Vegans to Vagabonds: A search for social hierarchy

[p] Veganism is gay response

2011-03-16T16:37:00.000-07:00

A response to a post by a vegan blogger about veganism and gay rights

http://girliegirlarmy.com/blog/20110316/being-vegan-is-so-gay/#comment-6802

I think that it is a logical and ethical leap to move from gay rights to animal rights. The understanding of oppression as a form of abuse transcends the human animal barrier. You are absolutely correct in saying that if you have lived with a companion animal that you know they live emotional and social lives and as such can be damaged by the removal of their freedom or their social natures.

What makes things even worse is most of the population know that places such as Huntington life sciences, routinely experiments on companion animals, and still most humans cannot make the leap from their pre-programed understanding of their pets as opposed to other animals needs. Perhaps it is because they see animals still, even in love, as property.

Property is only valuable when we have a claim to it, a vested interest in seeing it maintained. While its true rationally we can understand someone elses property as an elusive value it is not the same as actualized value of ownership. Vested interest in this case is the emotional bond or connection we create with our companions verses perhaps the monetary value of someone elses property.

I think one thing should be stated. As gay men and women every day we wake up as we are, without the ability to change what nature intended. So everyday we awake we are politicized and grouped into the LGBT umbrella and all of the connotations that this entails. The culture of protest was born out of the oppression of our fore-fathers, and as such, it is the acculturated ideal to stand up, oft times loudly, for our rights. Sadly being compassionate and standing up for all beings that are mistreated is not what we are taught is valuable nor socially viable.

One thing that i feel must change is the culture of the LGBT community. we need to understand that the fight for equality is but one fight, but the fight to reclaim our humanity from the clutches of brutality is a universal fight. Each being that is subjugated to the needs of the masses, who is looked at as less than ourselves, is by its very definition, deserving of our protections.

Those that have need will always find a helping hand to steady the pain from me. Unfortunately i am unsure that the current 'Me' culture of gay rights coupled with American idealism can sustain the notion of help to all in need, with the current power structures that feed into that selfish cycle.

I am hopeful for the future because compassion is becoming more and more commonplace, however first we must learn to accept people within our hard won movement before we can even hope to reach out further. This involves bisexual, transgendered/cisgendered individuals.

When one is left behind we all stray.

2010-04-30T11:06:00.000-07:00

Animal studies paint misleading picture

Unpublished negative results may explain limited translation of promising treatments to the clinic.

Janelle Weaver

White ratsOnly animal trials with positive results tend to be published.Nikolay Suslov/

Published animal trials overestimate by about 30% the likelihood that a treatment works because negative results often go unpublished, a study suggests.

This is a surprisingly strong bias, says the study's lead author, Malcolm Macleod, a neurologist at the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, UK. The work, published today in PLoS Biology1, analyses the effect of publication bias in animal models of disease.

Macleod and his collaborators turned to a stroke database called the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Stroke (CAMARADES). An international team established the database in 2004 in response to poor translation of animal findings to clinical trials. Macleod's team combed through 525 studies, which encompassed 1,359 experiments testing a total of 16 different stroke treatments.

The team first estimated the magnitude of publication basis. A given treatment would be expected to result in a balanced range of effect sizes, but they found that the literature included many reports of a large effect, but few reports of a small effect. The team then calculated the number of missing studies and came up with an estimate of the 'true' effect of the treatment. In addition to the large overestimate of treatment's efficacy, Macleod and his team found that as many as 16% of experiments remain unpublished.
Lost in translation

A little more than a third of highly cited animal research is reproduced later in human trials2, and although about 500 treatments have been reported as effective in animal models of stroke, only aspirin and early thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator work in humans3. The lack of negative results in the literature may explain why so few drugs tested in animals are effective in humans.

“If the research is not published, it doesn't contribute to our knowledge of human disease.”

Some say that these findings add to the evidence that animal models are not particularly useful in predicting whether a treatment is effective in humans. "What you really want in drug trials is an animal model that can predict human responses, and that just violates the rules of evolutionary biology," says Ray Greek, an anaesthesiologist and president of Americans for Medical Advancement, a non-profit organization in Goleta, California, that opposes the use of animal models of disease.

But Macleod says that animal studies can help to pave the way to useful therapies. He advocates strategies for making animal studies more efficient and effective, such as randomizing treatment conditions or keeping experimenters blind to treatment assignments3. Not reporting the negative results of animal trials is unethical, says Macleod, because it squanders animals and leads to premature human trials. "If the research is not published, it doesn't contribute to our knowledge of human disease," he says.
Positive slant

The prevalence of publication bias illustrates the tendency of journals to report positive results, which are often viewed as more interesting and citable than negative findings. "If a result is negative, the investigator doesn't want to go through the work of writing it up and publishing it, because they know it won't get into a good journal and it won't really enhance their career," says S. Tom Carmichael, a stroke researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.

ADVERTISEMENT
Click here to find out more!

Macleod hopes that the study will convince scientists to publish all of their findings and encourage publishing groups to launch pre-print archives, like Nature Precedings, which include negative studies. Journals such as the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine explicitly focus on the problem. Neurobiology of Aging has a special section on negative results, and the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism (JCBFM), part of the Nature Publishing Group, is launching a section that reports negative results from rigorously conducted studies. "I'm very positive that over the next few years, such measures will become standard for scholarly journals," says Ulrich Dirnagl, editor-in-chief of JCBFM. "I hope the study convinces professional societies and funding bodies to value negative data more and support its publication."

But journals alone can't solve the problem, Macleod says. The effect of publication bias on clinical research has driven the development of registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov in which clinical trials are logged before they begin. Macleod hopes that similar registries for animal studies will be introduced in future. "When you're trying to make up your mind whether it's worth taking a drug forward," he says. "It's important to get access to all the information about the drug, not just a subset of that information that was published in scientific journals."

*
References
1. Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M. W., Howells, D. W. & Macleod, M. R. PLoS Biology 8, e1000344 (2010). | Article
2. Hackam, D. G. & Redelmeier, D. A. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 296, 1731-1732 (2006). | Article | ChemPort |
3. van der Worp, H. B., et al. PLoS Medicine 7, e1000245 (2010). | Article

[R] Pan seared veggies in agave and vinegeratte on bread

2010-04-27T10:18:00.000-07:00

I just made this the other night after being inspired by a macrobiotic dish in Los Angelas.

I purposely left out the quantities because its all according to taste and easy to make
Ingredients:
-asparagus
-sweet peppers
-agave nectar
-vinaigrette
-Bread (paninni works best but i used wholewheat slices)
-Vegan butter
-hummus (optional)

Set a non stick pan on medium heat. Place asparagus and sweet peppers in the pan. Pan sear the vegetables until sides becomes slightly blackened and cooked through. Lower heat add vegan butter. let veggies absorb butter.

Mix together agave nectar and vinaigrette. Once combined sufficiently pour the mixture over the vegetables stiring the veggies so that they are constantly being turned. It is important to do on lower heat so that the mixture does not smoke. Once coated and absorbed removed the veggies from the pan.

Place two pieces of break into the pan to absorb the rest of the mixture and to toast the pieces. Once the bread is toasted remove bread ad a layer of hummus (preferably one that is flavored well with garlic and lemon) then add veggies.

Eat. enjoy. share.

Their Calling Is Defending Rats, Yet These Folks Aren't Lawyers

2009-05-22T13:46:00.000-07:00

By DIONNE SEARCEY

In her fight for the rights of some of the smallest creatures, Stephanie Ernst offers a video of a frolicking, fluffy mammal snuggling up with a pet cat.

"Rats don't get a fair shake," she writes in an introduction to the video on her animal-rights blog. "This one is quite adorable and may lead you to see rats a little differently."

Unfortunately, stripped along the bottom of the video is an ad for an exterminator automatically generated by the YouTube.com service hosting the online clip.

"Immediate rat solutions!" it reads. "Free inspection the day you call."
Says Ms. Ernst: "It's horrible."

to view video click these words

video
One Woman's Fight for Rodent Rights
3:15

Amber Allinger is working to shed prejudices against rats. She's even doing her dissertation on the rodents, which she calls sweet and nice. WSJ's Dionne Searcey reports.

Ms. Ernst, a resident of St. Louis, is most concerned about the welfare of lab rodents. Animal advocates say rats and mice make up 90% of animal testing conducted in university laboratories and other research facilities in the U.S. In 2002, the Animal Welfare Act was amended to exclude rodents from protections offered to bigger lab animals including dogs, monkeys and even guinea pigs.

"Rats and mice tend to get a bad rap" that influences people from the time they are children, says Ms. Ernst. "We just have these biases built in that are not really representative of who they are."

Animal-rights advocates in the U.S. have scored coups in recent years for an assortment of uncuddly animals. A new law requires bigger cages for egg-laying chickens in California. Foie gras, a delicacy made from the livers of fattened geese and ducks, has been banished from some restaurant menus.

But public sympathy for rats and mice hasn't grown much in three decades since the animal-rights movement first organized in the U.S. Viewed as pests and greeted with shrieks, rats are much less likely to attract public sympathy than, say, the furry bunnies that serve as the poster critters for cutting back on animal testing.

So, rat lovers have a tough job. Researchers who use federal funds are asked to adhere to basic guidelines for rodents, such as avoiding overcrowded cages. But privately funded research labs are legally bound by no rules in their testing of rats and mice.

to view video follow link

"I used to see rats and think, 'Ew.' Now I see rats and think, 'Those rats have probably got a family somewhere.'" -- Chad Sandusky
Chad Sandusky
Chad Sandusky

"You see people shut down if you talk about how a rat can suffer," says Chad Sandusky, director of toxicology and research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that fights for animal rights and advocates vegetarianism.

Years ago, during his doctorate research on allergic reactions in humans, Mr. Sandusky experimented on and euthanized many rodents. The 64-year-old pharmacologist and toxicologist now works to persuade chemical and pesticide companies to carry out effective experiments using computerized tests or other means that don't involve animals.

"I'm working off my bad karma," he said.

Mr. Sandusky's transformation came gradually as he reviewed studies involving rodents and other animals for the Environmental Protection Agency. He concluded animal studies were too expensive and time-consuming, and the results didn't merit the sacrifice.

"I used to see rats and think, 'Ew,' " Mr. Sandusky said. "Now I see rats and think, 'Those rats have probably got a family somewhere.' "

Mr. Sandusky and other activists have succeeded in getting companies to listen to their concerns about using rodents in experiments. But rarely does anyone actually stop using rats and mice altogether. So activists are left to seek a better quality of life for the rats and mice in the lab.

"These animals are in full view 24-7, and they don't have any ability to do anything other than drink water and eat pellets and, well, you can imagine," says Mr. Sandusky.

Activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who say they want "empty cages not bigger cages," nevertheless have come up with a list of guidelines they shop to private companies in hopes of changing their treatment of caged mice and rats.

The 15-page "environmental enrichment" document calls for nesting materials that rodents can shred for stress relief. It also advocates fresh bedding (but not too fresh because some male rodents like the familiar smell of home), and elevated wire lids, a sort of cathedral ceiling, for cages.

Some activists point to research detailing how toys such as the Translucent Small Animal Shoe, the Toob-a-Loop and the Mouse Igloo can keep the animals happy. Opaque plastic structures provide "a modicum of privacy," for the rodents, as described in the PETA document.

When Jessica Sandler, director of PETA's regulatory testing division, engages companies to push for better treatment of laboratory rodents, she talks about "animals" instead of "rodents."

"I certainly don't emphasize the fact that they are mice and rats," Ms. Sandler says. "A lot of these tests are also done on rabbits and guinea pigs, so I lump them in. I know a lot of people will empathize more with a cute rabbit."

At a meeting a couple of years ago with representatives at General Electric Co., which contracted with companies that use rodents for safety tests in GE's plastics division, activists laid out their simple request: a solid surface for rodent cages.

"To a layperson like me and you, you may think, 'Well, do we really need to do something like that for these animals?' But our scientists certainly thought it was important and relatively easily done," said Gary Sheffer, a GE spokesman. "It wasn't something we dismissed as being ridiculous."

GE complied with the request. It has since sold off its plastics division.

Amber Alliger is writing her dissertation for a doctorate in psychology at Hunter College in New York on the benefits to science from improving animal welfare in laboratories.

View Full Image
Karen Borga
Dionne Searcey/The Wall Street Journal

"Inside my shirt they feel secure... That's how they get really used to their human." --Karen Borga
Karen Borga
Karen Borga

Once they get to know their handlers, rats are so gentle that some people let them lick their eyelashes clean -- and even their teeth, Ms. Alliger says.

"It's amazing how gentle they are," she says. "You get nipped a few times and if you say 'Ow' loud enough, they're like, 'Oh, that hurts' and will stop biting."

Mr. Alliger has found homes for dozens of rodents she has used in her experiments.

A friend, Karen Borga, adopted seven of them -- black "hooded" rats so named because they look like they're wearing black hooded coats on their white bodies. Ms. Borga totes them in a blue portable cat carrier she has outfitted with a rat hammock and a Schweppes Ginger Ale box to create an extra bedroom.

As she explained the accommodations, three of the rats, named Seven, Eight and Eleven (Ms. Borga kept their laboratory names) scuttled across a couch. Seven hopped over a hurdle created out of plastic tubing, then crawled up Ms. Borga's sleeve.

"Inside my shirt they feel secure... That's how they get really used to their human," she says. "They love it."

Write to Dionne Searcey at dionne.searcey@wsj.com

Animals using tools

2009-01-20T14:10:00.000-08:00

For videos check this link:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/animaltools.html

Clever Critters: 8 Best Non-Human Tool Users
By Brandon Keim EmailJanuary 16, 2009 | 5:45:22 PMCategories: Animals

Multitool

Tool use was once thought to distinguish humans from animal — until, that is, so many animals proved able to use them.

