Fetuses, Palestinians, Animal Rights, & Anticommunism (was Re: > Scaife 'n' Snitch)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Tue Apr 17 11:06:03 PDT 2001


C. G. Estabrook says:


>To paraphrase Hitchens, it is of course argued that "considering
>Palestinians as candidate members -- potential members -- of the next
>state oppresses Jews," but I don't think it's a successful argument.
>It's a similar error to deny the humanity of the unborn because women have
>been oppressed under capitalism.

By your analogy, Palestinians = fetuses, in symbolic terms? So, what does the analogy make Palestinian doctors who perform abortions & Palestinian women who have abortions? Fetuses aborting fetuses?


>I do think opposition to abortion and socialism belong together: it's
>inconsistent to hold one position without the other.

That's an uncommon belief today, but the belief that animal rights & anti-abortionism go together may not be so uncommon:

***** The Lantern 04/16/01

Animal rights group promoting vegetarian diet PETA challenges anti-abortion groups to extend beliefs to include animals By Yi-Chen Ariel Wu

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is challenging anti-abortion groups to act on their beliefs.

PETA is running a campaign to encourage students to think about what they claim is the hypocrisy of applying anti-abortion ideals only to humans and to urge them to choose a flesh-free diet.

"People who support slaughterhouses every time they lift a fork cannot truly call themselves 'pro-life,'" said Aaron Gross, a Harvard Divinity School graduate student and college action campaign coordinator for PETA. "We're saying, 'Put your money where your mouth is: Buy veggie food - only veggie food.'"

It makes sense to Jen Ehrnsberger, a junior in early childhood development. "If you are going to be pro-life for humans, you should be pro-life for everybody, including animals. I don't know if this campaign is going to be successful, but I think it is meaningful."

PETA also considers health perspectives in the campaign they are running.

"If you eat any animal product, from chicken to chops, you already have to worry about salmonella, E. coli, campylobacter, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer, as well as your weight. Now, you can add mad cow disease to the list," said PETA's Vegan Campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich. "The best way to ensure that you and your family won't get sick is to go vegetarian."

Though the campaign makes sense to some, it doesn't mean as much to others.

"It's interesting. I've never heard of this before. I've never actually thought of pro-life as being vegetarian. But I think too many Americans enjoy their steaks," said Mike Bramnik, a junior in history.

"I don't think I agree with them. They have some points, but I'm really not pro-life or pro-vegetarian. I like meat too much," said Joshua Sroka, a senior in mechanical engineering.

A news release from PETA reported more than 26 billion animals would be needlessly, thoughtlessly slaughtered for food in the U.S. alone this year, and according to the release most live miserably and die painfully. Cattle are branded, de-horned, and castrated without anesthesia or painkillers. Pigs live in hard concrete stalls so small they can't even turn around or lie down comfortably. Chickens are genetically bred to grow so large, so fast that they can't support their own weight, and many die of starvation within inches of food after they become crippled and unable to walk.

Sroka said PETA has some points about the treatment on animals that are used for food. "The treatment probably needs to be reformed," he said.

Some people don't believe eating vegetables doesn't mean killing.

"They (PETA) kill life anyway. They kill plants so they can eat," said Jen Craig, a freshman in animal science. "What's the difference between killing an animal and getting those nutrients out of that and killing a plant and getting those? Either way they're killing something."

Natasha Gist, a senior in psychology, said, "I'm pro-life, but I think it is different. It's kind of different because we don't kill children and eat them. It is being a little hypocritical but it's a little different."

"I see the connection between challenging humans to just think about pro-life being in terms of humans but also extending it to think about that into animals as well," said Elizabeth Embrey, a senior in English. "This may have an impact within the pro-life and animal rights groups, but I don't think it would really have a large impact on university as a whole."

<http://www.thelantern.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=68050> *****


>(BTW, who considers
>contemporary China socialist?)

I'm happy with a characterization of China as either capitalist or a state under transition from socialism to capitalism. Eric Alterman, however, may not be. I just read a bizarre opinion piece by Alterman in _The Nation_:

***** The Nation FULL COURT PRESS | April 23, 2001

ERIC ALTERMAN

Commies and the Conservatives Who Love Them

Remember the term "useful idiots"? Those were the well-meaning leftists who during the cold war couldn't distinguish between the beautiful dream of communism and the murderous reality of Soviet Stalinism. They blinded themselves to tyranny and weakened the democratic left by inviting redbaiting demagogues like Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn to tar anticommunist socialists and liberals with the same Stalinite brush.

