Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thomas Servo
Published Letters: 42 Editor's Choice: 2
If they do dodge his show, will he unleash "FOX security" on them?
I haven't read the book, so I'm reluctant to defend or criticize it.
But it sounds like they make some dubious claims and say some things that I (a long-time vegan) would not agree with. I'd just ask that you not judge all vegans by what I, or the authors of this book, or any individual vegan says or does.
I must say, however, that it's always fascinating to see how eager the writers at Salon are to be critical of vegans. I don't believe that I have ever read an article on Salon where being a vegan was presented in a positive light. In this article, for instance, the word "shunning" is used to describe the ethical choices that vegans make. "Shunning" is a negative word with judgmental and anti-social connotations, and the decision to use that word obviously reflects the author's opinion of vegans.
In reality, though, being a vegan is solely about making positive choices to help end animal exploitation, and has nothing to do with "shunning" or depriving yourself of anything. Instead of saying that vegans are "shunning" animal products, the author could have said something like, "vegans are people who choose to reject the societal norm of animal exploitation, and are motivated by the positive impact they hope their choices will have on the lives of billions of innocent animals, both now and in the future." Although you might think that that is too far in the other direction, it is the way that I, and I believe most vegans, think about it.
And, while we're on the subject of Salon and its biases, hardly a day goes by that I don't click over here and read some harsh criticism of atheists, or people who voted for Ralph Nader, or just about anybody else who is trying to change the horribly flawed norms of our society.
Is all of that criticism because Salon's writers are trying to be "fair and balanced?"
Americans voting for those whom they feel would actually represent them? You're right, we ought to put a stop to that right now.
This article is just one example of a formula piece which gets printed and reprinted with obnoxious frequency.
It could just as easily have been about the young, hip, thirty-something Christians who pray about the meaninglessness of societal success before heading off to the bar. I'm sure I've read that article before in Salon.
Or it could have been about the young, dynamic, hip Christian pastor/Muslim cleric who is changing the face of his religion/faith/whatever to serve the poor, disaffected yuppies who only respond to well-placed Jay-Z references. Oh, and whose usual complaints are that they have too much money and too much success.
I'm sure I've read that article in Salon before, too.
The problem is not that people are too busy, or too rich, or too hip, or whatever; the problem is that they are all doing things every day that are ultimately meaningless to them. This is capitalism, and it is mindless conformity, and it is familial pressures and traditions, and it is a whole host of things that people are simply unwilling or unable to address or change. So instead, they turn to religion, meditation, healing crystals, prayer beads or beer to try and soothe their unhappiness.
If we changed society so that people could do things that really mattered to them, and were also intellectually, emotionally and ethically satisfying, then people wouldn't need to seek out double-talking hooey like Buddhism to try and quell the utter stupidity of what a money-based society defines as success.
Instead, they push papers at a giant corporation all week and then wonder why they're not happy. And then I'm subjected to yet another article about how being spiritual/religious/whatever is now hip, daddy-o.
If only we could get reality to be that hip...
This is just one more reason for the Episcopal church to be glad about its impending schism from the wider Anglican Communion.
In fact, to have any credibility in modern society, I think there is no choice for the American Episcopalians and the much more liberal Canadian Anglicans but to willingly and happily get out of the Anglican Communion now, before the officially imposed schism, and form their own, more progressive, international organization.
One that would fight for the rights of women, and gay people, not against them.
Cheerleaders are perhaps the oddest part of our culture's obsession with mindless team sports.
We're talking about people who *aren't even playing the game* shouting out mindless hype to help give the Borg in the stands a mindless adrenaline rush to help get them excited about a mindless activity.
And we're supposed to take all of this seriously?
For crying out loud, either play the game yourself or go read a book.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
