Moo

Hallmark Meat Packing Co. was caught violating "humane treatment" of the cows they slaughter, as reported by BBC News:

"Operations at the plant had already been suspended after an undercover video shot by the Humane Society of America came to light.

The video appeared to show crippled and ill animals being prodded with the blades of a forklift truck, kicked, given electric shocks and sprayed with high-pressure water hoses by staff."

The "appeared" is a nice touch on BBC's part, I think. It "appeared" enough that the USDA decided to recall 143 MILLION pounds of cow meat. Now that's something to chew on.

But don't worry - the cows are safe now! After all, the last paragraph of the articles DOES mention that

"The company says it has now taken action to ensure all employees handle animals humanely."

Well, that's a relief. From now on, everything will be different.

---

You know, personally speaking, I'm not a big fan of killing in order to eat. Seems like we're past the point of it being a necessity, and the cruelty, pain, and death involved (not to mention the environmental costs) (and really not to mention the karmic costs, for those of us who swing that way) are totally inexcusable. At least in my opinion.

There are lots of arguments in favor of not making a big deal out of the way animals are handled. They seem to generally fall under the following headings:

1) It's natural - animals eat animals. And we're animals, so we eat other animals.

You know, it's amazing how many people seem to believe that they "behave naturally" or that "behaving naturally" is a free pass for doing anything. What happened to the naturalness of not washing our hands, or living without medication or surgery? What about how natural it is to live without air conditioning, or to have a high chance of dying at child birth? And how many animals use toilet paper, talk on the phone, or surf the Web? (Disney animals don't count)

If we were living naturally, we'd all be dying of some infectious disease when we were 27 - assuming we lived past giving birth (which we'd do much earlier, since we wouldn't use contraceptives).

Let's face it: When we like it, we pretend to behave like baboons. When we don't, we snap right out of this "natural" make-believe, and do whatever we feel like doing. Acting "naturally" isn't necessarily moral, or healthy, or nice. Stop using toilet paper and the medical system, and then we can start talking about acting "natural."

2) If I don't eat meat, I'll get sick and die.

Actually, You'll probably get healthier and live longer. Let's have that discussion. And please, enough with the "only meat has complete protein" line. Eat 5 different colors of veggies and fruits every day, chew on lots of nuts, drink your soymilk, and You're likely to get better, not worse.

Although to be perfectly honest, You're still probably going to die at some point.

3) The animals we eat are so dumb that they can't really experience suffering or pain.

Um, no. Lots of animals are plenty clever (remember the tool-making crow?) and pain is so basic to survival that it's unlikely that any living being in possession of a limbic system cannot experience pain (yes, that includes fish).

And let's not go down the "they're so big and strong, when You kick them they just feel a little pat" path. Watch this horse and tell me that she's insensitive and can't feel gentle pressure, and that the only way to communicate with a big beast like that is to kick it hard, or yank its head from side to side.

4) I like eating meat.

Hey, it's your choice.

While mom and dad are arguing, maybe we can get stuff done ourselves

I love it. A Time Magazine piece about Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger endorses, pretty enthusiastically, the fact that these two are doing things that, in all fairness, the federal government should've been doing a long time ago.

Now, nothing is as simple as it's presented to be, of course. While the article mentions that Schwarzenegger doesn't receive state salary, it fails to mention that Schwarzenegger allowed lots of people to simultaneously earn state and campaign salaries... But perhaps this is still a good example: After all, not many people would forego their salary, just to make a point.

I am really pretty amazed at the plans and actions that the article ascribes to Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger: California funds stem-cell research that the federal government would not, and Schwarzenegger intends to sue the federal government for failing to sign an environmental treaty; NY City is shooting for a 30% cut in greenhouse gases by 2030. Big moves, big action.

Cool. Bring on the change. :-)

(from the article) "Nature abhors a vacuum," says Bruce Katz, director of metropolitan policy at the Brookings Institution. "And the vacuum at the national level is immense."

Everybody wins

I was recently contacted by someone who's planning on writing a book about getting into ivy-league schools, who found me through my How I Got Into the Stanford Psychology Ph.D. Program website. He asked me for some thoughts for his book, and perhps I'll end up contributing a short piece. In the meantime, here's what came up when I was thinking about it - it's been on my mind for a couple of years now, and it's nice to get the opportunity to actually spell it out.

---

Everybody Wins

Where do You have a better chance of being accepted - in a top-tier, prestigious program, or in a mid-level, reasonably good program? Hint: You may be in for a surprise.

My sense is that fewer people apply to very prestigious programs than to less prestigious programs. Most people simply never apply to the big-name programs, having been intimidated by the name or the (imagined) prospects of succeeding. I almost didn't apply to Stanford, by far the most prestigious of the places I was looking at, simply because I thought I wouldn't stand a chance of being admitted. I remember one friend, who believed in me more than I ever believed in myself. When I wondered aloud if I should apply to Stanford, my friend looked at me with some sympathy and said "Eran, come on, be realistic" - the only time I can remember that this friend ever expressed any doubt in me.

Relatively few people have been applying to the PhD program in psychology at Stanford, at least while I've been there. The same is true for other prestigious awards and fellowships - the really big ones seem to receive fewer applications than others. To this day, when I apply to less prestigious programs, I often get cut on the first round, while the more prestigious awards or programs give me more consideration.

The bottom line is this: If You want to be absolutely certain that You won't get in, don't apply. Otherwise, give it a try. You have nothing to lose (if application fees are a problem, most universities will be willing to help You with those), and a lot to gain. The universities will also profit from receiving more applications from more diverse applicants, and not just the people who have gone through the cookie-cutter process (graduated from top schools with top grades, worked as research assistants, applied to graduate school, yaddah yaddah...). And last but not least, You'll probably be facing less competition.

Go ahead, aim high. Surprise someone.