Thought-provoking article, Wayne. Thank you! Animal rights can help solve the problem of war, leading us away from self-destructive political systems: If respect for the life of animals is ingrained in us, we will naturally respect the life of all humans and realize the absurdity of war.
Sadly, for the suffering, powerless animals and people, I don't think I will live long enough to see "a new class of leaders, who represent the interests of all sentient beings, even those who are powerless." We seem to be barreling forward in the opposite direction. What does it take to turn the tide?
We need to see that we share sensitivities with sheep and other animals; that we deceive them and eachother using the same deceptions; and to see that by admitting this we can find it in ourselves to improve the conditions of ecological devastation that our inherited insensitivity has allowed & empowered in so many ways. This article has helped to bring life further into view again, Wayne. Onward . . .
I don't think it will be long before facts of nature effectively intrude on this sham contest between the two faces of the abusive human speciesist oligarchy. We have tried to fashion ourselves a Spirit in opposition to the Spirit of the Wilderness, but this attempt has deprived us of vision and insight. I am interested in the course of real events, not in who gains a platform to declare forests unreal, sheep unreal, Palestinians unreal etc.
I wish Harris would have the courage to talk about the reality of the ecological devastation and the role of mass animal farming in it, how it is driven by ignorance, greed and cruelty. And then to frankly present the good steps that have been taken in her home state, in food security as I mentioned once before, in the work of Ron Finley and many other local food activists; and in breaking the circuit of bigotry, as in the work of Van Jones, as things that she can advocate and help move towards, . . . I think the jitters about whether she can win would be engulfed by a better vision about a new way forward. It wouldn't be so much a matter of winning an election. I think this topic you wrote about in this piece has the potential to be developed to connect such dots for lots of "influencers" and "lawmakers". The problem is the deep layer of inherited and ingrained predatory self-deception about the "other".
"A system that claims to protect everyone will be seen for what it is – a betrayal – unless it considers the interests of everyone who has interests, even those who have no power. And that question, of who to include for consideration, is ultimately a question of values, and not structure." And the animals have no power, yet the most immediate interest, their only life. I voted for Jill Stein in protest. I live in CA . But hopefully we will have ethical leaders in near future.
I thought about voting for Jill Stein but ended up still voting for Kamala. If Jill Stein were a true animal rights champion, I might feel differently. She is better than Kamala but not so much better that she earned my vote.
If you want to have the option of choosing your leaders in the future or have any hope for ethical government in the decades to come, Kamala Harris needs to win the election of 2024. Which is why Wayne’s privileged “I don’t much care who wins” statement is so repugnant to me. Your “protest” vote for Jill Stein in California will only serve to encourage a narcissistic asshole like her to run a fourth time. Is that really what you want? This time, her own family begged her not to do it. If Jill Stein possesses any ethics, I haven’t seen them. I do know that war criminal Vladimir Putin considers her to be his useful idiot.
I don't really believe we currently have the option of choosing our leaders, and I don't believe our current government is ethical. So I support people 100% in voting their values. I voted for Kamala, but a lot of people will vote for Stein, or even Trump. They're all equally bad options in a very bad system.
Wayne, things would be SO MUCH WORSE if trump is elected. First, we put him in prison, not the White House, and then we will have a fighting chance to work towards animal rights.
My protest vote represents my opposition to animal exploitation that Harris and Trump support. Harris opposes CAFOS, I want someone who is bold and will cease subsidizes to animal AG, Trump might support that. Harris will no doubt carry CA. We are not a swing . Voters can't settle for a two party system that supports exploitation. Hopefully the candidates will take notice of Steins votes and shift towards her views on animal rights and climate justice. Btw, you don't know Wayne or his struggles. And how would you "see" Stein's ethics? She hasn't won an election??
I know that people care Wayne. If we can only get the word out to enough people about how corrupt MAGA/Trump are and somehow get these billionaires out of politics maybe we could shut down some of these hellholes.
Indeed. I do think Trump is worse than Kamala on non-animal issues. For that reason I'm voting for Kamala. However, it often feels like choosing between two racists when what we really need is someone who believes all beings are equal.
