State of the Union Address

I always look forward to the State of the Union address because it is a time when the president is supposed to tell the country what is going on, not the media. I was especially looking forward to this year's address because I had heard that the members of Congress and guests that were attending the speech were going to be sitting amongst each other instead of divided by party. I thought this was a really smart idea because it always appeared childish to me when the each side would stand up and clap (for, in my opinion, unreasonably long periods of time) when they agreed with something that the president said. Although there was some obvious division amongst avid clappers, the speech seemed to have a different atmosphere. It felt like there was a little less tension and everyone seemed more civilized.

There were a couple of things about Obama's address that I liked, and there were a couple things about it that I didn't like. To begin, I thought he did a good job on saying things that were appealing to everyone. I believe that it was smart to not say anything extremely controversial (or declare a fixed opinion on sensitive issues) because it definitely did not create such a tense atmosphere. The only things he gave the impression that he was absolutely passionate and adamant about were issues that most everyone agreed with, such as rebuilding our country's economy. This was smooth on Obama's part, but I was also disappointed that he gave such vague solutions to certain problems. It definitely lightened the blow about some issues that require in-depth solutions, but I did not feel a heap of reassurance that he knew exactly what measures need to be taken to find reasonable solutions. He sort of danced around the tough topics by playing up his exceptional speaking skills and saying inspirational things about education and winning the future. He did a good job at pleasing the majority by not taking a contentious stance on certain issues, but I don't think he did not give a deliver enough specifics on the state of our union.

Abortion

After viewing both websites, I think that the NARAL website has a better argument than the National Right to Life (NRL) side. I liked the NARAL website because it discussed the issues surrounding abortion in a problem/solution way. They listed the possible (and probable) problems with certain aspects of abortion, such as healthy pregnancies, sex education, birth control, etc., and followed them with a list of solutions. While this is a civilized manner in presenting their information and discrediting the other side, it also realistically looks at this controversial debate. The NRL website does trigger strong emotions, especially after seeing some pictures, they never say what a supporter could DO about it. Their biggest focus is about changing people's minds and morals, not about preventing the problem in the first place. The NARAL website is an advocate of sex education so that more people will be more safe. If sex is what is causing all of these problems, why not eliminate the problems that come out of it? It's a simple, attainable solution. Also, I was looking at the fact sheet on the NRL's website and I came across some grammatical errors. Some of the information was extremely hard to believe and like nothing I had ever heard of before. This made me question whether their information was reliable. The only source that was listed was themselves, the NRL. There is a small section on their website that gives alternatives to abortion. They suggest counseling, pregnancy tests, and help with the baby's finances. While these are reasonable alternatives for some people, they are not applicable to everyone who wants an abortion. Everyone has a different financial and personal situation. Many people will simply not want to try to be talked out of an abortion.

I believe that parents should have a right to know if their daughter is receiving an abortion is she is a minor. Because it is a medical procedure and there are risks, parents should be notified of what is going on. I do not, however, believe that the daughter needs parental consent to get an abortion. The family may talk it over all they want, but in the end, this is the girl's body. She is the only person who should be allowed to say what is going to be done to her body.

I believe that the notification process should be the same with the father. After all, he is the baby's other half and should be notified of the woman's decision. If the mother and father disagree on what to do with the baby, I think that they should be required to go to counseling until they are in agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement after a while (because the pregnancy cannot be put on hold,) it should be the woman's decision. Like I stated before, she should be the only one who decides what happens to her body.

I agreed with most of the Illinois Abortion Laws, even the anti-choice laws. Although, I do not agree that the spouse's consent is required (explained in the paragraph above) or that more oppressive restrictions should be placed on abortion providers that aren't applied to other medical procedures. I think that it is okay to only allow abortion specialists to perform abortions to ensure safety, but I think that limiting the places that women can receive an abortion is just another way of making it less accessible.

#6: Final Reflection

I am so glad that I read this book because I loved exploring a different perspective like Foer's. Today, the people that share their opinions are usually the burn-down-a-building-of-humans-to-save-a-cow group or the people who love meat so much that they support the mistreatment of animals. It's refreshing to know that there's a person that exists who values animals but can still understand the opposing side. Foer talked about his grandmother who survived the Holocaust a couple of times. He shared how much she valued food, health, and tradition. The way we are raised is usually the lifestyle we will adapt in our younger years. One could reasonably conclude that it would be hard for a child whose family has endorsed hunting and leather coat wearing to question his values at a young age. I like and respect Foer's opinion because he establishes his values, but he pursues them in a realistic manner. He comes to terms with the fact that in the next 10 or 20 years, people will still be eating animals. There is nothing (besides the apocalypse) that would completely halt the human consumption of animals. So, why try to change everyone's point of view when you can change what you don't like about animal agriculture (which is MUCH easier.) Sentimentality can only be shared to a certain extent by polar opposites. You can't tell people what their morals should be. You have to be realistic. I think that Foer's message was to define your values in the most idealistic way and then sensibly pursue them.

