tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22614208883964686162024-03-13T03:49:21.393-07:00A Troglodyte's HypocrisyChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-21024363959833986872011-06-06T12:26:00.000-07:002011-06-25T12:23:09.942-07:00A Mother's LoveI started writing this immediately after the weekend, but had to put it off due to time constraints (mostly at work; damn work getting in the way more important things like blogging!).<br /><br />So to put things into perspective, Julie and I went to her parents' cottage from Sunday afternoon to Monday afternoon. The temperature and sunshine lead me to believe it would be a great little weekend get-away; and for the most part it was. Unfortunately, I left from the trip fairly depressed.<br /><br />I think it started with the insects. While I try to do the least harm possible and adopt a vegan lifestyle, when there are mosquitoes buzzing right in my ear it - literally - drives me crazy. I besically smack my own head to get whatever it is off me. Part of me feels bad, while part of me - probably my more primal self - feels temporary reprieve from their bites, buzzing and and blood-sucking. Maybe other vegans can relate or provide advice?<br /><br />Another sad incident occurred while we were on an evening constitutional after supper. We saw a Ruffed Grouse on the side of the road and it wouldn't move. Julie's mother, in particular, was quick to judge saying that they are essentially stupid creatures and that's why it's not moving from the road. But on closer inspection, we realised there were two baby Ruffed Grouse that had been hit by a car. So this distraught and grieving mother was standing by her deceased children. I found this absolutely heartwrenching...<br /><br />Further to sad animal news, while at the cottage (although we do not know whether it was caused by anything there or not) Whisk expressed symptoms of a bladder infection. She pretty much peed non-stop while outside. So $200+ dollars in vet expenses (for something we pretty much diagnosed ourselves) and major discomfort for Whisk is how we ended out stay at the cottage and were greeted in returning home.<br /><br />Although for the rest of the week I have been in okay spirits. Whisk has seemed to recover, work is slack with more people equalling less calls, and running mellowing me out.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-88529219602434063352011-05-23T10:13:00.000-07:002011-05-27T05:45:40.977-07:00Holidays and Leisurely ActivitiesI haven't written a blog in a couple months so I thought it is overdue.<br /><br />As many of you may know we went for our first vacation in the nearly a year since I started working at Atelka. They do not seem to know the meaning of time off and even had to fight to get this week off but managed to secure the vacation pay I am entitled to.<br /><br />We went to Southwestern Ontario. Mostly to attend our cousin's wedding, but we made a vacation out of it by visiting numerous other relatives as well. We drove pretty much all over Southwestern Ontario visiting people in London, Dutton, Alsa Craig, Hamilton, Toronto, St. Catharines, Grimsby, and even Ottawa. So while it was nice to see everyone it certainly was a whirlwind tour managing to see all the people we did.<br /><br />The wedding was very nice. They even accomodated to the vegan minority making everything but the meat and gravy vegan friendly. So this was very pleasing to us vegan foodies! And I would have liked to stay at the party later, but since we brought Whisk with us on our vacation, we had to leave early to let her out to do her business. It was nice getting caught up with all our relatives though, and even had numerous opportunities to have candid and open conversations regarding veganism.<br /><br />That is actually a good segue, as on the return trip home, we passed four slaughterhouse-bound trucks full of pigs. These always greatly upset me. I was driving and had to fight intensely from full-out crying. Why people want to commodify these creatures is beyond me. It reminds me of the holocaust with their shipping of these defenseless animals to their needless deaths.<br /><br />Just before our vacation, I also ran my first marathon. I exceeded my pre-planned time of four hours. But I must confess, once I started I thought I could get 3 hours, 30 minutes when I did my first half in only an 1:45. But I completed the marathon in 3:42:48. Which - I'm told - is a good first time so I'm pretty happy with that. My next marathon I am aiming for at least one late summer or fall. I would - ideally - like to complete 3-5 this year. Especially since my ultimate goal is to run ultramarathons.<br /><br />We managed to get a lot of our taxes back this year. I may even qualify for a GST rebate since I made so little last year! I definately want to avoid paying any money to the government as basically everything they spend most of their money on are things I oppose: health care and animal testing, the military, [animal] farming subsidies, industry bail-outs, etc. Plus this will also help us get into our Earthship faster. Which will mean I should no longer be <em>required</em> to work, and only do so if I want to travel or something.<br /><br />As far as work is concerned though, I have recently been contemplating a career in nutrition, possibly even sports nutrition. With all the literature I figure if I cannot convince people to go vegan for selfless reasons, I can at least persuade people for selfish reasons; like not succumbing to the plethora of degenerative illnesses caused by animal product consumption. Furthermore, when you look at endurance athletes (like Scott Jurek or Brendan Brazier - who are my new idols by the way) they advocate a vegan diet essentially for performance reasons (apparently also environmental as well according to their biographies). And if you haven't read "Born to Run," I strongly recommend it, because they actually discuss in fairly great detail the benefits of a vegan diet.<br /><br />Anyway, I think that is enough to get off my chest to the world (or whatever weirdos read my blog...Kidding :oP). Stay posted and in a couple months, or sooner, I should write another blog.