I was nominated as a candidate for the president of the Rainbow Alliance.  Right now nobody is running against me, and I know quite a few people who want me to be president.  I think there's a large chance I could get it.  Fingers crossed!

This would mean I could be president of student-led groups two years in a row, first for Anthropology Club and then for the Rainbow Alliance.  It will also be my fourth year in a row as an officer in a student-led group.  Damn my overactivity.

Although I write about the subject of animal rights fairly often, I'm not likely to bring it up in person.  The reasons for this are very easy for most people to understand.  If I bring up animal rights, say, at the dinner table, as much as I feel it's the most effective time to talk about how a cow is treated while people are at present eating her, it's also in poor taste and will likely turn people off the movement rather than actually change minds.  If I bring it up, either something directly was brought up (for example, somebody actually makes an animal welfare or rights statement) or I am specifically somewhere to talk about it (at a demo, a presentation, etc.).  I will, however, talk about the subject as frankly and honestly as I can when somebody else brings up the subject.  And people do quite often.  Why?  I'm not entirely sure for everybody, but for quite a few people the reason is quite apparently that the very act of being around a vegetarian is enough for them to feel uncomfortable with the way they eat and the way they see animals.

The problem isn't that people ask questions, or even that people don't like the answer.  I didn't like the answer, either.  I still don't.  That's why I've been a vegetarian for so many years.  It's the attitude that I get.  It's always either a circular, nonsensical argument why it's OK to exploit animals or an equally nonsensical argument why the animal rights movement is wrong.

First, let me tell you a bit about where I am coming from.  People go vegetarian for several reasons.  For some, it is purely health motivated.  For some, it is out of a desire to be or be perceived to be ascetic or spiritual.  For others, it could be that they are opposed to the environmental impact animal agriculture has.  Some just plain don't like meat.  And then there are those, such as myself, who genuinely feel that the exploitation and killing of animals is unnecessary and inherently cruel.  Because of this, the way a vegetarian will react to your arguments will vary.  Just because Rick Somebody you knew in college was a vegetarian but cooked meat for you and your family when you came over for Christmas doesn't mean that vegetarians in general are all that thrilled about having meat in their houses.  I will not cook meat for you.  I won't so much as make a bowl of gelatin for you.  It's not that I think you're a horrible, awful person and I want you to see how much better I am than you, it's because I have a definite and clear ethical objection to those products existing for human consumption and choose not to have any part in its creation or promotion if I can help it.  I don't eat meat, I don't cook meat, I don't buy meat, I don't touch meat, I don't feed meat to others, I don't allow meat in my personal space (by which I mean in my house or in my appliances), I don't promote meat.  I won't even allow my brother to put hunting games on my computer.  It's not a matter of me constantly telling people that they are wrong and I am right, it's about me fulfilling my own personal ethical duties by avoiding harm to animals as much as possible.  It does not make me an "extremist" if I refuse to flip burgers at your cookout.  It makes me devoted to my ethics.

I do get into arguments.  I haven't started one in a long time, ever since I grew out of the first couple months of veganism where I was suddenly "enlightened" and wanted others to be.  Even if I want to argue, I don't need to bring it up, because meat eaters are so efficient at bringing it up themselves.  Being in the vicinity of a vegetarian causes people to feel uncomfortable with their own eating habits, and to make themselves feel better they must try and tear that vegetarian down.

So it goes something like this.  I go to a cookout.  The host asks if I would like a bratwurst or a burger.  I say "neither," and tack on the fact that I am a vegetarian.  The host asks if I would like a fish burger instead.  I say that I don't eat fish either, because I am a vegetarian.  Ensues is a short conversation about how "vegetarians eat fish."  I explain that even if some vegetarians did eat fish, that doesn't mean I do.  And I don't.  Here the host will either get offended or paranoid, usually the latter in my case.  If the former, sie will start to ask questions about whether I do it for health or ethical reasons.  Again, I will not lie, and I say ethical.  Generally this brings on some other questions and perhaps some arguments about why farming animals is OK and ethical and God likes it and all that bull.  More on that a little later.  If the latter, the host will be upset that sie can't provide anything "good" for me to eat.  Truthfully I have yet to go to a cookout where there wasn't something I could eat.  They think I look pathetic eating raw celery and brocolli from the veggie tray without even dipping them in the dairy-based chive dip, the thought not even crossing their minds that I might actually like raw vegetables, because they are so meat-based.  Questions ensue again, usually based on pity, usually relating to health and usually trying to make me feel better about eating whatever death on a platter they are serving.