#5: Anthropocentrism, Anthropodenial, & Other Big Words

Going along with the theory of relativity (Foer's not Einstein's), it's interesting to observe the extent to which humans either accept the relation with animals or refuse to accept it. After all, we are all animals. It's true that we have opposable thumbs and we do things that the average lion cannot, but we are very similar.

Foer first discusses the meaning of anthropocentrism. He says that it's the conviction that humans are the center of evolution. We can measure the "rightful" owners of every living organism and the lives of other animals in terms of human evolution. To me, this seems reasonable that the only living species on the planet capable of this kind of thinking should get to decide how to measure other living things. But what happens when humans believe they have the right to rule animals in all aspects, not just how to measure their lives. Then, I believe, problems arise. Religion, values, and truth are all things that make animal agriculture so complex and controversial.

Another term that Foer talks about is anthropodenial. Literally, it's the denial that anthropoids share similar experiences to humans. The denial that animals are similar to humans and other animals in terms of experience. Foer uses the example of how his son asks if their dog, George, will be lonely when they leave the house without her. His answer of, "George doesn't get lonely," is the epitome of anthropodenial. I believe that this state of denial is what allows some humans to be apathetic and merciless when it comes to animals. It is obvious that we are different from most animals, but it is not obvious and ignorant to assume that animals are not like us.

Another big word that Foer explores is anthropomorphism. It's the urge to project human experiences onto other animals (like the time Foer's son asked if their dog would be lonely.) An Italian psychologist, Emanuela Cenami Spada, wrote about anthropomorphism and how humans must do it to truly understand their own human existence and experiences. He writes, "The only available 'cure' [for anthropomorphism] is the continuous critique of our working definitions, and to that embarrassing problem that animals present to us." We need to keep questioning ourselves and keep evaluating our evolving relationship with animals. They are not who they were 100 years ago they won't be in another 100 years. The key, I believe, is to understand that neither are we. I think the "embarrassing problem" that Spada touches on is how animals depict human nature and human tendencies. Occasionally, other animals bring out compassion and empathy in humans. Other times, they bring out brutality and oppression. To make us feel comfortable with the creatures that we are forever here with, we must accept them and relate to them. This is the only way that we will be able to live harmoniously.

#4: Humans and Animals - It's All Relative

Foer writes, "Humans are the only animals that have children on purpose, keep in touch (or don't), care about birthdays, waste and lose time, brush their teeth, feel nostalgia, scrub stains, have religions and political parties and laws, wear keepsakes, apologize years after an offense, whisper, fear themselves, interpret dreams, hide their genitalia, shave, bury time capsules, and choose not to eat something for reasons of conscience." We eat animals because we're different than them, yet we refrain from eating them because we're different from them. Is it legal to justify the same thing in two different ways? I guess it is, but it's comical how two extremes can use the same reasoning to justify why they do something (or don't do something.) This idea reminds me of another issue: abortion. If the pro-choice side and the pro-life side both claim that they believe in what they do because they value life, then you know that the issue must be complex. I think that one way complexity is illustrated is when two polar opposites defend their side with the same reasoning. When this happens, you know that the debates will go past the rights and wrongs. Animal agriculture is not just about morality. It's about the environment, tradition, the future, and desire. Humans are animals but animals aren't humans. (?) It's all relative . . .

#3: War On Fish

For every 10 tuna, sharks, and other large predatory fish that were in our oceans fifty to a hundred years ago, only 1 is left. Many scientists predict that in less than fifty years, all fished species will totally collapse. This is no longer a means of survival; it is a war of extermination. Not so long ago, farmers used natural processes to farm. The term "factory farmers" doesn't seem to fit our image of a father-son in a wooden boat fishing trip. Today, factory farming considers nature an obstacle to overcome.

A natural obstacle to overcome when using contemporary fishing methods is bycatch. Bycatch refers to the sea creatures that are "accidentally" caught by fishing nets (there's nothing accidental about hundreds of animals being consciously thrown back into the ocean alive.) Massive amounts of catches equals massive amounts of bycatch. For example, the shrimp business throws 80-90% of the sea animals, dead or dying, it captures overboard as bycatch. People tend not to think about this because they tend not to know about it. Foer notes that there might be a different reaction to eating animals if our food was labeled, letting us know how many animals were killed to make this one possible to eat.

