The Discerning Brute: fashion, food & etiquette for the ethically handsome man » global warming

Shred the Streets Green

JohnHolden — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:41:37 +0000

by contributor John Holden Since 1986 Etnies has been manufacturing some of the most cutting edge skateboard shoes on the market. Now celebrating their 25th year anniversary they are continuing on that path with a new campaign BUY A SHOE PLANT A TREE. For every pair of Jamieson 2 Eco shoes sold Etnies will plant a tree in the rain forests of Costa Rica. The Jameson Eco 2 is not only a stylish pair of shoes but the out soles are made from recycled bike tires and plastic gloves while the laces are made from Pet recycled plastic bottles.

COP16 & Dusty, Snella Discount

joshuakatcher — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:00:37 +0000

Get 20% off the dark, edgy, organic and recycled-cotton line, Dusty, and the casual, preppy organic cotton collection, Via Snella at Unconventional. • Imagine going to an international conference on human trafficking, and all the people working to make you comfortable at the conference are slaves. It's counter-intuitive and it misses the whole point of the conference, right? Something equally antithetical is happening in Copenhagen. You would think that at a conference to address Global Warming, they'd at least address the single greatest cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite all the science pointing to animal agriculture being the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, inter-governmental talks do not even include on their agenda the discussion of the meat and livestock industries. That's why Meat Free Cop16 is asking delegates, representatives and world leaders to adopt a vegan diet during their time at the conference. Send a letter to delegates and representatives HERE.

The United Nations Urges Veganism (again).

joshuakatcher — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:24:50 +0000

A new UN report clarifies the message that slowing global warming requires a shift towards a plant-based diet for humans. "A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change," explained the UK's Guardian today, but this will probably, again, fall on deaf (or greedy, stubborn, infantile) ears. Just read the comments! Something tells me we're doomed; when faced with hard facts people are still willing to sacrifice the planet for their palate. The recommendation follows advice last year that a vegetarian diet was better for the planet from Lord Nicholas Stern, former adviser to the Labour government on the economics of climate change. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has also urged people to observe one meat-free day a week to curb carbon emissions.

GQ’s Spring Suggestions, SeaWorld Must Drown & Bad Parenting

joshuakatcher — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:23:05 +0000

• GQ's Spring Must-Haves include a vegan new-wave boat shoe from Sperry Topsiders (without those leather laces, finally), fancy pocket squares of every pattern and color, bright and bold striped ties and straw fedoras. When searching for a striped tie that isn't made from hundreds of worms who are boiled alive, we suggest hitting up your local thrift or vintage store which typically have piles of ties or our favorite vegan tie company, Jaanj.com. As for straw fedoras, that one thing we love about spring. You can avoid the wool hats and go with a 100% plant-based straw hat. LiViTY makes recycled, hemp, organic, and fair trade fedoras in some bold patters and classic shapes, and Engineered Garments makes an organic linen boater cap. We suggest keeping a lid on it and sticking to classics like these: The Hill-Side offers some selvedge Pocket Squares that we find quite fetching: • I'll be as happy as the next guy to see SeaWorld go under. The next guy is our pal Gary Smith, and he's written an article on SeaWorld and the exploitation of dolphins and whales that flooded the enterprise with a 1.4 billion profit last year. In the article over at Elephant Journal. Ric O’Barry, who was featured in the Oscar-nominated documentary film “The Cove” and serves as the marine mammal specialist for Earth Island Institute, shares some thoughts with Gary on the recent killer whale tragedy. If you needed to be convinced that captive seas mammals are unhappy, this will do it!

