The Retirement of heebnvegan

I started heebnvegan as a vegan voice in the Jewish blogosphere. I've accomplished more with this blog than I ever expected, but after five years, I have decided to retire the blog.

To some readers, heebnvegan is nothing more than the sum of its parts: a collection of more than 360 individual posts. While I am certainly proud of many of the posts exploring the intersection between Judaism and animal protection, among other issues, heebnvegan has become so much more to me.

Thanks to heebnvegan, I have furthered my knowledge about Jewish and vegetarian issues. heebnvegan has been a vehicle for me to grow my Jewish identity and understand my compassion for animals in greater depth. It has given me a platform to write op-eds, letters to the editor, and guest posts and to speak at a synagogue, a university's religious studies class, and another university's Hillel. heebnvegan has put me in touch with bloggers and other people who are doing great work in the Jewish community and given me the opportunity to interview the world's foremost Jewish vegan, musicians I admire, and people who devote their lives to making this world a better place. It has given me a great conversation-starter for academic and professional networking as well as numerous social situations. It's allowed me to feature voices that deserve to be heard through guest posts, and it's enabled my ideas and writing to be quoted from and referred to on other blogs and Web sites. And I certainly appreciate all the complimentary books, CDs, and admission to events I've received along the way.

As some readers know, I have undertaken an exhaustive reevaluation of my dietary habits of late. This quest has led me to eat processed foods less frequently, and it has reaffirmed my decision not to eat fish. As I question my dietary habits and come up with slightly different takes on the same overall picture, I'm left with one cardinal rule that I've hammered home time and time again: Tza'ar ba'alei chayim (unnecessary animal suffering) is the norm, not the exception to the rule, in modern animal agriculture. The best way to avoid causing animals unnecessary suffering is to stop consuming the products of cruel animal agriculture.

Thank you to everyone who read heebnvegan and helped keep this blog alive for so long. Thanks to The Jew & The Carrot, Failed Messiah, Jewish Vegetarians of North America, and VeggieJews for inspiring and informing the plurality of heebnvegan's content. And last but not least, Baruch Hashem.

Sincerely,

Michael Croland
Editor, heebnvegan

Jonathan Safran Foer vs. Bourdain part II: The magical natural community of animal flesh eaters

This post follows up, in a very different way, from the earlier post on the debate between Jonathan Safran Foer and Anthony Bourdain. Both posts are ways of thinking community in the midst of a debate about eating animals.
One of Bourdain's major arguments against JSF is that eating animals is a special and unique bond, a special and unique production of community. JSF wonders if we can produce community only through eating other animals, and Bourdain basicallys says no. The example he gives is the tea party, that they probably wouldn't agree on much expect how awesome barbecuing is. Which is odd, because if he decided to say that Obama was a secret Muslim socialist fascist, he'd be able to bond over that. That is to say, community can be produced through other ways, it just depends on what ways we want to produce community, what ways we feel are ethically justifiable. Though of course, maybe Bourdain is right about the uniqueness of flesh eating in producing community.
One doesn't have to be a sacred sociologist in the tradition of Durkheim, Mauss, and Bataille (though it helps) to realize how important sacrifice is to producing community. Remember, sacred life is an ambiguous life: it is both protected and at the same time absolutely killable. It is through the sacred life that we sacrifice that we are able to produce inside and outside, us and them, lives to be protected and lives to be killed or let die. In other words, community (there is of course an entire intellectual tradition that tries to think community outside of foundational violence and separation. See Bataille, Blanchot, Nancy, Agamben, Derrida, and Esposito for some of the more important examples). How else can we possibly understand Bourdain's many incoherent arguments? Rather than trying to respond with rational arguments to JSF, Bourdain treats us to transcedentalism as why we must kill and eat animals. In one of the weirdest moments of the debate Bourdain is going on and on about magic, and about how roasting the flesh of other animals is completely magical and produces community and communion. At this point the moderator steps in and asks Bourdain if he means that it is natural, to which Bourdain readily agrees. Magic=nature=roasting and eating animals. Of course, the structure of sacrifice also equates magic with nature, both a practice of giving to the gods while at the same time producing natural divisions. This is also the way to understand Bourdain's bizarre insistence that the Christmas turkey is an everyday example of dead animals producing culture. As JSF responds, that isn't an everyday example, but rather a one day a year example. [sidenote: This always JSF's maneuver in these discussions: simply refuse to argue about the marginal cases, and insist that we give up eating animal flesh in all the instances everyone agrees that meat eating is indefensible.] This is again the logic of sacrifice, that the exceptional moment of the sacred structures the everyday as well.
Okay, on some level I am being silly here. On some level Bourdain is just speaking gibberish. But I am interested why this gibberish is instead sense to Bourdain and for many other people. I am interested in why the moderator hears one of his guests talking about magic and immediately thinks the natural. By abstaining from our cultural sacrificial rituals, I have also (to some degree) abstained from our sacrificial ritual. And I want to underline this last point, the abstaining from the ritual preceded the abstaining from the logic. This makes such a debate between JSF and Bourdain so interesting and so impossible. The ability to communicate is based in many ways upon a shared sacrificial language and logic, upon a shared community and culture. Bourdain can talk about magic and have the moderator hear the word natural, even though those words are antonyms, because they share a similar logic and language. And in that logic and language sacrificing animals is both at once supernatural and natural. What is gibberish for me living in my different culture is obvious to those within this other, border community.
What I am saying is that in a very real way, Bourdain is right, the sacrifice of animals produces an unique culture. What we have to figure out is if that is a culture we wish to be members of. Think about it this way, for any of you who have lived in the South or had discussions with certain Southerners, many people contend that the Civil War was not about slavery, but instead about conflicting culture, about trying preserve a way of life. And without a doubt, that is true. But it was a way of life, a culture, that necessitated the sacrifice of the black body through rape, murder, and enslavement. The connection between sacrifice and culture explains why Derrida included "Heidegger's Ear" -- an essay on sacrifice, friendship, and animals-- as an appendix in the French publication of The Politics of Friendship, his work on rethinking community (even sacrificing community).
This is one of the main reasons that so many people in the vegan movement have had such reaction against 'localvorism' [.pdf], or at least the pro-meat eating version of localvorism. While in many ways opposing factory farming should make us allies, and in some cases it does, when you read Michal Pollan and Barbara Kingsolver, you realize that both of them are desperately worried that factory farming is destroying the sacred rituals of slaughtering other animals. In other words, the vegan movement wishes to exist from this particular logic of sacrifice, of which the factory farm system is the fullest expression of, meanwhile these particular localvores which to oppose factory farming because they feel it is destroying the sacredness of killing animals. Those of us who oppose the killing of other animals have the particular problem of working from outside the material-semiotic realities of the community that engages in sacrificing animals. These debates almost always replicate the cultural chasm between those eat animal flesh and those that don't.

