Green Sexy

The Short, Tragic Lives of Farm Animals

I found this ultra-disturbing video on ChooseVeg.com about the ill-treatment of commercially-raised animals, from when they're born until they're led to slaughter.  In one portion of this ten-minute video, a cow is castrated, has its horns snipped off, and is repeatedly branded---all without any anesthesia.  In another part of the video, chickens are "debeaked" so that they won't peck at each other in their disturbingly-cramped cages. 

My wife and I eat vegetarian meals as often as we can, but more and more we find it difficult to reconcile our meat-eating ways.  We have taken measures in the past, such as buying meat from a farmer who specialized in organically-raised cows, and have looked into buying eggs from families who keep chickens in their backyards and sell the eggs from these free range chickens, but our guilt sometimes is hard to reconcile. 

This video may push us closer to vegetarianism---watch it and let me know what you think.

Now Hear This...Or Don't.

USA Today's health blog reports a European Union committee on emerging health risks finding that 1 in 10 MP3 player users could go deaf!  Well, that is if you listen to it for an hour a day for five years.  That would then include basically anyone who owns a personal MP3 player! 

As one who works in a junior/senior high school, I can tell you right now that we'd better start teaching sign language with the way that these kids blast the music in their ear buds.  I swear, you can hear the music from their iPods halfway down the hall.  It's as if they have to "ego-cast" to their peers what kind of music they're listening to.  Now, that's not much different from when I was in high school and kids cranked the music up to full volume on their walkmans, but at the very least those earphones sat on the outside of the ears, not directly inside the ear!  Maybe this explains why some idiots feel the need to install kickers in their cars and drive around in an earthquake-inducing machine---it's not that they're trying to subject the rest of the world to their bass-driven music, rather it's that they've already gone completely deaf from listening to their iPods and have to resort to "feeling" their music.

The sad thing is, once you've damaged your hearing to the point at which you've killed the hair cells in your ear that amplify and interpret sound waves for your brain, you'll never be able to gain it back without the assistance of a hearing aid of some kind.  According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), "the safe limit for noise exposure (is) 85 dB for 8 hours a day. Each time the noise level increases by 3 dB, safe exposure time is cut in half."  The maximum volume for an iPod is 100-110 decibels, which, according to the Mayo Clinic, is equivalent to a chainsaw or jack hammer at 100 decibels or an amulance siren at 110 decibels!   Going by the figures for the maximum job-noise exposure allowed by law, an iPod user can only listen to their iPod at 100 decibels for 2 hours before suffering permenant hearing damage, or for only 30 minutes at 110 decibels.  How many of you have a teenager who practically lives with their iPod's earbuds planted in their ears?   Maybe it's time for MP3 users to "Turn on, tune in, drop out"---that is "turn on" to what's actually going on around them, "tune in" to the sounds of real life, and "drop out" of listening to their MP3 players 24/7! 

Is Walgreens the New WalMart?

Is it just me, or is there a new Walgreens popping up every two seconds?  Actually, for a while there, a new Walgreens was being opened every 17 hours!  EVERY 17 HOURS?!?  Just recently, as reported in the Chicago Tribune, the nation's largest drugstore chain has announced plans to slow down its seemingly unmitigated expansion and put its plans to take over the world on hold.  Now they'll only be opening a new store every 24 hours---that's down from the current 500 stores a year to a measly 365 stores a year!  How wonderful---that's a new Walgreens for every day of the year!  It's almost like having Christmas all year 'round!  Now, "144 million Americans live within two miles of a Walgreens drugstore, the company said, and 36 percent of the 6,297 existing Walgreens stores are less than 5 years old."  Geesh!  Is there even enough land in this country to accommodate so many new stores?  What is the environmental impact of this obscene expansion? 

This got me to thinking---is Walgreens the new Walmart?  For years I've been railing against Walmart for its practice of closing down existing stores to replace them with Supercenters, while leaving "some 28 million square feet of empty space today in communities across the country."  In 2002, former Walgreens CEO David Bernauer said of Walmart's expansion, "The more Wal-Mart builds, the better for us because every store they open kills two of our smaller competitors."  Ah, birds of a feather stick together as they kill two other birds with one stone, and that stone being unnecessary and wasteful expansion.  Sure, Walmart is a "big-box store" with a footprint of about 200,000 square feet, but its smaller kissing cousin Walgreens may not have the same size, but it shares the same heartbeat.  It's the "I know I'm the biggest retail chain in my category, but I will still steamroll the competition and the environment to become even bigger" mantra.  It's disturbing and disgusting.  Dr. Evil's got nothing on these guys.

Anyway, I haven't purchased anything from Walmart in over four years, and I do not plan to buy anything from Walgreens in the near future.   How about you?  Let's band together to stop Walgreens from taking over the world!