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-74661849568507582542011-02-06T08:13:00.000-08:002011-02-06T08:16:47.416-08:00My Letter to Reader's Digest<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><div>(The original article was posting in RD's February 2011 issue on page 158.)<br /><br /><table width="98%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" align="center" class="h" style="padding-top: 5px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 0px; "><tbody><tr><td style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><h2 style="font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; display: inline; "><span style="font-size:+1;"><b style="font-weight: bold; ">Re: Introducing Your Newborn to Your Pet</b></span></h2> </td></tr></tbody></table></div>While I certainly appreciate the tips this article provides for making<br />the transition of a baby to one's pets less tumultuous, it's<br />conclusion rather irked me. Basically Tracey Williams just concludes<br />that if you cannot get them to get along, just toss your pet out of<br />the house. How is it fair to an animal you have had quite possibly for<br />years to throw them away because you chose to have a child? Perhaps<br />you should have also mentioned - or created - websites like<br /><a href="http://babyfinder.com/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); ">babyfinder.com</a> or suggested the local orphanage to throw your baby<br />away instead. After all, most people had the pet first and the baby<br />after. Besides, it's unlikely the baby will remember it anyway<br />whereas the animal will probably have anxiety issues the rest of its<br />life.</span>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-6720169923425480872010-12-21T17:41:00.000-08:002010-12-21T20:40:13.864-08:00Cob Versus Earthship (Round 1)So for those of you who follow my blogging and life activities, you would know Julie and I are trying to decide on an environmentally friendly housing situation. So far the issue has pretty much entirely revolved around Cob houses. As of late another contender has come into the running again: the Earthship! Perhaps some of my friends and readers have some insight into either of these two building methods. I'm going to make a pro/con list abut the two techniques and I would very much appreciate additions or corrections where warranted.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">COB</span></strong><br /><em>Pros</em><br />- Inexpensive<br />- Readily available materials (sand, water, straw, clay)<br />- Sturdy (some have been around for hundreds of years and survived multiple earthquakes)<br /><br /><em>Cons</em><br />- Takes a long time to complete<br />- May not be suited for a colder climate for insulation<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">EARTHSHIP</span></strong><br /><em>Pros</em><br />- Uses mostly reclaimed or reused materials<br />- Minimal costs<br />- Well insulated<br />- Quick to build<br /><br /><em>Cons</em><br />- Seems more costly than Cob<br />- Some claims of tire off-gassing (most likely untrue but it turned Julie off it for awhile)<br />- Newer building technique and therefore possible unforeseen complicationsChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-61126833212778572442010-12-13T14:15:00.000-08:002010-12-13T14:51:15.136-08:00Things Are Starting To Look UpFor those of you who keep up to date with the goings-on in my life (and the life of my immediate family), you know things kind of hit a rough spot. It culminated in our next door neighbour, who has been blaring his music on a daily occurrence - and apparently didn't like the fact we complained about this - coming over and threatening us, harassing me in the street, and even cutting our phone line. After the phone line incident we contacted the police for the umpteenth time and left it in their hands while Julie and I went on a vacation to Portland, Maine for a few days. Since our return, things have significantly improved. In the three weeks since our get-away, we have only heard him and/or his music once. This has greatly improved our overall mood while being at home to the point where we don't feel the immediate urge to move. <div><br /></div><div>Speaking of moving, Julie and I have been bouncing around the idea of a more nomadic lifestyle. While we would have a permanent settlement somewhere yet to be determined, we have been contemplating purchasing an R.V.. This would be a staged process, while we would use the R.V. as a temporary home while we built a house of our own (most likely a cob house based on permacultural principles), and could also be a means of vacationing as well. It would also help us live a more minimalistic lifestyle.<br /><div><br /></div><div>In my work-life, things are - hopefully - looking up. My friend, Chris, helped me get an interview at Q1 Labs. This seems like a great place to work. The money seems really good (and not that I'm overly motivated by the money itself, but the "freedom" it can provide), the people there seem to enjoy what they do, and their attrition rate is unheard of at only 5%! I've already had one interview and was told I would be scheduled another early this week so please wish me luck!</div><div><br /></div><div>As for my running regime, I completed my first half marathon event (The "Not the Honolulu" fun run). I think I did rather while given weather conditions were not the most conducive for speed, and the leisurely nature of the run prompted several conversations throughout the run. While it was not a timed event I estimate I completed the run in approximately two hours. The next stage in my training is a full marathon and I intend to run in the Fredericton Marathon next May. </div><div><br /></div><div>During the run, I also saw a very large coyote (thankfully not interested in me as a meal) which actually kind of saddened me. I actually took a couple moments to watch the creature and collect my thoughts. The coyote was in an area that had formerly been a forest and was now a gravel pit slated for the construction of some unnecessary building. Seems like there are constant reminders of the slight of "civil"ized humanity against creatures of all types. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think that about covers all the bases. I would like to wish everyone "season's greetings" and all the best for the upcoming year. I suppose I will have to make another blog stating what my New Year's Resolution is. I'm contemplating either going raw vegan or giving up alcohol (for the year or permanently; I have not decided yet if that is even going to be the resolution), or even something else altogether. I'm nearing the end of my current New Year's resolution with only a couple slips (not climbing a couple trees until after midnight; which to me institutional time is irrelevant, the new day doesn't start until the sun rises!). I should have more reflections on this also. Until next time...</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-73521177475443957262010-11-03T14:35:00.000-07:002010-11-03T16:46:58.667-07:00Mothman Prophesies...Or Something Like That<div>So while at work today, contemplating how I was essentially going to tell my employer I wasn't going to take the new "supervisor" position since all it entails is the same money, worse hours and a horrid seating arrangement, I noticed a moth on the wall. My first instinct was to save this creature before any of the other ignoramuses I work with may have killed or harmed it. So I gently coaxed him/her onto my finger so I could release him/her outside. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>Upon getting a few weird looks (which essentially confirmed my initial assumption about many of my coworkers) and getting my newly found friend outside, I dropped him/her off far enough away from the door that I felt s/he would be safe from any of the detriments of my place of work. So again I tried to gently coax him/her from my finger. I don't know if it somehow felt attached to me for removing her/him from the hellhole that is my work, but several times s/he simply flew right back onto my finger after I tried to prod her/him away. Which in a way made my day to think perhaps I meant that much to this small creature after such a brief encounter. </div><div><br /></div><div>The other thing this incident provoked was a decision I have already started contemplating greatly over the past several weeks and months. While being vegan is great, all it simply does is not kill lives (which don't get me wrong is still a wonderful thing!). It doesn't actively <i>save </i>lives per se. Which is why I am trying to make it a personal practice to actively save as many lives from harm/danger as possible. Be they worms on the road, or moths in a building, these creatures clearly have a preference and end up suffering as a result of civilization if somebody doesn't do something. I'm sure many of the people I correspond with will understand this revelation. </div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-48808297525029881432010-10-26T16:54:00.000-07:002010-10-27T08:23:54.050-07:00New Monkey Found, Among Other Deaths...While I may have mislead readers by the title of this blog entry, this is actually just a general rant against "civilized" government as a whole. I read the following article (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=11977239">http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=11977239</a>) with the same feeling I get when I read about the discovery of any "new" species: absolute fear for the species' safety. Even in the article it mentions that the species is in the hands of a government that barely cares about its own people, let alone the environment or other animals. To any person this leaves little doubt as to the fate of the animal especially when hunted for meat...<br /><br />Among other depressing news (<a href="http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/birds+dead+after+toxic+landing/3728942/story.html">http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/birds+dead+after+toxic+landing/3728942/story.html</a>), several hundred more ducks have met their untimely and horrific deaths in the tailing ponds of Alberta's oilsands. This coming just days after they received a fine for $3,000,000 for 1,600 ducks having died last year! Clearly they have not learned their lesson, and how would they when $3,000,000 is a miniscule fraction of the profits they make on a <em>daily</em> basis.<br /><br />What further grinds my gears is that the Alberta government (while they issue a lot of strong rhetoric) is completely inept and fails to see the gravity of the situation when all they can think of is their pockets being lined with oil-drenched money. They fail to see that the health of the entire environment is at stake, and focus on more trivial concerns like the health of smokers who control their own fates (<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/10/25/edmonton-alberta-tobacco-lawsuit.html">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/10/25/edmonton-alberta-tobacco-lawsuit.html</a>). Yet they ignore the suffering of those who have done nothing but been the victims of living in the shithole that is "civilized" society.<br /><br />Just on a note to end, if people think I'm "angry" then I just have to retort that if they are NOT angry, they clearly aren't looking hard enough or just do not give a damn.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-67325698858071890862010-09-26T18:39:00.000-07:002010-09-28T09:10:13.041-07:00Greetings from a ChipmunkThe following is a short story of my encounter with a Chipmunk on Saturday, September 25, 2010. <div><br /></div><div>-----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><div><br /></div><div><div>Two creatures meet at the site of a deep, gaping wound in the Earth.</div><div><br /></div><div>I set down my bike, first intending to lash out at those who had done the damage to the forest. This is when a chipmunk came scurrying onto my bike and the felled trees my bike was propped against. </div><div><br /></div><div>Forgetting the bag of peanuts normally in my lunch bag, I offered the only thing I could think of to quickly show the creature I meant no harm: a fragment of the sucker from my mouth. </div><div><br /></div><div>The chipmunk seemed interested but hesistant. I offered my candy freely, not even knowing whether such a sophisticated creature would take such a paltry peace offering. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't blame the chipmunk for its reluctance to simply take what I offered as usually humans only offer non-humans death. But in this case, friendship seemed freely offered and freely received. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, this exchange was fleeting. A human and his canine companion were walking towards us on the trail, which was enough to send my new friend back to his home. I can only hope for the day we meet again; and when this day comes I will be better prepared to offer him/her and any other new friends something more wholesome in exchange for their companionship. </div></div></div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-57861525474125063072010-06-05T08:20:00.000-07:002010-06-05T08:22:53.185-07:00Veganism for the EnvironmentMany of you might already have known I wrote an article for the Brock Press several months about about the reasons to go vegan for environmental concerns. I decided (better late then never) to add it to my blog.<div><br /></div><div>----------------------------------------------</div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Veganism for the Environment</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Anthropogenic climate change, mass extinctions, and environmental degradation, has more people in Canada than ever citing environmental issues their greatest concern. Many organisations have provided guidelines for reducing our ecological footprint. Most have fallen short on THE most effective way of helping the environment: a transition to a plant-based lifestyle.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Reports, such as the United Nation’s, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” often get ignored, instead favoring reducing pollution from other industries. This document details the effect of meat production on the environment. It found that 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are created from animal agriculture. This makes animal usage a greater threat to climate change than the entire automotive industry. So why all the hype about capping industrial sources when one need look no further than their plate to reduce their personal emissions is beyond me. Don’t get me wrong; I am for reducing any source of pollution to the best of our abilities. A Vegan lifestyle is the most effective way to do this.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>That just entails the emission impact of terrestrial animal exploitation. Many consume fish as a ‘healthier’ meat alternative. This also has negative consequences. All bony fish sequester carbon by secreting calcium carbonate. Therefore, over-fishing removes a major source of carbon sequestration. The removal of plankton eating fish doubly impacts climate change. Instead of carbon being consumed by these fish, it goes to the ocean floor, decomposes and then erupts into the atmosphere as methane gas. This affects the coastal environment by creating dead-zones and contributes vastly to atmospheric greenhouse gases.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Climate change is not the sole concern when we consume animal products. ~60-70% of corn and soybeans go to feeding livestock. The energy input-output is only that high because factory-farmed animals aren’t even given enough space to perform simple bodily functions. According to natural energy pyramid economics, only ~10% of plant matter’s energy makes it to the average meat consumer’s body, making it an enormously inefficient farming practice. This requires more land, and greater energy input for extraction. With over 1/3 of Earth’s arable land used for agriculture, ~30% of the Earth’s arable land going to use for animal agriculture. This has lead to mass desertization, deforestation, soil erosion, etc.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>With ~50 billion animals slaughtered annually to satiate human demand, meat production requires copious amounts of resources. The amount of water required to produce the pound of meat versus a pound of vegetables is <i>enormously</i> higher. Clean water being scarce for many, this is a huge waste of water. <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Dealing with farm animal waste environmentally prudently is nearly impossible. Especially when you’re injecting hormones and antibiotics into the animals, waste run-off and the use of manure leads to water contamination, outbreaks of bacterial infections, and ecological dead-zones.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Hunting also creates environmental detriments. While natural predation contributes to evolutionary adaptation, human hunting diminishes wildlife populations (sometimes causing extinction). Fishing tends to target stronger animals, as they lunge at lures. This leaves fewer, less aggressive fish to mate – if they are able. This is paralleled in land-based hunting, where the strongest animals would be the ones to venture closest to human encampments. Trap-’hunting’ and long-lining for animals is also ecologically destructive by its haphazard approach, sometimes even killing endangered species. All of these have serious and irreversible ecological consequences.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This isn’t an extensive list of environmental devastations from animal usage, just the more consequential ones. This ultimately begs the question, ‘Can a person even be an animal-utilising environmentalist?’ </span></p></div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-38392259189068198302010-05-07T08:43:00.000-07:002010-05-07T08:57:35.163-07:00Lots of NewsSorry to anyone who has been disappointed in my lack of postings in the past several months. I have been very busy completely my university semester and planning a rather extensive move. <div><br /></div><div>For those of you who haven't already heard, I have relocated from Hamilton, ON, to Fredericton, NB. This was to accompany my wife so that she could transfer within her company and be closer to her parents and immediate family. </div><div><br /></div><div>So far I am enjoying it here, even though I am relatively bored. The weather hasn't been the best - having rained almost every day. Although on the opportunities I have been able to venture outside, the scenery is absolutely lovely. We live on a hill overlooking the St. John River, and are surrounded by forests. We just discovered a walking trail that used to be an old apple orchard. All the trees are covered in moss and lichens, mushrooms and animal life abound. This already seems to be a much more bio-diverse region than that practically dead-zone of Hamilton. </div><div><br /></div><div>So far I am looking for jobs to supplement our income. While we forecasted our living expenses on my wife's income alone, having more income can't necessarily hurt (even if it does contribute to a capitalist society). However, I am still trying to maintain some semblance of my ethics, only applying for positions that would not require the use of animals or animal products. I also figure, even though I am taking a substantial pay decrease, I will probably enjoy a job here more than my former work, and also see it as an opportunity to stop supporting the government; since my income will most likely be too low to require paying taxes. I am applying at health food stores that cater to vegans and organic foods, used clothing and electronic stores, produce departments of grocery stores and garden departments of hardware stores. </div><div><br /></div><div>I am continuing my degree in Biology at UNB, and have a feeling I will have a lot less problems than I am currently having with Brock. I have received drastically lower grades in one course in particular that has resulted in a overall mark of 65%. This is a good 10+% lower than all my other courses, and have a feeling that unfair marking may have influenced this. I am currently appealing the grade. However, I am pleased with all the other marks I have received so far. 80% in Plant Physiology, 80% in Bioethics, 78% in Fungal Biology (which meant I received a 90+% on the final exam!), 78% in Chemistry, and have yet to hear about my Ecology grade yet.</div><div><br /></div><div>I will keep everyone apprised of further life-changing or informative events as they should arise. </div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-36374146870442704522010-02-01T18:04:00.001-08:002010-02-02T15:22:21.722-08:00A letter to the Fur Council, Re: Their "Fur is Green" Campaign<span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" >I take a strong contention to your campaign trying greenwash your<br />product. First and foremost you make contradictory claims regarding<br />your product. On one hand you claim the product is "natural" and<br />biodegradable. On the other you make claims that your product is<br />long-lasting and can be handed down generations. Which is it exactly?<br /><br />Secondly, you associate yourself with animal agribusiness by using byproducts of the animal agriculture industry (while being an animal agriculture industry yourself). In case you aren't aware, animal agriculture contributes<br />more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire automotive industry<br />combined (18% vs 15% respectively). Not only is greenhouse gas<br />emissions an environmental concern, but there is almost inevitable<br />waste run-off into ground water, streams, rivers, etc. These create<br />ecological cesspools and dead zones.<br /><br />The other point of contention is the chemicals used in your products.<br />Many are known carcinogens, poisons and environmental toxins designed<br />to prevent an animal's body from doing what it naturally does when it<br />dies: decay. Once again, counter-intuitive to the claims you produce a<br />"natural" product.<br /><br />The amount of petroleum used to produce a synthetic "fur" is actually<br />vastly less than producing a real fur product, when you take into<br />account all the chemicals, transporting, food import, waste export,<br />etc. of your industry.<br /><br />Trapping, too, has environmental detriments. While you would like<br />think you're "helping" populations by extracting them unnecessarily<br />from their habitats, fur-trapping is a haphazard method of extracting<br />animal "resources". They can trap creatures that were unintended to be<br />trapped - including endangered species. Overall, hunting and trapping<br />practices tend to weaken animal populations as a whole, by targeting<br />"fitter" animals. Most recreational and commercial hunting practices<br />result in this as we have seen with many hunting based extinctions and species hunted to the point of having nonviable populations.<br /><br />These are just the refutations of the claims your product is<br />environmentally friendly. It doesn't even address the inherent animal<br />cruelty of using animals unnecessarily to make money. I would be very<br />surprised if you actually published this. You claim that you don't<br />post hateful messages, but you posted a rant from an individual who<br />goes on [i]ad nauseum[/i] about people more compassionate than herself<br />in a derogatory tone. She also claims to be an animal lover. That's<br />like a pedophile claiming to love children. Both go on to exploit and<br />harm them.<br /><br />Although, if you have any interest in objective and open dialogue, I<br />suggest you do post my comment and/or send feedback. Not doing so only<br />proves my point that you aren't interested in absolute disclosure of<br />your product.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Stephen Grant<br /></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span">--------------------</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span">P.S. For more information on this false advertising campaign check out their website:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span">www.furisgreen.com</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:78%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span">Knowing your enemy is the first step in neutralizing them.