text:
In 2003, Steven Davis wrote a paper called, "The Least Harm Principle May Require That Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet." As you might have guessed from the title, the paper intended to show that a diet including ruminant animals fed on grass would kill fewer animals than a diet based purely on vegan agriculture. Davis wrote:
[A] vegan diet doesn't necessarily mean a diet that doesn't interfere in the lives of animals. In fact, production of corn, beans, rice, etc. kills many animals as this paper will document. So, in 1999, I sent an email to [animal rights philosopher Tom] Regan, pointing this out to him. Then I asked him, "What is the morally relevant difference between the animals of the field and those of the farm that makes it acceptable to kill some of them (field mice, etc.) so that humans may eat, but not acceptable to kill others (pigs, etc.) so we may eat?" His reply (Regan, 1999, personal communication) was that we must choose the method of food production that causes the least harm to animals. (I will refer to this concept as The Least Harm Principle or LHP.) In his book, Regan (1983) calls this the "minimize harm principle" and he describes it in the following way:
"Whenever we find ourselves in a situation where all the options at hand will produce some harm to those who are innocent, we must choose that option that will result in the least total sum of harm."
Production of forages, such as pasture-based forages, would cause less harm to field animals (kill fewer) than intensive crop production systems typically used to produce food for a vegan diet. This is because pasture forage production requires fewer passages through the field with tractors and other farm equipment. The killing of animals of the field would be further reduced if herbivorous animals (ruminants like cattle) were used to harvest the forage and convert it into meat and dairy products. Would such production systems cause less harm to the field animals? Again, accurate numbers aren't available comparing the number of animals of the field that are killed with these different cropping systems, but "The predominant feeling among wildlife ecologists is that no-till agriculture will have broadly positive effects on mammalian wildlife" populations (Wooley et al., 1984). Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture. Because of the low numbers of times that equipment would be needed to grow and harvest pasture forages it would be reasonable to estimate that the pasture-forage model may reduce animal deaths by 50% or more. In other words, only 7.5 animals of the field per ha would die to produce pasture forages as compared to the intensive cropping system (15/ha) used to produce a vegan diet.
The specific numbers that Davis concocted at the end of that passage — after conceding that there was no way to calculate the true numbers — ended up sabotaging what would otherwise have been a salient point. He seems to have been so sure that he'd won this argument that he was happy to estimate that raising animals on pasture still kills plenty of wild animals. Hey, why not? Industrial agriculture kills twice as many, so the meaties totally have this one in the bag, right?
Wrong, responded Jason Gaverick Matheny. Matheny, who is now a leader in the movement to create lab-grown meat, wrote a rebuttal called, "Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism From Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal," a paper vegans cite to close the case on Davis' objections, and deem this issue dead and buried. In his paper, Matheny pointed out an error in Davis' calculations. Davis wasn't savvy enough to say that the ruminant animals should be raised only on marginal land not suited for crop growth. This allowed Matheny to retort that because land devoted to crops provides more than double the protein per hectare, and because Davis said that raising ruminants only decreased wild animal deaths by half per hectare, vegans still kill fewer animals per capita than meat eaters who eat large, grass-fed ruminants:
Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998; UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.
Matheny never says whether he agrees with Davis' numbers ("If this is true…"), but he uses them anyway, because Davis' numbers end up being so favorable for Matheny's own argument. This could be why Davis never responded: Davis scuttled himself by being over-confident and allowing for so many wild animal deaths in pasture-raised animals. Because Davis was (by his own admission) making the numbers up, he didn't want to skew them too blatantly in his own favor. Especially since he didn't feel that he needed to, because he didn't predict Matheny's counter-argument about differences in yield.
It's about time someone stood up for Davis. There are problems with Matheny's analysis, some trifling and some fatal, and it turns out that even if Davis did a bad job of supporting his argument, his point still stands — a vegan diet is not the diet of "least harm."
First, since Davis simply guessed the amount of wild animals killed in pasture-raised animal agriculture, an anecdote might provide a little more insight. "Suzanne," commenting on a vegan's entry about Davis' paper, wrote:
Certainly Davis' paper is not free of flaws, but he is to be commended for delving into the realms that many people, especially vegans, would prefer to ignore – namely, that there is no way to purposefully raise food for humans, whether that food is fruit, vegetable, or animal – without the deaths of other animals and without some degree of negative environmental impact. A previous poster spoke of deep pain at realising that veganism had become his shield – and indeed a source of cognitive dissonance that creates a sense of complacency, perhaps even superiority over unenlightened meat-eaters. …
Speaking from my own experience with a smallholding in South Africa, there's very little collateral killing when land is perennial pasture. My property was not suited to cropping; it had shallow soil with a lot of ironstone and hardpan resulting from a previous owner's misguided attempt to grow maize; the rainfall was marginal; it had been overgrazed. I put my efforts into restoring the acacia savannah natural to this area, and year by year I saw the groundcover thicken and the biodiversity increase. This land, marginal for plant cropping, provided an amazing amount of food in the form of eggs, milk, and meat. My livestock (2 dairy cows, seven sheep, seven goats, three pigs, fluctuating numbers of chickens and meat rabbits) thrived on their roughage diet. Only the rabbits were permanently housed (under the colony system, not in individual cages), with all other species going out to graze each day. I didn't make hay, having no equipment or money for the operation. Instead, I practiced rotational grazing, shutting off some paddocks in early summer to produce winter forage to be rotationally grazed in due time. The bulk carbohydrates provided by the dry grass was balanced by the abundant pods of the Acacia tortilis tree; these pods are rich in protein and oil, and have some sugary pulp – a very little to human tastebuds, but obviously delicious to my stock! I bought in a small amount of lucerne from a neighbour who grew it for his horses – I got the finer material that shook out of bales and would otherwise have been wasted. I also bought in a small amount of mill sweepings, this being husks and meal spilt during the production of maize meal and wheat flour for human use. Again, material that would have been wasted. I mixed the lucerne and sweepings with rock salt and dicalcium phosphate, as well as bagasse (the fibre left after sugar cane is pressed, another waste material from the human food stream), and fed this as treats morning and evening.
My animals were penned at night to protect them from predators, especially bipedal predators, and this manure eventually gave me beds of deep rich loam for the growing of vegetables.
Year by year I saw the wildlife on my property increase both in numbers and in variety. An enormous python took up residence beneath the pump house. A breeding pair of duiker took up residence. Tree mice suddenly appeared out of nowhere, and a flock of yellow-billed hornbills settled in to exploit the mice. Owls called at night, and jackrabbits exploded under my feet during the day. A redlipped herald snake, feeding on ground-living rodents, found my bed so appealing that after three mornings of waking up nose-to-nose with it, I relocated it on the other side of a stream. There were probably collateral deaths – a cow can't rip off mouthfuls of grass without occasionally gathering a grasshopper with it, for example, but certainly there was no carnage. The real collateral deaths took place in my vegetable garden, where I ruthlessly killed slugs, caterpillars, and beetles (I threw them to the chickens, so the actual killing was done by beaks, but I was the one who caught and threw the critters) that would otherwise decimate my beans, carrots, tomatoes, potatoes, sweetcorn, etc.
This is just a comment on a blog and is not proof of anything, but it illustrates how simplistic it is to generalize that pasture-raising animals kills exactly half the number of wild animals per hectare that raising plants does.
Nevertheless, since there has not been much research into the harm that vegan agriculture causes to wild animals (in fact it is probably impossible to accurately calculate such a thing), you can't really blame Matheny for accepting Davis' questionable numbers. There are, however, more tangible flaws in Matheny's paper. For one, he assumes that plant and animal protein quality are equivalent, even though it is widely accepted that plant protein is not as digestible as animal protein. In her entry "Tryptophan, Milk and Depression," The Vegan RD Ginny Messina writes: "Since protein from plant foods is slightly less digestible than animal protein, vegan protein and amino acid needs are about 10% higher than for omnivores." Jack Norris also references that 10 percent figure in his VeganHealth.org article on Protein, though he looks at the scanty and inconclusive evidence available on the topic and suggests that the jury is still out.
In Meat: A Benign Extravagance, Simon Fairlie cites two groups — one pro-meat and one pro-vegetarian — who agree that animal protein is 1.4 times more digestible than vegetable protein. But Fairlie says that neither group explains where that number comes from. The reality seems to be that it varies from food to food. For instance, isolated soy protein appears to be as digestible as animal protein, while other plant proteins fare worse (at least according to this chart at soyconnection.com).
It does appear that most animal proteins are more digestible than most vegetable proteins, apparently since plant products often have fiber, polysaccharides and phytic acid interfering with absorption of nutrients. Also important: Matheny forgot that dead animals aren't used only for food. Animal byproducts end up in all sorts of things, and the fact that people are wearing animal skins in Davis' world means less cotton and synthetic fibers that need to be created, another way to reduce our impact on animals.
But for simplicity, we might as well ignore all that and settle on Messina's figure of animal protein being merely 10 percent more digestible than plant protein, which still leaves vegans killing fewer animals per capita (according to Davis' and Matheny's numbers).
Yet something still seems off about all this. Does it sound right that an individual vegan's diet is only responsible for 0.3 wild animal deaths annually? I once killed more frogs in a few minutes while mowing my lawn (trauma!) than a vegan supposedly kills by eating for a year. Something has to be missing here. What is it?
Well, for one thing, insects and other smaller animals.
Matheny and Davis only seem to care about mammals. This might have made sense in the context of Regan's philosophy, since Regan's standards for animal rights are more rigorous than most vegans', demanding that animals be a "subject of life," and not merely sentient. Most vegans, however, do settle on sentience and as a consequence are against exploiting and killing bugs. Insects have a central nervous system, feel sensations, and may or may not experience pain. The debate over pain allows some vegans to disqualify anthropods from rights or interest consideration. But since Matheny later implies in his essay that the deaths of animals being sucked into combines are quick and painless, the capacity for insect pain is irrelevant in this case — the harm here is the irreversible non-existence of a being who experiences life, not pain sensations.