5 Good Reasons Not To Shop At Wal-Mart

I did it---I stepped into a Wal-Mart for the first time in over four years!  Why did I break my solemn vow to avoid the blue beast?  Well, I was visiting my parents in Pennsylvania and my dad was freaking out because he had to use his government-issued Digital TV Converter Box Coupon by the end of July, so we promptly hopped in the car and drove to Best Buy.  Unfortunately, Best Buy was sold out of the converters, but my parents proclaimed that Wal-Mart would have it.

I could feel my throat tightening up as we pulled into the Wal-Mart lot.  My mind raced, desperately trying to come up with some excuse for why I couldn't enter the den of the Enemy.  In the end, like a dutiful son, I walked through the gates of hell with my parents.  Amazingly, I didn't burst into flames or fall to the ground in convulsions---no, I just pursed my lips in resignation and set my gaze hard against the lure of low, low prices. 

So, why am I so dead-set against Wal-Mart?  I'll give you 5 good reasons not to shop there:

1. Wal-Mart Supercenters increase traffic within your community.  According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, "a 200,000 sq. ft. discount center on average results in 76,232 car trips per week (with the high end of the range being 92,806)."*  That in turn, would lead to further costs for the community (ie.- infrastructure repair and upkeep and environmental degredation)**.

2. Wal-Mart has closed hundreds of stores nationwide, leaving "some 28 million square feet of empty space today in communities across the country."  With shareholders to please, Wal-Mart is in a constant rush to replace perfectly functional, but older stores with Supercenters, leaving behind abandoned buildings and empty parking lots.*  In fact, this very practice occurred in a nearby town of Brockport, NY, where they closed down a regular Wal-Mart and put up a Supercenter less than a mile away!  Thanks for the dead plaza, guys!

3. Wal-Mart is the Orient of the far West.  "70% of the commodities sold in Wal-Mart are made in China." In addition, "Wal-Mart was responsible for about 1/10th of the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2005."  Also, "If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China's eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada."**   In essence, Walmart has been able to lowball other retailers' prices by obtaining the lion's share of its products from China; a country that, like Mexico, lacks unions and thus has workers that earn low wages.  How many more jobs must our country lose to such unpatriotic business practices?

4. Wal-Mart is bad for National Security.  Wal-Mart has used its formidable political influence as the nation's number one retailer to affect politician's votes on national port security.  Walmart is number one among retailers in 20-foot port containers imported at more than half a million a year (that's 1 container every 45 seconds!).  One of the keys to keeping prices low is to keep the flow of merchandise from China and other foreign manufacturers from being slowed down by those pesky security checks.  Via its retail lobby group, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), Walmart has lobbied members of Congress to oppose 100% scanning of port containers (currently only 5-6% of all port containers coming into U.S. ports get scanned!).  Wal-Mart has also lavished cash on members of Congress: "As of 2006, Wal-Mart had given $191,500 to current House Homeland Security Committee members since 2000..."  "In the 109th Congress, eighteen of the committee's nineteen Republican members took in $173,000—90 percent of the total—and four of the committee's fourteen Democrats collected $18,500."  "In the past eight years, Wal-Mart's Washington Political Action Committee put more than $360,000 into current members of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee...twenty-three of the committee's 24 Republicans took Wal-Mart's money—82 percent of the total—compared to only eight of the committee's 17 Democrats."  "Wal-Mart also has spent $63,000 on current members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in the past eight years...Ninety-six percent of Wal-Mart's spending went to the committee's Republican members."  Republicans tough on terrorism?  With our ports being one of the most glaring deficiencies in our nation's defense, their actions against port security have made the prospect of "weapons of mass destruction" being smuggled into our ports via un-inspected port containers a frightening reality.**   

5. Wal-Mart is bad for the environment.  Wal-Mart recently executed a public-relations coup by bagging former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach as an environmental consultant.  This move improves their image as a burgeoning "green" company, but despite recent strides in a more ecologically-friendly direction (ie.- smaller packaging, compact fluorescent bulbs, etc.), Wal-Mart's overall negative environmental impact still dwarfs their efforts.  First, let's consider the overall size of a Supercenter---
200,000 square feet on average---all of that was former green space.  In addition, what about the size of the parking lot?  As said in a previous post:  "A hectare of trees (2.471 Acres or 107,637 square feet) can absorb 6 or more tons of carbon per year, according to the International Carbon Bank & Exchange."  Where's the carbon offset for all of the acres of those lost trees that were cleared?  With 2,300 Supercenters in the U.S., each occupying 20-30 acres of land (the size of a football field), the cumulative environmental impact is stunning.  Also consider the "thousands of standard Wal-Marts, Neighborhood Markets, Sam's Clubs, distribution centers and warehouses. It is the largest commercial entity in the United States, both physically and economically, and its stores require massive amounts of land, energy and labor to function."  In a 2005 report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, it was estimated "that Wal-Mart stores and parking lots covered roughly 75,000 acres (or 117 square miles) in the U.S., equal to the land size of Tampa, Florida" and that their "'Parking lots contribute directly to what is referred to as "non-point source water pollution,' the leading cause of water pollution in the United States."*

