Implementing Universal Healthcare in the United States, Part II

the following thread stemmed from my facebook status line on 7.25.09. my status is the first entry posted below and includes a quote from a woman whom i refer to as X.


Paola Lopez

"I say that people choose to be poor. This is America." --So said the Idiot (X.) who chose to engage in debate with me re Universal Healthcare in the States.


Dane Jessie

Excuse me, but I hate fucking idiots like that.


Paola Lopez

i know. i honestly had to disengage at that point because we were having two unrelated discussions on two separate levels and i began to watch myself de-evolve by virtue of being in near proximity to her.


J. Regina Blackwell

You know, Paola, you gotta wonder who she was trying to convince: you or herself. . . .


Paola Lopez

regina: good point. if you would have seen her argument in its entirety it was all over the place. she kept citing farmers in brazil of being a good example of how things go sour without the element of financial incentive to take care of one's crops. i pointed out to her that obama's current healthcare plan, as i understand it, allows for personal incentive - if you make more money you still get to lord it over your peers by paying for better health coverage. that it was a tiered system which enables those with means to continue to enjoy a better life than everyone else. so i didn't see what she was complaining about. ;-)


Dane Jessie

Statistically in America today only 1 out of 100 will advance in social standing (financial standing). And this is the first generation in our history that will make less than their parents.


Deede Wedee

We all stand for somthing, but we don't stand a chance. I can't even have political views anymore. I feel so helpless....but I shure do enjoy reading other peoples thoughts & ideals. The great debaters! Have a good day. Everyone And keep kickin that knowledge.


Dane Jessie

Deede, Don't give up. Even if it means sharing your views. It helps others grow and helps create the critical mass that leads to change. If you like hearing others it is because you are thinking, interpreting and weighting the ideas. That is what we need.


Paola Lopez

omg, dane, i was citing to someone that exact same statistic the other day - that upward mobility in this country is a myth. most wealth is transferred linearly - meaning, it's passed among those who are already wealthy or to one's offspring (inherited wealth). statistically speaking, the number of people who actually jump from their class and move upward is very, very small. sure, we hear success stories and they are touted around like the american ideal is commonplace, but it isn't. that american dream of working hard and elevating your class status is very, very rare. most of us work very hard and pretty much stay in the same class we were born to. the rags to riches story occurs in the smallest fraction of society. the rest of it is comprised of people who were already born to considerable wealth and resources and are thus in a position to expand. i recently cited the ole "you need $100 to make $500" example. it is a great opportunity only for those who already have $100.


Paola Lopez

dane: that was beautifully expressed, btw, what you said to deede. couldn'a said it better myself. we need this type of discourse, even if we disagree, so that we may see what we're working with and thus, begin to assess how we may next proceed.

and i agree, deede, if you enjoy hearing others spread information, it's because you're a thinking individual who is thirsty for data so that you can further develop your own opinions. that is awesome and we do greatly need people like you.

also, i know why you feel so hopeless. i often feel that way too - especially when i see how many people voted against universal healthcare in the u.s. in facebook's poll (a gargantuan amount, btw). but don't be afraid to voice your thoughts, deede, even if you're a mixed bag with disparate views on things; some issues you feel liberal about, others, conservative - there's likely many people out there who feel as you do, you just haven't found them yet. :)


Dane Jessie

The situation is not as frustrating as the blindness of the masses.


Dane Jessie

I believe the only way we grow (in our opinions and challenge our world view) is by listening to those with different points of view. Sometimes it turns a lock and we can evolve our own thinking.

The Belligerence of the Fittest

the following correspondence between X. and i ensued after i posted a response to T. on a facebook bulletin board re universal health care in the united states. i have heretofore never met or engaged with either T. or X., nor are they on any of my friend lists.


T.

Survival of the fittest. You can't afford health care? Not my problem and not from my tax dollars. I went to college, I have a good job and I have health insurance that I pay for.