A recent study shows that bees have the same demonstratable emotions that dogs, rats and starlings do. If insect lives count (and vegans who say they don't will often be at odds with their own ethics), it doesn't make sense to only consider mammals in a calculation of the harm industrial agriculture causes. We should also consider the grasshoppers, bees, leafhoppers, lygus bugs, corn rootworms, jumping plant louse, sugar beet root maggots, slugs, snails, mites, weevils, chinch bugs, armyworms, Southwestern corn borers, aphids, caterpillars and beetles. This of course makes the actual total lives lost to vegan agriculture even more impossible to determine, but at the very least it shows that 0.3 wild animals killed per vegan anually is ridiculously optimistic (does anyone deny that insects are animals?), and gives further credence to the idea that fewer animals could be killed by displacing some crop consumption by eating large ruminants raised on grass.
But Matheny doesn't think that number of deaths is all that matters. He wants us to consider quality of life as well. Though we can't really know what the experience of being a non-human animal is like, Matheny's bet is that it's better to be a wild animal who dies in a combine accident, from pesticides or from other consequences of habit destruction due to vegan agriculture, than to be a free-range pasture-fed animal raised for food and eventually led to slaughter:
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice natural habits like roaming, breeding, and foraging. In contrast, the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughterhouses have been described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997). Suffice it to say, it is hard to imagine that the pain experienced by a mouse as she or he is killed in a harvester compares to the pain even a grass-fed cow must endure before being killed.
I agree with Matheny that instant death for an animal doesn't seem so terrible. First they exist, then they hear a loud noise, and suddenly it's lights out forever — as if they had never been born, and it was all just a dream. This would be worse if death were merely one possible outcome to life, but it's not… it's the only possible outcome. And because animals have no future goals to achieve, it's no tragedy to kill them before a predator or the genetic time bomb of natural causes would have got them.
Though I do have to say that it's a little inconsistent for vegans to be nonplussed by the disappearance of animals into a farm machine vortex of death yet be outraged when baby male chicks meet pretty much the exact same end as a byproduct of egg production. Why is instant death fine if you're a mouse and horrible if you are a baby chick? To be fair, Matheny does not say anything about baby chickens here. More pressing to him is the treatment of farm animals who live for a while before they become food. Matheny thinks it is incorrect to say that it is good to raise animals for food if they are happy, because he would rather be a wild animal without a secure food source who is in constant peril from predators, but runs free and copulates, than an animal who has all his basic needs covered but has his horns lopped off, his testicles removed and a logo burned into his side.
This is a matter of opinion. Some want food and healthcare guaranteed for all (domestication), while others prefer to hack it on their own (the wild). (Some people are into scarification too, though most of them want to pick what gets seared into them.) Is a daily struggle for survival worth it if you get to keep your horns? That's debatable, but there are ways to make the case for domestication stronger.
Dehorning with a caustic paste instead of a hot iron is less painful, and can be avoided completely by breeding naturally polled animals. Pigs are often castrated to avoid the problem of "boar taint," but some farmers resolve this problem by killing the male pigs before they reach sexual maturity, or use other alternatives, such as injections that produce anti-bodies against the hormone that creates the unpleasant taste in sexually mature boars. When I buy fertile chicken eggs, I have to assume there is some copulating happening somewhere on that farm. Mobile slaughterhouses make it possible to avoid long trips to the slaughterhouse; another possibility is to allow farmers to slaughter their own animals. I'm not sure if there are alternatives to ear tagging and branding, but at least the pain there is temporary, and might be worth a life of ease on the farm.
The life and death of a farm animal doesn't have to be that bad, and in fact is arguably better than most of the animals who live in freedom and are constantly fighting for life. Even Matheny agrees that the life of an animal on a farm is probably no worse than never having come into existence:
Davis does not address factory farmed animals, as he limits his argument to free-range ruminants, including grass-fed cows. Do these animals have lives worth living? I suspect so, despite the trauma they undergo during transportation and slaughter.
Matheny insists that being a wild animal is better, and so raising domesticated animals is bad because it leads to an overall decrease in wild animals. But what's so wrong with humans favoring the option that is pretty good for animals and even better for humans?
Vegans loved Matheny for turning Davis' argument on its head and using Davis' words to promote vegetarianism. But just as Davis fatally undercut his own argument that a human diet including grass-fed ruminants is better for animals than veganism, Matheny undercuts his own that veganism causes the least harm of any other diet. In critiquing the idea that raising happy animals is good overall, Matheny makes a point that could easily be turned on its head and used to defend invasive species hunting over veganism:
A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, it is better to have two happy animals than one. In the past, this view has been used to justify the consumption of meat, since farmed animals would not exist if not for meat production. This argument, sometimes called "The Logic of the Larder" (Stephen, 1896), is rebutted by recognizing that while a particular animal may have a life worth living, he or she may harm a number of other animals and/or prevent other animals from existing. In such cases, it may be better if that particular animal had not existed (Gruzalski, 1989).
For example, consider an invasive species such as feral cats on the islands of Northwest Mexico. These cats are responsible for the decline of many seabird colonies and the extinction of multiple terrestrial bird species. The total wildlife population on the islands would have benefited had the feral cat population not increased. For total-view utilitarians, more is merrier until introducing additional animals decreases the total welfare in the population – because these additional animals don't have lives worth living, harm existing animals, or prevent some greater number of animals from existing. …
Davis does not address factory farmed animals, as he limits his argument to free-range ruminants, including grass-fed cows. Do these animals have lives worth living? I suspect so, despite the trauma they undergo during transportation and slaughter. This does not mean, however, that it is better off that they exist than not, as we saw in the case of the feral cats in Mexico. For by using land and resources formerly or otherwise available to wild animals, grazing cattle prevent some number of smaller wild animals from existing.
As do feral pigs, starlings, lionfish, Asian carp and iguanas (and vegan agriculture, by the way). Matheny is not making a case for vegetarianism — he is making a case for Jackson Landers-style alien hunting. Perhaps that is why he concludes his paper with the line, "Nevertheless, in the end, the case for vegetarianism is still stronger [than Davis-style omnivorism]." Stronger perhaps, at least going by Davis' numbers, but not strongest.
Though Matheny was right about the calculations Davis relied upon, it would have been more honest for him to admit that if Davis had tossed those calculations and relied on speculation and logic, he would have had a real point: a vegan diet is not the diet of least possible harm. How could it be? Veganism is a rigid avoidance of animal products no matter what — it doesn't allow for adaptation. In a scenario where it is clearly less harmful to eat animals than to eat plants, veganism demands that you nevertheless eat the plants. And it is easy to think of cases where eating animal products would cause less harm to animals than growing crops. Eating dumpstered meat, road kill, and our companion animals and our relatives when they die, for instance.
But we don't have to violate our most cherished taboos to discover less harmful diets than veganism. If Davis had said that the ruminant animals would only be raised on land not suitable for plant farming, this hypothetical would decrease our reliance on crops and save more animals than a purely vegan diet. Raising insects at home likely kills fewer insects and mammals than getting the equivalent amount of calories from crops. Killing a blue whale provides tons (literally) of nutrition and energy. How many more animals would have to die in the growth, production and processing of crops to achieve the equivalent amount of nutrition and energy that a single blue whale provides? More than one, I reckon. Davis actually mentions the whale option at the end of his paper, but dismisses it for practical reasons. Yet even if PETA was joking with their "Eat the Whales" campaign, whales are edible, and people on a diet that includes whale eat fewer crops than people on an all-crop diet — and this decreases animal death and suffering.
And of course, as Matheny himself accidentally suggests, a lifestyle that includes hunting invasive species leads to less harm overall than a vegan diet.
Settling on veganism as the diet of least harm, then, demonstrates either an unshakable attachment to dogma, or a very limited imagination.
Part Two
(What, you didn't realize you'd been reading Part One?)
A few years after Matheny offered his take, Andy Lamey wrote an even more interesting examination of Davis' claims, titled "Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef" (PDF). Like Matheny, Lamey is overly concerned with Davis' flawed numbers and misses the point that an animal-product-free diet is not the diet of least harm, no matter how badly Davis botched his argument. However, Lamey makes some intriguing points that complicate the issue.
Lamey brings humans into the harm equation, pointing out that more humans are hurt in animal food production than in plant food production. He suggests four areas in which manufacturing flesh is more hazardous than making plants: E. coli, farm accidents, slaughterhouse accidents and greenhouse gas emissions.
The second and third examples are easy enough to dispatch. Both consist of consenting adults agreeing to take certain jobs which entail greater risks than certain other jobs. True, it's more dangerous to interact with heavy, squirming animals than it is to deal with small, docile plants (this would be the case even if Venus Fly Traps were grown as a human staple), and slaughterhouse jobs aren't particularly safe or easy either. But if we are going to use the harm reduction argument to second-guess consensual arrangements between moral agents, there is no reason to stop at animal farming. Pre-marital sex, alcohol, driving motor vehicles, riding bicycles in cities, sanitation work, logging, roofing, coal mining, construction work, swimming pools, acrobatics and vegan cupcakes all need to go if the least harm principle requires that we take "safety first" literally. According to this 20 Most Dangerous Jobs list, ranching is the third most dangerous job, yes, but grain workers were number 10. And slaughterhouse workers are comparatively safe at 19.
Besides, just because a job is more dangerous does not in itself make it less desirable. Just as Matheny said we should look at the quality of life of field mice versus farm animals when we are calculating harms, we could look at the quality of career of livestock farmers versus vegetable farmers. I have never been either, but a section in Meat: A Benign Extravagance provides some insight into why some people might prefer to farm livestock, even with the greater risk:
In his diatribe against vegan agriculture, the late Mark Purdey (best known for identifying a link between BSE and organophosphates) described how he started in agriculture 'under the great expanse of striated sky' of the fenlands, working 'thousands of bleak acres of vegetables':
The farm workforce clearly felt estranged from what was once their indigenous native landscape. These labourers resented the fact that a mono-arable/vegetable system of farming had been installed two decades ago after a change in the land's ownership. This had left many of their former workmates jobless whilst those remaining felt divorced from an aspect of management or relationship with their work …
I, too, rapidly found myself unable to form any working relationship with this treeless prairescape of sterile inorganic moondust. Disillusioned, I left my friends on the fens behind.
Upon arrival in the West Country, I quickly found my niche within the mixed, small farming landscape. Livestock pumped the economic heartbeat that enabled these smaller farms to survive. My first job was to muck out the yearlings' house and I remember experiencing an innate sense of wholeness the first time I watched a shower of dung being flail-fountained out of the back of the muckspreader; fertile fodder. All of the farms and their staff seemed vibrant with the ethereal relationship flowing between the soil, the crops, the livestock and the landscape. …
A mixed farming system provides more natural landscape than pure arable farming, is less mechanized, and gives humans greater contact with nature. Why should this be so? The answer is that mixed farming, like nature, is complex, whereas pure arable farming (whether it be for animals in feedlots or for vegans in cities) removes an entire order of creation from the system. Moreover it is the order which is closest to humanity, which gallops and gives birth and suckles, which feels pain and anger and joy. Famers talk to their animals and give names to them, perhaps not to all of them but almost always to some of them. What vegetable farmer ever gave a name to a cabbage? (220 - 222)
It's doubtful that one could write such a glowing tribute to describe the beauty of chopping at the screaming, half-conscious cows in an industrial-style slaughterhouse, but the standard slaughterhouse of today is not what the omnivore opposition to a purely vegan answer wants. For one thing, in a Davis-style omnivorism, or an omnivorism where animals are primarily raised on non-arable land, there would be far fewer animals to slaughter, and less of a need to rush the job through an assembly line.
Most slaughterhouse jobs are miserable, and hardly anybody would choose to work in one if they had connections, an MBA and a limitless trust fund. But smaller scale and more wholesome slaughtering jobs do exist, and that sector is growing as omnivores start thinking more about where their food comes from. Larry's Custom Meats is a slaughterhouse that seems like a good model. (I defy anyone to watch this video and not beg for a hog scalder for their next birthday.)
And again, even if slaughtering were a universally terrible job and could never improve, the least harm argument becomes derailed and incredibly demanding if we start going after consensual agreements between moral agents.
Lamey's E. coli argument is closer to the mark. With E.coli poisoning, the victims are often people who have not really consented to take that risk. Lamey cites a case where E. coli leaked into Walkerton, Ontario's "improperly filtered water supply," killing seven people with E. coli. But that's an argument for properly filtering water and not having factory farms with massive pools of useless, poisonous manure, rather than an argument against eating meat. There is a similar problem with vegetables that are contaminated with E.coli tainted fertilizer, or even accidental runoff. Manure from grass-fed cows can have E.coli too, but on small scale farms, that manure is easier to manage. Anyway, if you use such severe cases to call for the disbanding of a particular industry, you need to be consistent and call for the end of any industry whose products sometimes have fatal unintended consequences.
Even if we did accept Lamey's premise that most animal food production was unacceptably dangerous, there are still non-vegan options that lack the hazards that worry Lamey, and which reduce the amount of sentient animals killed more than a purely vegan system. Eating roadkill, growing elevation-raised bivalves, hunting invasive animals and raising insects for food are a few examples.
Lamey's fourth human-centered objection to meat — it releases a lot of methane — is of course nothing more than the environmental argument for veganism. And so it fails in the usual way that argument normally does.
It is inconsistent to say that we must give up animal products because farming animals releases more greenhouse gases than plant farming, but then not also say that we must give up all activities that release more greenhouse gases than other possibilities. Why do we have to be vegan, but are still allowed to drive, fly, eat more than we must to survive, buy computers and televisions, eat rice, drink coffee and wine, and maintain a civilization? If veganism is not a subsistence lifestyle, it is disingenuous to single out the main thing it dislikes — animal use — and object to that and only that on subsistence lifestyle grounds.
Okay, new farming techniques have drastically reduced the methane released in rice production, but research is promising methane reductions in livestock too. Plus, it turns out that methane emissions from cattle may have been grossly overestimated.
Furthermore, if our goal is to reduce methane emissions as much as possible, this means that not raising animals doesn't go far enough. We should also kill all the wild animals that we can, since they too release methane. Just as Matheny's logic supported invasive species hunting over a vegan diet, Lamey's appeal to methane reduction is a vindication of plans like the one in Australia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by killing feral camels. So again we're led to non-vegan solutions if we want to cause the least harm possible, going by the vegan definition of harm.
Why is Lamey talking about humans anyway, when the question was about animal harm? Lamey justifies this sudden switch from animal to human affairs by honing in on Davis' premise that animals don't care whether they are killed in a foreseeable accident or on purpose. Lamey sees this as an equivocation, a trick on Davis' part of substituting utilitarian arguments in place of Regan's deontological views:
As [Davis] writes in contrasting deliberately killed cows and accidentally killed mice, "the harm done to the animal is the same—dead is dead." This notion is central to Davis's criticism of Regan, as it is what justifies calculating accidental and deliberate harms as indistinguishable wrongs.
However, Davis makes a strange remark in justifying his equal ranking of the two forms of killing. It occurs in the following passage: "[Angus] Taylor says about the questions of intent, 'A utilitarian is likely to see no moral difference between the two, since utilitarianism holds that it is consequences that count and not intentions'." The reference to utilitarianism is strange because Regan's argument is based on deontological rights theory, utilitarianism's great modern rival. Davis does not cite any passage in which Regan himself calls into question the distinction between accidental and deliberate killing, and I am unaware of any instance where Regan does so. So Davis's immanent critique, it turns out, silently depends on a premise that Davis himself introduces. The real question his article raises, then, is whether it is plausible to say there is a difference between accidental and deliberate harms.
I believe there is. In most legal systems, the difference between accidental and deliberate killing is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Applied to animals, surely we recognize a distinction between accidentally hitting an animal while driving on the highway and intentionally backing over it with the express aim of ending its life.
Indeed we do, but before I get to that, I want to point out that just because Regan calls himself a deontologist doesn't mean that every argument that comes out of his mouth is automatically a deontological one. That's like saying steak is vegetarian because Paul McCartney ate one. A utilitarian argument is still utilitarian even if a deontologist makes it, and that's exactly what Regan is doing when he says that we are obligated to eat a vegetarian diet because in total it causes less harm to animals:
Whenever we find ourselves in a situation where all the options at hand will produce some harm to those who are innocent, we must choose that option that will result in the least total sum of harm.
Regan has dropped the rights talk here — otherwise, none of those foreseeable deaths of the innocent would be justifiable. Wanting to reduce harm is just the flip-side of increasing utility/happiness/pleasure, which is a utilitarian concept. I don't see any problem with Davis taking a utilitarian approach to this question when Regan, the deontologist, started it.
Lamey continues:
Although Regan does not rank animals on a par with people, his theory does urge us to extend many common moral notions we reserve for human beings, such as rights, to other creatures. By that standard, the most plausible version of Regan's theory would be one that does make a distinction between accidental and deliberate deaths, in the case of both people and animals. If so, then the debate between Regan and Davis hinges on whether our everyday habit of distinguishing between deliberate and accidental harm makes sense. The more Davis seeks to preserve his challenge to Regan, the more he will have to attack this commonsense and, to my mind, reasonable distinction. Moreover, Davis will have to attack it in such a way that accidental deaths become just as important as deliberate ones in the case of animals, but not in the case of human beings. In other words, Davis must show that the accidental death of field mice is no different from deliberate killing and so important that it has ramifications for the agricultural sector as a whole; yet at the same time, he must maintain that the accidental deaths of human beings from E. coli and other aspects of beef production are not to be judged by such a high standard. Surely that would leave Davis, rather than Regan, with the less plausible argument.
Don't worry, Davis. I got this one.
What Lamey and almost all vegans are forgetting is the purpose of considering intent in harmful or fatal human interactions.
To the dead, intent does not matter. Davis is right about that. This is as true for humans as it is for other animals — non-existence is the same for everyone. You can't fret about how you died, because there is no you to fret. Anyway, if you could fret, would you really prefer to have died by some pointless freak accident? Who wouldn't rather be assassinated than hit by a drunk driver or an air conditioning unit knocked out of a window?
Funerals are for the survivors, and so is intent.
And why does intent matter to the survivors? Two main reasons — vengeance and future safety. We want to punish those intentionally causing harm because they hurt us emotionally by attacking our loved ones, and this pisses us off. Also, perhaps more rationally, we want to stop them from doing it again, and we assume that someone who does something destructive on purpose is more likely to be a repeat offender.
We wouldn't punish the person who accidentally bumps their air conditioning unit out of their window onto someone's head the way we would punish someone who shot a diplomat. Emotionally, the accident doesn't piss us off as much, especially if they are remorseful. It's harder to be upset at someone who made a mistake and is truly sorry. And it's unlikely that this person will ever do the same thing again. Someone who shoots a diplomat and is proud of this, however, might have their eyes on a senator.
Nevertheless, someone who is dangerously clumsy (especially if they are repeatedly so, even if the offenses are all accidents) is likely to find themselves constrained. The punishment will probably be less severe than for someone who intentionally murders — we have to send a message that stops those determined to cause harm and it's difficult to deter the accident-prone — but they will be stopped somehow. George Russell Weller, who was 86 when he accidentally drove his car through Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade and killed 10 people, got five years felony probation and had to pay $107,100 in fines and restitution. The judge thought he deserved to go to prison, but decided against it, reasoning that he was too old and sick and would be a tax burden. To be honest, that Wikipedia entry on Weller makes me think he did it on purpose, but the point is that yes, we make a distinction between accidental and intentional killings of humans, but not the distinction that vegans want to make with animals, which is that intentional killings are a rights violation and foreseeable accidental killings are nothing at all.
So the question is how these two key aspects of the human concept of intent (revenge and preventing later harm) relate to other animals, if at all.
The revenge aspect of intent does not seem to translate to our interactions with animals. Animals cannot conceptualize our intent and figure out whether fellow species members were killed on purpose or as a side-effect of another activity. Even if they could determine that, "Hey, that hunter wants to kill us, but that farmer sitting on the big scary machine just wants to harvest that stuff we like to eat," I have trouble believing that a real life Bambi holds a grudge and would feel any better (or anything at all) to see his mom's killers put in prison or executed.
That leaves the other relevant aspect of intent: future safety.
Just because animals don't understand the idea of intent doesn't mean they are not affected by it. Whether they know what's in our heads or not, if our intention is to wipe out every living non-human animal, that intent will hurt animals more than our intent to live in harmony with them.
"Applied to animals," Lamey wrote, "surely we recognize a distinction between accidentally hitting an animal while driving on the highway and intentionally backing over it with the express aim of ending its life."
The animal, being dead, does not care whether it was the victim of an accidental or intentional hit. Any animal relatives left behind don't grasp the difference either. We care, though, because if it was on purpose, the gleeful animal destroyer just got a disturbingly high score on the psychopath test. That's not necessarily so for someone who realizes that meat is an animal and keeps eating it anyway. (Or if it is, the estimate that psychopaths make up one percent of the population is way off.)
Either way, we're fussing over our own future safety here, which is a different issue. How does our intent affect the future safety of the animals?
That is the only relevant question, because without a concept of intent or revenge, the only thing that matters to animals related to their interactions with us is whether they are benefitted or harmed by these interactions. Whether we say "oops!" and leave them to rot, or eat them and wear their skin is a non-issue to the dead animals and those left behind. Davis is right that it is consequences and not what's in our minds that matters to them. Accidental death and being killed on purpose really are the same thing for beings without an ability to distinguish between the two. Murder and manslaughter are not the same for us only because we have concepts of intent, revenge and "ethics of care". A gruesome intentional death of an animal might be a revealing psychopath test, but that is for our benefit, not for the benefit of the animals. Animals don't know they are suffering for a good cause when they are being vivisected, and they don't know they are dying for a good cause when we kill them to eat plants.
With humans, intent is an important measure of whether someone will be a repeat offender. Intent does not work this way when applied to animals and our food choices, because all our food choices hurt animals, and we have to keep eating and eating no matter what. When it comes to eating, we are born to be repeat offenders. Animals die as a consequence of vegan agriculture. Vegans know this, yet they are still eating seitan and nothing seems to stop them. Most of these wild animal deaths may be "foreseen accidents," but vegans keep repeating the behavior that leads to them just as relentlessly as if they were killing these animals on purpose. This makes them something like the equivalent of an old man who accidentally runs over 10 people every single day on his way to work. Who cares that the old man doesn't mean it? That guy needs to be put away! Or at the very least he should never be allowed to drive again. Why are vegans allowed to eat again?
If animals cannot look at our intent to determine whether they should feel vengeful, and good intent is not protecting them from future assaults, intent is absolutely useless for the animals.
Even if intent did matter to other animals, it makes no sense to say that the intention of a vegan is the best simply because vegans wish no animal had to die, ever. Who doesn't wish that? The Davis-inspired omnivore or the invasive species hunter has the intent of causing the least harm possible, even if that requires eating animals. And in many instances, both hypothetical and actual, they would or do cause less harm than vegans. So why does that intention not count, but vegan intention does?
Davis' point two main points — sullied as they were by poorly-chosen details and imaginary numbers — were simple: it is possible to harm fewer animals by eating some animal products, and to animals, less harm is better, no matter how humans make that possible.
And it seems to me that Davis was right.


text:
Several construction workers are injured Saturday at Texas A&M.
Construction workers were continuing work on Texas A&M's new equine center on the west side of campus.
They were elevated and tying steel together on the barn 35-foot tall and 300 foot long barn when the metal frame collapsed just before 11 a-m. Four people were taken to the hospital with one listed in critical condition. None of their names or details of their conditions have been released.
Workers broke ground on the 80 million dollar building in October with the first phase set for completion next year.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Published on December 18th, 2013 | by Jim Lobe19
Kirk-Menendez-Schumer Wag the Dog Act of 2014
by Jim Lobe
Copies of the bill that Sens. Kirk, Menendez, and Schumer hope to introduce in the Senate this week — presumably to be pressed for passage after the Christmas/New Year recess — are circulating today around Washington, and, as predicted, it is clearly designed to sabotage last month's first-phase deal (the Joint Plan of Action) on Tehran's nuclear program, as well as prospects for a final agreement. The bill is called the Iran Nuclear Weapon Free Act of 2013, although I would prefer to call it the Wag the Dog Act of 2014, given the implicit discretion it gives to Bibi Netanyahu to commit the U.S. to war with Iran. Its key provisions, as described by the sponsors, are laid out at the end of this post.
A couple of very quick observations about the bill first:
1) Despite its prospective application, it is definitely a sanctions bill and thus violates at least the spirit — if not the letter — of the Joint Plan of Action.
2) It requires that any final agreement include the dismantling of all of Iran's enrichment capabilities — a condition, which Iran has made clear repeatedly, is a non-starter.
3) As noted below, it expresses a "Sense of Congress" that "America will have Israel's back if Israel acts in self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program." (Mind you, not against an actual or imminent attack, but against "Iran's nuclear weapons program," which, so far as Israel and the co-sponsors are concerned, Iran already has.) More specifically, the bill states:
…if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence…
At least, Congress will have to approve an authorization to use military force (AUMF) before it can actually be employed.
4) As I've noted in past posts, the two main co-sponsors of this legislation are also two of the biggest recipients of campaign funding from "pro-Israel" political action committees (PACs) associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the U.S. Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' Open Secrets website. By a wide margin, Kirk was the biggest recipient of pro-Israel PAC money in Congress since 2002; in his most recent campaign (2012), Menendez received more than $340,000 from pro-Israel Pacs, beating out all other Senate candidates. Schumer, a major rainmaker for other Democratic candidates (which poses a very serious challenge to the Obama administration in keeping his party in line on any vote on this bill) ranked fifth in his 2010 race at more than $260,000, far behind Kirk, the year's winner at nearly $640,000. Let there be no doubt about it: this bill was approved by AIPAC and is thus as close to the position of the Israeli government as its followers here believe will be politically palatable. (Saudi Arabia will also be pleased.)
There will likely be much more meticulous analyses of the Wag the Dog Act of 2014 that will no doubt point up other highly problematic elements, but here's the summary of the bill that's circulating on Capitol Hill today:
Iran Nuclear Weapon Free Act of 2013
I. Findings and Sense of Congress. The bill expresses the following key principles:
1) The Government of Iran must not be allowed to develop or maintain nuclear weapon capabilities, and all instruments of power and influence of the United States should remain on the table to prevent the Government of Iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities;
2) The Government of Iran does not have an absolute or inherent right to enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and technologies under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;
3) A violation by Iran of any interim or final agreement with respect to the nuclear program of Iran should result in the immediate imposition of economic sanctions;
4) The United States should continue to enforce sanctions on the Government of Iran and its terrorist proxies for their continuing sponsorship of terrorism, ongoing abuses of human rights, and actions in support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria; and
5) America will have Israel's back if Israel acts in self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program.
II. New Contingency-Based Sanctions to Protect Against Iranian Deception
The bill does not violate the Joint Plan of Action. New sanctions would only be imposed if Iran violates the interim agreement or does not reach a final agreement regarding its nuclear program. Such deceptive Iranian behavior would be met with the following new sanctions:
A) Sanctions on Condensates, Fuel Oil and other Unfinished Oils from Iran. Requires a significant reduction in the import of all petroleum products extracted, produced or refined in Iran, including lease condensates, fuel oils and other unfinished oils on top of crude oil.
B) Reductions in purchases of Iranian petroleum to de minimis levels. To avoid sanctions, countries must at a minimum reduce their purchases of Iranian-based petroleum products by 30% within one year and further reduce purchases to de minimis levels within two years.
C) Strategic Sector Sanctions on Iran's Engineering, Mining, and Construction Sectors. Expands business and financial sanctions targeting Iran's strategic economic sectors to include Iran's engineering, manufacturing, and mining sectors.
D) Sanctions on Foreign Exchange Transaction by Designated Iranian Actors. Imposes sanctions with respect to transactions in foreign currencies with or for the Central Bank of Iran, a designated financial institution, or a person that is part of a strategic sector of Iran.
E) Sanctions on Countries Illicitly Diverting Goods to Iran. Authorizes sanctions against countries permitting diversion of goods and services to Iran that may be used to make a material contribution to Iran's development of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; ballistic missile or advanced conventional weapons capabilities; support for terrorism; or a strategic sector of Iran.
F) Sanctions on Human Rights Abusers, Sanctions Evaders & Other Illicit Actors. Requires visa denial and asset blocking of those enabling Iran to evade sanctions, as well as senior officials of the Office of the Supreme Leader, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Council of Ministers, Ministries of Defenses and Justice, and others.
III. Suspension of Sanctions – Explaining the Contingencies
A) During the first 180 days of negotiations, the President can suspend the sanctions contained in this bill so long as he certifies to Congress every 30 days that—
- Iran is complying with and transparently, fully, and verifiably implementing the provisions of the Joint Plan of Action and Iran has not breached the terms of or any commitment made pursuant to the Plan;
- any suspension or relief of sanctions provided to Iran pursuant to the Joint Plan of Action are temporary, reversible, and proportionate to the specific and verifiable steps taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program and related weaponization activities;
- Iran has not directly, or through a proxy, supported, financed, planned or otherwise carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or U.S. persons or property;
- Iran has not conducted a ballistic missile test with a range exceeding 500 km; and
- the suspension of sanctions is vital to the national security of the United States.
B) After these 180 days are up, 2 additional 30 day periods –
- If the President certifies the above and certifies that a final agreement is imminent (and that such agreement will fully and verifiably dismantle Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities, the heavy water reactor and production plant at Arak, and any nuclear weapon components and technology), sanctions can be delayed for another 30 days;
- Then, if the President certifies the above AND certifies that such a final agreement with Iran is still imminent, sanctions can be delayed for another 30-day period.
C) If after this total period of 240 days there still is no final agreement with Iran as described above, sanctions are re-imposed, but President can waive sanctions for 120 more days. The bill provides the President with four 30-day national security waivers to delay the sanctions – ending at the 1-year mark from the start date of this bill. Sanctions must be re-imposed thereafter.
D) If at any time the President cannot certify the criteria listed above (that is, Iran violates the interim agreement or no final agreement is imminent after 180 days) –
- sanctions waived or suspended under the interim agreement are re-imposed; and
- the new sanctions in this bill must be implemented.
E) If a final agreement with Iran over its nuclear program is reached –
- Subject to a Joint Resolution of Congressional Disapproval, the President may suspend new sanctions for one-year if he certifies to the Congress that a final and verifiable agreement has been reached with Iran that will
- i. dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities, the heavy water reactor and production plant at Arak, and any nuclear weapon components and technology, such that Iran is precluded from a nuclear breakout capability and prevented from pursuing both uranium and plutonium pathways to a nuclear weapon;
- ii. bring Iran into compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions related to Iran's nuclear program, including Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010), with a view toward bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the Security Council's consideration of matters relating to Iran's nuclear program;
- iii. resolve all issues of past and present concern with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program;
- iv. permit continuous, around the clock, on-site inspection, verification, and monitoring of all suspect facilities in Iran, including installation and use of any compliance verification equipment requested by the IAEA, so that any effort by Iran to produce a nuclear weapon would be quickly detected; and
- v. require Iran's full implementation of and compliance with its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, including modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to the Agreement, ratification and implementation of the Protocol Additional to the Agreement Between Iran and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Vienna December 18, 2003 (commonly referred to as the ''Additional Protocol''), and Iran's implementation of steps in addition to the Additional Protocol that include IAEA verification of Iran's centrifuge manufacturing facilities, including raw materials and components, and Iran's uranium mines and mills.
- If Congress enacts the Joint Resolution of Congressional Disapproval, any sanctions suspended under a final agreement would be re-imposed.
- Additional 1-Year Suspension PeriodsIf Congress does not disapprove, the President must still renew the suspension of sanctions every year by certifying that Iran is complying with the final agreement criteria described above.
IV. Expedited Processing of Religious Minorities Fleeing Iran: Re-authorizes the Lautenberg Amendment, which expired earlier this year, until September 30, 2014.
UPDATE: You can find a copy of the bill, as introduced Thursday, here.
Co-sponsors include:
Kirk Schumer Graham Cardin McCain Casey Rubio Coons Cornyn Blumenthal Ayotte Begich Corker Pryor Collins Landreiu Moran Gillibrand Roberts Warner Johanns Hagan Cruz Donnelly Blunt
The White House and all those who want to save the diplomatic track have their work cut out for them.
UPDATE II: The White House Thursday said it will veto the measure if it passes Congress. This could be an epic battle.
19 Responses to Kirk-Menendez-Schumer Wag the Dog Act of 2014
Aipac stooges in the US Senate in fact do want to prevent an improvement in America's relations with Iran. Partly to enable continuation of insane illegal colonisation programme in the West Bank.
Is the idea of these Aipac stooges the blocking of any deal between Iran and the P5+1? Or is there some play-acting for political gain?
U.S. militaary is strained severely already due to war mongers in Congress approval, violtion of the War Powers Act.
We do not even know of true capabilities of Iran.
As mentioned millions of Iranians are already living under the POVERTY LINE.
They want peace. both sides leaders always want war. if supported the general iranian population can revolt against the government. get the fundamentalists out and nobody wants to nuke anybody. war is hell. they know this from the war with Iraq- 11years. israel is being too presumptuous to Iranian people wanting to engage in hostilities with Israel. That warmonger Ahmaddijan is out, shows Iranians can use democratic power to quit weaponization as to going forward.
Enough wars. do not take care of our veterans and Schumer actually smugly supported the cuts to military retirees.
Schumer, as opined by others NEEDS TO GO.
"SABOTAGE," in the lead sentence of this story is exactly the right word to describe efforts to undermine U.S. diplomacy in this matter. The overwhelming U.S. interest is to let this interim agreement run its course, in hopes it will lead to a more comprehensive, guaranteed and verifiable nuclear control regime.
Correct, David. At least some of the backers of this dangerous bill are intentionally trying to prevent an improvement in America's relations with Iran. Which is Netanyahu's objective too.
The zealots whose action lead to destruction of Israel once before were right. They are wrong. They carry their history as a burden.
They secretly and idiotically believe that, the tragedy and the evil of the European Holocaust of 1939 1945 which resulted in the murder of millions of civilians, including some six million or so Jews was due to the victims not fighting back hard enough or not being organized enough or not having a country in the Middle East. This blaming of the victims and blaming of the people such as the Palestinians who had nothing to do with the Holocaust is perhaps is the most perverse. They do not realize that the victims were helpless and fighting was not an option. Also doing as most bullies' victims do and living in perpetual fear and blaming the victims is not the best policy.
Even worse they have since supported Nazis of all sorts from the Apartheid regime of South Africa to the Phalangists of Lebanon to despots of Latin America and Africa to now the Wahabis of Saudi.
People like Sharon and Netanyahu desecrate the memory of the victims of Holocaust and by attempting to victimize the only people in the Middle East who helped the Jews during the 1939 -1945 tragedy (the Iranians) and by encouraging the same racist and bigoted language as that of the Nazis against the Muslims they are insulting their memory.
The phrase "the Jews are no fighting" is repeated incessantly. Flying Israeli F15s over Auschwitz and much more symbolic nonsense strengthens the view that if an Israel with a powerful military existed, and if the Jews were fighting even more, it would have somehow stopped the Holocaust.
Not realizing that security based on preemption is a dangerous delusion. If they wish to be secure in the Middle East, negotiation and integration with the regional countries is the only long term solution.
This bill is not only irrational but it violates international law. It would give the hard liners in Iran and the rest of the world all the excuses they need to portray the west as a malignant and unreasonable entity.
Worse yet, if implemented, it would ultimately fail. All that would happen in the long term is the destruction of Israel and irreparable damage to all concern. It seems that the fools such as Netanyahu and his allies in AIPAC and a myriad of other such organizations have learnt nothing from history.
They foolishly believe that:
Jim Lobe's naming of the act is right up there with 'Israel Firsters', a phrase coined by MJ Rosenberg a few years ago. Let's hope Jim's descriptive phrase has legs also.
Another thing to hope for — that every so-called American Senator on that list lands in the dock some day. Surely there must be a law against this kind of thing.
Yet another hope, I guess I'm putting in my X-Mas wish list here: that Obama grows an even bigger pair and responds to this extreme provocation from the Israelis by declining to withhold the next UN veto. I would be happy with an abstention, Santa. The US does of course carry some responsiblity for the sorry state of Israel today but it's never too late to rectify a mistake, even if coerced by blackmail.
@ Eileen K. You'll be happy to know sanctions against Israel are already underway in this country, although not government sponsored. The American Studies Association recently joined the list of international sanctions, with the Modern Language Association close on its heels. As you can imagine, both groups are getting major, major smearing, and it will only get worse. google BDS. It's based on the South African anti-apartheid sanctions.


text:
Critics' Choice vs People's Choice Awards
2010 saw Sandra Bullock achieve an rare Critics' Choice-Peoples' Choice double for her acclaimed performance in The Blind Side, which also saw her take home an Oscar, Golden Globe and Screen Actors' Guild Award. Her Critics' Choice was shared with Meryl Streep for her performance in Julie and Julia (leading to the infamous onstage clinch above), while the awards for Best Film and Best Actor mirrored the Oscars exactly, with The Hurt Locker and Crazy Heart's Jeff Bridges winning respectively.
Twilight took home the Favourite Movie award at the People's Choice that year and (yup, him again) Johnny Depp took home Favourite Movie Actor.


text:
Manchester, Vermont - December 2, 2010
Prepping the feast starts early-- and Vermont is on the menu. Fresh-off-the-farm Vermont turkeys-- that's what the Equinox Resort and Spa in Manchester used for their Thanksgiving dinner. Year-round they try to shine a spotlight on Vermont and its products.
"People come here to visit Vermont; they don't come here to have New York cuisine or have stuff shipped in from France, they come here to experience what Vermont has to offer," said Jeffrey Russell, the executive chef at the Equinox.
"I think Vermont's at the head of the pack right now," said Jane Kolodinsky, the chair of the department of community development at the University of Vermont.
Kolodinsky studies the effect marketing the Vermont name has on food products.
"I would say in the last 5 years the Vermont name is really growing out there in the arena of food products," Kolodinsky said.
From farm fresh produce to other goods like maple syrup, whatever the Equinox can buy locally they do-- marketing it every step of the way so consumers know.
"To support local business first of all, and second the quality is superior and quality is our number one priority here, quality comes before price," Russell said.
"The craftsmanship of Vermont, the quintessential New England state qualities; people like to get a little piece of that and get a little feeling of that when they're eating or drinking the products," Kolodinsky said.
Cabot Cheese pioneered this type of marketing when it first started in 1919.
"It started by literally lobbing cheese hunks at the travelers at the ski resorts and if it weren't for the ski areas I don't know if we'd be in business," said Roberta MacDonald, a senior vice president of marketing at Cabot.
Cabot now markets in the Deep South and can be found in retail giants like Walmart and just about everywhere along the East Coast.
"To get us going, Vermont was essential, predominately because of the people that visited here. The name itself had great resonance in the cities of New York and Boston and the travelers from those cities came here tasted it and craved it when they got home-- it was the heart of our marketing," MacDonald said.
"One of the things Vermont has found about really selling its brand was having its customers have a connection with the state," Kolodinsky said.
A connection that for many people begins with Vermont maple syrup.
"The Vermont name has always had its own cache of special quality about it from way back because Vermont syrup for example has been around for hundreds of years," Kolodinsky said.
It's more than a trend for resorts who work hard to entice visitors to spend their dollars in Vermont.
The Equinox doesn't stop with local food; they try to give guests the full Vermont experience. That means everything from history to events to attractions throughout the state.
"I think the motivation for travel as we move into the next decade has been more experiential; one where folks are looking for a component of education and an actual experience that they wouldn't have anywhere else," said Michael Chagnon, the director of sales and marketing and communications at the Equinox.
"No matter where I am I like to try to experience the town, the city, the country-- whatever it is," said Christine Scarlett, a visitor from Boston.
Using Vermont as a launch pad, businesses small and large are finding out it works.
"Research has shown that Vermont products can demand up to 10, 20 to 50 percent premium depending on what the product is," Kolodinsky said. "Because Vermont stands for a special quality, a certain work ethic and even safety in today's food world."
And for Chef Jeffrey Russell it isn't just the taste that doesn't compare. "It's the passion from the Vermont farmers passed down through the passion of the cooks and myself make a great meal."
What seems to be the right recipe for Vermont.
Gina Bullard - WCAX News
Related Stories:
Flavors of the Mountains: Deep Mountain Maple
Flavors of the Mountains: Olivia's Croutons
PO Box 4508
Burlington, VT 05406-4508
Primary Phone: 802-652-6300
Primary email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
KENT, Wash. ŌĆö Eric V. Hauser, 50, died Monday, Feb. 14, 2011, in Kent, Wash., of an apparent heart attack. Cremation has taken place.
Eric graduated from Blackfoot High School in 1979. He was the eldest son of Ralph and Mary Hauser of Blackfoot.
A complete obituary and notice of a memorial service will be forthcoming.
Samuel Doyle Jones, 91, of Blackfoot, passed away on Sunday, Feb. 20, 2011, at the Bingham Memorial Hospital from complications incident to age.
He was born March 18, 1919, in Riverton, Idaho to Samuel Henry and Emily Curtis Jones. He attended schools in Blackfoot. During school, he was active in choir, band (he was the drum major), drama and tennis. Later he became the Blackfoot City Champion in singles and doubles.
On Aug. 11, 1936, he married Lucille Gardner in Blackfoot. Their marriage was later solemnized in the Logan LDS Temple on Feb. 2, 1938. They made their home in Blackfoot.
Richard, ŌĆ£DickŌĆØ Dee Johnston, 78, of Blackfoot passed away on Feb. 19, 2011, at Renaissance Assisted Living in Blackfoot.
Dick was born on June 1, 1932, at his grandmotherŌĆÖs home on a farm near Logan, Kansas, to Kenneth and Beulah Johnston.
SHELLEY ŌĆō A short time ago, Bryan HuntsmanŌĆÖs old wrestling coach, Alan Gardner, came to HuntsmanŌĆÖs office and handed him an envelope.
In that envelope was a letter of congratulations for HuntsmanŌĆÖs selection for induction into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, Idaho Chapter.
ŌĆ£Honestly, my first thoughts were, ŌĆśIŌĆÖm not deserving of this,ŌĆÖŌĆØ Huntsman said.
HuntsmanŌĆÖs induction into the Hall, scheduled in May, is as an outstanding American who was a wrestler at some time in his career.
By LESLIE MIELKE
BLACKFOOT ŌĆö At least 75 teachers, parents and students rallied for an hour Monday in support of Idaho teachers and educators and in opposition to Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna's "Students Come First" plan.
Teachers stood with signs on the east and west corners of Meridian and Judicial from about 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Participants were greeted with plenty of horns honking from drivers who drove past.
Gabriel Martinez Coronado, 87, of Shelley passed away Feb, 16, 2011, at his home.
He was born March 24, 1923, in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, to Antonio and Alejandra Martinez Coronado.
He married Maria Conception Tapia on May 14, 1944, in Real De Catorse, Mexico.┬Ā In 1949 they came to America.┬ĀThey moved to Shelley in 1958 where he was a longtime employee of R.T. French and Pillsbury companies.┬ĀHe was the father of 12 children.
He was a member of the Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Idaho Falls.
FIRTH ŌĆōJason ClemensŌĆÖ only teaching assignment so far has been teaching agricultural education in Firth. Clemens is also the advisor for the Firth Future Farmers of America (FFA).
Clemens grew up in Ontario, Ore., graduating from high school there. He attended the University of Idaho, graduating with a degree in agricultural education in May 2000. In the fall of that year, Clemens accepted the job of Ag teacher at Firth High School.
So why did you chose agricultural education?
POCATELLO ŌĆö Who says that the fifth district doesn't call fouls? On Friday night, the officials blew the whistle 48 times, 30 of those against Snake River, as the Panthers fell to Marsh Valley 53-45 in the first round of the 3A fifth district tournament.
"It was one of those nights," Snake River head coach Bob Coombs said. "We still had our chance which is all that you can ask for."
Marsh Valley took advantage of the whistles, knocking down 31 of 40 free throw attempts while Snake River were only able to connect on 13 of the 20 charity tosses that they received.
Peter Clark Ward, 36, of Blackfoot, Idaho was peacefully reunited with his mom and loved ones on Monday, February 7, 2011 at his home following a brief and sudden illness.
Peter was born May 23, 1974 in Pocatello, Idaho to Daroll R. Ward and Bonnie K. Dimos.┬ĀHe attended school in the Blackfoot School District, graduating from Blackfoot High School 1992.┬ĀOther than living in Salt Lake City for a short time, he spent his lifetime in Blackfoot.
Peter worked at various construction jobs.┬ĀIn his free time, he enjoyed fishing, camping, bowling and spending time with friends.
BLACKFOOT ŌĆö Three individuals have been cited with misdemeanor possession or sale of a synthetic cannabinoid after police issued a search warrant at a local merchant.
The Blackfoot Police Department received information that Hecho en Mexico, located at 1010 W. Bridge St. Ste. K, and served a search warrant at that location. As a result of the search warrant, more than 200 containers of "spice" retailing for around $3,200 were recovered.


text:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jacob.Kuntzman said...
While Frost may be "the" PVP spec for mages, I actually am pretty bad when I give it a go in PVP...but I can make frost stand up and do tricks in PVE. (Freeze, Deep Freeze, Icy Veins, Cold Snap, Deep Freeze, in that order...it dishes out a lot of pain!) But I do think it's a little rough that mages are a one-trick pony, as far as roles go. I'd actually like to see Blizz go out of the box and give mages a tanking spec, to be perfectly honest... This doesn't require high HP, just abilities with good damage absorption and threat generation. I don't think it'll happen, but it would be a cool change of pace.


text:
- Daniel Boyd
- Hoorn
- Netherlands
This conversation is closed.
It should be illegal to sell shares within 3 years of buying them
Once upon a time, shares were invented as a way for companies to generate capital for investment. The investor provided the capital to benefit from the profits that were generated on the basis of this investment. Turning investment into profit takes time.
Today, shares are bought and sold in microsecond transactions that purely aim to cash in on the largely random fluctuations that are generated by the trading system itself. Investors (and traders) earn money not through what their capital enables, but by their ability to second guess these self induced fluctuations. Immense amounts of money are tapped out of the system in this way without performing any service to society or industry.
As if that weren't bad enough, we now have a financial market flooded with derivatives and other constructions that are even further removed from any relation with investment and productivity.
Because society still needs money as a tool in the real economy, it has become enslaved to the financial markets, rather than the financial markets servicing society.
It's time to put and end to this parasitism, and the solution is simple. Make it illegal to sell shares within 3 years of buying them. This would ensure that investors provide capital on the basis of reasoned confidence in the future of their investment, and profit only from this return.
wayne uejio 30+Sep 27 2013: Lets make it clear - 90% of all stock trades, including options - the money does not go to the company. Only the initial sale money of the stock goes to company. What the trading does do is, hopefully, increase the value of the stock so if a company sells another offering of the stock, they will get a good price.
The company also uses stock options as a reward for employees and as an incentive for employees to stay with the company until the options are vested. Higher stock prices make these options more valuable.
If you want to affect the trading, one suggestion that has been floated is raise the tax on short term capital gains and increasing the holding period for long term capital gains. The holding period is 1 year and the effective tax on long term capital gains is from 0 to 20% depending on your bracket. Currently, short term capital gains are taxed as normal income.
Joshua Bond 20+Sep 27 2013: Hello Daniel,
Your debate is nicely put, thank you. Behind your suggestion of a "3-year rule" though is a deeper question about regulating free-market capitalism. Underlying that is an even deeper issue, a conflict of interest, which is:
The people who work in a company don't own it, and those who own it don't work in it.