“Orcas are the most social animal on the planet, even more so than us,” said O’Barry. “Males will stay with their mothers their entire lives. When we capture an animal like Tilikum, we take him away from the two most important things of his life; the world of sound and family. We put them in a concrete box and expect him to stay mentally healthy. It simply doesn’t work.” - Rick O'Barry, Marine Mammal Specialist EII

• Is Discovery's Planet Green FINALLY getting the meat/global warming connection? Or not. The promos for Emeril's Green(washed) Kitchen still lists "beef" as a major ingredient, but I got a recipe for vegan chocolate mousse in my inbox this morning, and they have a vegan section. Strangely, their new show Future Food: Gastronomic Geniuses seems like a bunch of dudes playing with their meat. The video showcases these "geniuses" shooting bratwurst with paint-balls, and trying to figure out the tastiest way to serve this meat up in mad-science ways. The maddest science is showcasing meat on a self-proclaimed "green" network when it's the #1 cause of global warming! Hey Discovery, WTF!? • Rock It Out: A Night to Benefit New York's Farm Animal Sanctuaries This benefit will feature live musical performances, a scrumptious vegan bake sale, and an awesome raffle all to benefit farm animals at Farm Sanctuary and the Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary! Check out what these sanctuaries do to save animals like Billy, who was taken in after almost being killed by a sledgehammer at a dairy farm just a few weeks ago: Saturday, March 6, 2010 from 7:00pm - 10:00pm Location: Reidy Hall at All Souls Church, 1157 Lexington Ave @ 80th St, Basement Level $10 pre-sale, $15 at the door (cash only) Pre-sale tickets can be purchased at: https://www.mycommunitytickets.com/event_info.asp?eventid=26496 • Did society create monstrous people, or do a collective of monstrous people create civilization? This was the topic of last week's Hardcore History, and we suggest you listen. Totally mind-bending! Could widespread child abuse and bad parenting in earlier eras explain some of history's brutality? We think so. • Learn to Lobby for Animals with the HSUS. We are only a few weeks away from the 2010 New York State Humane Lobby Day on Wed, March 24th in Albany. Join fellow activists to help pass legislation to crack down on animal fighters, stop puppy mills, end canned shoots of captive exotic wildlife, and protect farm animals from cruel treatment. To RSVP and get more info, click HERE. • Jessica Reid asks GGA readers if a No Kill Nation is possible when it comes to dog shelters. There's always a fierce discussion on the GGA comment-board, so have you say!

"The truth is you cannot blame having to kill shelter animals on an “irresponsible public” or “too many animals” when a shelter doesn’t implement lifesaving and low cost programs. I personally witnessed missed opportunity after missed opportunity from alienating potential fosters to terrible customer service to rude behavior toward rescue groups. I heard the same stories from other volunteers. These were not isolated cases. These were failures of management and staff to do what they should be doing: saving lives."

Pride and Luxury

joshuakatcher — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:47:01 +0000

Grasp your pearls, for the future of the luxury market is at risk! We saw this video over at EcoStiletto (a special that appeared on The Luxury Channel) and were both intrigued and sort of disgusted by these luxury brands who are finally realizing that their own futures are at risk if the resource-tap they call Earth dries up. With their own mortality in sight, the main question this video raises is, "Does looking and acting rich conflict with sustainability?" Hello? Does a bear shit in the woods? Let's get over the noble idea that these brands actually care about the Earth, right now. It's like the classic case where a Hollywood mega-star get's a disease and then suddenly they're the biggest advocate for finding a cure. They are simply trying to save their own existence, which is not the worst thing. Often it can help, but in the case of an entire market, that means certain sacred cows can not be questioned. Like what? Poverty. Caste and class systems. Money. Materialism. Greed. Hierarchical power structures. Resource access. Viewing the planet as a stockpile of resources. Anthropocentrism. The list goes on. One glaring issue is that companies like Gucci, Balenciaga, Yves Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Alexander MQueen, and others that rule the world of luxury, who perpetuate images of desirable and unattainable lifestyles, are all addicted to leather, fur, cashmere, wool, and other animal products. We also know that raising livestock is the single greatest ecological threat that exists. So, until these brands convert all their products to be vegan (which is possible), it's all greenwashing and very difficult to take them seriously. Even Stella McCartney, who uses no fur or leather, still uses plenty of wool. Once again, when talking about environment and sustainability, the livestock industry was completely brushed over and left out, although it is the single greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. If we leave it up to luxury brands to define the mainstream understanding of environmentalism, of course extracting things from nature and turning them into expensive products (and the social and political atmosphere maintaining their position to do those things) will not be questioned in itself. If we let luxury brands use their powerful positions to create the mainstream discourse on sustainability, it's like letting a drug addict head up the ATF. I was astounded to hear the list of luxury brands who helped create the documentary "Home" by Yann Arthus Bertrand. Do they not see how drastically they need to change everything about themselves? If the current definition of sustainability is "meeting the needs of the present without undermining the ability of future generations to meet their needs" then I wonder whether these brands could ever be capable of accommodating such an aspiration as that? According to the video, the "I am not a plastic bag" phenomenon reduced plastic bag consumption in England, but is it simply an accessory of mass distraction as The Observer's George Monibiot suggests? My fear is that greenwashing will prevail, not unlike the Canadian Fur Council's "Fur is Green" and Diesel's "Global Warming Ready" campaigns, and they will attempt to capitalize on the market value of "green" as opposed to actually changing industry practices from labor and environmental impact to animal welfare. Heritage is what is at risk for luxury brands. Changing the factories, formulas, and ingredients of their products changes who they are at the core, which is a huge and uncertain undertaking. But if done thoroughly, honestly, and openly, it's more than an opportunity. It's common sense. It's not biting off the hand that feeds them. It's realizing that there is only one Planet Earth, yet many of us live in a way that requires three Earths to sustain the status quo. What do you think? Can luxury brands change their ways? Or is the very nature of luxury in conflict with sustainability?