Paola Lopez

dear T: not everyone can afford college and obviously not everyone can afford to pay for health insurance. not your problem? then go to your doctor, which millions are not fortunate enough to have, and ask her for the definition of a "sociopath" because you're due for a diagnosis.


X.

Get a clue. Socialism has never worked. Will never work. What made America great was hardworking people that created the own breaks and made what they could out of their lives. In a Socialist society there is no reward for hard work. You must have never heard a joke about city, state, or county workers. You can't tell me one thing the government that is better in the public sector compared to the private sector.


Paola Lopez

ha! for one, you need not worry. your daddy's commie fears are not about to materialize. what is trying to manifest is not real socialism. nothing obama has proposed thus far concerning healthcare (or anything else for that matter) is genuine socialism. presently, what is on the table is something which still allows you to reap the rewards of any opportunity you have to be better off than your neighbors. in other words, if you are in a financially viable position due to luck, hard work, however you wanna spin it - then you will still be able to get better health coverage than those who are not in your position. so that social superiority you value and defend will still be yours, never fear.

i implore you to deeply study socialism and compare it to what is being proposed by obama before deciding socialism is a system only designed to take from each citizen without any reward. that there have been failed attempts at communist governments in the past does not mean that socialist governments cannot work in the present and future. there are several countries today who employ socialist measures to varying degrees with a HUGE amount of success; france and norway are two good examples.


X.

How about Brazil? They run a socialist farming practice. Compare it to the farming practice in the United States. When people are planting and harvesting their OWN crops, they will give more effort due to the fact the will receive a reward. What is the incentive for the farmers in Brazil to replant their crops or take the necessary options to ensure the best crop they can get?

Look at public housing in America. Who do they all look like shitholes? Because people don't take care of them. Why would they?

Now take a homeowner. Most will do what they can to keep their dwellings looking decent. I am telling you ownership was the key in making the United States the best county in the world.


Paola Lopez

brazil: like i said, what is currently being proposed by obama still allows for personal incentive, if you feel this is your right to fully exploit. but what must be understood about incentive is that it requires one to be fortunate enough to be in a position of means and mobility to chase that dangling carrot in front of you so that you may make for yourself more dangling carrots, but not everyone is; they are tethered down by invisible ropes - things like poor education, mental disability or illness prevent everyone from being able to pursue opportunities even if they are able to recognize them, and many times they cannot even do that.

it is as though an olympic sprinter and a wheelchair bound person were both told to race. the prize is a highly incentive $1,000,000. however, whoever loses does not get to possess means by which to sustain a living (food, shelter, etc.), that can only be achieved by the $1,000,000 won. obviously, the person in the wheelchair simply couldn't run this race no matter how badly they wanted to. should they be denied the means to live?

incentive can be a tool to achieve success but it assumes an ability to pursue (fiscally, mentally, physically and via other resources) and not everyone has that. it is the familiar "you need $100 to make $500." that is only a fantastic opportunity if you have $100.

as for public housing, unfortunately. that is not a good example because "homeowners" don't own their own home any more than a renter or person in public housing does. the bank owns it. if the poor felt they were entitled to more, as much as anyone else, which they are, then using the philosophy you're referring to, they too would feel the motivation to take care of a public housing facility which is just as much theirs as your house is yours. plus, keep in mind people in public housing are often not just financially challenged but often struggling with severe disabilities of one sort or another. that again, is an invisible tether against motivation to keep up their place that people who are not ill repetitively fail to remember.

Implementing Universal Healthcare in the United States, Part I

the following thread stemmed from my facebook status line on 7.23.09. my status is the first entry posted below.


Paola Lopez

i cannot believe how many people are not in favor of Universal Healthcare in this country. what is wrong with you?? people are sick and dying in the millions in this rich country of ours and you think it's not the responsibility of each and everyone of us?? PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR GREEDY, SELF-INVOLVED ASSHOLES!! you're being manipulated by folks who stand to gain *immensely* financially.


Paola Lopez

If you are so concerned about what you'll get out of it, then consider this: "It is not a welfare state to keep a good portion of the vital population of workforce healthy."