Until this issue is tackled, short-term gambling-profiteering will continue and ways will be found to dance around your 3-year rule.
I suggest business ownership structures need to change, and I recommend the John Lewis Partnership as a good example in this respect.
Joshua Bond 20+Sep 27 2013: I agree that stock markets are here to stay; I was thinking there ARE viable alternatives to the standard share-owner model.
Another suggestion sparked by your 3-year idea...., why not have a variable tax on gains in proportion to the time the shares are held? HFT trades where shares held for a few seconds or minutes can be taxed at 99.9%, and then a sliding scale to say 3+ years where profit on the sale of shares can be taxed at 5%, thereby discouraging short-term casino share-trading.
Bryan Maloney 30+Sep 27 2013: Much easier solution:
Make all public offerings from a company tax-exempt transactions. Exempt such "first sale" shares from the "capital gains" tax. Tax profits made from all other sales of stocks just like gambling winnings. It is, after all, what that such profits are. This will provide an incentive for investors to actually invest instead of playing the market.
Sep 27 2013: Actually, it wouldn't. What would matter would be the differential. Zero taxes on offerings, normal taxes on resales. Of course, there would also be no sales tax on an offering. If the deal needs to be sweeter, exempt dividends on non-resold shares from taxation. It would be prudent to put a time limit on that exemption, though, so as to not create a hereditary "stock nobility".
Sep 27 2013: A curious response, particularly the reference to modern physics, which we actually understand fairly well and is not subject to human laws, so it would be pretty pointless.
I assume that you're trying to imply that my objection to the way the stock exchanges work is based on ignorance. Certainly I'm no expert. But I don't think you need to be to see that financial markets have become self serving. Apparently you disagree?
Sep 27 2013: you again say "we understand". some people do, others don't. most don't. few do. why would we ban things based on that? people risk their own money. so even if it makes no sense, you have no right to interfere. but in fact the stock exchange, among a huge quantity of noise, do useful things. it prices stocks according to the traders' anticipation on the company's worth. and we should assume that in the long run, there is a correlation between traders' anticipation and reality.
Sep 27 2013: Please elaborate in short sentences and clear words what in your view is wrong in Daniels statement and what makes you think, that your understanding is superior.
Don't use any external references, links, books or such alike.
If you can't do that within 2000 characters, your claim is insignificant and noticed as 'trolling'.
And what got physics to do with economics? If you like to explain this as well, open another reply in case you need all of the 2000 characters for the first part.
Sep 27 2013: No. This is clearly the way for companies to finance their operations, but as Wayne points out, only a small percentage of what is going on ever gets anywhere near the companies, My proposal is exactly to set the stock market back to its primary function and purpose of financing companies. And why would fewer people invest? It would still be the best way of getting a return.
Sep 27 2013: The incentive is just the same, making money, they just happen to be of differing values on the moral scale.
I understand where you are coming from, making things a little better, no more than, maybe walking onto the battlefield with a box of plasters. It's not going to tackle the real problem, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Sep 27 2013: Go talk to Cambodia and see what your kind of "solution" ended up doing. You want to simply make it illegal to turn a profit. China tried that. It failed. They backed off. Cambodia tried that, and the phrase "killing fields" was coined to describe what the Cambodian government did in the attempt to do so.
Sep 27 2013: Bryan, prostitution is legal in many countries and it just happened not to be in most states of yours.
Heroin was officially traded as painkiller for many years and before its destructive character as well as its misuse was discovered. Other drugs, such as Marijuana, are legal in some countries as well.
Methamphetamine is in use for treating ADHD and also available in other medical products.
So for many of these services and products exist non-criminal and well accepted markets in which trade is done and money earned. But I think it is the 'misuse' of those you were referring to?
Sep 27 2013: This thread is completely off track. I've got nothing against money or earning money. I just think that earning money should involve creating or providing something of value. I don't see what financial trading contributes to society that justified the amount of money that it 'earns'. Perhaps I am missing something here though. I'm open to suggestion if anyone can come up with a justification.


text:
Dan's Kitchen: Time for Tile
Renovation Diary
Name: Dan Bailey
Type of Project: Kitchen remodel
Location: East Boston, Boston, Massachusetts
Type of building: 2nd Floor Condo in a Greek-Revival Row House
The Renovation Diaries are a collaboration with our community in which we feature your step by step renovation progress and provide monetary support towards getting it done in style. See all of our Reno Diaries here.
I began tiling the kitchen backsplash at the end of this week. This was my first experience with tiling, and I can now say that it was some of the most satisfying renovation work I've done yet. Sure, tiling is tedious and messy, but tile goes up pretty quickly and makes a huge impact on the overall look of a room. As you place each tile, more and more of the finished wall emerges. It's a strangely addictive process. So much so that I finished tiling more than half of the backsplash one day, only to realize that I'd been tiling for nearly seven hours and hadn't eaten or used the bathroom all day.
Earlier in the week, my girlfriend, Mara, and I made a trip to Lowe's to pick up tile. I wanted plain white subway tile, and luckily white subway tile is cheap. Really cheap. We chose American Olean 3x6-inch white subway tiles, which are available as individual tiles or in boxes of 100 at a cost of $0.22 per tile. We left with 250 tiles — enough to cover the entire backsplash plus 28 extras — for a grand total of $55, only a little more than the cost of a gallon of paint. I had always assumed that tile was fairly expensive, but basic tile used in moderation is surprisingly affordable.
My contractor, Gregg, came over one morning later in the week and gave Mara and me a crash course in tiling. He let us borrow his wet saw to cut tiles to fit around electrical outlets and cabinets and left us to it. We started tiling from the center point of the sink. The sink is the main focal point along the rear wall of the kitchen, so it made sense to have the tiles aligned directly behind the faucet. We worked outward from this center line, spreading thinset with a notched trowel a little bit at a time to avoid having the thinset dry before we could tile over it. We laid the tile one row at a time, always starting from the center line. The tiles are self-spacing, meaning we were able to butt one tile against the next without using spacers. The countertop, the cabinets, and the walls were flat and level, so the tiles went up quickly and evenly.
Things got a little trickier when we reached the bottom of the upper cabinets. We were left with a roughly one-inch gap between the last full row of tiles and the bottom of the cabinets. I used the wet saw to cut a bunch of one-inch tile strips while Mara spread thinset and squeezed each tile strip in under the cabinets and behind the under-cabinet lights. This final row of partial tiles ended up looking pretty good, even though it will be almost invisible once the under-cabinet light-rail trim is in place.
White subway tile is pretty trendy, but for good reason. It's clean, understated, and practical in a kitchen setting. It's also been used for more than 100 years, and I think it will fit in well with the architecture in the rest of the condo. The classic, staggered pattern that I used for the backsplash is reminiscent of the brick wall that lies behind the backsplash. And the white tile will contrast beautifully with the dark, soapstone countertops. Next week, we'll finish tiling the backsplash behind the stove and grout the whole thing.
Estimated time for project: 30 weeks
Time remaining: 2 weeks
Check out the full series (so far) and be sure to join us next week for installment #32 of Dan's Kitchen Renovation.
(Images and diary text: Dan Bailey)
More posts in this series
Renovation Diary: Dan's Kitchen
14 Comments
I so agree: tiling is the best DIY project. And if you think installing tile is transformative (it is!), oh man, just wait until you grout. It's like the room goes from construction zone to finished with one swipe! Can't wait to see the next update!
The pattern of the brick wall and tile is known as "running bond". In this case, it's a classic 1/2 offset, meaning 1/2 of one tile/brick overlaps the other. A slightly more contemporary look is the 1/3 offset.
Love it! I've developed quite the obsession with Subway tile over the past year or so (I even have a dedicated Pinterest board for it). While it's become very popular as of late, it's been around so long that it's classic as well as trendy. Great choice!
you must be so relieved that you are in the home stretch! the transformations in the last few posts have been huge!
will be happy for you to see the conclusion but SAD to not have more posts to read - will you consider starting a blog about the rest of the work in the apartment?
would love to keep up with it!
Excellent work! I've really enjoyed following your project. I've been curious about tiling. Are you thinsetting them right onto drywall, or is that cement board? Also, will you caulk the seam between the wall and counter? How about at the cabinets?
What was the reasoning for raising the upper cabinets to 19" off the counter? Was there something in the way? Generally, cabinets are 18" up, meaning you wouldn't have had to cut so many tiles!
If you've been reading the diaries, he had cement backer board installed for the tiles.
Thanks, didn't catch that. Did that go over the drywall, or in place of it?
Thanks Juan1, we replaced the drywall with cement board in the backsplash area before tiling. And yes, there's still lots of caulking to do – the seams between the tile and the counter, the tile and the wall, the tile at the corner, etc. The only place I'm not sure about is the seam between the cabinets and the tile. I might leave that seam uncaulked; I'll have to see how it looks.
Wow good eye! You're right, the upper cabinets are 19.5" above the countertop. Given the height of the ceiling, that leaves 2.5" for crown molding, which is a standard crown dimension. Also, I'd like to think that extra 1.5" of height between the countertop and the cabinets makes the workspace a little less claustrophobic. But yeah, it did mean I had to cut a lot of tiles.
Oh I couldn't remember whether you'd mentioned tiles before, I'm so glad you've chosen subway tile and so impressed you're tiling yourselves!
With the more regular updates I can really feel the excitement mounting!
I'm glad I'm reading this now because soonish we will have to renovate our kitchen and although I think it'll be more straightforward than yours (I hope!!) I've been reminded of all the little decisions that have to be made. It's been 14 years since we had a kitchen installed in our previous house and I've forgotten all the painful bits.
Lovely update as usual. Thanks.
Good job Dan and Mara. Pretty soon you'll have to have us all over.
Yay! Another tile convert!