</span></span></div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-9575356104647173142010-01-28T07:17:00.000-08:002010-01-28T07:25:29.431-08:00St Catharines Transit<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div>The transit commission in St. Catharines, ON, recently decided to ban advertisements promoting veganism. In response I sent a strongly worded email. I suggest everyone do the same. Feel free to use any part of mine if you wish. For more background on the issue here is a link the St. Catharines Standard:</div><div>http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2259787</div><div><br /></div><div>------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div>I am extremely disappointed that you decided to ban the advertisements<br />that were submitted by Niagara Action for Animals promoting veganism.<br />They were not graphic in any way (unlike some other ads you put on<br />your buses). In fact, they are quite cutesy!<br /><br />You put advertisements of a sexual nature, for other advocacy groups,<br />religious advertisements, etc. yet you disallow this one? Maybe the<br />message in the ads you banned is something you should think more about (i.e. cognitive dissonance). I'm guessing some of you own - or have<br />close relationships with people who own - animal exploiting<br />industries? I mean, good grief! Talk about absolute prejudice and<br />hypocrisy!<br /><br />I'm a Brock student and if it wasn't mandatory to pay for the bus<br />pass, I would not pay to use your service based on your ignorance<br />displayed over this incident!<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Stephen Grant</span>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-60700920344872392182009-06-06T09:14:00.000-07:002009-06-07T11:16:23.206-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-xE2mfRIMeY/SiqWIywyHzI/AAAAAAAAADA/TcBOf8fJQ70/s1600-h/My+LttE.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 438px; height: 282px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-xE2mfRIMeY/SiqWIywyHzI/AAAAAAAAADA/TcBOf8fJQ70/s320/My+LttE.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5344248985638018866" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />If you can read that letter, that is how they edited my email to them. While some of the message is the same they drastically changed the context and certain nuances. Here is the original I sent them:<br /><h1 class="ha"><span id=":4t" class="hP">COMMERCIAL Seal hunt IS Inhumane (Like all Commercial Slaughteri<wbr>ng)</span></h1><br />As an ethical vegan, I took a strong contention with two straw man editorials in Saturday's paper: "Seals vs. pigs" and Terry Mester's letter to the editor. Both seem to be implying that all those who oppose the COMMERCIAL seal hunt must be hypocrites. While the majority of people have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals (i.e. Terry's allusion to eating meat - by only saying he wouldn't eat uncooked meat - while still proclaiming to be "an animal lover"), they understand animal cruelty is wrong. In a website provide to me by Senator <span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:navy;" >Céline Hervieux-Payette (</span><a href="http://www.sealsonline.org%29,/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:85%;">www.sealsonline.org),</span></a> it states that only 98% of seals are killed humanely. So if sealers killed their full quota - luckily they haven't been due of lack of demand - 5600 seals would still be killed inhumanely; by the sealers' own statistics! This also assumes there is actually a witness to every, or even most, seal death(s) as the St. John's Telegram article wrongly implies there could be (hence why would-be third-party observers have to apply for an observation permit...). But that still begs the question: when has bludgeoning a feeling being with a spiked club (or even shooting one from a distance) ever been considered humane? <div> While some who oppose the seal hunt certainly are hypocrites, I am willing to call them an "ally" in the animal rights movement, provided it could lead to a decrease in the amount of animals killed for commercial gain. In return, I hope they can reconcile their cognitive dissonance and learn to be someone who <em>actually</em> respects and cares for all animals. </div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-73431306918690213112009-03-26T10:14:00.000-07:002009-03-26T10:15:25.094-07:00Underlying Detriments of Grass-fed BeefThis is a response to an article posted on "Mother Earth News". A magazine supposedly dedicated to environmental restoration. Here is the link to the article followed by my rebuttal:<br /><a href="http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx?page=1" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.motherearthnews</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>.com/Sustainable-Farming/G</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>rass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.asp</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>x?page=1</a><br /><br />"It is not unrealistic to expect that we as a nation could convert millions of acres of ravaged industrial grain fields (plus millions of acres of land in federal conservation programs that cannot currently be used for grazing) to permanent pastures and see no decline in beef and dairy production in the bargain."<br /><br />So you're giving up conservation programs to feed cattle? That would further destroy sensitive areas where many species are already endangered.<br /><br />"The label certifies the beef came from cattle that ate only grass from pastures, not feedlots; received no hormones or antibiotics in their feed; and were humanely raised and handled."<br /><br />Are they branded? Dehorned? Raped? Slaughtered? Confined at all? Sounds like many of the same inhumane treatments would still be applied.<br /><br />"Besides, grass-fed beef tastes better. I know because I eat it. However, it only tastes better if it’s raised right."<br /><br />Rather contradictory and pure opinion (i.e. biased) to begin with!<br /><br />"It is not as simple as pointing cows at pasture and waiting for results. In fact, a trained eye will notice a similar scene at virtually any modern grass-fed beef operation: a couple of strands of electric fencing running around a bunch of cattle grazing in a clump. In fact, you could argue that the current revolution in grass-fed beef would not be possible without poly-wire electric fencing, which is cheap and easy to move."<br /><br />Electricity demands. Electric shocks to animals. Sounds really humane and environmentally friendly. It even talks about FORCING the animals to feed where the FARMER wants them!