Sheryl Bradbury

I don't want any "health care" that isn't preventative or alternative health care. It's all total BS!


Dane Jessie

They were until they bought into the ads out there. The Drug companies are spending $1,000,000 a day advertising the message. Doesn't the fact that they have enough $ to throw that way tell anyone anything?


Paola Lopez

sheryl: i agree with you for the need to include preventative and alternative health care in any health system we establish. i am regularly arguing with my doctors about that very thing, in fact. :)

however, right now there are so many people who cannot rely upon any sort of regular measures which address their well-being, whether it be before a problem arises or after it's already manifested - and it stuns me how many people think this is a simple matter of darwinism. who is to say the fittest means the most ruthless? there are several ways for this species to evolve and developing systems which safeguard the needs of the many seems a hell of lot more evolved than continuing of the old tradition of The Cave Man - dog-eat-dog style.


Paola Lopez

dane: yes, people do not put two and two together; just what exactly it means that the pharmaceuticals are willing to sink so much dough into this brainwashing, er, advertising. it means the "facts" they present the populace are likely to be skewed.


Dane Jessie

Because they follow their "leaders" (can you say FOX news?).


Paola Lopez

i'm surprised that "news" outfit is still in business.

did you read some of the posts on the Do You Believe in Universal Healthcare Poll? incredible.

here's what one bloke had to say: "Survival of the fittest. You can't afford health care? Not my problem and not from my tax dollars. I went to college, I have a good job and I have health insurance that I pay for."


Dane Jessie

The funny part is that our system costs the people who have it MORE than any of the universal systems in place. The average American family pays $1000 a year for those who don't have insurance. A nation wide system would drop the costs.


Ian Cahir

Well said, Paola.


Paola Lopez

ian: thanks, man! :-)

dane: now if we could only get info like that out to more people with the proper "authority" behind it so they'd believe it. i mean, we're never going to convince everyone, but if we could just convince enough to get some of these measure in place...and then work like the dickens to try to infuse it with enough checks and balances so that it doesn't quickly become corrupt, giving people fodder for, "i told you so!"


Dane Jessie

I talk about it everyday on my radio show.


Tina Forras Cartwright

yeah. they need to do something.


Paola Lopez

dane: ok, that's it! :-P did you say i'd be able to tune in to your show via podcast? or do you have copies of it you can send me? i seriously would love to hear you talk about this. phew! i'm so glad someone in the media with your perspective is speaking up, dane.


Chairat Anson Roberts

My 2 cents: I have a heart condition... I am covered by Medi-cal and starting in November, by Medi-care. Just like you, I have paid into those plans since I'd started working (15). I had to go through many years of bureaucratic bull-shit to get them to believe that I was truly sick. It's such a difficult line to draw between someone who really needs them, care, vs. someone wanting to take advantage of (A SYSTEM). That is why, universal HC can take all the questions out of the loop, and really take care of PEOPLE. Yes, I'M DYING TO GET WELL!! =)


Paola Lopez

chairat, what you just said brought tears to my eyes. i remember some talks we've had about this and i know a bit of what you go through. you make an excellent point coming from the position of being exactly the type of person who we, as a country, should want to help keep alive and well. i am on medi-cal myself for a hearing condition and what i had to go through to get it was sheer hell. and now good ole arnie has just deducted half of the services medi-cal used to cover - including audiology! i keep hoping universal healthcare will help minimize the greed factor, reduce the level of suspicion and blame so as to simply allow everyone some level of care. people abuse the current healthcare systems because of one predominant factor: people get sick and need to be cared for; think les miserables and that loaf of bread....


Paola Lopez

omg, and i almost overlooked the most important thing you said, chairat: you have paid for your medical insurance (medi-cal and medi-care) by being a tax payer and having had a job since you were 15 yrs old. those taxes taken from your paycheck every pay period mean you are paying for your supposedly "freebie" health insurance. plus, you pay plenty by being sick and having to cope with the difficulties that brings. you pay enough!