If you look at the massive tuna industry, you would see that there are tons of species that are regularly killed for the sole purpose of providing people with tuna (which, even though irrelevant, is known to have dangerous amounts of mercury in it.) Among the many species that are regularly killed to make tuna an availability are the manta ray, devil ray, spotted skate, bignose shark, copper shark, Galapagos shark, sandbar shark, night shark, tiger shark, sand tiger shark, great white shark, hammerhead shark, spurdog fish, Cuban dogfish, bigeye thresher, mako, blue shark, wahoo, sailfish, bonito, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, longbill spearfish, white marlin, swordfish, lancet fish, grey triggerfish, needlefish, pomfret, blue runner, black ruff, dolphin fish, bigeye ciagarfish, porcupine fish, rainbow runner, anchovy, grouper, flying fish, cod, common sea horse, Bermuda chub, opah, escolar, leerfish, tripletail, goosefish, monkfish, sunfish, Murray eel, pilotfish, black gemfish, stone bass, bluefish, cassava fish, red drum, great amberjack, yellowtail, sea bream, barracuda, puffer fish, loggerhead turtle, green turtle, leatherback turtle, hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley turtle, Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross, Audouin's gull, balearie shearwater, black-browed albatross, great black-backed gull, great shearwater, great-winged petrel, grey petrel, herring gull, laughing gull, northern royal albatross, shy albatross, sooty shearwater, southern fulmar, Yelkouan shearwater, yellow-legged gull, minke whale, sei whale, fin whale, dolphin, northern right whale, pilot whale, humpback whale, beaked whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, sperm whale, striped dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, and goose-beaked whale (just to name a few.)

Killing off so many members of so many species is not a healthy way to sustain an ecosystem. And now, I will prod at the morality of the contemporary fishing industry. Are a couple of tunas worth the lives of 145 species? This does not speak positively on behalf of the fishing industry. Like I said, people don't talk about it because people don't know about it.

#2: Define Your Values

People, music, and traditions define New Orleans, as we know from discussing Katrina. That city has deep roots, ones that can tell a story about the culture from past to present. Just like the city, the food you eat can define a part of your culture and, essentially, a part of who you are. What you choose to eat is entirely up to you, but not all labels tell the truth that you want to hear.

Free-range is a great example because it clearly demonstrates the morality of the food industry. When buying chicken, for example, the package is sometimes labeled "free-range." To a lot of conscientious buyers who wish to purchase their produce only from ethical farmers, they choose this package. Because, in your mind, free-range creates the image of chickens roaming on open grounds, eating fresh feed as they please, and having a decent shelter to retreat to. But, actually, according to the USDA, chickens raised for meat must only have "access to the outdoors," which is absolutely insignificant if you take that literally. A shed containing thirty thousand chickens that has a door which occasionally opens to a 5-by-5 square inch dirt patch is considered free-range. Foer says that he could keep a flock of hens under his sink and call them free-range. Now what does that say about the food industry? To me, it says that not everything can be trusted. What does that mean about cage-free animals? Organically grown products? Unfortunately, "farmers" have found a loophole in these terms as well. Organic and cage-free are just two terms that have basically no meaning. They are merely used to take the money of misinformed, caring consumers. This is not fair to anyone.

FUN FACT (courtesy of Jonathan Safran Foer): Modern industrial fishing lines can be as long as 75 miles--the same distance as from sea level to space.

Local? Hmmm . . .

#1: Eating Animals

Eating Animals caught my attention simply because of the title. I was hesitant at first because the last thing I needed to read was a one-sided book about animal rights that was written by a stubborn radical who worships PETA and its extremities. Then, I discovered the book was written by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of other great literary works. I decided that because he has such a unique, opinionated voice, I would see what he has to say about this very controversial topic.

I was extremely glad that I decided to read this book because Foer puts complicated concepts that typically surround eating and put them into a perspective that anyone can comprehend. Whenever someone, usually one of my family members, boldly decides to engage in an animal rights debate, I am always amazed about one subject: eating dogs. To some people, eating dogs are two words that should under absolutely no circumstances be paired together. Despite the fact that it's completely legal in forty-four states, most people cannot fathom how anyone could eat man's best friend. The fact is, we are one of the few cultures around the world who shun dog eating. For example, Eastern Indians would never lay a hand on their cows, but they sometimes eat their dogs. Foer cleverly explained the average human's reasoning by using a passage from George Orwell's Animal Farm. Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You can try to set rules such as "don't eat companion animals" or "don't eat animals with significant mental capacities," but then you just end up contradicting yourself. Dogs are normally companion animals in America, but they're not domesticated in all parts of the world. If you claim that you shouldn't eat smart animals, then you've just led yourself into another loophole. If a dogs fall under "animals with significant mental capacities," then you must also include pigs, cows, chickens, and many sea animals. And, sadly, it would justify eating severely impaired humans. So tell me, please, how do you choose which animals are considered ethical to consume and which ones are considered unethical to consume?

In America, millions of dogs and cats that are euthanized in animal shelters every year become the food for our food. Safran points out that if we leg dogs be dogs and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs. From an ecological standpoint, dog is a realistic food for our environment. But how can we do that? I just can't get over my sentimentality when thinking about my dog, Bailey, in a pot. But realistically, dogs are plentiful, good for you, easy to prepare, and reasonable to process. On one page, Foer includes a classic Filipino recipes: Stewed Dog, Wedding Style. I won't go into all of the details, but first you kill a medium-sized dog, cook it fur-less, cut the meat into 1" cubes, add some peppercorn and pineapple, do some more boiling, and lastly, blend in puree of dog's liver and cook for an additional 5-7 minutes.

Eating animals seems invisible and irrelevant when it's actually the most relevant thing. Thinking about dogs and their relationship to the animals we eat is a step towards making sense of why we eat animals.