To what extremes, O vegan? (part 3)

In part 1 I explored the historical backdrop to veganism in the West, in the case of the world’s premier vegan faith, Jainism.  In part 2 I explored some of the logical problems potentially inherent to the “necessary extremism” of veganism, particularly the idea of the absolute equality between the species.

In the epilogue of part 2 I promised to address the question of whether veganism, for all its logical conundrums, is nevertheless necessary in contemporary capitalist America.  Alas, I will be breaking the promise and belaying my answer until the next and final post, part 4.

The reason is because I feel there is another issue that needs to be addressed during the intermission: since vegans are by definition radicals, the riddle they face is not one of how far they desire to go, but how far they are willing to accomodate the rest of us.  I also wish to explore the larger philosophical implications of their economic endeavors.

To what extremes, O vegan? (part 2)

In part 1 I explored the historical backdrop to veganism in the West, in particular that most ruthless of vegan religions, Jainism.  Today, I now turn to the question of vegan extremism itself.  Specifically, I’m curious as to the logic of veganism: whether it is thorough enough or too much.

I personally have been very influenced by the ethical systems of kosher and halal.  These ethical-nutritional systems take the view that fundamentally Man must devour animals in order to survive, but this must be done humanely.

Now, while the reality of kosher and halal have fallen far from the ideal, I can nevertheless conceive how their basic approach potentially sets the stage for the logic of veganism among Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers:

• if (a) the humane treatment of livestock is the goal,
• but (b) that goal is rendered impossible by the avaricious nature of our current industrial-capitalist system,
• then (c) veganism is therefore the (arguably) only resort left to the nutrionally ethical monotheist.

However, this interpretation of kosher and halal leaves open the possibility that one day livestock can indeed be slaughtered humanely.  Thus, they beg the question posed by the vegan approach, that is, can butchering ever be humane, in any system?

But while vegans confront this question head-on, do they run the risk of becoming ensared in their own logic?

If the shoe (bomb?) fits… Patriotism, professionalism, military intervention, and journalistic integrity

Did Muntader az-Zaidi cross the line between professionalism and activism, or was he acting in the journalistic spirit?

Hopefully this will be my last post on “shoe-gate,” or, the “shoe intifada.” I’m heading off for South Africa in a few days and I need to concentrate on preparations.  So, as you can see from my extended subtitle, I intend to kill a lot of birds with one (shoe).

Ali the Translator, an Iraqi blogger, on the day of Muntader az-Zaidi gave his now famed send-off for his dearly beloved Bush, remarks, “No matter how funny it was, it was kinda disappointing at the same time cuz ‘Journalists’ are supposed to be professional and neutral.”

Consider also American blogger Rick Perlstein, who waves his finger at liberals:

Liberals should not make light of or license the physical assault on the leader of a sovereign state, no matter how much he’s deservedly hated. This is not how we do politics, unless we’re in favor something tending toward anarchy, or fascism.  This seems open and shut to me: the Iraqi journalist should go to jail for a rather long time.

And indeed, Perlstein may very well get his wish.  The BBC reports that az-Zaidi is getting a warm reception in Iraqi jail, and by “warm” I mean a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding. Which leads me to a troubling phenomenon: the defamation of Iraqis as “ungrateful” by American bloggers.

To what extremes, O vegan? (part 1)

“May the entire universe be blessed; may all beings engage in each other’s well being.  May all weakness, sickness, and faults diminish; may everyone and everywhere be healthy, peaceful, and blissful. I grant forgiveness to all living beings. May all living beings grant me forgiveness. My friendship is with all living beings. I have no animosity towards any living beings.” — Jain prayer

“One day I was a happy-go-lucky vegetarian eating cheese and then realized that something was missing in my life and that it was about time I switched to veganism.” — Philadelphian vegan

In the pursuit of ethical living, how far are some people willing to go?  It’s a question a new vegan friend and I have been debating, and to which, in light of the passing of Proposition 2 in California, I’d like to now turn in this space.

The video above is of Rashtrasant Tarunsagar, a living saint of the ancient Jain religion in India. As some of you know, I’m personally acquainted with this community as I was once intimate with a young woman who was of the faith.  (On a side-note, because having dated a white man is more harmful to her health than eating beef, to protect her identity from now on in this blog she will be known as “Jane,” pun intended.   Of those of you readers who know her identity, I ask that you respect her safety and use this pseudonym in public comments.)

I must confess that one of the things I miss most about Jane was the feeling of being viscerally connected to a tradition of such antiquity (although in my buttheaded way I did not fully appreciate it at the time).  However, it was always fascinating to explore her point-of-view, not only with regards to nutrition, but also theology and ethics.