There's a lot more to respond to in this post, and I apologize for nitpicking on one particular side point, but the Sanders 3 billionaires claim always seemed a little misleading to me. This is not a math blog so I'll keep it short, but the article mentions that their combined wealth was (at the time) around $260B, as compared to the median household at around $80k. But there can "only" be some $260B/$80k ≈ 3M households (out of the 125M households in the United States) just below this wealth before their combined wealth exceeds the billionaires.
So what gives? The answer is that there is an absolutely gigantic load of debt on many households in the bottom 50% that is weighing down on their total, with tens of millions of households being in the negatives. Some are very, very negative, including those fresh out of school. Because of this, it's almost certainly the case (and we can verify this with accurate numbers later) that the bottom 40ish% of household "net worths", in combination, add up to a tremendously negative number -- so large that you, I, and even the most indebted person in the United States each have a higher wealth than this entire cohort combined!
Surely this is hugely problematic. Some debt is good, but this much debt is a sign of a deeply flawed and/or rigged game. But Sanders' focus on Warren Buffet's wealth exceeding some fraction of the population, at a time when *everyone's* wealth exceeds a similar fraction, seems like a sleight of hand argument to me. I think the drifting wage figures later in the article tell a more compelling story of the income inequality problems we face, and help explain a lot (but not all) of the wealth inequality. I wonder how these look for accumulated wealth, especially if we change it to track individual households over time rather than wealth brackets point-wise (i.e. the plot should give time for the med school cohort to see returns; despite their low initial wealth I would consider them fairly well off due to earning potential).
And something that I would include in this article is the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and the support of the USA and its allies of Israel. Both parties support that too.
What about the genocide that is explicitly called for in the founding charter of Hamass, who carried out the horrific slaughter of innocents at a festival celebrating peace and love on Oct. 7, which is the genocide of the Jewish people and the annihilation of Israel? You have no problem with that? Are you aware that most of the people slaughtered by Hamass on Oct. 7 who lived in the kibbutzes near the Gaza border are the ones who most fervently sought a 2-state solution and peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and who were rewarded for their efforts by having their throats slit? Why don't you read Hamass' founding charter and then look at the polls that show the majority of Palestinians supporting the wholeheartedly? Hamass unleashed this horror on the world. And Israel had had enough. After decades of having to build every home with a bunker so people could run for shelter from the daily vicious assaults of the rockets raining down on them from Hamass, Hezbollah, ISIS, Islamic Jihad, all those lovely people, Oct. 7 was the line in the sand. Thankfully Israel is doing a good job of eliminating the POS terrorist thugs who spearhead these bloodthirsty gangs, who make the Crips and Bloods look like characters from Walt Disney. Be careful what you wish for. Because god help us all if these monsters get their way. I'm not Jewish or remotely religious in any way. BUT I have a brain in my head and can tell the difference between good and evil. I have spent time in Israel and the West Bank and have seen first hand what the interactions are between the peoples. And I am here to tell you, you need to do that yourself before spouting rubbish in support of the most vicious and vile murderers the world has ever seen: Hamass, Hezbollah, and their ilk. They are the bogey man incarnate.
The Nazi equivalent of the Judas Sheep were the “Sonderkommandos,” sometimes referred to as “Arbeitsjuden.” And speaking of Nazis, it is disturbing to me that you “mostly don’t care” if Trump wins. Fuck your nihilism.
They both support Exploitation. Harris may even keep a dairy farmer in her cabinet which will keep subsidies going to animal AG. The only thing Trump has on his side would be to defund animal AG.
If Harris wins, USDA will continue to prop up animal AG with our tax dollars.
That may well be, for a minute. There is shit tons of changes that need to be made. Don’t underestimate what trump would do to our democracy. We’d have no voice at all.
That's why he is scarier. If I was in a swing state, I would have voted Harris because we need a democracy for animal and climate justice that have zero voice. And forget protests. Trump would say, " can't you just shoot them in the legs".
Thank you for this article Wayne! Your unwavering dedication to animal rights is a light in this world.
Thought-provoking article, Wayne. Thank you! Animal rights can help solve the problem of war, leading us away from self-destructive political systems: If respect for the life of animals is ingrained in us, we will naturally respect the life of all humans and realize the absurdity of war.
Agreed 100%!
