Straight from The Writer's Almanac

I'm not a big Garrison fan (sorry, folks), but I have always enjoyed this tidbit he provides each morning (if I'm up and about). Today's poem was in honor of George Bernard Shaw, one of my favorite people from history.

The intro, from Garrison:

It was on this day in 1950 that Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw died, at the age of 94. But it was not old age that he succumbed to, nor disease — the nonagenarian fell off a ladder while pruning trees in his garden and died later from complications of his injury.

Shaw outlived most of his friends, among them many literary luminaries, but he did not seem particularly sentimental about this. Once, he was asked whether he missed any of his contemporaries, and he responded, "No, I miss only the man I was." And he once proclaimed, "Do not try to live for ever. You will not succeed."

While he was still alive, devoted fans wanted to start a Shaw society to promote his ideas. He was adamantly against the whole thing, writing the people who contacted him about it.

But he sort of gave up resistance, and a Shaw society was founded in 1941, on his 85th birthday. The effort was led by a Jewish refugee from Germany. Shaw wrote: "Go ahead, but don't bother me about it. I am old, deaf, and dotty. In short, a Has Been." The Shaw society is still going strong; it gathers one Friday evening a month at Conway Hall in London for lectures and readings of his plays.

George Bernard Shaw said: "What is life but a series of inspired follies? The difficulty is to find them to do. Never lose a chance: it doesn't come every day."

And he said: "I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. Life is no "brief candle" for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations."

And the poem, by Maxine Kumin:

The Accolade of the Animals

All those he never ate
appeared to Bernard Shaw
single file in his funeral
procession as he lay abed
with a cracked infected bone
from falling off his bicycle.
They stretched from Hampton Court
downstream to Piccadilly
against George Bernard's pillow
paying homage to the flesh
of man unfleshed by carnage.

Just shy of a hundred years
of pullets, laying hens
no longer laying, ducks, turkeys,
pigs and piglets, old milk cows,
anemic vealers, grain-fed steer,
the annual Easter lambkin,
the All Hallows' mutton,
ring-necked pheasant, deer,
bags of hare unsnared,
rosy trout and turgid carp
tail-walking like a sketch by Tenniel.

What a cortege it was:
the smell of hay in his nose,
the pungencies of the barn,
the courtyard cobbles slicked
with wet. How we omnivores
suffer by comparison
in the jail of our desires
salivating at the smell of char
who will not live on fruits
and greens and grains alone
so long a life, so sprightly, so cocksure.

"The Accolade of the Animals" by Maxine Kumin, from Selected Poems 1960-1990. © W.W. Norton & Company, 1997. Reprinted with permission. (buy now)

Animal Lover

Animal lover. That's me. That label sort of holds the same implications as "tree hugger." I guess I'm that too. I adore trees and nature, a solitary hike in the woods (OK, not completely solitary since Nico is always with me) is when I am the most myself, the most at peace with the world. Ken Burns' recent documentary on our national park system highlighted some of the people in history who held these same ideas, and that helped shape our nation, often against great political challenges. These people were heroes.

More and more these labels, "animal lover," "tree hugger," and the concept of someone as a "nature lover" have come to have negative connotations. What happened to all that tossing about of "compassionate conservatism?" We need more decision-makers in government who are looking out for our earth and its inhabitants, and that includes us as human beings.

I heard a brief mention today about Fox News vilifying Cass Sunstein, an accomplished political science and law professor with accolades too numerous to mention. He is a prolific writer with support for both liberal and conservative ideals (for example, he supports the death penalty and supported Bush's supreme court nominee John Roberts). He seems to be an incredibly intelligent, thoughtful modern day intellectual who is interested in the betterment of our country.

He wrote a book about the "Second Bill of Rights," proposed by FDR (but which sadly was never adopted), which I only recently learned about during the same aforementioned documentary on our national parks. The book is entitled, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, and advocates the right to an education, a home, health care and protection against monopolies. I mean, Sustein sounds like the kind of guy who is looking out for us and maybe should be making some political decisions on our behalf.

OK, so here's where Fox News comes in with the contortion of someone who has a respect for living beings into a nutso "animal lover" who is going to take away your rights to do what you like in the privacy of your own home (one of their favorite fear-mongering tactics). Sunstein has written an incredibly interesting primer on animal rights, that can be found here: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/157.crs.animals.pdf

Anyway, our old friends at Fox News basically blocked this guy from getting appointed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs because they (Beck) stated that Sunstein believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain. First of all, they have (not surprisingly) contorted his views. This is the excerpt from his primer that Fox extricated and twisted:

"At the very least, people should kill rats in a way that minimizes suffering. And if possible, people should try to expel rats in a way that does not harm them at all. These claims need not be taken as radical or extreme; many people already take steps in just this direction. If we are getting rid of rats, we do so in a way that reduces, rather than maximizes, their distress."

Of course, the whole rat issue was taken out of context and I am getting away from my earlier point. The point is, people who take up the issue of animal rights or the environment are painted as radicals by the far right. A day will come when the barbaric practices of factory farming, vivisection, and circus animals will be looked on the same as human slavery, with disgust, dread and shame that we allowed it to continue for so long. Once again, I have to quote Sustein because his summary paragraph is so in line with my own beliefs and he says it so much more eloquently than I.

"...the emphasis on suffering, and on decent lives, itself has significant implications. Of course it is appropriate to consider human interests in the balance, and sometimes our interests will outweigh those of other animals. The problem is that most of the time, the interests of animals are not counted at all—and that once they are counted, many of our practices cannot possibly be justified. I believe that in the long-run, our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seem a form of unconscionable barbarity—not the same as, but in many ways morally
akin to, slavery and the mass extermination of human beings."

I believe people are awakening to the idea, but it is going to be a long struggle against several powerful industries whose interests are not in easing the suffering of animals. But if each of us makes an effort to reduce animal suffering in our daily lives, the impact will be felt, and will grow. I have hope that we can reduce the suffering in my lifetime by becoming informed and making compassionate choices in our consumption. Thanks for reading my blog.

Lord of the Fly

During a recent trip home, my mom, sister and I were playing Scrabble as usual. A tiny moth landed on the board and wouldn't go away. When my mom reached over to squash it, I said, "aw, don't kill it," upon which Rose said, "we're gonna have to call her Obama." Mom apparently had not seen or heard about the CNBC interview in which Obama skillfully killed the fly that was distracting him from the interviewer. The next day, PETA swatted back, accusing our Commander-in-Chief of acting in an inhumane manner, and even sent him a humane bug trap. The whole incident inspired my sister to write a poem, which we thought was just brilliant. I thought posting it here would be a good way to kick off my blog, since I have not found the time to write about the many things I keep thinking I should write about.

I also want to add that I am a long-time PETA supporter, and think they do important work, although in this case, I think they probably should not have created such a buzz. Anyway, here's the poem, and it's to be read with a grain or two of salt. Enjoy!


~Lord of the Fly?~

Obama, Obama
king of bug drama
why oh why
did u swat dat fly
it make me wanna cry
it did no harm
to land on yo arm
so what's up with da execution?
Dude, you owe him restitution
my oh my
how can u slap a fly
u make his momma cry
next time put him in a lil fly cage
and let him outside
so I won't get in a rage
I reckon compassion
is no longer in fashion
right?
my oh my
dat po lil fly
God gonna git you
by and by
sucka

next thing you know
you'll be swattin' them ole skeeters
in their PETA's
and shootin' yo granny
in her fanny
right?

-Rozita Bartok