Meditative Yoga, Better Than

David Lynch has a wonderful book called ‘Catching the Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, and Creativity.’ It’s an unexpected book from a genius of theatrical brilliance, who is known for masterpieces that challenge our perceptions like Eraserhead, Twin Peaks the movie and the TV series, and many others. Do you remember these??

The book is about meditation and how it changed his life and creativity.

One chapter is called ‘Identity’ and there is one line ‘The thing about meditation is: You become more and more you.’

Admittedly I don’t meditate but I do meditative kind of stuff like cleaning the house (which is admittedly rare, again, I trust professionals) and yoga practice while running/at home/at the gym. Yes, I’ve tried meditation and it is difficult to clear the mind. Lynch is very encouraging.



‘Fire’

Another chapter is called ‘Fire’ (which is 5 lines).

‘Sitting in front of a fire is mesmerizing. It’s magical. I feel the same way about electricity. And smoke. And flickering lights.'

Reminds me of Wrangtham's book 'Fire' and how hominids may have captured fire for perhaps 1.4 - 1.9 million years. The exhibition of energy is attractive and mesmerizing, as well as useful.



‘Turn on the Light’

One of my favorite chapters is this one and it starts with a sutra ‘In the vicinity of Yoga -- unity -- hostile tendencies are eliminated.’

‘We’re like light bulbs. If bliss starts growing inside you, it’s like a light; it affects the environment.’

‘If you go into a room where someone’s been having a big argument, it’s not so pleasant. You can feel it. Even if the argument’s over, you can feel it. But if you go into a room where someone has just finished meditating, you can feel that bliss. It’s very nice to feel that.’

‘We all affect our environments. You enjoy that light inside, and if you ramp it up brighter and brighter, you enjoy more and more of it. And that light will extend out farther and farther.’



Science

There is science to all of this… It is energy fields.


‘A Tower Of Gold’ -- How Does Meditation Get Rid of Negativity?

Most ancient civilizations and modern civilizations treasure the inert metal, gold, no? From the Incas to Columbus to Indo-Asian royalty to Asia. Most of the jewelry I’ve received from my parents and relatives are 100% gold rings, necklaces and ear rings (though I let my holes grow in). Real gold is bendable so I never wear these trinkets. Gold is valued at record highs in this uncertain financial environment -- Because gold is timelessly invaluable. The Chinese character for our family name 'Zhong' is composed of 2 characters: 'heavy' and 'gold'. (Taiwanese, long hand)

Gold is discussed by Lynch….

‘How does meditation get rid of negativity?’

‘Picture it this way: You are the Empire State Building. You’ve got hundreds of rooms. And in those rooms, there’s a lot of JUNK [my emphasis]. And you put all that junk there. Now you take this elevator, which is going to be the dive within. And you go down below the building; you go to the Unified Field beneath the building [the Field will be mentioned in the next post on the science] -- pure consciousness. And it’s like electric gold. You experience that. And that electric gold activates these little cleaning robots. They start going, and they start cleaning the rooms. They put in GOLD where the dirt and junk and garbage were. These stresses that were in there like coils of barbed wire can unwind. They evaporate, they come out. You’re cleaning and infusing simultaneously. You’re on the road to a beautiful state of enlightenment…’


What's your mental tool?

Europe's biggest dairy farm (UK)

 

 

Final preparations are being made to a planning application to build Europe's biggest dairy farm in Lincolnshire, England. Mega-dairy farms, commonplace in the US, could revolutionise British agriculture.

 

Read more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11610359

Anti-intellectualism... or anti-crap?

Interesting commentary today by Tibor Machan following his speech at the University of Wisconsin Law School Federalist Society late last week. Prof. Machan spoke on a topic he has written about before: whether animals have natural rights. Not surprisingly, he came to the same conclusion he has come to before: no.

What was surprising, at least to Machan, was that animal rights advocates didn't come to hear him talk:

I am, after 40 years of teaching, still a bit naive about the nature of academic life so I was somewhat taken aback because my understanding had always been that it is at universities and colleges that debates and discussions about controversial issues are carried out, usually in an atmosphere of civility. Alas, I must not really be as aware about how universities and colleges work as I would like to be. The reality seems to be that in many such communities discussions aren’t all that welcome. Instead the attitude is combative: Let’s show those with whom we disagree that we are against them, solidly, that we have no respect for the idea of a philosophical debate on the topic but want to silence, boycott, or exclude those who don’t already fall in line with our position.

Naive and taken aback? Really? I've only been working about 25 years (yeesh...) and the one thing I can tell you that I - and all of my similar-aged colleagues - have long since learned is to expect the unexpected at work. You really never know what's coming next.

Beyond that, allow me to explain why your talk was not well-attended by animal advocates. They are not, as you muse, anti-intellectual. Your position, imho, is simply crap. And who wants to sit through what amounts to self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual masturbation? It's just two hours of your life you're not going to get back.

At this point in time, no one in his or her right mind would show up at a college campus to debate "whether" African-Americans... or Chinese... or women... or [insert any group other than white, Christian males]... should have rights. The debate has simply moved past that point. In animal advocacy circles, the debate has likewise moved beyond "whether" animals should have some basic rights. (And just to be clear here, no, I am not talking about the right to vote or drive a car... just the most basic of rights, such as the right to bodily integrity.) Sitting politely through a discussion on "whether" animals have a right not to be dissected is as vulgar and irritating as sitting politely through a discussion about "whether" female genital mutilation is an acceptable practice. The fact that a conversation occurs on a college campus does not necessarily mean it has academic merit and the fact that the speaker wishes to enjoy the delusion that such ideas are worthy of intellectual debate is not a sufficient reason for anyone else to waste their time.

Philip E. Devine on Demi-Vegetarianism

Some might argue that while eating meat is in general acceptable, we are under an obligation to abstain from meat produced in particularly harsh ways: from veal perhaps, or from lobster or from pâté de foie gras. Others might argue that what is important is the level of the animal's evolutionary development, so that while it is acceptable to eat poultry one should abstain from the flesh of animals, or while it is acceptable to eat fish one should abstain from the flesh of warm-blooded animals. Or one might distinguish according to the kinds of value which may justify the eating of meat: turkey dinners on holidays with the family might be thought legitimate, while a bachelor cooking for himself would be under an obligation to abstain from meat. And there are many who see nothing wrong with buying meat at a supermarket, while disapproving of hunting even when the resulting meat is eaten by the hunter's family. Finally, one might, without accepting vegetarian ideas oneself, still feel that vegetarians are entitled to the kind of respect frequently accorded to pacifists by those who do not share their convictions.
"The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism," Philosophy 53 [October 1978]: 481-505, at 502.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Working to Keep a Heritage Relevant” (news article, Sept. 26):

The “heritage” of hunting will continue its decline into irrelevance and will eventually disappear.

It is useful to dispel two myths. First, there is no “heritage” of hunting as it is practiced today. In the early days trappers and others hunted for survival. They would be appalled to see how their survival “heritage” has been transformed.

Second, hunting is not a “sport,” since any true sport involves two or more competitors, either individuals or teams, similarly equipped, playing by the same rules, let the best individual or team win. There is no “sport” when one “competitor,” the hunter, equipped with a high-powered weapon, camouflage clothing and other devices, pursues an unsuspecting animal.

The reason hunting has no future in this country is that the next generation of potential hunters will not accept these myths. The next generation understands that the slaughter of our precious wildlife is unethical and has no place in modern society.

Robert H. Aland
Winnetka, Ill., Sept. 29, 2010