Daniel is one of the most thoughtful, intelligent people I've met in my life. If you're looking for a candidate who will listen to YOU, really understand an issue, and then do what he feels if morally right, you'll find no better candidate. In the ten years I've known him, I've learned so much from him about diplomacy and just plain goodness. Those issuing complaints above about his statement on mountain bike access to open space might want to ask him why he feels that way. It seems to a lot of us that the trail system is already degrading quickly and my guess is Daniel wants to preserve nature for future generations and for nature itself. He's probably the only candidate who rides his bike *everywhere* he goes -- I don't think bikers have an enemy in Daniel, but rather an ally and friend. And the little add-on at the end of the article that seems to try to make Daniel out to be a creationist -- you'll come to learn that his spirituality is pragmatic and active. He believes that we are all connected, that everyone matters, that we should help one another, that domination and bullying are wrong, that we're all in this together. He formed Jews of the Earth to bring environmentalism and compassion for animals into the religious communities (something desperately needed and which should be applauded and repeated), and not to bring religion into the movements (although his basic tenets of compassion and Nonviolence might be something we could all take a lesson in). My trust, my confidence, and my vote all go to Daniel.

Hi blackatticus,

Nope, neither Gandhi nor Nonviolence United (nor I) say that "sometimes violence is necessary." I think we are more creative than that and I know that we are much more interconnected than people understand -- much of the violence in the world cannot continue without our explicit or implicit support. I think Gandhi is misinterpreted often, but he did not underestimate the imbalanced and misplaced power of violence; he saw it as the failure that it is. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood this when he picked up on Gandhian tactics to work toward a community of reconciliation, where no one has to be "beaten", rather we all move together toward a cooperative society. One of the most often misunderstood and misused quotes of Gandhi is, "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." Here people like to point and say, "See, Gandhi said we should be violent." When in fact, this is supporting what I pointed out in the article above -- Gandhi wanted us to move to a place where Nonviolence was in our hearts, a way of live, a new society, so that violence would no longer be tolerated or perpetuated.

If you're saying that "hey... life can be mostly Nonviolent... but on rare occasions, it's necessary" is a "reality" (as I think you may have been suggesting), I think that's an overstatement. It is not a "reality" in that people tend to make their own definitions of "necessary" and therefore perpetuate violence whenever it suits their desires. Yes, it is a violent world; no, it doesn't have to be.

Let me know if I can clarify anything. Thanks for connecting!

All one,
:) m

Hey, did you know CU's mascot is a Vegan! :)

Thanks to the NEW Vegan student group at CU (Vegan Justice League www.VeganJusticeLeague.org) more and more people are realizing that this isn't "nonsense" -- choosing Vegan is one of the most powerful, practical, far-reaching, ethical choices individuals can make to be kind to animals, to stop human rights violations, and to save the planet.

It's funny (well, interesting) to see the "arguments" from excusatarians (or as I like to call them, "pre-vegans") no longer try to refute facts... they're down to "I like meat" and "that's just nonsense" and "don't tell me what to do" (as if McDonalds and the USDA hasn't been telling them what to do their entire lives). They have no moral or logical footing.

Thank you to VJL for these few stats on the destructive power of animal agribiz (see the website for references)...

If you are eating animals and/or animal products, YOU are:
THE #1 cause of species extinction
THE #1 cause of global climate change
THE #1 cause of deforestation including destroying rain forests
THE #1 cause of US water pollution
THE #1 consumer of all food
THE #1 user of agricultural land (using more than 10 times your share -- and stealing from others)
THE #1 killer of helpless animals on the planet -- killing 10 billion land animals and 71 billion sea animals per year in the US alone
THE #1 waster of water in the U.S.
Subsidizing THE #1 cause of US human death and disease
YOU are THE #1 threat to life on Earth, now and for the eternity of future generations... however long we may have (see above)

Most people agree that using, hurting, and killing animals unnecessarily is morally wrong. Every single nutrient needed for human health and happiness is available in plant-based form. Therefore, eating animals is unnecessary (and morally wrong).

Live your values, change the world. Choose Vegan.

