i propose a rule for this forum: if you have successfully met a payroll for an extended period of time, you are qualified to comment on commerce.

everyone else should do some homework.

The various articles/blogs (in the AR community and beyond) revolving around the “anniversary” of Gandhi’s death a couple days ago reminded me of my comment here, and made me smile (maybe even chuckle) this time, rather than fume. That’s what I call progress ~ ha ha. :-)

Fifteen minutes ago, after reading several Howard Zinn quotes in “tweets” written by people who had never uttered his name before, I wrote a long comment about people who only talk/tweet/blog about famous people on the day of their death or birth. And how this inanity can be extended to certain “topics of the day” (e.g., how the AR community was happily blogging away about climate change during the summit in Copenhagen, and how there now seems to be a giant brain fart regarding it). But I decided to file that rant away in my archive. The number of rants I have these days has diminished considerably, and the ones I do have I mostly keep to myself. But once in a while a little bit of a rant will leak out in the form of a small inadvertent (hopefully positive) hint. :-)

“Liberals get excited about things like that as if they signal a dramatic change. No, the corporations ran our elections before the decision and will do so now — just with a fig leaf of ‘legality.’ The designation of corporations as ‘persons’ which started in 1886 is just proof of how our legal system, the Constitution, the courts have always been tools of the wealthy classes.” http://www.truthout.org/howard-zinn-the-people-speak-supreme-court-and-haiti56402

In 1992 Switzerland legally recognized nonhuman animals as “beings.” But then in 1999 that amendment was totally rewritten in its constitution. AR gains can easily be overturned so compromises we make might only be good intentions that eventually go astray. Most European countries consider animals sentient beings, but that hasn’t stopped any of them from murdering and eating animals. No country in the world advocates respecting all animals by not killing them.

Anyway, unless personhood for nonhuman animals means total liberation from under human control, it won’t be a meaningful advance in justice for the animals. And humans relinquishing control is perhaps the biggest hurdle.

Steve Jones, a professor in genetics, says humans are “unique” beyond their biology and suggests that human rights would be diminished if the rights of nonhuman animals were recognized. He implies that “humans come first.” Unfortunately, his sentiments are typical in many recent essays. His aversion to personhood for animals is ironic because through his own studies on DNA, Jones does believe that *all* living beings share a common ancestor.

Regardless of laws and personhood status, until our society changes its myopic view of animals as “lesser than human” and “others” to be mined as resources, oppression will continue.