My Twin Flame is a Ghost, but just who is JE?

[i am a medium. i channel the dead. my twin flame is a man who i believe may have been my childhood best friend, JE. he may have died tragically in a car accident at the age of four. i say "may" because, the truth is i do not know for sure what happened to JE. i was so very, very young and my memory of what became of him is practically non-existent. i just remember he was suddenly out of my life and as a child, i was very confused and hurt about it. i never forgot him and always referred to him when in conversation with friends and family. but as i grew up, whenever i asked my mother about him, her response was an amalgam of bizarre and conflicting stories. she would often tell me that no such person ever existed in the first place. other times, she would say he had existed but that his name was JO. and still others, she would insist that he was a she and that it was, in fact, a girl i was currently attending school with.

this matter has become so important to me because over the years, throughout my adulthood, i have become very close with an entity on the other side who goes by the name JE. and claims to be my old childhood friend. this ghost and i have become best friends over the time i have known him. i speak with him everyday and he assists me in a variety of aspects of my life. he is indispensable to me; his love, his companionship, his support. i've never met anyone whom i have loved so deeply, living or dead. but the truth of not being able to confirm his identity is breaking me in half. i have to know if he is indeed my little friend from preschool, JE. also, there is some question as to whether or not JE. is the real life brother of a man who i dated in college. i will call that man JA. i've been desperate to speak with JA., so i can ask him if he ever had a brother named JE. who passed away as a young child. sadly, that avenue has been blocked from me. so, finally i consulted an independent medium on the matter. the following is my portion of an ongoing conversation i am having with that medium].


[dear Y.,] the one who i showed you the picture of, the one called JA, decided to not accept my friend request on facebook. further, after i sent the request, he blocked me! it really hurt my feelings and i don't understand why he had to be so rude. when we dated all those years ago - he's the one who dumped me after cheating on me! so i'm not sure why he would still want to exclude me from his life. it's not like i was the one who broke his heart. :(

JE., his possible brother on the other side, and i still communicate daily. he is still just as loving to me. i've been trying to work up the courage to ask another medium about his identity, whether or not he is JA.'s brother [Y. had been able to confirm several aspects of JE.'s identity except for whether or not he was JA.'s brother. on that matter, she could get nothing either way]. i spoke to a professional medium several months ago before you and i communicated, and her response was mixed and confusing. at first, she said they were not brothers, then she kept referring to them as brothers, and then finally she said, "it's up to you." she suggested i "test" him by pulling away from the relationship, if he is truly my childhood friend, then he will not begrudge me this and will let me have my space. if it is not JE., but someone masquerading as him, she said, he will get upset and try to cling on to you. so i followed her advice and JE. allowed me to pull away peacefully without any resistance. he said he would not try to force a connection if i didn't want one. so i felt that pretty much told me it must be JE. according to her advice. he is very gentle and loving to me. so unlike JA.

still, i wish i could get some objective confirmation that the two are brothers. the JE. of my childhood disappeared from my life when we were both very young and i can not remember his last name. my mother will not tell me. to make matters worse, i'm not even one hundred percent certain that JE., my childhood friend, died at all! i have heart wrenching memories of a car accident, but i'm not fully confident they're legitimate because i was so young. i'm terribly afraid they're only "created memories." what i do know is that he suddenly vanished from my life and my mother acted so weird about it. when i would ask her about him, sometimes she said he moved away, other times she said she didn't know who i was talking about and that i was mistaken and had never even known a JE.! i was certain that i had. it was not like me to have imaginary friends as a young child. and still other times, when i would ask her about him, she would look at me and say, "paola, it's a good thing you no longer know him, you two were too close anyway.” a few times she confessed that it was her and my teachers who separated us and put us on different tracks at school so that our socializing skills could more develop more "properly." i do know that we were inseparable and would often seclude ourselves off in a corner and play, not welcoming other children to join us. as i got older, however, she refused to acknowledge that he even existed, though sometimes she'd slip and refer to him quite plainly. it was her bizarre behavior, combined with my memory of a car accident and the continual manifestations from an entity named JE. on the other side, which lead me to believe that my little friend had, in fact, passed away and my mom, not knowing how to explain it to me, fed me all this contradictory stuff that made no sense. it wouldn't be the first time she has lied about something so important.