Granted, the fine folks at Leatherman aren't about to be undercut by cheap chimpanzee-manufactured multitools. But it's hard not to feel a species-level déjà vu when seeing a gorilla using a walking stick or capuchin monkey thoughtfully selecting an ideal nut-cracking stone.

Below is a compilation of some of the most interesting animal tool use yet observed. Much more likely remains to be found: until Jane Goodall watched chimpanzees fishing for termites with sticks, scientists had been reluctant to credit animals with such sophisticated behavior — perhaps because, as Charles Darwin noted, “Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.”

Darwin himself was quite intrigued by animal tool use, suggesting that it allowed them to overcome biological shortcomings. In On the Origin of Species, he noted that elephants snap off tree branches to swat away flies; in honor of Darwin's interest, elephants are the first on our list of animal tool use.

Elephant

Elephant canteens. Cute YouTube videos of elephant painters show their amazing dexterity, but even more impressive is this peculiar habit: after digging a water hole, elephants will strip bark from a tree, chew it into a ball, then use it to fill the hole. Once the top has been covered with sand, the elephant has an evaporation-resistant canteen.

Image: Flickr/Paul Shaffner

Mole rat masks. The naked mole rat's powerful, protruding teeth are great for burrowing — but digging with their mouths makes it easy to inhale dirt. To keep their lungs clear, the mole rats have been observed placing wood shavings behind the teeth but in front of their lips — a simple face mask. (As an aside, the naked mole rat's better-known cousin has been taught to use a raking device in captivity. A word to raking rat trainers: keep an eye on them! New York City is bad enough without tool-using rodents.)

Video: YouTube/Bh41

Egyptian vulture hammers. Some say that seagulls who crack open shellfish by dropping them onto rocks are using tools, but that's generally dismissed on a technicality: The seagulls aren't actually manipulating their environment. No such ambiguity surrounds Egyptian vultures, who use rocks to break open ostrich eggs.

Video: YouTube/Gary9209

Burrowingowl2_2

Burrowing owl bait. In order to attract its favorite beetle prey, burrowing owls collect mammal dung, then spread it around the entrance to their homes. As with many animal tool behaviors, it's not clear whether the owls are acting out an instinctive sequence of actions, or consciously deciding to collect the dung. Either way, though, those dung balls are tools.

Image: Ronald G. Wolff / Nature

Woodpecker finch, green jay and New Caledonian crow bug-fishing sticks. All these birds use twigs to forage for insects, but the New Caledonian crow is famed for its cleverness, seen here in a captive bird's fashioning of a food-fetching hook from straight wire.

Video: YouTube/Kivirtual

Chimpanzee clubs. Since Jane Goodall's pioneering observations, chimpanzees have been observed using sticks to spear bush babies, smashing nuts open with stones (which, apparently, they've done for thousands of years) and making straw toothpicks. But their most striking tool may be the club.

Video: YouTube/Everything is Pointless

Gorillawalking

Gorilla walking sticks. Any hiker knows the value of a good walking stick — and so, apparently, do gorillas. In a swampy forest clearing in the northern Congo, this gorilla used a stick to test the depth of a pool of water, and then to keep its balance as it walked across.

Image: Wildlife Conservation Society/PLoS Biology

Dolhinsponge

Dolphin fishing sponges. An extended family of Indian bottlenose dolphins in Shark Bay, Australia are the first known marine mammal to use tools: sponges with which they stir ocean-bottom sand, uncovering and disorienting prey. “It’s hard to get inside their heads because their brains are constructed differently and it’s very hard to analyze their language, but they do seem very intelligent,” said Georgetown University marine biologist Janet Mann to the Times.

Let's just hope dolphins don't develop opposable thumbs.

Image: Ewa Krzyszczyk / PLoS ONE

Multitool image credit: Flickr/Frostnova

Crucell's Swiss Affiliate Berna Biotech to Cease All Animal Testing

2008-11-03T19:13:00.001-08:00

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/health-care/crucells-swiss-affiliate-berna-biotech-cease-animal-testing-1663050561/#

LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, Sep 26, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) ----- For several years the vaccine producer Berna Biotech a Swiss affiliate of Crucell N.V. has been working rigorously on the 3R program, which has a goal to Reduce, Refine and Replace all animal testing. The development of in-vitro alternatives as well as the strategic imperative of Berna Biotech to eliminate animal testing has resulted in the company announcing, that it will cease all animal testing and therefore close the animal house in Bern in 2008. Crucell's Swiss affiliate Berna Biotech whose goal is to fight infectious diseases and save lives by bringing innovation to global health has reached another important milestone in the production of modern vaccines.

About Crucell

Crucell N.V. (Euronext, NASDAQ: CRXL; Swiss Exchange: CRX) is a global biopharma company focused on research, development, production and marketing of vaccines, proteins and antibodies that prevent and treat primarily infectious diseases. Its vaccines are sold in public and private markets worldwide. Crucell's core portfolio includes a vaccine against hepatitis B, a fully-liquid vaccine against five important childhood diseases and a virosome-adjuvanted vaccine against influenza. Crucell also markets travel vaccines, such as the only oral anti-typhoid vaccine, an oral cholera vaccine and the only aluminum-free hepatitis A vaccine on the market. The Company has a broad development pipeline, with several product candidates based on its unique PER.C6(R: 39.78, +0.16, +0.40%) production technology. The Company licenses its PER.C6(R: 39.78, +0.16, +0.40%) technology and other technologies to the biopharmaceutical industry. Important partners and licensees include DSM Biologics, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, Wyeth and Merck & Co. Crucell is headquartered in Leiden, the Netherlands, with subsidiaries in Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Korea and the US. The Company employs over a 1000 people. For more information, please visit www.crucell.com.

Forward-looking statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve inherent risks and uncertainties. We have identified certain important factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in such forward-looking statements. For information relating to these factors please refer to our Form 20-F, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2008, and the section entitled "Risk Factors". The Company prepares its financial statements under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

For further information please contact: Crucell N.V. Oya Yavuz Director Corporate Communications & Investor Relations
Tel. +31-(0)71-519 7064 ir@crucell.com www.crucell.com

Of Mice and Models

2008-09-29T18:58:00.000-07:00

New research shows that neurons across species are not created equal. What does this mean for animal research?

by Jon Bardin • Posted September 23, 2008 01:16 PM

If the key to our cognitive success is functional specificity, then synaptic complexity is the underlying cause.

The history of pharmaceutical trials is littered with cases of drugs that show promise in mice but ultimately fail when tested in humans, often for reasons poorly understood by the scientists who study them. Such failures generally are explained in one of two ways: Either there is a problem with the underlying biological model itself, or there is a problem with the way the success of the model is being measured.

Now a recent breakthrough by the Cambridge neuroscientist and geneticist Seth Grant may provide a third possibility. In a report published in the June 2008 issue of Nature Neuroscience, Grant and his colleagues analyzed synapses in organisms of increasing evolutionary complexity, from single-celled organisms to vertebrates. They found that more advanced organisms also had more complex synapses, allowing neurons to communicate in more complicated ways.

This finding upends the classical model of intelligence, in which the number of neurons, not their complexity, predicts the capacity for greater intelligence and higher-order behaviors. Compounding this, many mouse models are based on incomplete behavioral measures because the true biology of the disease is unknown. Depression in mice, for example, is often measured by how fast a mouse swims.

As more information comes to light about the cross-species molecular complexity of synapses, some of our fundamental assumptions about translational neuroscience may require a new perspective, which Grant believes we can only fully develop once more cross-species research is conducted. "We need to know more about different species, about how these molecular differences manifest themselves in humans versus primates, in different types of primates, in humans versus rodents, before we can truly know how good a model these species are for understanding what underlies human behavior and disease."

Some of our fundamental assumptions about translational neuroscience may require a new perspective.

Perhaps the most fascinating component of Grant's research is that it shows not only that there are differences between invertebrates and vertebrates on a molecular level but also that, as Grant puts it, "the expanded collection of proteins that vertebrates have at their disposal have been specifically utilized by big brains to create regional specification, and a larger behavioral toolbox" than those of less-evolved animals. Grant's team discovered this connection by comparing the variability of different genes across the brain with the evolutionary chronology of those genes. Genes that were more ancient were less variable across the brain, while more recently evolved genes could be attributed to a certain part of the brain. If the key to our cognitive success is functional specificity, then synaptic complexity is the underlying cause.

If human synapses are unlike those of lesser mammals on some essential level, then complex human brain diseases — especially those that involve complicated behaviors — may reflect such species-specific complexity. Though Grant stresses there is currently no direct evidence that demonstrates such differences among vertebrates, he suggests that his research provides a model, driven by evolution, that explains how such differences might exist: "If certain new and evolving genes undergo a mutation and stop working properly, mental illness develops."

For now there is no reason for translational researchers to put down their mice. As Grant points out, we have gained significant knowledge of how the brain works by studying organisms even less advanced than rodents. Yet we may find that it's harder for researchers to model behavioral disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's in animals than many had previously thought.

Paper Sheds Light On Bonobo Language

2008-09-12T13:57:00.000-07:00

Posted on: Sunday, 31 August 2008, 12:50 CDT

Linguistic tools used to analyze human language applied to conversation between scientist and bonobo

What happens when linguistic tools used to analyze human language are applied to a conversation between a language-competent bonobo and a human? The findings, published this month in the Journal of Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, indicate that bonobos may exhibit larger linguistic competency in ordinary conversation than in controlled experimental settings.

The peer-reviewed paper was written by Janni Pedersen, an Iowa State University Ph.D. candidate from Denmark whose interests in the language-competent bonobos at Great Ape Trust of Iowa led her to the United States, and William M. Fields, director of bonobo research at Great Ape Trust.

Their findings run counter to the view among some linguists, including the influential Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who argue that only humans possess and use language. In his hierarchy of language, Chomsky believes that language is part of the genetic makeup of humans and did not descend from a single primitive language evolved from the lower primate order, and it must include formal structures such as grammar and syntax.

Fields said the publication opens an important new chapter in a decades-long debate about the linguistic capabilities of apes. "The resistance to this in the scientific community is enormous," he said. "For the first time, we have a student who is using linguistic tools that have normally been applied to humans now being applied to non-humans. This is a move toward using the kinds of methodology that are appropriate in ape language, based on Savage-Rumbaugh's 1993 monograph, Language Comprehension in Ape and Child."

For her paper, Pedersen analyzed a videotaped conversation between the bonobo Panbanisha and Dr. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, now a scientist with special standing at Great Ape Trust, but a researcher at Georgia State University's Language Research Center when the video was made about 15 years old. Since 2000, students working in the bonobo laboratory have systematically reviewed archived video to track the development of competencies such as language in each of the bonobos for comparison with their current competencies.

"This is a long-term project, starting from the beginning of where we have data," Fields said. "All of this is contextualized with our current research and larger programs, such as forgiveness research. The students are looking at the earlier data, while investigators are looking at new data."

He expects Pedersen's paper to be the first in a series of many. "This paper serves as an investigation into the early ontogeny of these kinds of competencies," he said. "These papers will eventually be assembled in a larger volume to look at issues in the development of forgiveness and other cultural dimensions of the apes' lives."

In the video that is the subject of Pedersen's publication, Panbanisha was in the forest with Savage-Rumbaugh and an assistant, who had a dog in tow that Panbanisha didn't like.

Though Panbanisha and Savage-Rumbaugh moved from topic to topic in the conversation, Panbanisha repeatedly used the lexigrams to express her desire to be carried by the assistant, who was tending to the dog. Savage-Rumbaugh offered other resolutions, but Panbanisha remained firm. Ultimately, the ape prevailed and was carried from the forest by the assistant.

After applying conversational analysis tools, Pedersen asserted that language is more than the simple act of transferring information, but a conversational interaction between active participants. Language-competent bonobos use lexigrams, which are made up of arbitrary symbols that represent words, as the basis for conversations with humans.

Pedersen said linguistic aspects of the conversation included turn taking, negotiation, pauses and repetition, and went far beyond information sharing made possible through the use of lexigrams symbols.

"She was using language to get at what she wanted," Pedersen said. "She is very, very clever and is fully capable of following the conversation the same way a human does. This tells me that Panbanisha's knowledge of language is far beyond understanding the words, to understanding how to use them in a conversation to get what she wants."

"One of the things Janni has affirmed, and affirmed in a way the lay person can understand, is the aspect of turn-taking. If there is anything universal in human language, it's turn of talk," Fields said. "The fact that Panbanisha has done this, and it's accessible even to an untrained reviewer, I think is an important aspect of her paper. She has looked at the whole social action, and the meaning. Ideational flow – going back and forth – is obvious.

"Originally, repetition was thought of something that happens normally in human language," he said. "Traditionally, repetition in ape communicative behaviors is assumed to be proof that they don't have language. It's a kind of dichotomy or unfairness."

Fields said Pedersen, who has a master's degree in philosophy from the University of Aarhus, Denmark, and is working toward a Ph.D. in ecology and evolutionary biology in ISU's Anthropology Department, "has been able to do something unique" that Chomsky, long regarded as the father of contemporary linguistics, was unable to do.

Pedersen expects to complete her dissertation in ape language research, the second to focus on data collected with the world-famous bonobos at Great Ape Trust. The first was Pictorial Primates – A Search for Iconic Abilities in Great Apes, by cognitive scientist Tomas Persson from Sweden's Lund University. He argued that the bonobos at Great Ape Trust readily grasped the meaning of abstract symbols, such as those found on the lexigrams board, and, like humans, are able to interpret.

"The importance of Janni's Ph.D. can't be overstated," Fields said. "Hers will be the first Ph.D. produced in ape language since the research moved to Iowa."