Olympic Shame, Vancouver Goes Veg & Loomstate Sale

joshuakatcher — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:19 +0000

The organic cotton line Loomstate is having a sale on GILT GROUPE today (up to 70% off retail) You must have an invite to partake. And now you do! We have to admit though, we are little disappointed to see that Loomstate, one of our favorite lines, has started using lambswool. Boo! It always boggles our minds how "green" designers seem to ignore the fact that livestock production (yes, including sheep and lamb) is the single greatest cause of environmental devastation. Lambswool is a very profitable byproduct of the meat industry, yet there are so many amazing alternatives like banana silk, soy yarn, bamboo yarn, corn fiber yarn and more! It's just lazy (not to mention ecologically hazardous and cruel) to keep using animal fibers. Stick to Loomstate's organic cotton in this sale! Vancouver is offering veggie dogs and veg chili to athletes and fans thanks to Olympic sponsorship from Hain Foods. "We are dedicated to the spirit of the Games and providing A Healthy Way of Life; and are very proud to showcase healthy, sustainable living at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games through Hain Celestial Canada's natural and organic products. Having visited many concessions during my Olympic trip, it was with great pride that I watched the spectators make the healthy choice choosing our Terra Chips and Yves Veggie Cuisine veggie dogs while cheering on all the athletes!" It's too bad that Canada is known for it's brutal baby seal slaughter. Peta has made their own official Olympic logo and pin for the olympics. "Most people would agree that there is something terribly wrong with shooting and smashing in the skulls of baby seals, yet despite international outrage, the Canadian government allows sealers to beat and skin hundreds of thousands of these gentle creatures every year. So why is Canada killing seals? The seal slaughter exists because of the overall demand for fur." Vancouver Olympic Shame: Learn more.