In the case of 28-year-old James Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of Star TV and the scion and possible heir to Rupert's massive media empire, the term "idiot" may be overly generous. Speaking to a Milken Institute gathering in Los Angeles shortly before the Chinese captured a US spy plane and held its crew, the onetime college dropout sang the praises of the Communist oppressors in Beijing in terms that might have made Mao blush. He attacked the global media for its coverage of Chinese human rights abuses, insisting that "destabilizing forces today are very, very dangerous for the Chinese government." He instructed Hong Kong's brave champions of democracy to accept the fact of an "absolutist" government. And he all but endorsed the persecution of what he called the "dangerous" and "apocalyptic" Falun Gong religious movement, which "clearly does not have the success of China at heart." (Some 150 adherents of the group have died in police custody and another 10,000 are currently in prison.)

The reason "idiot" is overly kind is that young Murdoch need only read his own publications to learn the truth about his beloved tyrants. According to the editors of the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard, "China is the largest and most powerful despotism in the world" and a military threat to the United States, while "Communists, who cannot justify their dictatorial rule except by appeal to 'stability,' must inevitably behave this way: constantly inventing new 'instabilities' -- and crushing them."

When I called various journalistic members of the conservative Murdoch fraternity -- few of whom are ever at a loss for words -- none were available to respond to the comments of young James. Over at Fox News, network president Roger Ailes and talk-show hosts Tony Snow and loudmouth Bill O'Reilly were unavailable. Mum was the word for New York Post editor in chief Ken Chandler as well as for Bob McManus, who edits the paper's editorial page, usually eager to scream at the top of its (metaphorical) lungs at the slightest provocation. Over at the Weekly Standard, editor and publisher William Kristol, executive editor Fred Barnes and senior writer Christopher Caldwell were apparently too busy to return my calls. Opinion editor David Tell was kind enough to point me to the article containing the above quotes but would say nothing about the magazine's proprietors. Senior editor and bestselling swami David Brooks was all charm and no information: "I'm sorry. I'm having some computer problems. At first I thought you were asking me to comment on the son of my employer. Must be some garble."

The issue is not exactly a new one for News Corp. employees. Rupert Murdoch has been the nation's most notorious Communist fellow-traveler for years. In hopes of protecting his considerable investments in China, he has proved willing to kick the BBC off his satellite network, cancel unfavorable books and pay millions to publish unreadable propaganda to curry favor with China's Communist gerontocracy.

Nevertheless, David Tell is correct when he points out that the Standard's editorial independence on the issue speaks for itself -- and speaks pretty well. As Michael Kinsley has explained, it's just plain stupid to wait around for Slate "to give Microsoft the skeptical scrutiny it requires as a powerful institution in American society," and so it would be wishful thinking to hope that Standard editors would apply the same nasty epithets they like to trot out for honest liberals to the lying commie-boot-lickers who sign their checks. (Though now might be a good time for the magazine to apologize for the reprehensible slander it published, under Robert Novak's byline, attacking posthumously the good name of I.F. Stone, who denounced Soviet atrocities at considerable personal cost before most of its editors were born and, on his deathbed, defended the democratic dissidents in Tiananmen Square.)

Writing on his vanity website, Andrew Sullivan tsk-tsks the Standard's refusal to condemn the Murdochs, insisting, "A good test of any magazine's editorial integrity is its ability to criticize its proprietor." By that standard, The Nation should be Sullivan's favorite magazine, but I'll buy him dinner at Le Cirque if he can unearth a New Republic editorial attacking owner Marty Peretz's comically obsessive Jewish xenophobia and anti-Arab racism. And of course one doesn't read much about the dangers of cults that prey on confused young teenagers in the pages of Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times. Even Inside.com, which specializes in Talmudic real-time coverage of exactly the kind of deal its parent company, Powerful Media, recently made with Steven Brill, preferred to see its competitors break the news before publishing David Carr's terrifically Talmudic coverage of it.

When it comes to their owners, most publications find silence to be golden. The problem is not so much with the somewhat defensible hypocrisy of the Weekly Standard editors but with the larger picture it paints of the conservative movement. Whatdoes it mean for the right that its most generous patron openly sides not only with Communist totalitarians but also with the regime that these same conservatives have identified as the number-one security threat to the United States? The Wall Street Journal editorial page has acquitted itself honorably in this regard, publishing a blistering attack on the Murdochs by its deputy editorial features editor, Tunku Varadarajan. But where are the Buckleys and Bennetts of yesteryear? Has the fact that Murdoch shells out salaries for virtually the entire Podhoretz family managed to shut them up as apparently no other force in the universe can? Are the rabbis of redbaiting now stamping Communism kosher for Passover? Why is it so hard to find a good right-wing anti-Communist when you finally need one?

<http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010423&s=alterman> *****

Is Alterman also signing onto the Boycott China campaign launched by Lindstrom?

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list