when i dated JA, he was very secretive about his family, so i don't remember him ever saying he had a brother who died - but then, it would be like him to not mention something like that.

needless to say, i've been in a lot of emotional pain about the issue because i'd like it to be resolved one way or the other so i can put the matter to rest. the spirit i've been in contact with for years now, who i've understood to be JE. from preschool, means everything to me. but i am in deep turmoil not knowing for certain if he is who i think he is: JE., brother of JA, JE., my childhood friend.

as always, thank you for listening to me, Y. you always have a knack for making me feel comfortable opening up to you. i hope you and yours have a great easter holiday, if you celebrate it. :)

namaste,

© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez

The Heinous Crimes of Michael Vick

[wednesday, july 29, 2009] two of my friends felt michael vick, the NFL football player, is getting too bad of a rap for his crimes of running a dog fighting ring and being responsible for the deaths of several dogs. in 2007 vick faced felony charges for his actions, was convicted and served less than two years in prison. recently he was released and is now free to rejoin the NFL. the viewpoint my two friends held was that, while crimes against animals are not to be condoned and should be punishable by law, they are nowhere near the severity of human-to-human crimes and should not be prioritized so highly. one friend in particular was upset that so much negative attention was given to vick when there are, in his words, "far more serious crimes being committed on humans," that we should attend to. their comments were in reaction to my facebook status line [posted 7.28.09], which harshly condemned vick for his actions. the following is my response to their comments:



for anyone to make the assumption there are worse crimes in the world than bashing another living creature's head into a wall, merely because it is not a human being, is speaking from a position of nothing more than ubiquitous speciesism; something which never ceases to amaze me. it is an arrogant supposition to repetitively place one's own kind in the center of all suffering.

regarding michael vick "not getting a break," he is already out of prison and free to sign with any NFL team who will take him, which is more than many convicted murderers get, despite him being precisely that, a convicted murderer.

in terms of comparing my status line to the sort of draconian measures taken against those in guantanamo bay - i am generally a pacifist by nature. however, if vick were to enact that sort of violence on a dog right in front of me, i would use whatever means necessary and available to stop him, no less than were he bashing a child into a wall in front of me.

as for my anger being the result of mere misplaced media nudging - hardly. i'm a serious animal rights advocate, have been for years, and strive to hoist human apprehension into accepting animals in equal standing with people. as for the rest of america, R., instead of its anger being unjust and misplaced, i ask you to consider that it is the slow and creaking revelation of a society (both media and the public) who is beginning to identify with animals as having a soulful, thinking, and feeling consciousness. it is *crucial* that this happen in appreciable numbers and inclusive of the media so it will offset the devastating impact that meat and fur consumption, not to mention systemic environmental collapse, continue to have on the world's animal populations.

and the funny thing is, R., in polls, the majority of people *do* feel vick has sufficiently paid for his crimes and want to see no more legal or professional action taken against him. so, it's not exactly like his public image has irreversibly plummeted to the depths unending social ostracization that you assert it has.

if my attitude toward him sounds harsh and unforgiving it is because the power to determine life and death on nearly every living organism on this planet lies within our hands and continues to do so at an exponential rate. our ego-maniacal race kills upwards of 50 BILLION animals a year for food consumption ALONE. this figure does not reflect the multitudes of wildlife species we are decimating by the minute in our mad dash to exploit every pocket of the globe as if it were ours alone. this figure also does not reflect how many millions, if not billions, of animals are taken out gratuitously each year for their fur, tusks or other products. the emotional severity of my status line is in accordance with the dire need to reflect the level of savagery that occurs unthinkingly among our race against other creatures. why would i act beholden to some violent, self-serving millionaire football player who is the living embodiment of values i abhor? why would i curb my emotions or mince my words? i'll stand on the rooftop and scream bloody murder if i have to, if that's what it takes to wake people up. because bloody murder is exactly what he committed.