Sadly, for the suffering, powerless animals and people, I don't think I will live long enough to see "a new class of leaders, who represent the interests of all sentient beings, even those who are powerless." We seem to be barreling forward in the opposite direction. What does it take to turn the tide?
A grassroots movement! It's coming.
We need to see that we share sensitivities with sheep and other animals; that we deceive them and eachother using the same deceptions; and to see that by admitting this we can find it in ourselves to improve the conditions of ecological devastation that our inherited insensitivity has allowed & empowered in so many ways. This article has helped to bring life further into view again, Wayne. Onward . . .
I don't think it will be long before facts of nature effectively intrude on this sham contest between the two faces of the abusive human speciesist oligarchy. We have tried to fashion ourselves a Spirit in opposition to the Spirit of the Wilderness, but this attempt has deprived us of vision and insight. I am interested in the course of real events, not in who gains a platform to declare forests unreal, sheep unreal, Palestinians unreal etc.
I wish Harris would have the courage to talk about the reality of the ecological devastation and the role of mass animal farming in it, how it is driven by ignorance, greed and cruelty. And then to frankly present the good steps that have been taken in her home state, in food security as I mentioned once before, in the work of Ron Finley and many other local food activists; and in breaking the circuit of bigotry, as in the work of Van Jones, as things that she can advocate and help move towards, . . . I think the jitters about whether she can win would be engulfed by a better vision about a new way forward. It wouldn't be so much a matter of winning an election. I think this topic you wrote about in this piece has the potential to be developed to connect such dots for lots of "influencers" and "lawmakers". The problem is the deep layer of inherited and ingrained predatory self-deception about the "other".
Getting involved in the animal rights movement is how people will create change for the animals. But, please everyone, vote for Harris/Walz!
This statement is spot on, Wayne.
"A system that claims to protect everyone will be seen for what it is – a betrayal – unless it considers the interests of everyone who has interests, even those who have no power. And that question, of who to include for consideration, is ultimately a question of values, and not structure." And the animals have no power, yet the most immediate interest, their only life. I voted for Jill Stein in protest. I live in CA . But hopefully we will have ethical leaders in near future.
I thought about voting for Jill Stein but ended up still voting for Kamala. If Jill Stein were a true animal rights champion, I might feel differently. She is better than Kamala but not so much better that she earned my vote.
Brandy Walt of The Humane Party is a good quality candidate.
If you want to have the option of choosing your leaders in the future or have any hope for ethical government in the decades to come, Kamala Harris needs to win the election of 2024. Which is why Wayne’s privileged “I don’t much care who wins” statement is so repugnant to me. Your “protest” vote for Jill Stein in California will only serve to encourage a narcissistic asshole like her to run a fourth time. Is that really what you want? This time, her own family begged her not to do it. If Jill Stein possesses any ethics, I haven’t seen them. I do know that war criminal Vladimir Putin considers her to be his useful idiot.
I don't really believe we currently have the option of choosing our leaders, and I don't believe our current government is ethical. So I support people 100% in voting their values. I voted for Kamala, but a lot of people will vote for Stein, or even Trump. They're all equally bad options in a very bad system.
Wayne, things would be SO MUCH WORSE if trump is elected. First, we put him in prison, not the White House, and then we will have a fighting chance to work towards animal rights.
My protest vote represents my opposition to animal exploitation that Harris and Trump support. Harris opposes CAFOS, I want someone who is bold and will cease subsidizes to animal AG, Trump might support that. Harris will no doubt carry CA. We are not a swing . Voters can't settle for a two party system that supports exploitation. Hopefully the candidates will take notice of Steins votes and shift towards her views on animal rights and climate justice. Btw, you don't know Wayne or his struggles. And how would you "see" Stein's ethics? She hasn't won an election??
I know that people care Wayne. If we can only get the word out to enough people about how corrupt MAGA/Trump are and somehow get these billionaires out of politics maybe we could shut down some of these hellholes.
Indeed. I do think Trump is worse than Kamala on non-animal issues. For that reason I'm voting for Kamala. However, it often feels like choosing between two racists when what we really need is someone who believes all beings are equal.
Thank you !!!!
