I read from cover to cover, twice. Must be losing it!

Pets also indulged what is becoming something of an obsession for me. Jacques Derrida is a philosopher I find utterly baffling so I allow others to convert his prose into the English language. This book discusses his work in an extremely accessible fashion and, not wanting to disturb or spoil it for anyone, reports the views of Derrida sans kecks, in front of his cat. I think it's fair to say that I haven't googled an image to put to the prose. Naked philosophy just isn't going to work (I hope). Having said that, might be worth asking the cat what he made of being fed by an eminent philosopher in the buff.

If you don't buy this book, you are a bad person. It's true. Okay, it's not true but you should buy it anyway. A thoroughly enjoyable way to spend a few hours.

Why doesn't someone think of the children...?

2008-12-30T02:51:00.000-08:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7804087.stm
It's so touching to hear the ambitions of new parents: the aspirations for their offspring.

The father is apprentice electrician Levi Johnston, who has been dating Miss Palin for three years and is reportedly keen to take their child hunting.

The kid's only just been born and the old man wants him to participate in one of the most brain dead activities known to man (and, indeed, woman if his future mother in law is anything to go by). Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised by this but you will note that the father didn't express a desire for the kid to get a proper education, or be a good person, even be healthy and happy: nope, hunting appears to be the sum total of aspiration.

I'm not hopeful for the poor sod's future but you never know...
Nice mullet by the way, Levi.

I could get to like this chap

2008-12-17T14:46:00.000-08:00

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/obama.puppy.poll/index.html?iref=newssearch

Obama family puppy should come from shelter, poll says

Isn't it great to see a politician doing the right thing: rescuing a victim of humanity's throwaway society and giving them a home? The population seem to like the idea as well, so good for them.

By a 2-to-1 margin, those surveyed in the CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll said the Obamas should rescue an animal from a shelter rather than buy one from a breeder or pet store to put in the White Doghouse.
Is the correct answer.

Presumably the 33% who voted against it want the presidential dog to be one of those genetically suspect poor sods who you can see in pet shops and production factories the world over. The people, and the Obamas, have spoken. How about a little rescuing in this season of giving...?

Following the Obama trail

2008-12-07T09:56:00.000-08:00

Apparently the President elect of the US has roots in Kenya. Naturally, Kenyans want to cash in on any potential additional tourism. Is this really the best they can come up with?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7766987.stm

Apparently in some parts, bull fighting is the climax of a day of events. Blimey, it begs the question as to the stuff that precedes it.

From the story:
The bulls are bred and raised specifically to fight and are highly prized and pampered by their owners and the local community.

I'm getting the feeling of deja vu, I think I have heard this before, but where...? Oh, I remember: every time animals are abused and some idiot is put in the public eye and has to cobble together an excuse.

On a brighter note....

2008-12-05T15:44:00.001-08:00

I am going to try to shut up about the Kate Rusby debacle. So,

On the upside, although I have been bleating about Kate Rusby, I have rediscovered Caroline Lavelle. We used to stand together on an information stall in Lewes, and she makes music that makes me smile. I haven't seen Caroline in many years but her music is amazing. Truly incredible.
Ian's strong suggestion is to buy Brilliant Midnight, at least, although the entire back catalogue could be an easy solution to the 'what do I want for Christmas?' conundrum. You know it makes sense.
Hello Caroline! and apologies for the appalling pun in the title.

Kate Rusby Mk2

2008-12-04T14:51:00.000-08:00

I feel a little foolish. As it goes, I feel very foolish,
I thought I would go and see her live at the final show of her tour in Nottingham. Everything was in place: hotel and train; everything except the ticket. This gig would be sold out.

I have a PhD but I am clearly incapable of doing anything sensible. Must be why I can't get a job....
Don't employ me, for all that is good and pure....