The ape language research program moved from Georgia to Des Moines in 2005, and Great Ape Trust is the only place in the world where such research takes place. "Janni is an important part of the future, and she will help carry ape language research further," Fields said.

Photo Courtesy Kabir Bakie - Wikipedia

[P] Response to Human Moral Imperative: vivisection

2008-09-12T09:07:00.001-07:00

This was written in response to the argument that because human lives can be benifeted for the good by doing animal experimentation that we have a moral imperative in which to experiment to improve said lives.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5647/

my response:

Your argument only is valid if someone accepts the basic premise that Humans are more important than animals. When you ignore the pain and suffering of others in the name of advancement we are failing to understand the system in which we are a part of. I will not argue there is a certain pecking order in which we thrive in but because we are stronger and more able to plan and execute actions should never give us the opinion we are better only different.

I do not want to discount all the animal trials and experimentation that has gone .., because they have given us a greater understanding of human nature as well as clinical research into how to treat serious illness. The argument should rather be, now that we are at this pinnacle of achievement how can we move forward without taking the lives of animals or subjecting sentient beings to experimentation.

The idea of what is permissible comes down to identification. While one can become empowered through identification it can also subvert and separate us. It was not that long ago when African Americans were discriminated against on the grounds that they were not as human or not as evolved as white men which gave us providence to use them as we would. The same can be said about animals especially higher order animals who feel pain have social lives and responsibilities to kin and tribe. When we stop relying on hierachal classifications we are than able to move forward with our research in a positive and beneficial way.

You made the case that it was mans moral imperative to subvert those that do not meet our classification but you failed to account for the intrinsic value of all life. Equality is not about being similar it is about seeing in something a quality and attributing that quality to the notion that they deserve basic protections. I know personally that it is my moral imperative to protect life and to help those who cannot help themselves.

The fact that animal wellfare and rights are being spoken about in mainstream media should tell you the level of influence animals have over us in our lives. If it were plankton or some other paramecium we would not raise a stink over it but since it is something that we emotively and instinctively feel a connection to we are than forced to look at those repercussions. It is as i have said before a matter of identification. We have identified these animals for food, these for companion/family members, these for experimentation because if we classify that we can rigidly adhere to the confines of that identification. I can do this but no more or I cannot do this. The commitment to observation as well as redefinition should be mans moral imperative because it is only through this series of checks and balances both publicly and privately are we able to advance equally in science as well as society.

[P] Taking activism to the future

2008-08-28T17:17:00.001-07:00

In every activists life there comes a time where they feel either their movement or methods have become stagnant. I think in general activism suffers from too much affinity for the past. Although we utilize modern technology to organize and promote our means we are not researching new ways in which to confront the ever mounting hypocrisy and totalitarianism of corporate giants who seek to subdue us.

The issue i have with protest is that it concerns itself with archaic techniques of intimidation and group think. I feel that the current culture in which we live in seeks new and innovative ways in which to communicate. While the meet and greet and information pamphleting techniques can be effective they do so on a very small scale. Also, I feel as though direct action is to myopic in its range of possibilities, sometimes it is the taking back of public space that allows us to be able to communicate effectively the need for compassion and lifestyle changes. If this cannot be done with permits and charm than it needs to be done creatively.

It has been said that "Each movement sews the seeds of its own destruction." and it is the continuation of defensive techniques instead of innovative offensive techniques that will destroy the animal rights movement. When the society you live in is desensitized to violence and the emotional underpinnings there in, yet is attuned to sensationalism, we have no choice but to incorporate other more extreme examples of veganism through performance art as well as direct action.

There are various organizations whose goal is to do just this:

The Graffiti Lab (a silicon valley based project: http://graffitiresearchlab.com/ ) is concerned with creating new ways in which to take back public spaces. Some of their most popular projects are the LED stickies: ( http://graffitiresearchlab.com/?page_id=6video) as well as their distance graffiti laser ( http://graffitiresearchlab.com/?page_id=76video)

The Museum of Permanent Change is an organization that seeks to turn the past into the future. By utilizing old and abandoned pieces of buildings as well as fragments of cast of projects they hope to create a new vision of what a city should be:

http://www.museumofchange.org

People look for something that will engage them in their daily lives as a direct opposition to the lethargy that corporate mongery demands. There for it is our job to not only entice but to excite people into a state of wakefulness instead of the half stupor we are use to living in for for psychological survival in the modern world.

I would like to make a challenge to all the activists out there. It is only through innovation that we will see a revolution. If we continue to utilize our parents techniques of producing change we will be doomed to watch our efforts smolder and eventually die. Shake of the naivety of familiarity and truly look at your work and see if any parts could be overhauled, modified or thrown away completely. We are children of the revolution and as such it is our duty to undermine what came before as well as destroy what seeks to destroy us. It is our world and I for one would like to know that i had a hand in creating a place that i wish to live in.

Grown Skin To Reduce Animal Testing

2008-08-26T21:37:00.000-07:00

Monday, 25 August 2008
Queensland University of Technology
Testing detergents and cosmetics on animals could soon be a thing of the past in Australia, thanks to work being done in the Queensland Intitute of Technology Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI).

Three-dimensional models made up of skin cells to create a human skin equivalent could replace pig skin, which is often used to test new therapies, cosmetics and chemical consumer products.

Professor Zee Upton, a senior researcher at IHBI, said the human skin equivalent was originally developed for use in her research into wound healing but could be used to test new products.

"Most people would go to rats and mice for lab testing, but when it comes to testing new wound therapies or products and cosmetics that go on human skin, pig skin is our closest alternative and is most often used," she said.

"However, this is expensive, the test numbers are limited and of course there are ethical problems to consider, so using a human skin equivalent will reduce this use and possibly give more accurate results.

"Obviously, the ultimate goal is to avoid labs having to use animals altogether eventually.

"

She said it could also be a useful finding because new legislation coming in next year states that any consumer products using animal products or tested on animals will not be allowed to be exported to the European Union.

She said the human skin equivalent, which was a finalist in this year's Museum of Australia's Eureka Prize for "Research that Contributes to Animal Protection", would be on display at Show Some Skin, a science exhibition.

"It is showing the model we use, explaining how we go about making it and how these skin equivalents are used to guide and minimise the use of animals when we develop new wound healing therapies," she said.

"We collect skin donated by consenting patients who have had surgery resulting in a surgical off-cut, and the skin is then processed in our laboratory to isolate the cells; once they are growing healthily again, we can bring them back together and create the multi-component skin equivalent in the lab.

"So we deconstruct the skin and its cells and then reconstruct them - we cannot use the skin off-cuts themselves, as those cells are dying and we need to get the cells back to a state where are growing healthily again.

"

She said skin equivalents have been developed overseas, but cannot be imported to Australia due to transport logistics and quarantine restrictions.

Chimpanzees used for medical testing 'show signs of torture'

2008-08-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Saturday, 2 August 2008

Chimps show symptoms of post-traumatic stress

Chimpanzees subjected to medical experiments suffer similar psychiatric symptoms to those shown by tortured humans, according to a study to be released next week.

An assessment of the behavior of 116 chimpanzees who have been involved in animal research found that 95 per cent display at least one of the distinctive patterns of behavior that people show when suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The chimps now live in a primate sanctuary in the United States but their unusual behavior is still causing concern years after they were released from the animal-research laboratories in which they were experimented upon.

The findings, which will be made public at an international primate conference in Edinburgh on Monday, will be used to press for a Europe-wide ban on the use of great apes in medical research. Although experiments on chimps were banned in Britain in 1998, they are still legal in the rest of Europe even though the two research facilities where chimps had been kept have recently closed. However, in the US there is no such ban and about 1,200 chimps are still kept for medical research. Hope Ferdowsian, an American doctor who has treated torture patients from around the world, said that it is clear that chimps suffer many of the extreme psychological conditions shown by human torture victims.

"There are obvious differences between species but it's obvious that these chimps are suffering chronically," Dr Ferdowsian said.

The study involved asking the staff at the animal sanctuary in Louisiana to itemize the types of behavior patterns shown by the chimps. The scientists then assessed the reports against criteria used to assess human patients.

Dr Ferdowsian said that as well as the signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, more than 80 per cent of the chimps had the symptoms of anxiety and at least half showed the sort of behavior associated with depression. "The patterns of behavior we are seeing in these chimps are not normal and not seen in the wild," Dr Ferdowsian said.

The types of behavior shown by the chimps included "floating limb" displays said to be an expression of disassociating their body with the real world, which is much like the disassociation behavior seen in people with post-traumatic stress disorder. Other behaviors were avoidance of certain areas of habitat, such as indoor enclosures, anger outbursts, failure to socialize and inability to sleep.

[P] Peta and oppisition to tactics

2008-08-21T09:33:00.000-07:00

I am a member of a website called couchsurfing.com. On this website there are different groups you can join, one of which is a vegetarian/vegan group. Someone posted a new topic titled "PETA ' s newest mistake ??" the direct link can be found here: http://www.couchsurfing.com/group_read.html?gid=516&post=1371532 (if you would like to follow the debate).

I wrote the following in regards to this statement:
"Once you understand why others believe it is OK to eat meat, then you actually have a shot at convincing them that you're correct. Until then, these "shocking" acts (which are only shocking in what it shows Peta capable of rather than what they're attempting to convey) only make Peta look like a failing attention seeker."

here is my response:

I appreciate your passion for the issue but it seems as though you wish to have an organization match your desires when in essence it is an autonomous entity. That is what makes the AR movement so wonderful, various people from different backgrounds coming together for a common cause even though the utilize different methods of engagement.

It might make more sense to know that Peta was founded by some of the same people that founded the ALF. Their distractive illegal and at times controversial tactics have gone back to the beginning of their organization. For the record i dislike Peta immensely and i wish that they could be what i hoped they were when i was becoming vegan, but i know it is my own personal feelings about the way to do advocacy that colors this notion.

I participate in various home demonstrations at Vivisectors homes, and while i know that some advocate of animals rights see this as an extreme example of the movement I see it as a necessary element to the movement. I think that i view all groups and individuals as splinter cells in a hive movement all having different things to bring to the table presenting a fully realized view of what the animal rights debate is. Name one other cohesive movement where there are not ideological splits and people campaigning for similar things in different ways. All is needed.

In regards to the offending poster, i do not see the problem. I have seen worse from the anti drug contingency in Washington during my adolescence than this ad perpetuates. It is because the notion of slaughter is kept away from the masses that allows for this type of advertising to be so pernicious. In other countries these tactics would not work because the notion of raising an animal and getting it to your plate is more transparent. Meat hangs in windows butchers cut the stock in front of you to ensure you get the best piece. In America and Canada things are veiled so that the experience of eating isn't marred by the reality of production.

Using emotionally volatile events is nothing new in the PR war that is waged against citizens everyday. The megacorp media chooses what will hit us the closest to home in order to capitalize on what they can get us to buy or rather buy into. Perhaps I am a radical to think that the taking back of our own emotions and free will for the purpose of advocating compassion. Is it wrong to kill animals? to me yes. Is it wrong to kill humans? again to me yes. So logistically if A=C and B=C than A=B.

I come up against this argument often when people ask how i could violate someones personal sanctuary (i.e their home) when doing anti vivisection protests for the Utah Primate Freedom group. My response is that i equate the experimentation on Intelligent life as the equivalent of experimenting on children. If children were forced into the experimentation that higher order simians are there would most certainly be protests going on at all levels including at citizens residences.

What i think most people fail to realize and was briefly touched upon in a few of the responses is the notion of conformity. We live in a society that clearly defines what is permissible to either talk about or act upon. It is the job of the left and right wings to validate each others arguments leaving no room for outside or tertiary opinion. We are only debating the tactics in which Peta chose to subvert a meat eaters opinions, not the why. We should be focusing on the socioeconomic as well as all the other underlining issues facing this instead of the ones that have been deemed permissible.

While i do not agree with Peta and i wish they were a different organization striving for what i believe in personally, i however cannot fault them for bringing in a tertiary viewpoint something out of the norm and subversive.

thoughts?

[P] A response to a friend

2008-08-21T09:31:00.000-07:00

I hesitated on posting this but decided that i would do it anyways. This is a response to a friend who was speaking about the dissatisfaction with both position in life as well as effectiveness of advocacy.
the link to his original blog can be found here:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=102753254&blogID=425213972

My response is as follows:
Benjamin Franklin said "A man is not completely born until he is dead." Sometimes it is the death of notion and novelty that enlivens us to live authentically. I respect what you are going through since you are me as you are all men, trapped in the existential condition of living and dieing by measures to great and to small to describe sententiously. I especially appreciate your commentary on the idea of impotence. For me it was realizing that I am the most important person and at the same time the least important person in the world that allowed me to shift the paradigms of my own though into the cohesive notion of service to others and all things. While i have no power it is the acceptance of eventuality that allows me to draw strength. That i cannot effect change i can only help to facilitate it is a tenement of my spiritual foundation

Although I may never change someones opinion i will however force someone to confront their own opinions so that they can mull over the choices they have made based on their specific moral compass and chose perhaps one day a version of compassion, which may be dissimilar to mine but ultimately the process of enlightenment was never meant to be a reflection of one mans journey. It is independent of movement and time only this ticking second hand rocking back and forth until it faces a personal true north guiding us into greater heights of mentation.

Being alone in a crowd is a feeling that society creates as a means in which to subvert us and make us weak, easier for the Walmarts of the world to pick us off one by one with sniper riffles priced to sell. We are alone in ourselves the proverbial island that no man is suppose to be. Wadding at the edges separated by the mote of our subconscious mulling over the notion of infinity. It is the very real failing of words to describe adequately the needs we cannot express for we have no idea where the desire or intent comes from. We need to speak in color and thought forms but we are stuck with descriptive verbs and nouns. Why communicate the uncommunicative only to be let down with the futility of verbalize thought when we can take that plunge once more into the comforting vicissitude of lateral though that plays its owns song unto itself for all of time.