The first part of this post will be devoted to a bit of a digression regarding Jainism, which I think is in order here since historical veganism in the West, especially in the last 75-some years, was brought here by Indian missionaries during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.    Additionally, its recent blossoming among the rank and file of the global anticapitalism movement is attributable to growing ideological and organizational links with religious and political movements within the Subcontinent, in particular ISKCON, the Tibetan government in exile, and the varieties of post-Nehruism. 

What have I wrought? New questions, it seems.

Well, it looks like in the few hours of its existence, my last blog entry is already tearing across Philly cyberspace.  Perhaps now would be the time to offer some addendums to the questions I raised.  *cough

First things first, Iggles blog has raised the subject of proportionality:

Secondly, how typically heavy-handed is this of the Eagles / NFL?  Rather than just saying the team expects the cheerleaders to project a wholesome image and will remove those who don’t, they send in the lawyers to shut down their access to social networking sites that pretty much the entirety of the under-35 population in this country uses.  Because it sure would be terrible if those cheerleaders were out there sticking up basically-naked pictures of themselves.

Second, if you click on that link, yep, you definitely have to wonder where the heck the “wholesomeness” is.  I suppose the word means something vague, an idea orbiting somewhere around “family values.”  But this still begs the question — how do skimpily clad women bounding through the air reflect a good Christian home life?  To be fair, I suppose it means that good Christian girls can still have fun, but the increasing sluttiness (and smuttiness) of cheerleading calls this into question.  Then again, in our era of sexual liberty, “slut” is itself a concept in need of serious re-examination.  Consider this illustrious list of cheerleader scandals.

Third and finally, a lot of e-mailers are writing, essentially, “They signed the contract, so that’s that.”  Fair enough.  But could not the contract itself be in violation of their civil liberties, regardless of whether the cheerleaders “knew what they were getting into”?

At no point should it be interpretted that I am personally against nigh-naked women flying through the air, performing stratospheric leg splits and other feats of arousing acrobatics.  In the interest of full journalistic disclosure (ahem) I thoroughly enjoy their craft.  I’m just curious about the philosophy behind it, that’s all.

“Wholesome” cheerleaders? Do they have social lives (or civil rights)?

The cheerleader squad for the Philadelphia Eagles exercises and practices in my neighborhood gym. The other day a lawyer came in and took a few of them aside. I overhead her instruct them to delete their Facebook and MySpace profiles immediately, explaining that membership in online social networks is a breach of contract.

Evidently “the team” (read: the owners) feels it cannot regulate what they put on their profiles: I recall her saying that the team wants to promote a “wholesome” image, and so therefore doesn’t want any of its corporate imagery associated with “inappropriate things,” i.e., sexy photographs, suggestive messages, and the like. The last thing I heard her say is, “If you feel these profiles are important for your modeling career or personal life, then keep them — but then you will relinquish your position on the squad.”

To live, it seems, is to devour the young.

Saturn devours his son in this painting by Francisco Goya. It depicts the Greek myth of the god, who, fearing that his children would supplant him, ate each one upon their birth.

Although a liberal, I for one do believe that abortion is, as a friend of mine recently put it, “baby murdering,” or to be more precise, the killing of a potential human life. Nevertheless, I support the legality of abortion in the belief that from death comes life.

As it happens, it would seem both the pro- and anti-abortion camps seem to agree with this principle of “from death comes life.” Where they disagree is on the question of who is dying, who is living, and in what ways.

Conservatives say that society exists for its children, and that a woman should be willing to expend her career and even her life if necessary. After all, this is what we are called to do as biological beings and children of God.

Liberals, however, point out that a society which exists only to breed is not much of a society at all. There are issues of aspirations and happiness for adults in general and women in particular that have been overlooked for far too long in history. After all, a civilization in which half the species is consigned to the bedchamber is losing out on half its potential to produce the artists and intellectuals who raise the human being above the animal.

So you can see why the two camps are at loggerheads — conservatives focus on the future, liberals on the present; conservatives focus on the general species, liberals on the individual creature; conservatives call for self-sacrifice, liberals call for self-fulfillment.

Who can fathom the abyss?

What follows is an old reflection piece, never published. Written not long after disasters in New Orleans and my personal life, over two years later I find that I still agree with its Stoic message of temperance and flexibility in the face catastrophe and change.

Aesthetically, it’s a bit… how do you say? Emersonianesque. Or wannabe-Emerson. At the time I was really enamored by his writing-style. I still am, but I’m learning to constrain my pen a bit. Reading the Economist and working Ben Paarmann’s scathing editorial remarks during the behind-the-scenes work on CyberChaikhana have really helped me tone down the flamboyance. — CS 12.06.2008