Wealth un-imagined

2008-11-17T15:27:00.000-08:00

I don't wish to brag but I've had something of a windfall. I have one of those Tesco Clubcard things. I rarely go to Tesco as I get my exercise in the gym and I don't feel the need to walk across the electricals and un-food-related shit to get to the carrot section.
Imagine my delight when I picked up the post this morning. A letter from Tesco. Opening it, I was wished a Merry Christmas and informed of the opening hours of a shop about 50 miles away. Always useful. But my eyes fell upon the voucher secreted at the base of the page. It was for a free, yes indeed you read it correctly, a free packet of Polos. To the value of 23 new British pence.
How can Tesco make any money when it chucks around its profits with such gay abandon? I have 41 points which means, if my quick calculation is accurate, I have spent £41 in those god-forsaken outlets.
But don't worry: I won't let my new-found confectionary-related wealth go to my head. To be perfectly frank, I can't be arsed to cash it in. That's another £0.23 to stick onto next year's figures.
To be fair to them it does say 'A little thank you from Tesco'. I sense a lack of gratitude and I think they might be taking the piss. I hope the shareholders will appreciate my restraint.

BBC in 'lack of subtlety' shocker

2008-11-12T06:16:00.000-08:00

The Beeb has been granted access to the new facilites at Oxford:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7721919.stm

No, I don't mean the new toilets but 'new biomedical sciences centre'. It sounds so virtuous, so scientific. Of course, a skeptic might describe this new biomedical sciences centre more accurately as misery and death centre.
Investigations of places like this have revealed monkeys being roughly shaken and beagles having seven shades of shit kicked out of them, but this won't happen here...Obviously.

A small note for the BBC. If you want to even laughingly be considered impartial, I suggest that you place this story in the 'News' section and not the 'Health' bit. If you had put it in the 'Institutional Animal Abuse' section, Oxford would have had a full screaming, spitting benny.

But the BBC wouldn't put it in that section, would they...?

Thank fuck for that...

2008-11-05T14:39:00.000-08:00

Well done, America.
As with all politicians, realpolitik will ensure that Obama will not deliver all that he promises but that takes nothing away from his achievement. And the maturity of the US electorate.

If nothing else: Obama is infinitely better than the alternative. But, of course, virtually anything would be.

Joseph Seccombe (never heard of him? neither have I)

2008-10-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

'He that takes Pleasure in the Pains and dying Agonies of any lower Species of Creatures, is either a stupid sordid Soul, or a Murderer in Heart. He that delighteth to see a Brute die, would soon take as great Pleasure in the Death of a Man.'

Again, I can't really fault the sentiment, although the preoccupation with capital letters is a little worrying. Why is it, he asked to the unanswering void, that we take such a delight in the misery and deaths of our fellow beings while whining like tiny children about the fact that we lost a couple of grand on a house? A few grand, I might remind you, that we didn't earn in the first place.

(The above quote comes from J. Claude Evans' book, 'With Respect for Nature' which, frankly, puts the 'dog' and 'shit' in 'dogshit')

Cognac... anyone...?

2008-10-20T14:47:00.000-07:00

I spent some time in Cognac (in France for the geographically illiterate, like me). I was visiting some friends and my guide-daughter (secular equivalent to a god- daughter).
I had a wonderful time and my stress levels lapsed to a dangerous low; they're not high at the best of times.
There's something wonderful about re-acquainting yourself with brilliant people and getting to know a little person who you have agreed to help in life (although it does appear to be the blind and lame leading the smart).
I miss my friends but it is the nice sense of 'miss' where you grab the time you have and not lament that fact that their lives are in a different part of the world. They have two wonderful children who are a credit to them.

'Til next time...

Never short of a comment...

2008-10-02T11:40:00.000-07:00

...was Samuel Johnson. I don't think I am doing him a disservice to say that he wasn't keen on vivisection or its practitioners. If you spoke like this these days, the protectors of the right to poison, mutilate and kill other animals would have a proper dicky fit. Bless 'em...

From the man himself:
'Among the inferior Professors of medical knowledge, is a race of wretches, whose lives are only varied by varieties of cruelty.'
Ouch!