<br /><br />"It works this way: Graziers use the temporary electric fences to confine a herd of perhaps 50 calves or steers to an area the size of a small suburban front lawn for a short period, often as short as a half a day."<br /><br />Sounds like they're equally confined as most industrially produced livestock for the majority of their time alive!<br /><br />"Churchill’s producers are raising cattle this way on converted corn and soybean land in Minnesota...Part of this is a result of lower or no costs for inputs such as fertilizer, fuel, pesticides and machinery."<br /><br />Nobody is saying industrial agriculture is a good thing. But it is a necessity to meat the world's meat demands in particular. 60-70% of all soybeans and corn in the states alone goes to feeding livestock. Chances are these former soybean and cornfields were used for that purpose. Most soy is already grown organically. Usually even without the aid of genetic modification. It would be better if we used those fields for soy to feed directly to us as primary consumers (Clearly without the assistance of industrial machinery). It would result in reduced methane emissions from selectively bred livestock ruminators as well!<br /><br />"If we convert from grain-fed to grass-fed meat, we can turn millions of acres of row crops into carbon sinks, and use permanent pasture to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and slow global warming, as well as conserve water."<br /><br />If everyone went Vegan, we would probably see an even greater decrease in carbon emissions and more naturalization (instead of using conservation lands for cattle), as opposed to shifting to another form of industrial agriculture. Particularly if veganic Permaculture techniques were used!<br /><br />"There is even some evidence that perennial grasslands are, under certain conditions, even better at sequestering carbon than forests."<br /><br />Rather a vague and ungrounded statement. Most scientists realise that forests (particularly rainforests which would have to be cut down for meat production elsewhere in the world to follow this model) are vital to biodiversity. They are also much healthier ecosystems with complex symbiotic relationships with all its inhabitants. Tree plantation in regions susceptible to desertisation has been shown to slow, and even in some instances reverse, its effects. Something grassland probably could not do.<br /><br />"A conventionally farmed corn or soybean field is a source of global warming gases, but a permanent pasture is a pump that pushes carbon back into the soil where it increases fertility."<br /><br />Are they taking into count the fact that genetically altered and bred cattle grow faster and ruminate more methane and CO2 than their ancestral counterparts? Basically they are bred to consume as much and grow as quickly as possible. This model doesn't address this in the slightest. Especially with reference to methane, a greenhouse gas with 24 times the effect of CO2!<br /><br />"Production of high-input annual crops such as corn and soybeans release carbon at a rate of about 1,000 pounds per acre while perennial grasslands can store carbon at roughly the same rates."<br /><br />Key word is high-input. As I previously stated, the high input is a necessity to facilitate current meat production methods. Low-intensity farming and especially Permaculture would/could create equally impressive carbon sinks with nitrogen fixers to boot (particular in the case of legumes and bean crops)!<br /><br />"Early on, especially in organic farming and with the rise of vegetarianism, we began thinking we could approach that diversity by raising a variety of a dozen or so tilled crops (never mind that an acre of pure prairie contains hundreds of species of plants). But it seems obvious now that this line of thinking needed to step up a couple of levels on the taxonomic hierarchy. Why did we think we could in any meaningful way mimic nature’s biodiversity by excluding the animal kingdom?"<br /><br />Firstly, there are countless crops. This is a huge strawman argument. These "artificial" prairies used for agriculture, would probably only contain species beneficial to the growth/production of the livestock. This is not a "pure" prairie by any stretch of the imagination (save for those whose livelihood depends on it). Nobody ever said any method of farming is exclusive of animals. Even veganic agriculture would promote visits from pollinators (without the need to confine them mind you), beneficial insects and animals (particularly those aiding in decomposition), fungi, all to promote a carbon reducing method of agriculture. Industrial agriculture itself is a problem. But its impacts would be greatly reduced without livestock production (which contributes 18% of greenhouse emissions). Organic agriculture is certainly a step in the right direction. As is truly fair trade produce (which is often hand picked, and organic). Being primary consumers is the best way to reduce energy usage. As only ~10% of a trophic levels energy is given the to level above it. So these vast amount of land that are used for this method of animal agriculture could be done away with altogether if everyone adopted a vegan diet. This would allow it to revert to a truly PURE prairie or forest to a state before it became ravished by industrial animal agriculture.<br /><br />"There are studies to suggest grain produces less methane, but those studies, by and large, compare conventional pastures with feedlots...On the other hand, studies of rotational grazing have shown decreases of as much as 45 percent in methane production, when compared with conventional pastures."<br /><br />So, probably studies done by the rotational grazing farmers themselves in order to sell their product. Even a reduction of AT MOST 45% is still a lot more methane than would be produced than on a strict vegetarian diet. But, once again, this is a rather vague statement that is contradicted by itself.<br /><br />"Remove them from the food chain, and other methane-producing organisms — termites, deer, elk, grasshoppers, not to mention an unimaginable array of microbes — would cheerfully assume the niche."