H. put it quite astutely when he said, "this man's entire life has been founded on violence." football is a violent sport, running a dog fighting ring is a violent action. the likelihood of any genuine rehabilitation having occurred in vick from our current system is small. considering the pathological nature of his violence, the likelihood of his sincere contrition is also equally small. we'll watch whatever repentant pageantry he puts on, most people will be convinced he's a "changed man," and he'll continue to exercise some level of deep seated hostility under the radar if he can help it. it may not be with dog fighting or animal abuse, but that type of violence as evidenced by his actions, does not easily go away. i.e. O.J. simpson. and yes, i do think it's a viable comparison.

this is not to say that having a perpetrator of animal violence doing community service in the name of animal welfare groups is a wasted effort. i actually think it's a great idea - but in this particular case, it services and honors the animals whom he's offended more than it will motivate any deep conscientious change within him. in other cases, i think it would prove more effective at actually initiating a change in consciousness, depending on the person and the case.


© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez

Global Warming and Wildlife Extinction

discussion is the first step toward action regarding global warming and the extinction of wildlife. the u.s. is just emerging from a presidency whose 8 yr. regime didn't even acknowledge that global warming existed at all. so awareness and studying of the facts, as we can best determine them, is quite crucial at this stage, as is direct action, but it all starts with discussion and the spreading of vital information.

such discussion should include the well-being of *all* life on this planet, with flora and fauna as wholly principle beings in their own right. alarmingly, much environmental awareness, as it's currently underway, merely focuses on the impact dramatic climate change would have on the world's plant and animal population as it affects us, the human race, not how irreversibly tragic it would be to lose these life forms owing to their own significance.

to an extent, it is understandable that we would be primarily concerned for the welfare of our own species. but so often we put the concerns of our own extinction - whether from global warming, nuclear war or some other method devised to snuff ourselves out in a blaze of glory - above acknowledging the right of animal and plant life to thrive and survive all of these catastophes too. it is because of their innocence, their having done nothing whatsoever to contribute to this murderous mess, because of their helplessness - them having absolutely no defense against what we're doing to them and their surroundings - that i whole-heartedly believe our responsibility lies in an ability to put them first.

the reason i make such a bold statement is because when it comes to the colossal wallop of global warming, there will be no dearth of humans making sure our own protection is paramount and sought after first. relatively speaking, of course. already we see it now; 'going green' is on everyone's mind - from individuals, to corporations, to governments - they'll need to be regularly prodded, of course, and will require oversight from the people to keep them honest and on track (especially corporations and governments). however, what we hear far less often are humans who understand that, because of their vulnerability, animals need *more* help than we do.

by the way, this doesn't mean i think our work is done regarding elevating human consciousness to a point of accepting how much peril we are truly in from global warming. far from it. there is a mountain of work still to be done, but because of people's natural tendency to put their own species first (speciesism) - there will be more people looking after people than will there be people looking after animals.

a good example is katrina. in the wake of that monumental disaster it was incorrigible that people were left so long to suffer and die when they could have been helped earlier. however, when that help did finally arrive, it did not include all the poor pets and animals who had dutifully remained by their owners' side, offering comfort and company throughout the cold, dark nightmare that new orleanians endured. those animals were just as scared, hungry and traumatized as their human counterparts. and they were left to die in even greater numbers. certainly, to some extent this was done as a result of lack of funds and unpreparedness ("no room, we barely have enough to house all the displaced people"). but this type of pathology, as it undoubtedly is, can be corrected if we prioritize *all* life as inherently equal and worthy. and reallocate our wealth accordingly.

according to some accounts, at least 50% of wildlife on this planet is on the verge of extinction. all because of us. not by cause of a single thing the wildlife population did wrong. our extinction is a possibility in the future. their extinction is already happening NOW.


© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez

Sustainable Hunting and Farming May Be Realistic for the Masses, But It Doesn't Mean I Like It.

[written to my friend, Y., who is a radical animal rights activist.]



i got into a discussion with a recruiter for greenpeace this week and was saddened and appalled at the way he viewed animal rights activism. some of his perspective i understood the reasoning behind - taking the "middle path, "as it were, in their tactics for activism, so as to better include the masses, who tend to be freaked out with anything that identifies animals too closely with humans (for some bizarre reason).

but he so unquestioningly castigated anything that was done solely for the sake of the animals in their own right - even calling PETA violent, which, to my knowledge, they are not. he said "they give real animal rights activists who act sensibly a bad name." he said a "middle-path" reaches more people and you get more people behind it. whereas, taking an extremist path, you lose people. i said it depended on what your goals are. i told him all approaches are necessary and all have a role to play in aiding animal rights. he supported hunting and farming, claiming it can be sustainable if done responsibly.

ok. so here's my take on that. i, myself personally, am against hunting and farming, even if it is sustainable, because of how much i identify with animal consciousness. however, i do recognize that part of the gross abuse of various animal species in the world come from allowing human beings to hunt and farm in such a greedy, unscrupulous way that's nothing short of genocide. and it occurs every single day. their lives are not just ended but their time spent living is torturous. i do understand that it is likely human beings en mass will be more inclined to work to make sure farm and game animals are treated and killed humanely and are given a better quality of life BEFORE human beings in large, large numbers are likely to abolish eating and killing animals altogether.

that being said, however, doesn't mean i feel we should all just sit and accept the farming and killing of animals. in my view, while the "middle-path" will likely be achieved first for the bulk of humanity (meaning, animal consumption via types of farming/hunting where the manner and method of their lives and deaths occuring are humane, the numbers not so grossly out of proportion with the ecosystem of this planet) still doesn't mean that i won't work to see if i can change people's minds ENTIRELY about ANY sort of animal consumption and exploitation. it doesn't mean i am content or desire the "middle-path" as an end goal in and of itself. and finally, i DEFINITELY feel that without the "radical" element there, pulling people forward, we do not get nearly the same amount of change accomplished overall. it's like the old adage, "shoot for an A, and maybe you'll at least get a B."

in other words, knowing that the masses will more likely respond to a "middle path" re animal exploitation doesn't mean that i just give up on trying to raise awareness about animal consciousness at its highest potential; about the fact that this is a thinking, feeling, sentient being who would LOVE to simply live their life fully without being used or consumed at all.

another metaphor would be - just because i know that hybrid vehicles are financially viable "baby steps" for the auto industry before going fully electric/or other sustainable fuel, doesn't mean i'm content to let that industry rest on it's laurels until we're finally where we should be for an earth-friendly transportation system.

i understand that hybrids are the spoonful of sugar to giving a complete overhaul to an industry which is the bread and butter to some. hybrids have been a way to adhere to the demands of the public while circumventing auto industry full-scale PANIC for having to throw everything out (reads source of obscene wealth) - of course, they're panicking now for other reasons, ha! ha! these hybrids spoons of high fructose corn syrup allow that industry to merge slowly into other more sustainable fuel sources in a way that still gives 'em enough time to figure out how to corner THAT new market. understanding this reality doesn't mean i like it. i'm not going to stop pushing for the auto industry to go fully electric/or other. and btw, this isn't to say i support *any* industry monopolizing any market, esp something so disgusting as petrol. i do not at all. i just ruefully know that it's one of the things they were waiting for. i mean, ultimately, they'd rather not lift a finger, of course, but when they do, they want to make sure it's for something that'll allow them to turn just as much profit as they ever did. many yrs ago, my cynicism lead me to predict the auto-industry, being the greedy bastard that it is, would likely try to pacify us with some sort of hybrid car so that they could satisfy public demand while enabling themselves to buy time until they could figure out how they could monopolize the new "it" resource - whatever it ends up being. but doesn't mean i'm happy about it.


© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez