Animal Rights

This post is directly related to the current issue of "Philosophy Now", which has several articles on animal rights, including an interview with Peter Singer. Therefore,  I have been thinking about it and will try to address some aspects of animal rights. I will attempt to stay away from a philosophic point of view. I will also try to dwell on the extreme points of view, because they are entertaining, albeit largely irrelevant.

Animals are People Too: This is the view held by many, to varying degrees of severity. If an animal can have the same characteristics as people, then we should afford them the same rights. To most people, this is limited to mammals; to others, to anything that moves of it's own accord.  The extreme point of view holds that if we are to have any respect for ourselves, then we must also have respect for nature; this means no killing animals for anything. No research, no food, no clothing, no compassionate killing. 

This PETA view is supported by celebrities and and average folk alike; although the celebraties, for some reason, get more press.  Essentially, we should be able to live in harmony with our furry brethren, and if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone.  When it comes to animals that attack people, there is one of two responses: if it was a domestic animal (i.e. dog) then the owner trained them to be vicious and it is the owner that should be punished; and if it was wild, then we shouldn't be in their space to begin with. 

One last supporting argument for this is that many animals are capable of the behaviours that we ascribe to humans: communication, emotion, friendship, monogamy, loyalty. Since there are people who do not have these human behaviours but do have human rights, then we should at least afford animals that have human characteristics basic human rights. 

Animals are our Slaves: This breaks down to the belief that human life, in all it's forms, it the most important form of life that is out there, and every other life is subservient to the mighty human. We are given animals to do our bidding - be it in medical research, or food, or guarding our personal property. Heck, since animals are subservient, we can use them for testing cosmetics if we want. That's their role. 

Key to this argument is that animals are different than people. We really don't know what they think, or if they think; any human characteristics that we think they have are merely things that we ascribe them because we want them to have those characteristics. Is a cat really aloof? Or a dog loyal? We call them that because we want to see them that way. Maybe they can communicate, but they can't record their thoughts - and if they can't record their thoughts, then they are living by instinct alone. 

Also important is that we are omnivorous, and that a regular balanced diet includes animals - vegetarian theory aside. Plus meat tastes good - if we weren't supposed to eat them, they wouldn't taste good. And anything we eat can not be equal to us; it must be beneath us. 

What I think: I think that human life is more important than animal life; but that we should try to treat most animals humanely. I make exceptions for insects. I think that there are some interesting connections that aren't made in this debate. For example, most animal rights groups looked to Aboriginal groups for guidance, until they realized that Aboriginal groups may have had a connection to animals, but still would kill them to suit their needs. Believing in conservation is not the same as believing in animal rights. And people who are Christian should have respect for all God's creatures - but Christians are the ones who have the belief that God put animals on the earth for people to use; while it is the New agers (a generic phrase, used improperly, I'm sure) that have more respect for all life.

How I relate: I have no pets, but used to. I loved my cats and my dog, and I still like them. I also like meat. But I try to shop somewhat carefully - not because I feel guilty, because I don't, but I really find it hard to support animal testing for cosmetic products. 

Olympics!

Okay, so it's been a few days since my last post on this one too. I had some stuff happening in my personal life that made it difficult to do any blogging at all, and then the Olympics started. So all of a sudden, I'm watching Olympics every day, and so I thought that this would be a good topic for this blog. But how to present two sides to the Olympics? Well, let's see what happens. 

Olympics are Good: Olympics encourage people - every demograph, from every country - to seek out the best in themselves. We are inspired by our athlete's performance, and it is the one place where the prize goes to the top performer - no questions asked. If you run the fastest, you win. If your team runs the fastest, they win. No "A" for effort, or a ribbon just for showing up. You work hard, you win.

Our Olympic athletes are Role models for our young people. They come from all walks of life, from rich countries and poor countries. Seeing our athletes perform and do well is important to us, it raises our national pride levels, makes us proud to be from wherever we are from. We may come from Trinidad and Tobago, but if the fastest sprinter is from Trinidad and Tobago as well, the world looks at our little country different. A star is s star, and this is a place to shine. 

This is a venue where everyone is the same. It doesn't matter what colour your skin is, what language you speak, what accent you have, what religion you are. Egyptians race against Israelis. Irish against English, Muslim against Christian. It truly is democratic. 

Then there are the economic benefits for the region the games are hosted in. In addition to the immediate impact, the facilities created for the games will be used for generations to come. The games allow a region of a country to showcase itself to the world, to elaborate on why everyone should come back again and again. 

Olympics are Bad: All the Olympics do is highlight how out of shape westerners are. While we sit at home and watch the Olympics on TV, we get a momentary burst of energy to go walk to the fridge. but then that passes. Most of realize that we can never be an Olympian, and never will be; and that compared to the specimens we watch on TV, we are actually pathetic. 

How can the athletes be role models? We don't trust them - we have to monitor them with a microscope to make sure they aren't using drugs, and far to often our "role models" come out after and admit to cheating. And even if they aren't cheating, you pretty much have to give up your youth and live away from your home just you can get coaching at an early age, and when you don't make it to the games, or you lose when you get there, your dreams are crushed and your purpose for existing is gone. Is that what we want for role models - destroyed athletes with no purpose in life, and then tossed aside once they lose or the next champion comes along?

Economic benefits are a myth. Countries and cities that host the Olympics end up paying for them for years after the games have passed. This imposes a tax burden on future generations, and the businesses that came in for the games are out as soon as they are finished- leaving no taxes, no employees, no economic spin offs. When you consider the amount of money spent on the games and spent it instead on, say, health care, you could actually make a difference in the world. 

As for being a democracy - only if you come form a rich country. Niger doesn't win many medals; nor does Chile. The only countries that worry about medals at the Olympics are countries that spent tens of millions on their athletes. Somehow, starving peasants don't seem to care who wins the 100 metre hurdles. 

What I think: I like the Olympics; I'm proud of our athletes. I want them to win. I know that it is a lot of money being spent on them that could go elsewhere, but even poor people play soccer and like to be entertained by other sports. I do agree that rich countries have an unfair advantage, but that's not really news. I do think that it is good that it is harder to tell where the athletes are coming from- at  least in the western countries. What I mean by that is that even 10 years ago, the teams were overwhelmingly the same colour; but now, the western teams have many different races and names on them. This, I think, is a good thing. I am not so happy with people changing countries to compete because their own country wouldn't take them, though. I know this does give some people an oppourtunity that they may not otherwise have, but still. 

How I relate: I don't know any athletes, nor will I ever be one. (Olympic, I mean). Canada does better at the Winter games, so I like the Winter games more; but they do okay at the summer games - far better than our population suggests. And I do feel pride when the Canadians win, and I feel their pain when they lose. So keep it up Canada!

 

  

Cover songs

So it’s been a few days since my last post; sorry about that, but I’ve been in working two jobs for a couple of weeks. This means that I have less time than ever to post stuff; I barely have enough time to waste on Facebook and look up song lyrics. But that latter item got me thinking about my topic for this entry: cover songs. Okay, it’s a lot lighter than some of the other topics, but I thought it was about time to lighten it up a bit.

Cover songs are great: Cover songs, in addition to being a great new take on existing classics, are also a great way for current artists to reinterpret oldies but goodies. The current audience might never even listen to some songs of they weren’t covered by current bands / performers.

Sometimes the new version makes you go back and listen to the old version, and it can often lead to a renewed interest in the original artist’s other work as well.

Virtually every performer that exists today has covered other performers. That is the whole premise behind Karioke and the “Idol” series. Doing cover songs has given what may have been unknown performers a legitimate shot at success. Examples are the Ataris covering “Boys of Summer”, Alien Ant Farm  covering “Smooth Criminal”, the cover of “Mad World”, “Don’t dream it’s over”, George Thorogood covering John Lee Hooker’s “One Bourbon, One

Scotch, One Beer” to name a few. Even some of the now most famous performers with their own huge body of original work got their start doing cover – performers like the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Shania Twain, Kelly Clarkson; again, the list goes on.

It has reached the point where a lot of performers will do entire cover albums, or “tribute” albums, as they are often called. It is both homage to and recognition of the influence of past great performers. And it’s not like it’s a new phenomenon. We just used to call them “traditional” songs or “public domain” songs. How often has a song like “Oh My darling

Clementine” been covered? Or, for that matter, all classical music? I’m not suggesting that Michael Jackson is musically comparable to Brahams, but you get the idea.

The last point in this is that if the new artist can cover an old song well, and bring a new or different meaning to the song, then it is proof that the artist is as important as the song.

Cover songs are stupid: The only thing that cover songs do is prove that new performers have no talent – they can’t even write their own songs.  Maybe many performers did do cover songs early in their careers, but as soon as they didn’t have to, they stopped and started performing their own work. If you want to look at American Idol, Kelly Clarkson is famous for her original work, not her cover of “A Moment like This”.

Maybe cover songs do give some performers a shot at fame, but they only become famous for those songs and then they quickly disappear. If the only way you can get fame is by recording someone else’s work, then you shouldn’t be famous. Especially when so many covers sound exactly like the original. A lot of times you can’t even tell the difference between the two. That is the point of Karaoke – to sound as close to the original as possible, not to put your own interpretation on it. And most songs can’t be reinterpreted anyway – how does “One Bourbon, one Scotch, one Beer” mean anything different when George Thorogood sings it?

And the renewed interest argument is weak. I didn’t see anyone rushing out to by a copy of Dolly Parton’s “I will always love you” when Whitney Houston covered it – anymore than anyone watched the 1976 “Omen” after watching the 2006 “Omen”. Passing interest is all a cover will generate, along with some trivia geeks saying “That’s not really their song”.

If it really was the singer not the song, then nobody would write any new music.

What I think: I am, as always, in the middle. I know I have some strong opinions, I just don’t know where. Some covers have been very well done; others horribly done. In the “horrible” department, I would include Cher/Celine/Melissa’s cover of “You Shook me all Night long”, Sheryl Crow’s hack job of “First Cut is the Deepest” by Cat Steven, and any bar band cover of “Brown Eyed Girl”, just because it is so overdone. In the well done category, I would place Nirvana’s unplugged version of David Bowie’s “The Man Who Sold the World”; David Usher’s “Fast Car” originally by Tracy Chapman; and Rage Against the Machine doing “Kill a Man” by the Cypress Hill.

I do think that an artist can bring a new interpretation to a song – the aforementioned Atari’s cover as an example. Often, though, they don’t they just want to, they just like the song and I think want to show their roots – but I think that is pointless. There are occasions where the cover becomes more well known – for example, the BareNaked Ladies interpretation

of “Lovers in a Dangerous Time” has become more well known than the Bruce Cockburn song – and in situations like that I think it is a good thing. 

Sometime it is the singer, sometimes it is the song.

I particularly dislike covers of iconic songs, though. Dolly Parton, herself an icon, never should have covered “Imagine”, for example, or that horrible country cover of “Piece of my Heart”. Whenever a song is very closely associated to a particular performer / group, the risk in covering it is great. A cover of “Hotel California” would bear that risk; as would a cover of “Thriller”, “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, or even “Wannabe” (not that anyone would cover that). Surprisingly, I like most of the covers of “Stairway to Heaven” because they tend to be completely different; they don’t try to replicate Led Zeppelin. 

I should probably differentiate here between “iconic” and “one hit wonders”. If someone were to cover “Steal My Sunshine” that would be fine, because it was Len’s only song. But a song like “Imagine” was definitive John Lennon, and the best of his huge body of excellent work. So a cover of “Come on Eileen” may be fine – it may still suck as a song, but I wouldn’t have a specific problem with it because it was Dexy’s Midnight Runner’s iconic song.

How I relate: I don’t. I have no vested interest in cover songs, I just like music. And everyone relates to music. And cover songs. 

And if you’re counting this is my second post about music, and I have revealed a lot about myself so far, probably enough to do a profile.