All one!

very nice. seems we could all benefit from gentle reminders like this that what we do and how we act affects others in countless ways. thanx, chris :)

actually, i'm not a "member" of any organization (although years ago i served on the board of rocky mountain animal defense to help them in their mission to end cruelty to animals -- is anyone really "for" cruelty to animals?)

but i am a supporter of many -- of anyone who promotes kindness and compassion. i'm sorry, "mti001" that you're so upset. but i find that heartening -- i've learned that when we're completely comfortable in your own moral choices, that these things don't frustrate us so much (in other words, we can't feel judged if we really believe what we're doing is right). so my guess is that you aren't really comfortable killing animals and that you do care. so thanks for speaking out -- you need to, it helps us move society toward justice. the folks who are quiet are the ones we should worry about -- their hearts haven't yet felt the discomfort of their own juxtaposed feelings of caring about animals but being taught not to.

A few points I'd like to make if y'all don't mind...

First, no need for personal attacks -- personal attacks are used when folks don't have a moral leg to stand on or simply can't say what they mean, mean what they say, but not be mean when they say it.

Second, just because something (like hunting) is legal, doesn't make it moral. The argument isn't whether or not anyone has the "right" to run around shooting at and killing animals, it's whether or not it is morally OK? The countless conversations/interviews I've had with hunters (including those in my family) lead to a disturbing conclusion -- when they are really honest with me, they all admit that they enjoy watching the animal die. I'm not sure why that is -- it seems to be a way for them to "connect," to be a part of "God" or "the circle of life" as they put it. My own thought is that that "connection" is actually a mis-connection and a symptom of our violent society. Many of us want so much to connect with nature, with animals, (and to "God"), but the violent society in which we live and are taught to behave (especially us men) make going into the woods and watching and admiring God's creation (or simply "nature") is a "wussy" thing to do. We have to carry guns with us and defend our masculinity when all we really want to do is connect with our friends and with nature (and, again, some of us with God). What I've come to learn is that masculinity (some men want to call this "strength") comes from within, not from what others think of them. I now believe it is morally right to protect and admire God's creation and stop pretending that I somehow can match the wisdom of nature with a gun in my hand.

Third, back when I used to hunt I had the same strange lop-sided logic that many hunters I've known still hold -- that their "right" to hunt somehow is God-given and should be protected at all cost... it's a matter of freedom! But we hunters (as I used to) tend to find excuses to ignore the freedom and rights of families to live without fear and without hearing gunshots in what many have come to see as their escape from a violent world and many of us even consider nature our "church." So we ignore the rights of others as unimportant while swearing up and down to protect "our" rights. That no longer makes sense to me.

And lastly, I've come to respect the animals. That they can live in this brutal world with nothing more than what they came into it with is awe-inspiring and humbling. I no longer feel that I need to prove anything to anyone. I want to enjoy the animals for who they are -- strong, wild, and free... and not punish them for what I wish I were -- strong, wild, and free.

But isn't there more to it than money and selfishness? Regarding money, yes, unthinking businesses are in it entirely for the money. But what about individuals? Sure we've come to think cheaper is better, but people do lots of things that are inconvenient and cost them a lot of money. They buy things they don't need. They entertain themselves with food and drinks.

And regarding selfishness... aren't kindness and compassion all around us, too? Is "selfishness" really our first/best response? If it is, how can we help others make compassion their first response?

And what about consumer choices? I can see that clothes and cars and such might be done for public approval, but consider food choices -- most of what we eat is done in relative isolation (unless we're eating out with friends, etc.). Aren't food choices the perfect opportunity to perform an "unselfish" act. We buy organic to keep chemicals off the land and off of farm workers and their families, to keep water clean, and to protect wildlife. We make vegan choices because we don't want to support cruelty to animals, environmental degradation, and because we support feeding everyone on the planet.

We're not asking people to stop doing what they're doing necessarily, we're inviting them to make a Nonviolent choice.

What do y'all think? How do we help others beyond the "me-me-me" to the "us"? How did you do it?

:) m

Thanks for connecting and starting the conversation, Teresa and Randy!