But he wasn't finished:
'...these horrid operations... make the physician more dreadful than the gout or stone.'
I think he finished at that point.

Good points, well made as far as I can see. If I find any more quotes from the great and the good, I'll bung them up on this thing.

(As an aside, I found these quotes in Lyle Munro's excellent 'Compassionate beasts: The quest for animal rights.)

Humble(d) Pie

2008-09-24T15:46:00.000-07:00

Ahem...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/7626796.stm

I have to confess that my lack of attendance was due to work commitments and the fact that I was expecting a cricket score. BUT:

Manchester City suffered an embarrassing Carling Cup exit after being beaten on penalties by Brighton.

Embarrassing? Embarrassing? Cheeky bastards... Okay, they've got a few more pennies than us. A worth of a trillion quid can open a few doors. But you lost. Sorry, I forgot the emphasis:

YOU LOST

A bit of perspective, please

2008-09-13T14:45:00.000-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7590705.stm
MoD discusses bearskin hat plans

So. the good ol' military might not be averse to not have the remains of a bear on their heads. Good on PETA for getting this moving but, for pity's sake, isn't this an object (indeed, abject) lesson in the bleedin' obvious?

If a similar alternative cannot be found, can I make a suggestion, please?
If you can't find something that isn't a dead (get it?) ringer for the remains of a bear, maybe just improvise? Perhaps some bog paper fashioned into a cylinder? With the royal seal on it, obviously.

Come on people, the telos of our ursine friends does not include ending up on the head of a British soldier. And allow these bears to do whatever it is that they do in the woods - the toilet paper might come in handy then....

Kate Rusby

2008-09-13T14:25:00.000-07:00

Those who know me (assuming anyone is actually reading this) will know that I am not prone to wanton displays of positivity. I suspect that these asides will not be frequent.

Kate Rusby's music is extraordinary. Speaking (typing, obviously) as a musical imbecile, I know not a lot, but I know enough to be entranced by her music. My MP3 player plays little else. She comes under the category of 'folk music' so please do feel free to make a hilarious joke about "hey nonnie nonnie" etc etc.
*fetch the needle and twine for my sides*

The fact remains that I very much like her music and it makes me very happy (a state of affairs that my sarcastic self finds a little unsettling).

I would post a picture and/ or link to her music but I won't for the following reasons:
1. There's probably some obscure copyright reason why I can't;
2. I'd try, but probably cock it up;
3. There's always google. You can google her (assuming 'google' is an appropriate verb).

Go on, google her name: what's to lose...?

And I'm going to see her live, so there!
*sticks out tongue at the unbelievers*

Vermin control

2008-09-06T05:33:00.001-07:00

Now, before anyone gets too excited all I am asking is to make the numbers of vermin sustainable. Dick Cheney has the right idea:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney/
Dickie-boy 'peppered' his (ahem) mate in the face and chest. Good effort, Dick. Pay a bit more attention next time. Vermin doesn't control itself, afterall.

Unfortunately, vermin is running out of control all over the show:
http://www.animalconcerns.org/resource.html?itemid=200809031331410.628264&catid=10
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007/10/18/the-fop-and-the-hounds-89520-19969002/

Would someone please help us out? Make sure you are not cruel or gratuitous. This is conservation at its best. A quick, humane despatch is what we're after.

With vermin under control, perhaps the moose, deer and quails of this world can be left alone to live their lives in peace.

No excrement, Sherlock...

2008-08-27T16:09:00.000-07:00

Call to end animal pain-research
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7561061.stm

Those of you with a nervous disposition (or an allergy to the bleedin' obvious) please look away now. Some quotes:

Using animals to research pain has "limited value" and should be replaced by newer technologies
No, surely not...

Animal tests can only simulate some aspects of chronic pain and are too simplistic
My world-view is crumbling...

However, as well as raising ethical questions, they are not an accurate mimic of the processes of human pain
Who'd have thunk it?

Professor Qasim Aziz: "In my research, animal models don't represent human patients sufficiently well,"
Quite...