Laying tile in my own kitchen (both floor and backsplash) got me started in my current career as a mosaic artist.
I loved tiling so much I didn't want to stop - and haven't for the last 15 years!


text:
The Houndstooth Road boutique is located at
316 Church Street Decatur, Georgia 30030
Mon - Thu: Closed
Friday: 12-7pm
Saturday: 12-7pm
Sunday 12-5pm
DIRECTIONS via Google Maps: CLICK HERE
WALKING or MARTA: If walking from Decatur Square please walk one block east on Ponce de Leon Avenue to Church Street. Turn right on Church Street at Leon's Full Service restaurant and walk two blocks south. We are located on the right just past Sycamore Street and just before Trinity Avenue. If you prefer landmarks we are situated on the south side of the parking lot adjacent to Victory Sandwich Bar.
PARKING: There is complimentary parking available in our private lot on the corner of Church Street and Trinity Avenue that we share with Sapori di Napoli Restaurant. Feel free to take any unassigned space, inform the valet of your destination, or leave a note on your dash if there is not an attendant present.
Our shop is stocked with a full range of our most popular examples of bicycles and accessories, and we are able to source the full line for all our brands. Please stop in for a test ride, a good browsing, or just a friendly chat.
If you're not able to make it to Decatur, just give us a call or an email and we will be delighted to assist you locally or from afar.
Thank you for considering us and supporting independent small businesses.
404-220-8957 or firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
By Karen Florin
Publication: theday.com
New London - Police said they arrested four men and found a facsimile firearm after responding Friday to a report that a large crowd that had gathered in the area of 195 Colman St. and a man was flashing a gun.
Several witnesses at the scene told The Day the men had gathered to record a music or YouTube video.
Police arrived on scene and encountered approximately 15 males whom they detained and searched with assistance from Waterford and Groton City police, according to a press release from Deputy Chief Peter Reichard.
The male with the gun fled on foot toward the area of Walden and Jefferson avenues and was later apprehended by officers and a K-9, who said they found a fake gun nearby.
Michael Escobales, 19, of 11 Michael Road, Apt. I, was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon, second-degree criminal trespass and possession of marijuana.
Isaac Cabanas, 18, of 332 Jefferson Ave. was charged with two counts of possession of narcotics.
Jesse Beck, 19, of Congdon Road, Voluntown, was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon after police said they found brass knuckles in his car.
Shakim Curry, 24, of 49 Ridgeview Circle was charged with interfering with an officer.
Tri-Town iPad mini ContestEnter for a chance to win an iPad mini
Flat StanleySubmit your Flat Stanley photos for a chance to win!
40 Under Forty 2014Nominate a deserving professional in our region for recognition in our special section.
Connecticut Family Magazine Fall 2014Tell us your favorite children's books, board games, and more. You might be featured in an upcoming issue.
Pro FootballPredict pro football winners each week for a chance at local and national prizes, including a trip to Hawaii.
Photo Calendar ContestSubmit your photos for Southeastern Connecticut for our very popular annual calendar.
Do you think the Red Sox have a chance at making the playoffs?
No current items found


text:
- Studio: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
- Release Date: Jan 17, 2014
- Starring: Allison Miller, Zach Gilford
- Summary: After a mysterious, lost night on their honeymoon, a newlywed couple finds themselves dealing with an earlier-than-planned pregnancy. While recording everything for posterity, the husband begins to notice odd behavior in his wife that they initially write off to nerves, but, as the months pass, it becomes evident that the dark changes to her body and mind have a much more sinister origin.… Expand
- Director: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin
- Genre(s): Horror
- More Details and Credits »
Score distribution:
Positive: 2 out of 18
Mixed: 7 out of 18
Negative: 9 out of 18
Although it won't win any points for originality, it is a fast-moving little chiller filled with creepy atmosphere and convincing performances.
The small achievement of Devil's Due is how much it both exploits the video-cam approach and overcomes some of its limitations.
Although a slow-burn approach to this sort of creepfest is generally a smart move, Devil's Due peters out of outright suspense midway through and never fully recovers, despite (or possibly because of) a final reel that may shock some viewers but will leave die-hard genre fans gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes in dismay.
The dialogue is dull, the performances perfunctory and while it is novel to leave out "the explainer" character — that slim hope that a priest, an expert on the Occult or whoever, can give the characters answers — common to this genre, leaving that character out robs the film of pathos and urgency.
Devlin's script tips its hand so early on that Devil's Due lumbers toward a woefully flat, predictable ending, and the unwelcome promise of something truly demonic — sequels.
As with most found footage films, there's a lot of tediousness, with the early proceedings resembling the sort of home movies from which anyone not directly involved would normally flee.
Jan 21, 2014The Devil may have all the best tunes, but this really is the worst sort of cinematic karaoke.
Score distribution:
Positive: 5 out of 20
Mixed: 4 out of 20
Negative: 11 out of 20
May 1, 2014This is one of the most not so scary movies i seen. but its a great horror film . Gilford and Alison millers, performance is amazing . And Devils Due is Thrilling, Freaky , Enjoyable . Grade A… Expand
Jan 26, 2014Pretty cool movie. Not very scary, and I'm really tied of this "found footage" trend in horror movies, but the acting was good and the effects were nice.… Expand
Jan 23, 2014Devils Due could have been much better and it had its problems but it was a good movie may not of been as scary that it could have been but in my opinion it was way better than Paranormal Activity The Marked Ones. Overall an OK film could have been better don't rush out to see it but it is a watch… Expand
May 1, 2014A dull, cheap, clichéd, horror film that fails on almost every level. Every scene is predictable and not chilling. A good horror film keeps you up at night this one puts you to sleep. D-… Expand
Jan 18, 2014I saw this with a friend and spent most of the afternoon waiting for something to happen... A waste of time and money in my opinion. They show have made it an 18 certificate and a injected a bit of life into it, no pun intended! Do not even bother to rent this on Dvd. Carrie was a better and scarier film, as was 'The Exorcism Of Emily Rose'. Very disappointed.… Expand
Jan 20, 2014It was the perfect recipe for horror, but it never built to anything. And maybe that was the point. But the advertising and hype of the movie would lead you to believe otherwise. You kept waiting for something, anything to happen, there were a couple aha moments but nothing worth repeating. I would rather have watched anything else.… Expand
Feb 2, 2014Although I'm a sucker for found-footage movies (especially the "Paranormal Activity" franchise), the genre has hit an all-time low with this one. Everything about this film is just so terrible! The story is silly and predictable. The acting is worse than ever, and the ending is ridiculous and completely stupid! And the worst part: It's not scary!!!… Expand
- 1:28
- (8 views)


text:
In what looked to be a runaway victory at one point for Eastside High School, turned out to be a dramatic finish, but the Eagles showed resiliency and escaped with a 5-4 victory over Alcovy.
The Eastside High School softball alumni returned on Saturday for the first annual alumni game, but also to support the Wright family. James Wright was tragically injured in a car accident and left paralyzed. The proceeds of the game went to the Wright family.
Eastside High School will host a Lady Eagles alumni game on August 16 at the EHS softball fields at 11 a.m.
In a county where Newton High is a perennial playoff team and Alcovy reached the elite eight last season, Eastside has been the odd-team out in the region's boys basketball scene.
The chilly night air did not stop the red-hot Sandy Creek Patriots from dismantling the Eastside Eagles 55-0 in the first round of the playoffs.
Eastside's 35-0 victory over fourth-ranked Monroe Area last Friday was a big win at the time.
The Eastside Eagles turned what had been characterized as a category (state ranked) four Purple Hurricane into a less-imposing storm blowing out Region 8-AAAA Monroe Area 35-0 Friday night at Homer Sharp Stadium.
The Eastside Eagles played plenty of tough teams throughout their 2012 football season, but, as the saying goes, they saved the best for last.
Eastside entered Friday night's game trying to climb up the Region 8-AAAA playoff seeding, and left its matchup with Stephens County secured of a position.
The Eastside Eagles thrashed Walnut Grove 55-20 Friday night in front of the Homecoming crowd at Homer Sharp Stadium and assured themselves a berth in the state playoffs.
Eastside's theme during practices this week has been simple: Let's win and get in.
After a quick three-and-out by the defense, Eastside's offense took over to the tune of two plays and seven points and went on to dominate Lumpkin County 52-16 Friday night.
With only four games remaining in the 2012 regular season, every game matters more and more each week.
The Eastside Eagles scored 17 points in the first half and hung on to defeat the Lanier Longhorns 20-14 Friday night at Homer Sharp stadium.
Eastside didn't make any major changes during its week off but will still look like a slightly different team when it hosts Lanier tonight at Sharp Stadium.
Eastside has played well on offense, defense and special teams throughout the season coming into Friday night's game at Madison County.
The Eastside softball team entered the Region 8-AAAA tournament just outside the top four looking for a state playoff appearance.
The Eastside Eagles have shown strengths in all three aspects of their game this football season, with the offense, defense and special teams all coming through with big performances.


text:
Actor Gene Hackman is 80. Actress Tammy Grimes is 76. Actress Vanessa Redgrave is 73. Country singer Jeanne Pruett is 73. Country singer Norma Jean is 72. Singer Marty Balin of Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship is 68. Horn player William King of The Commodores is 61. Musician Phil Collins is 59. Actor Charles S. Dutton is 59. Comedian Brett Butler ("Grace Under Fire") is 52. Singer Jody Watley is 51. Country singer Tammy Cochran is 38. Actor Christian Bale is 36. Singer Josh Kelley is 30. Actor Wilmer Valderrama ("That '70s Show") is 30. Actor Jake Thomas ("Lizzie McGuire," "AI") is 20.
January 30th, 2010
10:11 am
Christian Bale ain't no 36!! LOL……. I woulda pegged him at 45 if he's a day.