But don't lose heart friend for we are all comrades in the game of self conflagration forcing change and evolution. Primates with sticks itching to evolve into the beings of light we are inside. It is the small steps that help us move the furthest not the leaps in which we associate progress. We are not the industrial revolution because progress for progresses sake looses meaning as well as strips us of our humanity but we are the careful and cautious fledgling who spreads its wings and tests the air by just deciding to leap and to eventually soar because we have unchained the shackles of culture in order to create art from life instead of service to corporation.

Good luck in your goals. I look forward to seeing what your future holds because within you, you carry the seeds of change to live a life of worth and meaning perhaps shining with that internal life that will help guide your comrades into Valhalla to live authentically as well.

Chemical Testing Method Proves Superior to Animal Trials

2008-07-02T13:36:00.001-07:00

Microdosing of voluntary human subjects
determined to be accurate, safe and efficient

After two years of study, European scientists have shown that a chemical testing technique called microdosing is more predictive than animal-based research methods, and could replace expensive and unreliable tests on non-human subjects. Widespread adoption of microdosing could dramatically reduce or eliminate toxicity and other tests currently performed on species ranging from primates and dogs to rabbits and rats.

Microdosing involves administering a miniscule dose of the compound to be tested to human volunteers and analyzing the results using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, which enables researchers to locate and count individual atoms. This technique has been shown to be more than 80% predictive, which is a much higher rate of accuracy than using other species to determine the physiological effect of a given compound on humans. Researchers say using the technology will increase cost-effectiveness and consumer safety while sparing animals from unnecessary suffering and death.

The European Union has mandated a ban on animal testing for cosmetics by 2009, and must comply with a European Parliament Declaration to set a timetable for eliminating all experiments on primates. In February, 2008, three powerful U.S. government agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) -- signed a five-year agreement to create innovative animal-free methods to evaluate the safety of drugs and chemicals, with the aim of phasing out animal tests entirely. Replacing animal tests with microdosing would help meet these goals while advancing human health.

[P] basic thoughts on why I am a vegan

2008-07-01T14:40:00.000-07:00

This was in response to a question asked in couchsurfing.com forum "Why are you a Vegetarian/Vegan"

I became a vegetarian because i was forced to look at the world around me. I became vegan because i was forced to look at my individual decision and how those then effected the world around me. For me it is about animal welfare and rights. It is a spiritual path for me. The idea that all life is precious and the preservation of said life should be priority above all else. The needless suffering for human gain in all aspects of life does little to advance humanity although it 'sustains us'. I think that in wealthy countries it is easier to eat a meat centric diet without thinking about the impact it has on the environment nor poverty. In America the government subsidizes the production of meat and dairy 80 times as much as fruit and vegetables effectively making meat and the horrendous conditions of the production of meat cheap and obtainable whereas vegetables are more expensive irradiated and shipped from over seas markets to meet demand.

Being vegan helps animals, humans, the environment as well as the spiritual evolution of humanity.

I do not advocate to everyone the switch to veganism because it may not be right for their path i do however advocate conscious consumerism. To be aware of what they are buying and what that means for the world around them. I do feel that if farming and consumption practices were changed that the production of meat would be less of a problem for me. When you mass produce anything you are then taking the individualism out of the process thinking rather of units than lives. We as humans need to separate ourselves from the process of commodifying the world to meet our needs and learn how to live congruently with the environment we live in.

It is mans basic need to subvert in order to survive but we have come to a sociocultural point where we can throw off the old notion or idea of expansion in place of a new paradigm of thought. That the world we live in is sick and diseased and it only through being conscious stewards of its evolution are we to live peacefully with the world we have chosen to dominate.

I have great hopes for humanity to be able to achieve without the wanton destruction that seems to go hand and hand with progress, because if we do not learn the lessons that must be learned we will pay dearly for our mistakes both past and future.

Firefighters Gone Vegan?

2008-07-01T14:37:00.000-07:00

Firefighters Gone Vegan? Even Austin Is Impressed

By DEBORAH BLUMENTHAL
Published: March 26, 2006

AUSTIN, Tex. — The image of big brawny firefighters devouring platters of four-alarm chili, sizzling steaks and double cheeseburgers is as much a part of firehouse lore as brass fire poles and heroic Dalmatians.
Skip to next paragraph
Deborah Lykins for The New York Times

The team's vegan diet began after Specialist James Rae, baking sweet potato fries here, found that he had high cholesterol.
Deborah Lykins for The New York Times

Tofu burgers are part of the menu for the vegan firefighters of Team C at Firehouse 2 in Austin, Tex.

"They're dinosaurs, they're big meat eaters," said Joseph T. Bonanno Jr., a former New York City firefighter and the author of "The Firehouse Grilling Cookbook" (Broadway Books, 1998).

But not here.

In this health-conscious state capital, sometimes called the People's Republic of Austin, maverick behavior is nothing out of the ordinary. But when Jimmy John's, the local sandwich joint, names a sandwich after you, "the Engine 2 Veggie Sandwich"; when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gives you an award for "Animal-Friendly Firehouse of the Year"; and when people call out to passing fire trucks, "Are y'all the vegans?" even Austin is taking notice.

The five firefighters of Team C at Firehouse 2 — Rip Esselstyn, James Rae, Matt Moore, Derick Zwerneman and Scott Walters — now eat vegan, taking turns whipping up plant-based fare like meatless and cheeseless pizza, pasta primavera and spinach enchiladas.

It did not happen because they shared a love of sprouts.

A routine cholesterol test left Specialist Rae, 37, shaken. The American Heart Association ranks anyone with a level of 240 or more high risk; Specialist Rae's hit 344.

"I was floored, scared," he said. "I had no clue."

All but one of his male relatives had succumbed to heart disease by age 59. Specialist Rae's father, the sole survivor, had a heart attack and then triple bypass surgery in his mid-50's.

The team's nutrition guru came to his aid. Firefighter Esselstyn, 43, a professional triathlete for a decade before joining the department in 1997, was living proof that meat was not necessary for hard work and endurance. He became a vegetarian in 1986 and a vegan in 2002. He persuaded the group to rally around Specialist Rae and start cooking vegan dishes.

Firefighter Esselstyn knew through his father's work that a strict vegan diet would help. His father, Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr., had been a general surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic and still conducts research there.

Dr. Esselstyn's 12-year trial with patients with what looked like terminal heart disease showed that a very-low-fat, plant-based diet with cholesterol-lowering medicine could bring striking improvement.

Heart disease "never need exist," Dr. Esselstyn said, but if it does, "it never need progress."

His son cited another reason for improving Specialist Rae's health.

"J. R. became more of a liability than an asset to us," Firefighter Esselstyn said, glancing at his partner with a half-smile. "Do I want a guy with a bad ticker dragging me out?"

But while Specialist Rae adhered to the diet at the firehouse, he was not as strict outside. He became what he calls a flexitarian, someone who occasionally eats meat or fish. When that did not lower his cholesterol enough, he switched to the vegan diet based on fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes. Now, he said, his cholesterol is under 200, and he calls the way he eats "a way of life."

While Team C eats vegan at work — each man shops and cooks dinner twice a month — the other two members, Lieutenant Walters and Firefighter Zwerneman, are not always such purists at home.

At a recent party catered by a barbecue restaurant, Firefighter Zwerneman did not stick to just the beans, a mistake he later realized.

"The next night I was paying for it," he said. "I felt sort of the way I did after my first couple of tofu dinners, which didn't go so well either. But now I'm one of the weirdos like everybody else."

For the other 10 men in Firehouse 2, the vegan diet has not gone down so easily. Inside the freezer are a bag of cheeseburgers, French fries and a package of beef next to vegan offerings. One firefighter even put up provocative posters on the walls, including one that reads, "Beef. It's What's for Dinner."

Firefighter Esselstyn and the others shrug it off.

"Seventy percent of our calls are medical," he said. "Every day we see the ravages of people eating to their heart's content." If not for Specialist Rae's cholesterol, he said, "there would have been someone else, someone prediabetic or obese who would have prompted us."

To reach the public, Team C has a Web site — www.engine2.org — with goofy pictures of the men posing with fruits and vegetables, campy biographies, health links, and recipes like Paul McCartney's enchiladas, tortilla pie and Station 2's award-winning wraps.

Even the firehouse carnivores benefit from the vegan cookery, routinely scavenging leftovers. As Edward Roel, a driver on the B shift, admitted, "They taste good."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/national/26vegan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In U.S., Few Alternatives To Testing On Animals

2008-04-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

In U.S., Few Alternatives To Testing On Animals
Panel Has Produced 4 Options in 10 Years

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals distributes this photo to bolster their argument that animals used to test consumer products die unnecessarily.

Each year, American doctors inject more than 3 million doses of Botox to temporarily smooth their patients' wrinkles and frown lines. But before each batch is shipped, the manufacturer puts it through one of the oldest and most controversial animal tests available.

To check the potency of its product under federal safety rules, Allergan Inc. injects mice with Botox until it finds a dose at which half of the animals die -- a rough gauge of potential harm to humans.

Animal protection groups consider "lethal dose 50," as the test is known, to be "the poster child for everything that's wrong with animal testing," said Martin Stephens, vice president for animal research issues at the Humane Society of the United States. "It's as bad as it gets, poisoning animals to death."

Allergan officials say they have no choice. Without a federally approved safety test that does not use animals, a company spokeswoman says, lethal dose 50 "is by default the required test."

The controversy over the Botox test highlights the slow pace of government efforts to replace or reduce the large numbers of animals used by pharmaceutical companies, chemical manufacturers and consumer firms to ensure that their products are safe for people. A decade after Congress created a panel to spur the development of non-animal tests, only four such tests have been approved out of 185 reviews, according to the panel's records.

Several of the panel's original backers now consider the system broken. As a result, critics say, hundreds of thousands of mice, rabbits, hamsters and dogs continue to suffer and die unnecessarily in tests for pesticides, household cleaners, sunscreens and other products.

"We were thrilled when the legislation was passed," said Sara Amundson, a former official with the Doris Day Animal League who was involved in creating the panel. "It's shocking to look back and see how little we have accomplished."

The federal panel is known as the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, or ICCVAM. Representatives of 15 federal agencies make up the committee.

Instead of acting as an advocate for companies and nonprofits proposing non-animal tests, the panel has become an obstacle, animal welfare groups say. They point to Europe, where a similar panel has approved 34 alternatives to animal tests and has another 170 in its pipeline. Critics say the U.S. panel is slow and favors older animal tests that have never gone through the same rigorous scientific review.

The executive director of the U.S. panel, William S. Stokes, said in a statement that his group "has successfully reviewed over 185 test methods" and that the four alternatives it has endorsed "have significantly reduced the number of animals required for safety assessments, and provided for improved welfare of animals used in safety evaluations." One alternative has saved "at least 36,000 animals annually," Stokes said.

Members of the panel also contend that it is unfair to compare Europe and the United States because the laws, rules and expectations are different. Europe has legislation mandating the use of non-animal tests. The United States only recommends their use.

Nevertheless, some U.S. company officials and scientists said they have delayed or abandoned their proposals for non-animal tests because panel reviews are protracted and expensive. Others consider panel members biased in favor of animal tests that in some cases date back to the 1920s.
---------------------

For the rest go to this URL:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103733.html

It upset me to read that the united states is slow to adopt the more humane experimentation whereas the UK seems to be green lighting advanced research on this subject.

When we abuse animals we debase ourselves

2008-04-21T13:13:00.000-07:00

What qualities associated with the best in mankind aren't expressed by animals?
By Barbara Cook Spencer

from the April 11, 2008 edition

Brookline, Mass. - Moving a cow by chaining it to a tractor and dragging it by its leg says a lot about how we perceive and value animals. When the Humane Society video that showed this and other brutal slaughterhouse treatment made the rounds on the Internet a few weeks ago, it caused public shock and led to a federal investigation. But there's a deeper lesson that all of us – whether or not we eat meat – need to take to heart: we degrade ourselves when we degrade animals.

Much as bullies demoralize themselves when they dominate or ride roughshod over those who are meek, vulnerable, or defenseless, it should be obvious that human beings are the ones demoralized by the commission of inhumane acts.

Over the years, many have been caught up in the debate over what is, or is not, man's obligation to animals. But the debate is transcended by the growing realization that neither our civilization nor our planet will survive unless human beings grow richer in moral qualities like mercy, kindness, compassion, and temperance.

Yet in order to establish a platform for speaking out against cruel and painful laboratory experiments and slaughtering techniques, animal rights advocates are often asked to prove that animals have a moral sense and can feel physical and emotional pain.

But even if animals could be proved amoral and immune to pain, human beings would have no basis for even careless treatment of them. Most of us were taught as children to take good care of inanimate objects, even though they feel no pain and have no moral sense. We are taught to treat fine books with virtual reverence. We are taught that it is actually a crime to vandalize buildings, cars, and other inanimate objects.

But even setting aside the degradation brought upon the humans who commit acts of cruelty, research has consistently revealed evidence of the morality and sentience of the nonhuman world. By now documentaries abound in which we can see earth's creatures disciplining members of their own species for "crimes" within their communities. Conversely we've also seen them care for each other, as well as for members of other species, in the most intelligent, unselfish, courageous, and tender ways.

This evidence of morality in nonhumans tells us that mankind and "creature-kind" are inextricably woven together, not separate "worlds" attempting coexistence.

We may not be linked by trunks and tusks, wings and beaks, but I have yet to think of a single quality associated with the best in mankind that is not expressed by animals and often – as with loyalty, sincerity, wisdom, and forgiveness – more perfectly.

Our differences appear to lie more in the complexity with which we express our commonly held qualities. In fact, the caring, thoughtful observation of animals has taught, and can continue to teach, vital lessons about what we ourselves are and what we can accomplish.