Alan Silman, medical director of the Arthritis Research Campaign, agreed that animals were not good models of pain in humans.
"We lack really effective ways of studying pain which is why perhaps there has been no real advance in understanding why people with arthritis get pain."
Really? Surely not? So other animals are different to humans? I really must check my biology textbooks...

Ministers said at present "licensed animal use remains essential to develop improved healthcare technologies".
Conclusive proof that ministers' attention spans can be unfavourably compared to a bar of soap.

She saved the kid, now LEAVE HER ALONE

2008-08-27T15:59:00.000-07:00

The supremacy of humans with regard to ethics is about as shaky as Mr Stevens of 'This Ole House' fame, but this little fellow is a shining example of inter-species compassion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7577275.stm

BUT:

La China, worried about her own puppies, is reported to be petrified by her new found fame, and her owner says he is worried that she is not eating.

As I put in the title (and I will type slowly for the hard of reading):
L.E.A.V.E.
H.E.R.
A.L.O.N.E.

Just when you thought the world couldn't get more moronic, Frank turns up

2008-08-18T05:13:00.000-07:00

Retired British matador returns

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7567217.stm
A few choice quotes from this delightful story...

Speaking after the bout, he said being in a bullfighting ring "felt fantastic" and added: "It is where I am happiest".
Well, that's super, Frank. Shame this little pastime of yours is both off the 'dipshit' scale and bloodthirsty. Sorry, did I say bloodthirsty? Of course I meant an important cultural phenonemon.

After completing his first bout in three years, judges awarded him the animal's severed ears in recognition of a kill "well done".
Can we form an orderly queue to call for the men in white coats, please?

The pensioner had a quadruple heart bypass six months ago and a knee replacement two years earlier. He said he decided to resume the sport because he missed it after his retirement in 2005.
Not just his heart that is dodgy methinks. I suspect the old noggin has seen better days...

Mr Evans also has ambitions to fight in the three countries he has never worked in before - Colombia, Peru and Ecuador.
I agree: go on, piss off, Frank.

Yay, it's here..

2008-08-16T08:15:00.000-07:00

The football season is back. Thank god* for its return.
The mighty Albion** have started well. I will probably write bits and pieces in the coming months about this affliction.
Went to see us*** play at Crewe. Good match and a victory to kick the season off****.

I promise***** to stop using the asterix method of asides.

Up the Albion!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
*You know, that secular god without the hellfire and damnation.
**Brighton and Hove, not the collection of lesser Albions.
***I appreciate it is actually 'them': don't be a pedant.
****Ho ho ho
*****ish

2008-08-05T11:31:00.000-07:00

Hello,
Let's try a starter for 10.

At: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7542592.stm there is something afoot. Let me try to unpick the evidence.

The headline isn't promising, although the quotation marks suggest the reporter may not be 100% convinced:
'Weapons stash' near Climate Camp

Next we have the chilling evi-dense:
Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beautridge said: "There is no justification whatsoever for having these weapons.
"I would suggest that a minority of people had hidden them with the intention of causing harm to police officers, and possibly to the horses or dogs that we are using on patrol."
He added: "We believe they've been hidden recently; the camp is next door, so an intelligent hypothesis is they may well have been put there by a small group of protestors intent on committing criminal acts to further their aims."
Hmm, I believe italics tell a great deal.

However, police said they had no firm evidence the weapons belonged to protesters or were to be used against officers.
Well, quite... Back to sleep Dobbin and Rover.

Protester Simon Evans denied police claims and said: "This is a smear campaign against the camp - an alleged find that has nothing to do with the camp". ... "We are environmentalists and a vegan community. It's just crazy."
Flippin' heck, you didn't say they were vegans. Get the tear gas. Leave the dogs and horses as these vegans are notorious for sticking it to our canine and equine friends. "Doesn't everyone know that tofu is a cover for terrorism? ... or at least not eating meat. Why doesn't someone think of the children...?"

Yo, ACC Beautridge: don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.