Meat Pride Revisited: NY Press’ Flesh Mob

joshuakatcher — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:04:26 +0000

The New York Press cover story is an outdated one. A love-lorn, former vegetarian, author Linnea Covington laments about her "meat-loving tendencies go dormant while in the throes of a romance with a veg-head". In her attempts to analyze and validate her own taste for animal products by virtue of the "happy meat" trend (humane, free-range, etc), she fails to logically articulate any justification aside from bacon tastes good and, (as one of her subjects attests) "If I wanted to eat bacon, I would eat bacon”. As every parent of a teenager knows, there's no arguing with flawless reason like that. Most glaring is Covington's personal disdain for vegetarians. She reduces Jonathan Safron Foer's thorough and 300-page work, "Eating Animals", to "eating meat is bad...toting his dogma...whining about Bourdain." I wonder If she's even read the book, as she later refers to animal advocates as "fundamentalist animal lovers" who are "preaching the benefits of this diet". Her most extensive example of a vegetarian is Sylvester Graham who "took these theories to a religious level". The point that Covington tries to make is that veganism and vegetarianism are like annoying religions beliefs based on personal choice, whose proselytizing followers are falling out of style. As another of her interviewees says, “Everyone who was eating tofu in 1992 is eating lamb now." But unlike faith or a personal belief, (or the reality that vegetarianism and veganism in the US are rapidly growing from 0.3% - 1% of the total population in 1994 to at least 3% in 2009 ) there is the huge inconvenience that animals have their own desires outside of what we choose to believe about them. One thing we know for sure is that in almost every single case, an animal will not willingly subject him or herself to the customs of the slaughterhouse. They want to live and they want to avoid suffering, and this is demonstrated in their own behavior, not in a person's belief. If animal advocacy were a religion based in personal belief and blind faith, as opposed to a very real social justice, scientific, and advocacy movement, it would conveniently suit Covington's argument. Another flagrancy is Covington's avoidance of the unmatched environmental benefits of limiting one's meat intake. "Humane" or not, livestock are contributing the single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the world! But in the realm of short-term self-gratification, this does not factor in. The vegetarian-cum-butchers who Covington interviews wear the "former vegetarian" label like a boy-scout patch: Oh you're still a vegetarian? Been there, done that. The Meat-Hook, a trendy Williamsburg butcher shop that opened in late October of 2009, is owned by the former "indy-rock loving vegetarian" Tom Mylan, who is depicted in the article resting his hands on a pig's head as he demonstrates the proper way to butcher a pig. Covington finds validation among these former-vegetarians who are OK with eating and butchering "happy" animals so long as they know what happened to the animal. But does "being OK with what happened to your meat" as The Shameless Carnivore author, Scott Gold says, justify it? Can you imagine a rapist standing over his victim and proclaiming, "You had a very happy life up until this point, and I want to let you know that I am totally at peace with what I am about to do to you." It's preposterous. The same can be said in any case of exploitation, because clarity is simply that. It does nothing for the victim. Like a support group, the surge of meat-pride in a culture that is already overwhelmingly meat-centric is bizarre to say the least. What articles like this, and publications dedicated entirely to "meat-culture" reveals is that some meat-eaters who have learned more about meat production than the mainstream are searching for everything from a rationalization that suits their palate to a defiant stance against a percieved religious crusade. This Flesh Mob provides, as Covington says, seemingly "...guiltfree grub, and there’s no shortage of eaters buying into it." That's for sure. But if the "Humane" myth proves to be just that, and you're still sick of the "outdated dogma" why not just get cheap Chinese takeout and screw it all? That is, as long as you're OK with that. --- For more on this issue please check out my previous articles:

Sorry Natalie, Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

joshuakatcher — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:31:22 +0000

The New York Times recently ran a piece by Natalie Angier called "Sorry Vegans, Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too". It was categorized under the "Science" section, with the further distinction of "basics". In other words, the author wants to let us know that making an ethical argument to curtail the science-fiction and horror-movie-like indignities and atrocities that animals endure in exchange for a plant-based diet is flawed because plants want to live - and duh, that's just basic science.

"...plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot."

That may be true, if it's aspirations we're talking about. And following this line of logic, we may as well throw in that lightning does not aspire to illuminate a bulb, a mountain does not aspire to be a car-frame, an island does not aspire to be a tourist destination, and a child does not aspire to get heart disease. Can you imagine if Angier said "plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a woman aspires to be raped"? It is consistent with this line of logic where no one is safe, and one wrong justifies another. When I was four, I learned that two wrongs don't make a right. Eating plants doesn't make eating animals okay (if eating plants were even an equal "wrong" as Angier suggests). The optimal inner-dialogue she wants us to have upon reading her article goes something like this: "well, if plants are that hell-bent on surviving, what's the point of trying to spare animals when clearly they are just as deserving of consideration - and we have to eat something, so we may as well just eat what we want because it's such a big gray area".

"It’s a small daily tragedy that we animals must kill to stay alive. Plants are the ethical autotrophs here, the ones that wrest their meals from the sun. Don’t expect them to boast: they’re too busy fighting to survive."