We learn from an elephant, for example, that power and gentleness are not incompatible. We learn from any gazelle the naturalness of grace. Our dear canine or feline friends teach us that happiness doesn't come from outside ourselves – from the act of acquisition – but is something we bring to the simplest object or experience. From birds, we've learned the concept of flight. And from any animal we can learn that we don't outgrow childlikeness when we enter maturity, because childlikeness is a quality of thought, not a condition of age.

In fact, when we abuse childlike qualities in animals – when we take advantage of trust, sweetness, simplicity, or innocence, for example – we are well on our way to the abuse of children. For decades researchers, child and animal protection professionals, and educators have been pointing to the correlation between the treatment of animals and the treatment of children.

But it's perhaps the almost inexplicably deep love that we're able to share with creatures that explains what a magnificent symphony we can be. Symphonies aren't composed of inferior and superior tones and passages. Their beauty is in the unity of the simple and complex, the obvious and subtle, the audacious and demure. What matters in music is that each tone or passage be allowed to contribute its full value, however meek that value.

In the same way, our moral obligation toward animals isn't a question of what a superior being owes an inferior one. Unselfish affection takes the simple and complex, the bold and the meek in creation, accords each creature its full value, and blends all into a single symphony. Treating animals with the utmost dignity and respect is really the "Golden Rule" of conduct toward all species.

• Barbara Cook Spencer is a writer who lives in Brookline, Mass.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0411/p09s01-coop.html?page=1

WIC Food Program Being Overhauled

2008-03-25T07:22:00.000-07:00

Thursday, December 06, 2007
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON —
Let them eat tofu, the government says.

That's one of the new food products being offered under a major overhaul of the Women, Infants and Children program. But primarily, the Agriculture Department wants more fruits, vegetables and whole grains on the plates of poor women and children and less milk, cheese, eggs and juice.

The department calls the change the first major revision of the program in 30 years. The changes will be effective next February and state agencies will then have 18 months to implement them. The program serves about 8 million people.

Eric Steiner, the department's associate administrator for special nutrition programs, said WIC recipients typically have diets deficient in whole grains, fruits and vegetables. He said there's also a prevalence of obesity among the population.

The USDA based the changes on suggestions by the Institute of Medicine with the caveat that the revisions not increase costs. The Institute of Medicine is a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization that advises the government on scientific matters.

The reductions of other products, such as dairy, were made both to keep the cost of the program from rising and to improve nutrition.

"The revised packages have less saturated fat and cholesterol, and this is accomplished by reducing the quantities of milk and cheese," Steiner said.

Under the WIC program, people receive vouchers for specific foods, averaging about $39 a month in 2007. Under the revisions, vouchers for fruits and vegetables will be $6 for children, $8 for women and $10 for fully breast-feeding women _ with the goal of encouraging more women to breast feed.

Products such as tofu, soy beverages, tortillas and brown rice are being offered as alternatives to meet the demands of more culturally diverse populations.

The department received more than 46,000 public comments since first proposing the changes last year, and most were supportive, Steiner said.

Anti-hunger advocates praised the changes. Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, said the addition of whole grains, fruits and vegetables will reduce obesity and "help nutritionally vulnerable children form healthy eating habits from an early age."

The dairy, egg and fruit juice industries backed the additions, but lamented the reduced roles for their products. Carol Freysinger, executive director of the Juice Products Association, said the reductions could "send an inappropriate and unsubstantiated message about the benefits of 100 percent juice consumption."

According to government estimates, annual milk and cheese sales under the revised program will be about $960 million, a reduction of roughly $400 million. Juice sales would be reduced by nearly half, to $281 million, while egg sales would drop from $120 million to $67 million.

Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation, called the lost sales to dairy significant. "And we don't think it's prudent from a public health standpoint," he said.

Howard Magwire, a lobbyist for the United Egg Producers, said he was hopeful the industry could make up for some of the losses with WIC recipients spending other money on eggs.

___

On the Net:

Women, Infants and Children Program: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Meat without killing animals?

2008-03-21T11:40:00.000-07:00

I came across this post on another blog thought I would share. My comments follow the report
-------------------------

Our stomach churned a bit while we wrote this post, but there is some logic to it. Dutch researchers are trying to grow pork in petri dishes and give new meaning to the phrase Mystery Meat. "We're trying to make meat without having to kill animals," Bernard Roelen, a veterinary science professor at Utrecht University, said in an interview. After all, if you eliminate animal feed, transport, land use and methane, (not to mention inhumane treatment) is it a problem? Is it really meat?

"Keeping animals just to eat them is in fact not so good for the environment," said Roelen. "Animals need to grow, and animals produce many things that you do not eat."

Roelen suggests that the meat we eat now is extensively processed and that it isn't that far of a stretch. "I can imagine that some people will have problems with it," he said. "People might think it is artificial. But some people might not realize that some part of the meat they eat is artificial." McNuggets anyone?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/dutch_scientist_1.php

======================
This article begs the question :"What defines a soul?"

This has interesting implications as well as potential applications. Would it still be an animal rights violation to have this sort of 'meat' be the pathway in which to test medications and neurological theory on? One thing is certain, if this were to be implemented the debate over soulless clones would be that much more in the forefront of our minds.

33 Facts about animal testing

2008-03-20T15:24:00.000-07:00

(i got this from Robert at veganbodybuilding.com thank bud)

While at it, check out my new website: http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/index.htm, or go to www.HOPE-CARE.org and see the new web-section. It's already been hailed as being "stupendous" and "best on web". If you like it, please consider making a contribution to this crucially needed campaign. If you don't like it, the next dinner is on me.

Anthony

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 FACTS ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING
(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
The pharmaceutical industry funds many groups and organisations, so...
( 8 ) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
( 18 ) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
( 28 ) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.

50 DISASTERS OF ANIMAL TESTING
1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]

2. Smoking was thought to be non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Consequently many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2]

3. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]

4. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was eventually possible to produce in animals.[7][8][9]

5. Many humans continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in laboratory animals.

6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals on which they were designed and humans for whom they were intended.

7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.

8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.

9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development.[10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.

Used with kind permission
of The Covance Campaign

10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Surgery is now performed only on the surface.

11. Combined heart lung transplants were supposedly 'perfected' on animals, but the first 3 human patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of the 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the dogs on whom experiments had been conducted did not develop. Of those 10 humans who developed obliterative bronchiolitis, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.[14]

12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was a watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]

13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.

14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.

15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.

16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications such as lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.

17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. However, in humans it caused deaths.

18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans.

19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring.

20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.

21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] And yet it had worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused deaths and blindness in humans despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]

24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more.

26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22][23][24][25][26]

27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]

28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: '...excellent safety profile. No...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species'.[29][30]

29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]

30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals, but it was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]

31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure which had not been predicted by animal testing. Even when the particular type of liver failure was known, it could not be induced in animals.[35] 32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]

33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]

34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After vivisectors knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, but could not reproducing this effect.[40][41]

35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than humans are able to.[42][43][44]

36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or subsequently.[45][46]

37. The pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia and Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.

38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or required a liver transplant.

39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals.

40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and withdrawn although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.[47]

41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The manufacturer admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]

42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Fortunately, human evidence overrode and as a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more people could have survived had the animal testing been ignored and digitalis been released earlier.[49][50][51][52]

43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost abandoned before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55] In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]

44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58] However, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59]

45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Fortunately, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters because it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized'.

46. Fluoride, a cavity preventative, was initially withheld because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]

47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released for human usage. Tens of thousands suffered and/or died as a result.

48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.

50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that while harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) are potentially or actually deadly for humans.

Endnote:
Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results.
Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment.

USEFUL LINKS:
Vivisection Fraud/Hans Ruesch Author of Slaughter of the Innocent, Naked Empress and 1000 doctors and more against vivisection.
Uncaged. co. uk: Anti Vivisection Campaigning
Speak Campaigns. org: Campaigns against the Oxford Primate Lab
SHAC (Stop Hutingdon Animal Cruelty Campaigning to Close Huntingdon Life Sciences
Gateway to Hell Campaign: Seeking to Stop Importation of Lab Animals
BAVA (British Anti Vivisection Assoc) Anti Vivisection Org.
CureDisease. com Americans for Medical Advancement
CureDisease. net Europeans For Medical Progress

Anthony Marr, founder
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.MySpace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.ARConference.org

[P] post to a vegan protest group

2008-03-17T12:09:00.001-07:00

This post was a response to a question someone proposed about wearing Fur.

--------------
Curious...
What do you do when you are behind someone in line, or run into someone on
the street wearing a real fur coat. I am finding it so hard not to say
anything/start a fight. It hurts me, its disgusting, and I have a big mouth. Of
course I try to educate amidst my disgust....but I wanted to know what you do.
Thanks,
Kim
-----------------------

My response:

It is my belief that i am spiritually not able to eat meat or use animal products. i don't like the practice of it nor the method in which we gain our luxury items. That being said i also feel that if i could kill my own animals i would eat them. but being a very sensitive person i cant. So for me to chastise someone for enjoying the act of hunting seems rather odd. i grew up on a native American reservation in Oklahoma so my view on hunting may be a bit biased. If your hunting for sport i tend not to like it. The keeping the population of animals down thing bothers me. try keeping the population of humans down so we don't encroach on there land. Now on to another thing. the fur issue. i recently met up with an old friend who was wearing a llama hat a fox jacket. i told her she looked nice. It is moralistically wrong for me to wear fur or support companies that tout there wears. but my friend enjoys the fashion. she also is aware of how it is put together. should i throw in her face that her morals are wrong for not carrying completely about the morals of other animals when she doesn't do the same thing about me being a homosexual? i think simple education, making informed decisions and waiting for people who know nothing about the industry to ask you about veganism is the right way for me. people who are not forced into a defensive position often times retain more of a conversation. and you'd be surprised what shame can manifest into down the road. while the patron of a clothing shop that sells fur may have felt shamed by someone saying any number of the things in this digest. that shame would or could turn into anger. anger into hatred and that hatred could eventually turn and be misguided. You never know how one action effects another. its called the butterfly effect. Now heres where it gets tricky i think that its okay to protest corporations that knowingly produce the atrocities we call genetically manipulated meat. i think its okay to speak to someone who is wearing fur and ask them if they would like some information on the process that coat took to become "beautiful" but baiting then bashing someone for there beliefs never sat well for me.

thoughts on green pigs and the future

2008-03-17T11:59:00.000-07:00

1. Green Glowing Pigs (Amanda Trahan)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4605202.stm

i will say this. that is an amazing thing. it will be only a few years. under 10 tops when we get to select how random our children will turn out. will there eyes be anime pink to set them apart. it is a wonder that people who have these naturally beautiful features aren't created with science just evolution. i am of two minds. when one gets access to data one gains power. when one gains power one gains freedom. but when one uses that freedom to to subjugate another to tis will especially in the name of science, tends to create a problem for me. while i am impressed with the scientists endeavor a more basic feeling is disgust that they are doing this and for the sake of research. I feel that we can learn a lot from the science of genes and gene sequencing but not at the cost of making an army of scientific slaves to be experimented on. I know that is the hot bed issue with stem cells as well. i do not see that as so much of a problem as scientist have recently discovered that we can get a fair amount of them from siphoned off fat from liposuction.

An early history of Vegetarians

2008-03-17T11:48:00.001-07:00

thought this was funny

"In western Europe, where Alexanderâ encounters with the Brahmins were soon forgotten if they had ever been widely known, those who survived on a meat-free diet were not called vegetarians, they were called the poor."

Lol this was taken from an early history of vegetarians. lol.

[P] Happy Tofurky Day

2008-03-17T11:44:00.000-07:00

So i decided to go all out this year. Shit i am tired of the beans and mashed potatoes life, so i bought a tofurky and a pie. I thought the tofurky looked plain so i found a tofurky disguise kit online. here is the lengths one will go to make merriment on a sober Mormon family holiday. just kidding, my aunts house was great the company enjoyable and the tofurky the topic of conversation.

[P] Animal Liberation: A quest for balance

2008-03-17T11:39:00.000-07:00

I attended one of my first real animal rights protests in Utah today even though i knew the group politically and socially where different from my approach to veganism.

Most who know me know that while i hold myself up to an extreme standard of living i do not require nor solicit it from others. The only time i really talk about it is if someone asks me. I feel in my own way that the more someone knows me the more likely they are to increase their vegan meals just by shear proximity. I have been okay with this until lately.

It had come to my notice that i have been living my life with out living my beliefs. I was using an animal tested floor cleaner at work and shrugged it off saying oh well its work when i could have just been using my own. I promised that i would live my life and morals for my niece because as she maturated i wanted her to know that the things i stand for mean something to me because they are my dreams and you really can achieve anything you set your mind too.

Im a non violent protester preferring to live my life as a shinning beacon to other to confront the paragons that society imposes upon us all. But in the case of vivisection this is something that will not be fixed without someone actively telling the people who know nothing about it, what really happens in the world they inhabit.

So while i am more the Gandhi version of societal protest i understand the need for extreme and sometimes violent action to bring about a social change. As an industrialized world we are still feeling out our first footsteps into the world and the impact that is made possible through expansion. We are at times very set in our ways because we choose to be force fed the opinions of others we pay to think for us.