Keep up the great work …
Thank you for the article. I'd be interested in listening in on Zoom on election day/evening to hear about the animal initiatives.
Stay tuned, may send something out about this!
There's a lot more to respond to in this post, and I apologize for nitpicking on one particular side point, but the Sanders 3 billionaires claim always seemed a little misleading to me. This is not a math blog so I'll keep it short, but the article mentions that their combined wealth was (at the time) around $260B, as compared to the median household at around $80k. But there can "only" be some $260B/$80k ≈ 3M households (out of the 125M households in the United States) just below this wealth before their combined wealth exceeds the billionaires.
So what gives? The answer is that there is an absolutely gigantic load of debt on many households in the bottom 50% that is weighing down on their total, with tens of millions of households being in the negatives. Some are very, very negative, including those fresh out of school. Because of this, it's almost certainly the case (and we can verify this with accurate numbers later) that the bottom 40ish% of household "net worths", in combination, add up to a tremendously negative number -- so large that you, I, and even the most indebted person in the United States each have a higher wealth than this entire cohort combined!
Surely this is hugely problematic. Some debt is good, but this much debt is a sign of a deeply flawed and/or rigged game. But Sanders' focus on Warren Buffet's wealth exceeding some fraction of the population, at a time when *everyone's* wealth exceeds a similar fraction, seems like a sleight of hand argument to me. I think the drifting wage figures later in the article tell a more compelling story of the income inequality problems we face, and help explain a lot (but not all) of the wealth inequality. I wonder how these look for accumulated wealth, especially if we change it to track individual households over time rather than wealth brackets point-wise (i.e. the plot should give time for the med school cohort to see returns; despite their low initial wealth I would consider them fairly well off due to earning potential).
If you want to blame someone for the atrocities in Gaza, look no further than Netanyahu.
And something that I would include in this article is the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and the support of the USA and its allies of Israel. Both parties support that too.
What about the genocide that is explicitly called for in the founding charter of Hamass, who carried out the horrific slaughter of innocents at a festival celebrating peace and love on Oct. 7, which is the genocide of the Jewish people and the annihilation of Israel? You have no problem with that? Are you aware that most of the people slaughtered by Hamass on Oct. 7 who lived in the kibbutzes near the Gaza border are the ones who most fervently sought a 2-state solution and peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and who were rewarded for their efforts by having their throats slit? Why don't you read Hamass' founding charter and then look at the polls that show the majority of Palestinians supporting the wholeheartedly? Hamass unleashed this horror on the world. And Israel had had enough. After decades of having to build every home with a bunker so people could run for shelter from the daily vicious assaults of the rockets raining down on them from Hamass, Hezbollah, ISIS, Islamic Jihad, all those lovely people, Oct. 7 was the line in the sand. Thankfully Israel is doing a good job of eliminating the POS terrorist thugs who spearhead these bloodthirsty gangs, who make the Crips and Bloods look like characters from Walt Disney. Be careful what you wish for. Because god help us all if these monsters get their way. I'm not Jewish or remotely religious in any way. BUT I have a brain in my head and can tell the difference between good and evil. I have spent time in Israel and the West Bank and have seen first hand what the interactions are between the peoples. And I am here to tell you, you need to do that yourself before spouting rubbish in support of the most vicious and vile murderers the world has ever seen: Hamass, Hezbollah, and their ilk. They are the bogey man incarnate.
The Nazi equivalent of the Judas Sheep were the “Sonderkommandos,” sometimes referred to as “Arbeitsjuden.” And speaking of Nazis, it is disturbing to me that you “mostly don’t care” if Trump wins. Fuck your nihilism.
Wow, I have to read about this. Thank you for sharing.
They both support Exploitation. Harris may even keep a dairy farmer in her cabinet which will keep subsidies going to animal AG. The only thing Trump has on his side would be to defund animal AG.
If Harris wins, USDA will continue to prop up animal AG with our tax dollars.
That may well be, for a minute. There is shit tons of changes that need to be made. Don’t underestimate what trump would do to our democracy. We’d have no voice at all.
That's why he is scarier. If I was in a swing state, I would have voted Harris because we need a democracy for animal and climate justice that have zero voice. And forget protests. Trump would say, " can't you just shoot them in the legs".