 The arguments used are ominous in that they almost seem to make sense, and they really believe they do, but they don't!  I have yet to hear a good argument for the eating of meat.  These arguments are round-about, they start where they end, and they are based on a purely welfare standpoint (I am not an animal welfare activist, I want use of animals abolished, an animal rights standpoint).

Let's say, for example, wool.  I will not wear wool, as wool comes from sheep which were held captive their entire lives and, depending on the farm, either left to die of old age in captivity or killed when production wanes.  Somebody may say in response to this that sheep are treated well in captivity.  In response to this, I say that there are things like tail docking and mulesing, so sheep are basically mutilated for the convenience of the farmer.  The response to this is that "If we don't dock their tails or cut them, they will be worse off!"  The original argument is that sheep held in captivity are treated well, which I counter by saying that being mutilated is not being treated well, to which they counter by basically saying those mutilations are necessary for the welfare of the sheep.  But you know what?  They are not necessary.  They are not necessary because wool is not necessary.  We are keeping animals captive for a product most of us do not need, and in addition we are mutilating them for our own convenience.

Another example, this time one my brother used as we were watching the documentary Meet Your Meat (by his request, oddly enough).  The argument was that one of the cruel things done to chicks is that they have their beaks seared off.  Again, a main argument in favor of eggs is that the chickens are treated well.  Having one's beak seared off is not being treated well.  The response to this argument is, of course, that without having their beaks seared off they would be "worse off" because they would kill each other.  Hence, beak clipping is necessary.  But again, beak searing is not necessary because eggs are not necessary.  We are harming animals for a product we don't need, yet somehow that harmful aspect is a necessity?

To make matters worse, the tone is downright mean nearly every time.  You know what seems to be a catch phrase when a meat-eater tries to argue with me?  "Nuh-uh!"  Usually puncutated with an either inaccurate or really lame excuse as to why I am wrong.  That's the best you can do?  "Nuh-uh!?"  And furthermore, the fact that you "know a farmer" doesn't mean anything to me.  I live in rural Wisconsin, I have been to plenty of farms.  Regardless of your stereotypes about vegetarians, I didn't get all of my information from a PETA leaflet.  I spent all of my high school career in the "farmer" classes.  I know how the farm business works from the persective of the farmers.  I know things that are standard in the industry, things that people who "know a farmer" like to deny, like the fact that the dairy and egg industries kill just as many animals as the meat industry.  These are things that people within those industries are well aware of.  "Animal Science," "Ag Science," "Dairy Production," these classes are literally on my transcript so you can not tell me that I am only relying on knee jerk reactions to animal rights literature.  These were things told to me in my textbooks.  I know about hunting, as well.  I have pictures of me, which I now regret for obvious reasons, smiling happily while holding up a "trophy" I'd recently shot.  I know all about the supposed "challenge" and "fairness" of the hunt.  This is not to say that there aren't dumb animal rights activists out there.  I get just as pissed off by stupid ARAs than I do at people who argue against animals.  But to assume I know nothing about the industry because I have a negative opinion of it?  Please.

The attitude expressed by people as they say these things to me is really insulting.  I agree that I probably sound insulting as I write about these people, but really I'm mostly frustrated.  I did not bring these things up.  They asked the questions.  They just didn't like the answers because I did not agree with them, and did not like that I won't accept arguments that don't make sense.  I do not feel out of line for answering peoples questions honestly and without beefing up their own opinion of their cruel lifestyles, however unintentional that cruelty may be on their part.  Because, as I have stated, my ethics include the fact that animals are being exploited and killed out of absolutely no necessity at all, and with that in mind I refuse to pretend that I think this is OK or the natural order of the universe just because you like the way animals taste.

And so Set gets a makeover.  It took a lot longer than I expected it to initially, but of course that's likely because I've never done it before.  First I was going to just do the jewelry and the staff, but I thought "Meh, what the Hell," and did the whole thing.  Snazzy.

There's a little white left over on the borders... but I'm really just OK with that at this point.  Spent too much time on it already.  Could be using it for class.

EDIT:  Added a background because the white bothered me that much.

A list of magical terms and traditions.  In addition to being really nice to grow a well-rounded understanding of magical traditions not in your own, it is also a nice list to draw inspiration from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magical_terms_and_traditions

And, of course, because I love divination, there's also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_divination