I was born a free man conscious of soul and desire and the knowledge that only freedom can bring so to me, so it seems ridiculous to place the confines of shackles on another sentient being to modify my life for the sake of my "betterment". Even if you do not believe in complete freedom from a corrupt system for sentient, feeling creatures than at least take this to heart:

""Judge people by how they treat their inferiors, not their eqauls"-"Sirus Black"

We have created a system as human beings where we have brought the world down on there knees to kneel at the alter of man offering up its bountiful harvest and false securities of sustainability. We as a world are off balance and the struggle both through violent and non violent methodologies are needed in order to create a world in balance. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

So today while i did not share the specific ethos of my animal liberating brethren i support their message and their right to it. Understanding implicitly that it is the PR side that fuels the active militant side and vice versa. In all things we should seek a balance or dichotomy that allows us to gain ground where other avenues might have been previously block before.

namaste

phil

[P] On my journey towards veganism and animal rights.

2008-03-17T11:37:00.001-07:00

i became vegan because i started thinking about where my food came from the process in which it was ordered. Much like Adam and Eve once the knowledge or obtainment, it became no longer anonymously delicious.

I was a vegetarian for a month when i realized that there was no difference from keeping an animal alive inhumanly (i.e. dairy cows and chickens) or killing them inhumanly(i.e. slaughter house ethics)so i switched to veganism.

In the last five years i have learned a lot about the nature of the beast and am happy and proud to be a vegan. I originally did it almost as a penance for the fact that i never let my conscious waiver into the territory of animal rights and cruelty nor what i had done to keep the status quo. This allowed me to feel remorse for the animals i had eaten and sadness about the state of things in the current animal farming industries. Because i was focused inward i was never allowed to focus my attention outward. Sure i despised animal cruelty,i even took the wizards oath :

In Life's name and for Life's sake, I say that I will use the Art for nothing but the service of that Life. I will guard growth and ease pain. I will fight to preserve what grows and lives well in its own way; and I will change no object or creature unless its growth and life, or that of the system of which it is part, are threatened. To these ends, in the practice of my Art, I will put aside fear for courage, and death for life, when it is right to do so -- till Universe's end.

But this had much more to do again with the penance i thought i owed the cosmic other for my transgressions, it never was about animal rights at least not in the right ways.

It is only lately that im tackling the realm of animal rights, do my morals state that no creature should be fodder for human needs? Do my morals state that i can no longer sit ideally by and watch the atrocities committed to sentient beings with feelings and emotional lives? Do i take a harder stance on the treatment of animals or do i sit by, a passenger in my own veganism, and watch, content only to abstain?

I think i have chosen the latter. I have come to a place and time that states animals rights are as important as human rights and that I should fight violently if necessarily for them. That there is no inherent difference between myself as a caring thinking human and that of those in the animal kingdom. I read a really great quote and it said 'it is not a question as to whether animals think or feel, it is more a question of can they feel pain' I understand the difference in higher order cognitive function but i understand it to be this and only this; that god has given us the capacity to care for those who cannot care for themselves as well as the ability to understand the importance or mercy, to see and ease suffering, and finally not to contribute to the system that would seek to put our best teachers into shackledom.

In closing i would like to paraphrase another author:

'A true measure of mans worth is not how they treat their equals but rather their inferiors. '

edit: I can see where the last sentence might make me think that animals are inferior to humans which was not my intent but rather to acknowledge societal boundaries and there actions.

[P] Veganism as a path to conscious consumerism

2008-03-17T11:35:00.002-07:00

This was in response to a top on real jock called vegan fun facts where the origonal post was saying that veganism does not contribute to the lessening of animal suffering based on the following:

"
Refined sugar is processed with animal bone char. The charcoal is used to remove color, impurities, and minerals from sugar. The charcoal is not 'in' the sugar, but is used in the process as a filter. Therefore, by consuming refined sugar you are helping to hurt the animals.

Steel and vulcanized rubber are produced using animal fats. So you better make sure you don't have any steel or rubber appliances in your house, or you are helping to hurt the animals.

Oh, and you better make sure that the food that you buy is not transported to the store in a steel truck with rubber wheels.... or you are helping to hurt the animals.

In many areas, groundwater and surface water is filtered through bone charcoal filters. So you better not use city plumbing in your house, or you are helping to hurt the animals.

If you are one of those vegans who shuns honey and silk, because of the poor insects that may be harmed in the production thereof, then you also must avoid all vegetables: because insects are slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands during the harvesting and transportation of all vegetables. So by eating vegetables, you are helping to hurt the animals."

my response is as follows:

hmmm this is interesting i think it is more of a backlash to the behavior than the ideology.

I'm a vegan but i don't advocate the complete switch to veganism. It was my spiritual evolution to do so and i would be very egotistical to say that my spiritual revelations dictates someones else's life practices. I often times recommend to people who eat meat to get the best organic steaks they can so that they can avoid some of the harsh by products of factory farming that can pollute the system.

I think the first thing that should be stated is that there are varying levels of veganism in which one can adhere to but the fundamental underpinning is to reduce the suffering of animals by following a plant based diet. It is ludicrous to think that a plant based diet can stave off all suffering but it is often the most common thing leveled against me in an argument against veganism. I think it is because veganism at times seems so fickle that it is easy to write it off as a hedge group who has no real basis to continue a diet that is inconvenient.

The benefits of being vegan at least to me are apparent. Less green house gas emtitions, not contributing to the factory farming of animals. I can spout the rhetoric and percentages of how veganism or an active plant based diet contributes to the sustainment of a healthier ecosystem but there is no need because the question isn't who is right. That will never be solved. We as humans have domesticated animals for the purpose of food consumption but it has been both our capitalism and greed that has contributed to a system that allows the wholesale slaughter of animals to be done inhumanly. America, in general, greed has contributed to this both for vegans and meat eaters alike. It is no surprise that virgin amazon Rain Forest sectors are being torn down to produce soy product and crops. Effectively ruining future biodiversity for a few gallons of biodiesel.

It isn't enough to be a vegan, a vegan is a spiritual and ethical choice it is about being a caring consumer and know what and where your products come from. A lot of people say that because the industry is intact then they in effect have to purchase from that industry with out a real say so based on a supply and demand philosophy we are beholden to said system. What they don't understand is that in a capitalist society supply and demand takes on another more immediate meaning. The consumer gets what it asks for out of fear of losing their consumers.

I know that perhaps i veered of the path of conversation but i wanted to elucidate my point that the argument isn't about vegans against meat eaters its about conscious consumerism vs materialism and uninformed decision making. Not all vegans have it against meat eaters and vice a versa and it isn't a them or me scenario it is an all or nothing scenario. For the sake of all of us i hope we all figure out a way to overcome that scenario.

USDA organics questions and answers

2008-03-17T11:35:00.001-07:00

Q: Is it safe to say that using organic fertilizers and other organic farming practices is better for the soil and less of a threat to ground and surface water than commercial methods?

A: USDA--s National Organic Program is a marketing program and makes no claims that organic farming is "better" in any respect than conventional farming.

If this is what our government and health officials think about organic standards then we are certainly doomed. How can you ignore the harmful effects of crop fertalizers, especially with all the pesticide and cancer cross studies through out the years. This question and answers negates the DDT birth defects of the 70s and 80s, As well as the on going battle for migrant farm workers rights in reguards to their health being compromised by crop spraying. Im just disgusted right now.

Know your rights: Part II

2008-03-17T11:34:00.001-07:00

It was quite apparent today that a great many of us need a brushup on our fundamental rights. Im sorry if my silence today caused anyone to get in trouble by providing too much information when they should have remained silent. I think if we are doing any activist work that may attract police attention we should at our pre-meeting read this over and make sure everyone is both knowledgable and comfortable with said knowledge. This should be policy.

Phil

- A Quick Reference Guide -
from No Compromise Issue 23

By Shannon R. Keith, Esq.

GENERAL RIGHTS YOU SHOULD ALWAYS KNOW:
You have the right to remain silent
You have the right to an attorney
You have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
You have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech
You have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

QUESTIONING BY "AUTHORITIES"
If you are stopped by police, FBI, or other governmental "authorities," remember your rights listed above, as well as these helpful hints:
Ask, "Am I being detained?" If the 'authority' says, "No," then move on. You do not have to speak to them if you are not being detained. Do not allow them to trick you into speaking. For example, you may ask if you are being detained, and the authority may respond, "Not technically; I just want to ask you something," or they may avoid the question completely. The best thing to do in this situation is to keep walking. Tell them that you do not wish to speak to them and that you are invoking your right to remain silent.
If an authority answers that you are being detained, remember that you still have the right to remain silent. They may ask for your name, social security number, address and phone. You do not have to provide this information. However, if you are subsequently arrested, you will waste a lot of time if you do not give your name and address, because they will hold you until they get it. If you don't want to wait, the ONLY INFORMATION YOU HAVE TO GIVE IS YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. You do not have to provide your phone number or social security number. (Note: there has been much debate over this issue. Some cases say that you must provide identification when lawfully detained, or you can be arrested for interfering with the duties of an officer. When in doubt, try to call your attorney, as many cases are fact specific.)
Just because you are being detained, does not mean you will be arrested.
Activists are routinely followed to their cars after protests. The best thing to do in this situation is keep walking and do not allow the 'authority' to follow you to you car and into your personal life.
At a protest, an 'authority' will almost always ask who is in charge. NEVER divulge that information, even if you think they already know. One of the biggest mistakes anyone can make is to divulge information to 'authorities' on the grounds that they already know the information. NEVER assume they know anything, and even if you KNOW they KNOW, make them do their homework-DON'T DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM!

WHEN THEY COME A KNOCKIN'….
The most important thing to remember is to NEVER open the door to strangers. Not only should you follow this policy, but you should tell friends, family, roommates, and co-workers to follow this policy, as well. Unfortunately, doors sometimes do get opened, and there can be unexpected visits at your workplace that you cannot control. When this happens, remember the following:
If you are visited at home or work by the 'authorities,' tell them you have nothing to say and wish to seek legal counsel.
Most likely, this will not deter the authorities. They will try to trick you into divulging information. One way they will do this is by playing good cop/bad cop. They might be very cordial at first, and once you assert your legal rights, they may tell you that if you don't answer their questions you can get in "big trouble." Do not let this frighten you. If they continue to harass you, close the door or walk away and ignore them.
They may also ask if you if they can come in. They may use an excuse like they need to use the bathroom or your phone. Do not let them in! Once you let them in, you have given them consent to search your home.
'Authorities' cannot enter your home without a search warrant (absent an emergency), and they cannot arrest you without an arrest warrant (absent probable cause).
Any competent adult can consent to a search if it appears that s/he has the authority to give consent. That means that if your co-worker or roommate is not given the heads-up, s/he might let 'authorities' into your home, and IT IS LEGAL!
If you find that your roommate or co-worker has allowed the 'authorities' onto your private property, tell them that you do not consent to the search and you are contacting an attorney.

YOU ARE YOUR BEST ATTORNEY

Your attorney and legal defense or offense is only as good as you make it.
You have a responsibility to yourself and others to be observant at all times. Keep the following in mind:
When at a protest, always have a pad of paper and pen ready.
Take note of the names of activists present.
Take note of the number of officers, their names and badge numbers.
When visited by "authorities," ask for their card. If they refuse to give you their card, ask for their name, official title, address and phone number.
Write down exactly what occurred, the time, date and words exchanged.
Take pictures and video whenever possible.
ALWAYS ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS. NEVER BE AFRAID OR EMBARRASSED TO ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS. THE MORE YOU ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS, THE MORE YOU WILL GET USED TO IT. AND NEVER-- UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES-- NEVER, EVER COMPROMISE!

Know your rights: A guide for activists

2008-03-17T11:32:00.002-07:00

Since my latest run in with the law during a private residence Vivisection protest, I thought it wise to advise others on their rights.

Origonal page found on ALF's website: http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Activist%20Tips/KnowYourRights.htm

The Know Your Rights information here came directly out of a Free Skool Santa Cruz workshop on the subject. The class used to be called Surviving Police Encounters, but is now more aptly named Resisting the Police State.

We created a Know Your Rights handbill and poster that we hope you'll find useful. We designed it with the help of a couple well-known radical lawyers.

If you are outside California, all this info still should apply, but you may want to change the local contacts for where to go for more info/help. Hopefully this will be useful to y'all.

We encourage all of our friends to hang the poster next to the toilet in their co-op houses where we know it will get read.

Here are the PDF versions of the handbill and poster:

Know Your Rights Handbill (PDF)
Know Your Rights Poster (PDF)

This government's system of laws exists to maintain the dominance of those in power, and the police are its armed enforcers. If you doubt this for a minute, look at who are the selective targets of local laws: The homeless, the young, the poor, dissenters. Globally, look at who dies and who gets rich from our wars and other disasters.

For 250 years in this country, the government and their enforcers have consistently fought against people working for liberation: Indigenous resistance, land reformers, slave revolts, abolitionists, labor organizers & workers, free-speech advocates, women's and civil rights workers, anti-war and anti-globalization protesters, and recently, animal rights and environmental activists.

Your relationship with the police is at heart adversarial. While there may be cops with hearts of gold, the job of all police is to arrest and prosecute you. As such, it is almost never in your best interest to cooperate with the police.

Keeping yourself safe and resisting the police state comes down to these simple principles:

1) Non-cooperation: If you talk with the police, you could unintentionally hurt yourself, your friends, or others.

2) Do not consent to searches: Never give law enforcement the okay to examine your pockets, car, backpack, or home.

3) Remain silent: Say nothing except "I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to see a lawyer."

4) Talk to a lawyer: Never take advice from the police, they may try to trick and mislead you.

5) Use trust and intuition: Work only with people with whom you have a history of trust. Without being paranoid, trust your intuition.

Rights During a Police Encounter

In a police encounter these rules will help protect your civil rights and improve your chances of driving or walking away safely. From here on out, we are talking about your legal "rights" guaranteed by law. Though in our view, what you can do and what you can do legally are two different things. All of these rights also apply to minors and non-citizens.

Keep Private Items Out of View

This is common sense: Always keep any private items that you don't want others to see out of sight. Legally speaking, police do not need a search warrant in order to confiscate any illegal items that are in plain view.