<br /><br />Once again, these animals are in their natural state and not bred to grow and eat as much and as quickly as possible. Plus all animals produce some level of methane. And it's shown that livestock are/were bred in a way in that they would produce a lot.<br /><br />"No doubt, at least some environmental good would come from reducing the world’s consumption of beef, but the trend is in the opposite direction. Humans and cattle have worked together for almost 8,000 years, and that is not likely to change soon. But there’s no reason we shouldn’t learn to raise cattle better."<br /><br />Purely opinion, and a plea to 8000 years of history is nothing when most other creatures have lived in homeostasis for millions. 8000 years is only a minute fraction of the "human" timeline. They simply say we're going in the wrong direction because they don't want to lose business by people realising a vegetable based diet is the only true way to reduce our ecological footprint the most!Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-16671708135675403062009-02-01T20:36:00.000-08:002009-02-01T20:41:17.971-08:00Hay Island Seal HuntAs most of you probably do not know, the Hay Island Grey Seal slaughter begins tomorrow. The reason I say you probably don't know is that it's kept as much of a secret by the Canadian government as possible. This is why there is a lack of news or media on this issue. So, to all those who believe that this is wrong (either due to the lack of government information, the inhumanity involved, the fact that it's a tax payer's burden, etc.; there are many reasons to oppose the seal hunt), here is something you can do:<br /><br />WHAT YOU CAN DO:<br /><br />Please take a moment to send an email to Nova Scotia's Environment Minister to let him know you oppose the slaughter of grey seals on Hay Island. Please send a copy to Premier Rodney MacDonald and Nova Scotia's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Ron Chisholm. A copy should also go Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Gail Shea, various other government officials and leaders of the provincial and federal political parties. Everything you will need is on the webpage (see link below)- names, emails and suggested email text. Please feel free to use the text as is, adapt it to your liking, or draft your own. Please remember that personalized letters work best. Please remain polite in your email, as profanity or threatening language will cause your email to be deleted.<br /><br />For Nova Scotians, please also send a cc to your local Member of Legislative Assembly (link to MLA list is on webpage). For Canadians, please also send a cc to your local Member of Parliament (links provided on webpage).<br />....................<br /><br />SUGGESTED EMAIL:<br />Personalized letters always work best. Feel free to use the following text, but your message will carry more weight if you write your own customized message and subject line. Please remain polite - profanity will cause your email to be deleted without being read. For identity of recipients, please see the bottom of this page. All email addresses have been tested and are operational. However, from time to time emails may be bounced back to you from some recipients as "undeliverable". If this happens, please re-send the email individually to those recipients to ensure delivery.<br />TO: min_env@gov.ns.ca<br />CC: premier@gov.ns.ca, MIN_DFA@gov.ns.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca,<br />mlashelburne@eastlink.ca, theriahe@gov.ns.ca, stoffp@parl.gc.ca, Simms.S@parl.gc.ca, ryan@ryanwatson.ca, ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca, mcneilsr@gov.ns.ca, leader@greenparty.ca, laytoj@parl.gc.ca, Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca,<br />YOUR LOCAL MLA (if in NS), YOUR MP (if in Canada)<br /><span>BCC: action@antisealingcoalitio</span><div class="text"><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>n.ca<br />SUBJECT: Hay Island seal pups need your protection<br /><br />To Minister David Morse:<br /><br />I am appalled by your decision to allow fishermen to once again violate Hay Island and kill defenceless grey seal pups in their nursery grounds this year.<br /><br />Last year untrained fishermen descended on Hay Island armed with crude wooden bats and boxcutters where they slaughtered 1,261 seal pups in an extremely cruel manner using methods condemned by international experts.<br /><br />Hay Island is a protected wilderness area and you have a duty to respect this land, which the government holds in trust for the people of Nova Scotia, and a duty to protect all life on the land.<br /><br />There is no scientific evidence that seals are responsible for the collapse of fish stocks or their failure to rebound. Even DFO's own scientists say there is no direct evidence that seals negatively impact cod stocks, and they simply do not know if reducing seal populations will aid in cod recovery.<br /><br />I urge you to reconsider your decision, examine your conscience and do the right thing - protect the grey seals of Hay Island.<br /><br />[Your name]<br />[Town]<br />[Province/State/Region]<br />[Country]<br /></div>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261420888396468616.post-67952008049998083232009-01-29T10:18:00.000-08:002009-01-29T11:27:59.358-08:00A New World...I Mean Blog!This is mostly just a sample post to see how my new blog looks. I'll have lots of news stories and opinions for you very shortly.<br /><br />Disclaimer: They will probably mostly be the cynical and pessimistic rants of a anarcho-primitist vegan living in a modern world that is fuelled by the deaths of countless animals (both human and non-human). Although, when optimism is due, I hope to post some inspirational blogs about progress towards environmental and animal rights causes. I hope you enjoy!<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Chris Grant<br /><br />P.S. For those of you who don't know much about me, you can view one of my inactive, older blogs here:<br />http://menshevik.spaces.live.com/<br /><br />I may still use it for photos as this site seems to take forever to upload pictures.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535906552882404183noreply@blogger.com0