So let's humor Angier, even though plants are lacking a brain, and even though we know that while someone who is brain-dead (a vegetable), though bio-chemical reactions still persist, does not respond to bodily injury that would typically cause the type of pain most animal advocates seek to alleviate. Let's say that plants can suffer in a similar way as do people and animals. Let's just say that ripping a carrot out of the dirt is along the lines of forcibly impregnating (raping?) dairy cows, then tearing the baby away (which is met by hours and days of a howling, distraught mother), sentencing the calf to a veal crate (where he can not even turn around or lie down) and stealing the milk for ourselves. Does the former justify the latter? I don't want to live in Angier's world where potentially causing pain justifies certainly causing pain. Mustn't that also justify inflicting pain upon people? This is a messy, messy road to go down. I wonder if Natalie Angier is aware of what farmed animals eat? I also wonder if she knows what the ratio of plant-based animal feed converted to meat and dairy is. Or how much land is used to meet the demands of producing animal products? If she did know these things, and she were a vehement "plants' rights activist" she would still be making the most ethical choice by going vegan because the most plants would be spared, instead of being converted into animal protein and graze-land at a losing ratio. How about some clarity? Most animal advocates are talking about actively avoiding causing incredible amounts of suffering, ecological devastation, and health and social problems in relation to using animals for food, clothing, research, and entertainment. This can result in legislation, direct action, grassroots activism, lifestyle changes, and other advocacy with the aim of alleviating preventable suffering, decreasing environmental impact, and improving health and human welfare. Natalie needs a lesson in "basics", herself. Far from the recent, trendy food discourse she invokes exists the response to her confusion, as laid out by philosopher Jeremy Bentham in 1789. "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" To frame the moral dilemma in "Killing animals for human food and finery" as being about aspirations is to fail in understanding the agenda of many animal activists. The intention of many vegans I know is not moral purity - yet this consistent misconception isn't responded to as clearly by animal advocates as it should. It is more often a social justice issue involving individual animals who actively dissent by vocalizing and struggling to escape sources of pain and suffering, defending their young, mourning the death of and separation from family and friends, maintaining a preference for complex and communicative social structures, and seeking out comfort when faced with pain. Like many critics who consider animal advocates self-righteous cow-huggers, and whose first response to finding out that someone is vegan is typically "well, what's your belt made out of?", the author of this article exemplifies this misconception about the purpose of veganism. Is it political? Yes. Is it about moral puritanism? Not usually. Nor is it about preventing death. Of course plants strive to live, but everything living eventually dies. It is about preventing preventable suffering. It is about not choosing the duck or the lamb because they have brains and bodies that register suffering in a way with which we can empathize. Angier blabs, as if her audience were the confessional:

"I still eat fish and poultry, however and pour eggnog in my coffee. My dietary decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, and when friends ask why I’m willing to try the duck but not the lamb, I don’t have a good answer."

If the title itself didn't make it obvious enough that the purpose of the article was to rationalize her whimsical diet and piss off vegetarians who live in the "moral penthouse", as Angier refers to it, then the content itself does the job. Angier neither offers insight into her inability to exert self-control in face of cheese and duck, nor does her artless and callow argument to consider the will-to-live of vegetation on same playing field as the suffering endured by animals with consciousness, brains, and nervous systems have any defensible logic. It is riddled with the anthropomorphizing of plants (something of which animal advocates are commonly accused), and it is creepily reminiscent of the joke website VRMM.

"Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl."

Is it valid to point out that plants fight, cooperate, and evolve to optimize survival, like any other living organism? Sure. Plants, fungi, bacteria, and all living organisms are amazing, complex, and have spent billions of years evolving into performing delicate and not-so-delicate dances with everything around them. Whether homeostasis is the Earth's aspiration (as proposed by James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis) or the destruction of everything is the Earth's Aspiration (as proposed by Peter Ward's Medea Hypothesis), or if the Earth or universe even has aspirations are not the issues at hand when we talk about veganism or animal advocacy. Angier claims "This is not meant as a trite argument", yet her purpose in writing the article seems as trite as rationalizing her own, flimsy food choices.