Stay Cool & Politely Assertive

Police are well armed and often unpredictable, so remaining cool and calm will keep you safe. Treat them with the caution you would treat a dangerous, wild animal.

Be polite and yet assertive to ensure that your rights aren't trampled on. Some officers may come on heavy if you are not absolutely submissive, but standing up for your rights will keep you safe in the long run, in court when it really matters.

Determine If You Can Leave

You don't have to talk to the police. As soon as an officer approaches you, ask the officer, "Am I free to go?" If you get an answer other than a definitive "No," gather your stuff and leave without another word.

You have the right to end an encounter with a police officer unless you are being detained or arrested. Don't waste time trying to determine your status. Test if you are free to go, and then go. If you aren't free to go, the officer will make it perfectly clear.

Use the Magic Words

If you are detained or arrested, use the magic words:

"I'm going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer."

Do not talk to police. Wait to talk to a lawyer representing you. Even casual small talk can come back to haunt you. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you.

Cops have numerous tricks to get you to talk. They can and do use fear, solitude, isolation, lies, advice, playing you against others, and even kindness to get you to cooperate. Don't be fooled. If you need to say anything, repeat the magic words.

Keep in mind the credo: If no one talks, everyone walks. Regardless of what you are told by an investigating officer, you have nothing to gain by talking to the police… and everything to lose.

Refuse to Consent to Searches

Officers seeking evidence will often try to get you to allow them to search your belongings, your car, or your home. Refuse to consent to a search, with the phrase:

"I do not consent to a search."

Usually, a search request will come in the form of an ambiguous statement, such as, "I'm going to ask you to empty your pockets." Answer such requests unambiguously. Repeat as many times as necessary.

You are under no obligation to allow a search. The only reason an officer asks your permission is because he doesn't have enough evidence to search without your consent.

Police officers are not required to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. If the officer searches you in spite of your objection, do not resist. Your attorney can argue that any evidence found during the search was discovered through an illegal search and should be thrown out of court.

Do Not Try to Bargain

Police officers will often tell you that your cooperation will make things easier for you, and many people hope to be let off easy if they are honest and direct with the police. The only thing it makes easier is the officer's job. Do not let the threat of arrest scare you into admitting guilt. Better to spend a night in jail, than years in prison. Ask to speak with a lawyer, and remain silent.

Where to Go For More Help

If you feel your rights are being violated, hold tight until you can talk to a lawyer. If you don't have your own lawyer the court will appoint the public defender to defend you. For more information about your rights, law education, and what to do if your rights were violated, check out:

..>..>

Midnight Special Law Collective	midnightspecial.net	510-261-4843
ACLU of Northern California	www.aclunc.org	415-621-2493
National Lawyers Guild	www.nlg.org	415-285-5067

There may also be legal help in your community that will specifically help you if you are a senior, low-income, homeless, or an non-citizen. Ask around in your community.

http://santacruz.freeskool.org/content.php...

On Being Fully Human

2008-03-17T11:32:00.001-07:00

taken from this site(click the link for full article): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686832,00.html

People often seek to rationalize eating animals with the claim that humans are "superior" to these other animals. But what is the real nature of this "superiority"? From a recent Time Magazine cover story:
"We're a species that is capable of almost dumbfounding kindness.... And at the same time, we slaughter one another.... That we're also the lowest, cruelest, most blood-drenched species is our shame -- and our paradox.
"The deeper that science drills into the substrata of behavior, the harder it becomes to preserve the vanity that we are unique among Earth's creatures. We're the only species with language, we told ourselves -- until gorillas and chimps mastered sign language. We're the only one that uses tools then -- but that's if you don't count otters smashing mollusks with rocks or apes stripping leaves from twigs and using them to fish for termites.
"What does, or ought to, separate us then is our highly developed sense of morality, a primal understanding of good and bad, of right and wrong, of what it means to suffer not only our own pain--something anything with a rudimentary nervous system can do--but also the pain of others. That quality is the distilled essence of what it means to be human."
Each of us chooses what will be our essence -- and legacy.
It is easy to accept ignorance -- simply refuse to question the blood-drenched status quo and unquestioningly accept the prejudices of our parents and peers. As the saying goes, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Like many others, we could turn away from the realities of modern agribusiness, and pay others to serve us the fruits of systematic brutality.
Or we can choose real freedom -- the kind that comes with knowledge and responsibility.
Only by embracing our inherent ethics, and extending it to all fellow feeling beings, can we be fully human. Only through a mindful existence, embodied by compassionate choices, can we realize our fullest potential.

Who really owns those "NATURAL" food companies?

2008-03-17T11:31:00.001-07:00

• Adams Baking is owned by Charter Baking Co.
• After the Fall is owned by Smuckers
• Arrowhead Mills is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Back to Nature is owned by Kraft, which is owned by Philip Morris
• Ben & Jerry's is owned by Unilever
• Boca Burgers are owned by Kraft Foods which is owned by Philip Morris.
• Burt's Bees is owned by AEA Investors
• Cascadian Farms is owned by Small Planet Foods, which is owned by General Mills.
• Celestial Seasonings is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• DeBoles is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Earth's Best is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Garden of Eatin' is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Health Valley is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Horizon Organic is owned by Dean Foods
• Jason's Natural Cosmetics is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Kashi is owned by Kellogg.
• Lightlife (purveyors of Gimme Lean, Smart Dogs, Foney Boloney, and Smart Deli Slices) is owned by ConAgra,
• Morningstar Farms is owned by Kellogg
• Mountain Sun is owned by Walnut Acres, which is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Muir Glen is owned by Small Planet Foods, which is owned by General Mills.
• Nantucket Nectars is owned by Cadbury Schweppes
• Nile Spice is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Odwalla Juice is owned by Coca-Cola.
• Organic Cow of Vermont is owned by Horizon, which is owned by Dean Foods
• Rudy's Organic Bakery is owned by Charter Baking Co.
• R.W. Knudsen is owned by Smuckers
• Imagine Foods (Rice Dream) is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Santa Cruz Organics is owned by Smuckers
• Seeds of Change is owned by M&M Mars Candy.
• Simply Asian is owned by McCormack & Co.
• Spectrum Organics is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Stonyfield Farm is owned by Danone
• Terra Chips is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Thai Kitchen is owned by McCormack & Co.
• Tom's of Maine is owned by Colgate
• Tostitas Organic is owned by Pepsi
• The Vermont Bread Company is owned by Charter Baking Co.
• Walnut Acres is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Westbrae Natural is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• Westsoy is owned by the Hain Celestial Food Group
• White Wave (makers of Silk Soy Milk) is owned Dean Foods
• Worthington Foods is owned by Kellogg
• Yves Veggie Cuisine is owned by Hain Celestial Food Group

==================

Good by bocca burger you treated me well but animals worse.

A Hindu Prair

2008-03-17T11:30:00.000-07:00

In this age of hating our bodies—trying to carve and starve them into conforming to some unattainable ideal—there is great healing in reading and sharing this beautiful ancient Hindu prayer at mealtime or any time. Read this Hindu blessing for our bodies, just as they are, here:

SIMPLE SOLUTION:

I recognize you are the temple in which my spirit and creative energy dwell.
I have created you from my need to have my spirit manifested on earth
so that I may have this time to learn and grow.
I offer you this food so that you may continue to sustain my creative energy, my spirit, my soul.
I offer this food to you with love, and a sincere desire for you to remain free from disease and disharmony.

I accept you as my own creation.

I need you.

I love you.

[P] Tetris Theory

2008-03-17T11:29:00.000-07:00

life has the potential to be wonderful as well as chaotic. It is through this beautiful dance of chaos that life presents itself to us. We humans, as much as we can try, organize and plan and make the best assumptions based on our trajectories in life but in the end it is one man or one woman against the nature of the universe. I have a theory and i call it the Tetris theory. life wants us to succeed and gives us the tools to do so. I have named it the Tetris theory because Tetris gives us the pieces to use that will ensure our victory if only we understand the pattern and choose wisely. But all things including Tetris must come to an end, where the pieces fit but the platform has changed. Our plans such as us small insignificant humans can manage are always on a path to entropy riding a wave to a conclusion we all know inevitable but often times choose to fool ourselves otherwise. You have planned well and saved well and are taking the steps to open a new path a new entropy to be contested against your desire for stability. In the chaos that is our life we most certainly will pick up the pieces and organize and plan but this time more certainly and with more direct knowledge of what that planning entails.

I wish you well and hope that Tetris gives you the pieces you need to succeed even if from time to time we must change the platform.

How to grow an indoor vegetable patch (thanks Wayne)

2008-03-17T11:27:00.000-07:00


	Don't let a lack of garden space keep you from growing and enjoying fresh veggies! With this plan, you can start harvesting fresh, flavorful, nutritious salad ingredients in about a month. Materials List * Two planters at least 8 inches deep (such as window boxes), with drainage holes * Seeds: radishes, mesclun mix, baby carrots, beets (shredded raw beet is a tasty and colorful salad topping) * Soilless potting mix enriched with compost * Fertilizer Steps 1. Moisten your potting mix. If you wish to use a slow-release fertilizer, add it as recommended by the product label. Fill window boxes, and firm soil gently in place. 2. Following the directions on the seed packets, sow seeds of radishes and greens in one box, beets and carrots in the other. Radishes are ready to harvest about 28 days after germination; baby greens (lettuce, spinach, mesclun), in 30 days; beets, in 55 days; baby carrots, in 70 days. 3. Water gently so that you don't wash seeds out of the soil. Keep soil evenly moist, and watch for seeds to germinate. 4. Seedlings will come up thickly; thin them the first time to stand 1 inch apart. You can either pluck them out individually or use scissors to snip seedlings at the soil surface. (Eat the thinnings of greens and beet tops - your first unofficial harvest!) Thin the carrots and beets again when they've doubled in size; ultimately they should stand 2 to 3 inches apart. 5. Fertilize every two weeks, unless you used a slow-release fertilizer at planting time. Use a water-soluble formula, such as fish emulsion. 6. Sow some more. As your harvest of greens and radishes makes room in that container, prepare to grow another round. Work an inch of compost into the empty spots and sow more seed. Tips If you have enough space, add containers for other salad favorites, such as tomatoes and cucumbers. (They need larger pots.) Watch out for pesky squirrels - they like to dig in freshly disturbed soil. If they're a problem, cover your planters with wire mesh or fabric row covers. For color and spicy flavor, sow a few nasturtium seeds in your containers. The flowers are beautiful, fragrant, and tasty in a salad!

Don't let a lack of garden space keep you from growing and enjoying fresh veggies! With this plan, you can start harvesting fresh, flavorful, nutritious salad ingredients in about a month.

Materials List

* Two planters at least 8 inches deep (such as window boxes), with drainage holes
* Seeds: radishes, mesclun mix, baby carrots, beets (shredded raw beet is a tasty and colorful salad topping)
* Soilless potting mix enriched with compost
* Fertilizer

Steps

1. Moisten your potting mix. If you wish to use a slow-release fertilizer, add it as recommended by the product label. Fill window boxes, and firm soil gently in place.
2. Following the directions on the seed packets, sow seeds of radishes and greens in one box, beets and carrots in the other. Radishes are ready to harvest about 28 days after germination; baby greens (lettuce, spinach, mesclun), in 30 days; beets, in 55 days; baby carrots, in 70 days.
3. Water gently so that you don't wash seeds out of the soil. Keep soil evenly moist, and watch for seeds to germinate.
4. Seedlings will come up thickly; thin them the first time to stand 1 inch apart. You can either pluck them out individually or use scissors to snip seedlings at the soil surface. (Eat the thinnings of greens and beet tops - your first unofficial harvest!) Thin the carrots and beets again when they've doubled in size; ultimately they should stand 2 to 3 inches apart.
5. Fertilize every two weeks, unless you used a slow-release fertilizer at planting time. Use a water-soluble formula, such as fish emulsion.
6. Sow some more. As your harvest of greens and radishes makes room in that container, prepare to grow another round. Work an inch of compost into the empty spots and sow more seed.

Tips

If you have enough space, add containers for other salad favorites, such as tomatoes and cucumbers. (They need larger pots.)

Watch out for pesky squirrels - they like to dig in freshly disturbed soil. If they're a problem, cover your planters with wire mesh or fabric row covers.

For color and spicy flavor, sow a few nasturtium seeds in your containers. The flowers are beautiful, fragrant, and tasty in a salad!

[P] Responses on vivisection

2008-03-17T11:26:00.002-07:00

Just some postings i wanted to save from my arguments based on this article (im registered in most places as phillipeb):

http://www.newsweek.com/id/116644

Most animal rights advocates view the testing on sentient species especially primates akin to testing on their equals or humans. Because we can attribute the emotional and mental intelligence to that of a child it is in essence testing on a child. If society were to raise and designate a class of children for research we would also see a violent struggle for the ending of their suffering.