I could go on and on about why you shouldn't shop a Wal-Mart, from issues with workers' wages and rights, to health care issues, to its cost to taxpayers, to its corporate practices, to other environmental issues, etc., etc., etc.  It's going to take some sacrifice and some self-discipline, but it's doable.  My wife and I have not purchased anything from Wal-Mart in over four years, despite living in a somewhat isolated area where Wal-Mart is one of few shopping options. 

Do you have a good non-Wal-Mart streak going yourself?  Do you want to start one?  Share your story!       

*Information derived from Walmartwatch.com.
**Information derived from Wakeupwalmart.com.

Thoroughbred Racing Is Inhumane: Eight Belles and Other Horse Tragedies

I've learned more about thoroughbred racing in the past week than I've known my whole life---and what I've learned disturbs me.  Despite the "sport's" ardent supporters' claims to the contrary, this "sport of kings" seems largely cruel and inhumane.

First of all, let me relate the tale of the filly Eight Belles (a filly is a female horse 3 years old or younger)---the first filly to run against the male colts in the Kentucky Derby since 1999.  She put up a good show, finishing second in the race, but then she collapsed suddenly, having broken both front ankles; a freak occurence, according to race officials.  Eight Belles was euthanized on the spot by lethal injection.  On my local sports talk show on WHAM 1180, there were many callers who theorized that her injury may have been brought about by the fact that she was so young, or that she was inexperienced at racing such a long distance (the race is 1.24 miles).  Whatever the reason, seeing these majestic creatures suffer horrific injuries (ie.- Barbaro) because of our human whim for racing and gambling is just appalling.  As Monical Ball from Peoria, Illinois wrote in a letter to USA Today (Tuesday, May 13, 2008):  "In what other sport would we so happily watch a living being be whipped to make him or her perform better?"  Well put, Monica!

Of course, thoroughbred racing has its defenders---Missy Apmann of Barrington Hills, Illinois wrote in a letter to USA Today (same date):  "...those directly involved with the horses have the best intentions...Eight Belles has not died in vain.  She is a tribute and celebration of the equine spirit."  Yes, Missy---Eight Belles is, in fact, a spirit now.  And as far as those directly involved with the horses having the best intentions, I'm sure there definitely are those who, in Seabiscuit-like fashion, would live and die for their horses, but because of the profit-motive, there are also a lot of scumbags in the "sport" that value their horses only as long as they bring in a dollar value.  Otherwise, it's not economically feasible to care for them, to feed them, to house them, and to train them. 

One thing that American thoroughbred trainers are guilty of is pumping their horses full of drugs as part of their training regimen (harken back to the East German Olympic Athletes or to today's baseball players).  A guest on a recent Newshour interview remarked that "I think the American racing community is, like, addicted to the use of drugs. They -- I don't think trainers would know how to train without them." 

For some reason, Europeans and the Japanese pay top dollar for horse meat.  The May 12, 2008 edition of Realsports on HBO profiled how (some) thoroughbred owners sell off horses who aren't fast or profitable enough to "killer buyers" who transport these horses to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada (it's illegal to slaughter racehorses for meat in the United States).  Concerned horse lovers attend these meat auctions and buy up as many horses as they can, sometimes for just a few hundred bucks, so they can save them from the slaughterhouses and put them up for adoption.  It was just gutwrenching to see these stately creatures getting shot with a bolt gun to the head (multiple times in some cases), getting shot at close range with a shotgun, being strung up while still alive and being gutted, or being stabbed in the spine with a dagger in a Mexican slaughterhouse.  When Realsports reporter Bernard Goldberg later confronted a trainer on why he sold his thoroughbred to a slaughterhouse, the trainer tried to disavow any knowledge of the practice, saying "I don't want to know."  It was brought up in this episode how it is not feasible to adopt out all of the thoroughbreds because there simply aren't enough adoptees adopters, but that thoroughbred owners can pay a $60 fee to have their old horses euthanized "humanely", which is the lesser of two evils when considering their fate in a slaughterhouse. 

Overall, it's just a shame that any of this has to happen.  Can't we humans be satisfied with watching our fellow man engage in sport?  Why do we further have to exert our mastery over the "lower animals" for our entertainment?  Haven't we already done enough damage to our animal brothers and sisters?  Feel free to send a message to your congressman regarding holding hearings on "Problems in Thoroughbred Racing" via PETA's online petition.