Furthermore i would like to point out the hypocrisy of the vivisector urging an end to violence. It is the treatment of sentient animals as nothing more than a machine in which to plug an electrode into in order to arrive at a certain data set that causes the problem of violence in the first place. We have lost a fundamental respect for the natural world in our quest for human advancement subverting all who would stand in our way. I often hear the argument, would you allow one primate to suffer for the salvation of one thousand humans, and my answer is no. Often times the legal system seeks to protect those that cannot protect themselves but often times due to lack of precedence this is not possible. Take for example the notion of equality amongst the races, this was something that has to be fought, sometimes violently, for what was right, and I doubt few would argue that this was not necessary. Someone has to stand up for those without a voice who are suffering as if they are in a permanent Tuskegee experiment unable to break the cycle because of their inability to communicate clearly their needs. So we animal rights advocates march and protest and scream until we are hoarse in the hopes that someone will understand that the pain inflicted on any living creature for our advancement is a price to high to pay.

this is like stating that if i were to pet your nicely and perhaps feed you well and hold you i could force you to get pregnant and smoke a pack of cigarettes in 3 hours time to see the negative effects of the experiment, and it would be okay because I "treated you well" This is an extreme example and i know that some lab animals are not mistreated like rats that are not operated on for behavioral observations based on qualitative conditions. But this is not the norm. While i appreciate that lab workers adhere to some basic care regiments for animals it does not excuse the abuse of the animal in times that it is not being "treated like a family pet" because i doubt that you would allow sparky to test a potentially lethal new drug especially if you knew that the LD50 tests were around the corner and your family dog was going to be giving injections with the express purpose of death.

for me it would be a hard decision to say that since my niece is dear to me i should exhaust all means to save her including the death of another in the course of this treatment. It is my love for her that would not allow me to do this not because she is not more important than anything else in the world but simply because one death cannot excuse another. I do not live in an eye for an eye environment. The point of moving towards more lasting models of animal research is to stop these ethical questions. There should be no raised moral objectives for the saving of a child yet because of our lack of respect for animals as well as one another we see the argument polarized what would you give to save the one you love, classically we are conditioned to say anything but in reality would you kill your friend to save your family? Most likely not because they are human and as human are deemed worth the value but as an animal you are seen as fodder or food or a commodity to be traded. So it comes down to a simple matter of perspective.

i can see the logic of your argument but i can also see that it rests on logistical phalicies. You are only equating animals worth as something that can be bought and sold removing from it any semblance of self awareness and capacity for a personal life. But there is an intrinsic value to an animal as a teaching method not in the modern sense but more so in the Socratic sense where we use observation and logic to understand the natural world and observe it. It has beauty as a free spirit as something that is unlike us that is untouched by man. All things have implicit and explicit value it is whether or not we are willing to see past our dinner plates or medicine cabinets to understand this.

while i agree with your sentiments i have to disagree with your words. Civilization is built on the modification of all things to suit the needs of the people in there efforts to defend and expand. While this takes a cooperative measure this does not mean that compassion is the main route to this goal. When we have top down governments in which they make decisions for us that trickle down until we are only deciding between apples and oranges when were were never asked if we want fruit to begin with. Civilization started when man subverted animals in order to survive in on region giving up there nomadic lifestyle. It should not be this way but it is a truth, which is why it is so hard as an animal rights activist to argue for the compassionate caring of all living creatures because we are fighting a system that has been employed "successfully" since civilizations infancy. The wonderful thing about civilizations is that it does thrive on new ideas even if it refuses to throw off the social norms of the past, it is with these new ideas that we can help shape a better policy on animal experimentation and factory farming in general.

i am uncertain Conscious_Man as to what you are saying. Are you saying that these people have no natural emotions because they advocated the use of consenting humans instead of animals? And that natural emotion would dictate that using animals is alright instead of humans? I think the is a logic error in your argument. I do not advocate the use of any sentient being for experimentation with out there consent, that being said because we place no value on animals we are not exploring options that would allow for better human testing methods. If one could consent to experimentation would we use it or would it violate our basic ethics? We do trials with potentially dangerous results in third world countries, so is it only a matter of equating value in American lives?

i respect you summing up the polarized view points but i must contest what you say. The Nazis actually did quite a bit of advanced research using human experimentation that showed remarkable results, only based on the international medical community were not allowed to use these studies as stepping stones to further the researched because of the ethical violations. Nazi researchers actually found the link between smoking and cancer years before it would be found without the use of human experimentation. I do not condone the experimentation of non consenting beings but i did however want to point out that the testings were purposeful and had meaningful outcomes but it was the use of humans that disqualified the research. So the issue once again comes down to putting more value on human life than animal life. The Nazis did not.

Diving for Dinner

2008-03-17T11:26:00.001-07:00

Whether Motivated by Eco-Activism, Social Consciousness or Simply Scoring a Freebie, Scavenging for Groceries Gains in Popularity

By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 16, 2006; B01

Bryan Meadows's backpack lay open on the ground, bulging with bags of peanuts, a tub of chocolate-covered ginger and two loaves of bread. He tossed aside a few moldy pastries and was on his way back for more when he suddenly realized the jig was up.

"Can I ask what you're doing?" asked the Trader Joe's employee in a Hawaiian shirt.

Meadows was caught dumpster diving, though he is neither homeless nor destitute. He considers himself a "freegan" -- a melding of the words "free" and "vegan" -- meaning he tries not to contribute to what he sees as the exploitation of land, resources and animals wrought by commercial production.

The employee at the Trader Joe's in Falls Church was polite at first, but within 30 seconds the conversation turned antagonistic. Meadows insisted he had done nothing wrong, and the employee grew impatient with the 18-year-old college student's refusal to cooperate.

"Put all of it back in the trash and get off the property now," the employee ordered.

As Meadows saw it, that chocolate-covered ginger had a one-way ticket from the Falls Church store to the Fairfax County landfill, so he was liberating it, not stealing it. The employee saw it differently: The garbage was on his company's property, so the teenager had no claim to it. He also didn't relish the idea of someone getting sick from something carrying the Trader Joe's label.

The number of freegans in the D.C. region is anybody's guess, but the ranks appear to be growing. Spokesmen from several groceries said the sight of people behind their stores has become more common, and stores are citing trespassing laws, food-safety concerns and the fear of being sued to discourage dumpster divers.

"It's certainly something you hear about more and more," said Sarah Kenney, a spokeswoman for Whole Foods Market's mid-Atlantic region. "It seems like people tell their friends, and then there's an article about it and it grows."

A half-dozen longtime divers said such Web sites as Meetup.com, which connects people looking for activity partners, have seen a huge increase in the number of curious first-timers seeking fellow divers. And disillusionment with the Bush administration's environmental policies has pushed some young people to everyday forms of protest.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 96 billion pounds of food are thrown away each year, making up 12 percent of the trash produced in the United States. Because of federal and state regulations for restaurants and grocery stores, expiration dates often come before the food actually spoils. Much of it ends up in bags separate from the rest of a store's garbage, providing easy access for divers.

"I'm trying to limit my participation in some of the corporate farming practices that are terrible for the environment and aren't healthy," said Columbia Heights resident Ryan Beiler, citing pesticides, animal cruelty and pollution. "I'm struck by the absurdity of how the American economy works."

Beiler, Web editor for Sojourners magazine, estimated that 95 percent of the food he eats comes from his every-other-week dumpster runs.

Like many dumpster divers, Beiler and Meadows have had multiple run-ins with police or store managers, leading in some instances to the shut-off of prime locations. The same day that Meadows was caught diving at the Trader Joe's in Falls Church, employees began locking the dumpster.

Employees at several stores said they are aware that divers visit regularly but declined to discuss specifics on the record. Spokesmen said grocery chains are doing their part to produce less waste by contributing to charity and recycling, better solutions than the liability involved in having people digging through their trash. And because dumpster diving generally requires trespassing, divers are bound to accept stores' refusal to allow them access to the trash.

"We would not recommend removing Trader Joe's items from the dumpsters for the simple reason that these items have been evaluated by our crew as questionable to donate due to safety concerns," company spokeswoman Alison Mochizuki wrote in a prepared statement.

Trader Joe's and Whole Foods both donate food deemed unsalable to homeless shelters and soup kitchens, and Whole Foods composts much of its other food waste.

"It makes me concerned about what type of food waste people are eating," said Kenney, the Whole Foods spokeswoman. "You generally don't want people in the dumpster because of safety reasons."

Kenney added that Whole Foods stores don't throw away edible food -- a claim challenged by a half-dozen divers.

Even if food from dumpsters looks edible, food safety experts advise against eating it once it's been thrown away. Jack Guzewich, an epidemiologist with the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said cooking would destroy only some of the bacteria that could contaminate food in the trash. Between cross-contamination from other items in the dumpster, lack of refrigeration and the presence of rats and flies, Guzewich said, items from a dumpster should not be consumed even if there is no sign of mold or rot.

But several experienced divers said they've never become sick from food found in a dumpster. Half the fun of dumpster diving is the anticipation of the unknown, they said: A late-night run could lead to a confrontation with police, a case of rotten bananas or a huge score. Beiler has come home empty-handed some nights; on other trips, he's netted pounds of smoked salmon, full containers of lobster, several trays of sushi.

"It's about allowing God's provisions to be available," Beiler said. "I'll eat vegetables for a week, and the next week it'll be mostly carbs."

Beiler's "dumpstering mentor," his Columbia Heights neighbor Preston Winter, said that it's difficult to maintain a balanced diet when he is relying on the trash but added that it's also easy to get spoiled. He used to be excited when he found gourmet cheese, but now he's come to expect it when he visits a high-end grocery store. He once found 40 unopened bottles of wine.

"A rack of lamb is always nice," said Winter, who studies fiscal accountability in foreign aid for the federal government. "I have a couple of those in the freezer."

The reasons people are drawn back to the dumpster vary widely. Beiler said his Christian beliefs push him to live simply and refrain from wasting natural resources, whereas Winter described his motivation as "a mix of 'wow, it's free food' and a desire to conserve resources." Meadows said he dives mostly because he knows the food is there.

Brian Kruglak, meanwhile, sees discarded food as a good source of nutrition for the homeless. Three years ago, he and a few friends founded a D.C. chapter of Food Not Bombs, which cooks meals out of food from dumpsters to serve to hungry or homeless people at Dupont Circle every Sunday. The group serves only vegetarian meals both because members object to eating animals and because it can be difficult to tell when meat has gone bad. Food Not Bombs informs clients that the food has been reclaimed, and anyone who doesn't mind is welcome to eat.

Kruglak, a 23-year-old security guard at the Black Cat nightclub, said he does not eat out of the dumpster because he believes privileged people should not take free food from people who need it.

"Our motto is that if we'll eat it ourselves, we'll serve it to others," Kruglak said after pulling his head out of the side door of a dumpster in suburban Maryland.

The outing to Kruglak's favorite location didn't yield any loot, but he wasn't fazed; Food Not Bombs already had enough supplies for that Sunday's lunch. Besides, one store's employees leave bags of unusable food outside the store for Food Not Bombs members to rifle through before it hits the trash.

But Kruglak said finding places to dumpster dive has become more difficult. A planned trip to Whole Foods in Tenleytown was called off when the store replaced dumpsters with trash compactors.

John Hoffman, an author who coined the term "dumpster diving" in a 1993 how-to guide, said stores are taking steps to discourage divers.

"Compactors are Satan's little helper," he said. "Unless [store employees] are evil, why do they care that you're taking trash off their hands?"

Grocery spokesmen shrugged off the accusations.

"There's a popular misperception that stores are throwing away a lot of food," Kenney said. "If we feel it's fit to be eaten, we sell it or donate it."

Anarchism as a way of life

2008-03-17T11:25:00.001-07:00

I have been doing a lot of reading lately about various forms of social protest and while it has been interesting it boils down really to being who you are without being censored much by the oppressive regime that is the government. I have read about different movements and have been involved with these movements on the outskirts at least since i became a conscious person roughly 5 years or so ago. No matter what word you use Anarchist freegan vegan hippy homosexual minority you are describing the same thing, just people who buck the system in various ways.

That being said i am reading more about the phenomenon of dumpster diving. I had forgotten until recently that my mother use to do this for me and my sister when we were small, she would come home with clothing that she had found in perfect condition, i never understood then why she did it, not as a form of protest, because in truth we never discussed it but rather as a form of necessity. My mother did what ever was necessary to survive and i appreciate at least now what that means. Growing up i was a very me me me individual, sure i said the normal things like please dont say those racist or sexist or homophobic comments in my presence, i volunteered and i worked for the things i received but i didn't understand my place in this structure. I was fiercely independent without really being independent form anything, just one more joe schmoe working to purchase what ever my desire was. It usually took the form of food and comic books, because i was overweight i didn't much care for clothing or cars or the normal social stigmas. I wanted to travel and i wanted art and i wanted food. Basically the stuff my wealthy or well to do friends where doing.

I meet this kids these days who are fresh out of highschool and have already stood up for their convictions. sure they may be stylized individuals because not matter what we try to do we are still susceptible to iconography and influence whether permissive or individualistic, but that does not mean they walked the same path as i did growing up. I always drew strength from having a hard life and surviving it but it does not compare to the strength one can pull from doing the right thing. Much of my journey has been repairative therapy of self instead of environment which is something that is changing for me.

I became a vegan five years ago and it was this simple process that made me that much more aware of the life i was living and the system i was affecting, i simply never encountered much protest or violence or 'subversive ideals' until that point. It seemed the mere act of becoming a vegan was subversive because i started to understand the need for human antagonism, i was an affront to the system because i marginally stepped outside of it. People were confronted with there own decisions where they may not be comfortable for it. Then you add me coming out a few years later and it was a double whammy. It is as if the things you hear about on the fringe of life have centered in one person and it was frightening. For me it was enliving. I started to live more and more each day. I suffer from an inability to follow through at times which hinders my ability to volunteer for long periods of time in an effort to effect a change, but still i protest and scream, and volunteer where i can to make the small ripples in the pond become bigger ones.

As i grow older i realize that i have wasted much time on inner journey when an outer journey is needed as well to balance the true path. The world will not change on its own and it is up to me now that i am standing adjacent to the normal view of the world that is hand fed to us, to let my perceptions be heard and hope that i can influence someone into finding the same truths or at least parts of the same path. I do not know if what i do is right because in all honesty i am just fumbling through life much as you are, but i do know that every year i am alive is another year that i am happy to be me, the constant ever changing evolving me.

P.s. it is good to know that just the mere act of living is anarchy for this gay vegan Mexican, but it simply is not enough, so i will seek and add new skills and new endeavors into my retinue until i complete the path i started on long ago.