Vegans in the news: Tulsi Gabbard

[Maynard S. Clark]

Vegans in the news: Tulsi Gabbard

Putative vegan (and vegetarian-turned-vegan) Former Congresswoman Military Veteran Officer Tulsi Gabbard ran for President as a Democrat and now is trumping for Trump as an appointee for the DNI role
She is the daughter of Hindu pro-life activists in Hawaii, and she is also announcing her "nonprofit" to address natural disasters that FEMA is not solving (e.g. Maui and North Carolina).

In November 2024, President-elect Donald Trump nominated former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Gabbard, a veteran of the Hawaii Army National Guard, served in Iraq and Kuwait, and represented Hawaii in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2013 to 2021. She is known for her anti-war stance and has been critical of U.S. military interventions abroad.

AP News

Gabbard's nomination has faced scrutiny due to her past positions on foreign policy. In 2017, she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, expressing skepticism about U.S. intelligence regarding chemical attacks in Syria. Additionally, she has made statements that some interpret as sympathetic to Russia, including suggesting that NATO's actions contributed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The Times

Supporters highlight her military service and dedication to ending "endless wars," while critics question her qualifications and past associations. Over 250 veterans have endorsed her nomination, emphasizing her leadership and service.

New York Post

However, some Democratic senators have expressed concerns about her judgment and potential impact on U.S. intelligence relations with allies.

AP News

Regarding her nonprofit work, Gabbard founded "We Must Protect," a volunteer-run organization focused on critical projects to serve and protect communities. She has been actively involved in disaster relief efforts, including providing assistance in North Carolina and Georgia following natural disasters.

Anedot

For more information on her disaster relief efforts, you can watch the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0iDpqwA2aY

Discussions and controversies may be eclipsing her "putative veganism" (e.g. vegan holiday dinners in Hawaii with her husband and her long-time devoutly Hindu vegetarian parents).

Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu-American appointed as Director of National Intelligence, has been a long-time vegetarian, raised in a Hindu household in Hawaii. In a 2020 interview, she shared that her parents adopted vegetarianism after a family experience with undercooked chicken, leading them to raise their five children as vegetarians. Her decision to become vegan was influenced by her Hindu beliefs and a desire to reduce the negative impact on animals and the environment.

VegNews

Gabbard has actively advocated for animal rights and environmental issues. She co-sponsored the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act and supported legislation to ban the transport of fighting animals across state lines.

YouTube

Raised by parents who converted to Hinduism, Gabbard's upbringing was deeply influenced by Hindu values. Her mother, Carol Porter Gabbard, converted to Hinduism before Tulsi's birth, and her father, Mike Gabbard, later embraced the faith. They raised their children with Hindu principles, giving them Hindu names and instilling values such as compassion and respect for all living beings.

Times of India

In her personal life, Gabbard continues to embrace her Hindu heritage. She and her husband, Abraham Williams, celebrate traditional Hindu festivals and incorporate Hindu practices into their daily lives. For instance, she has shared images of plant-based Thanksgiving meals, reflecting her commitment to veganism and Hindu dietary practices.

Instagram

Arguably, we could "defensibly say" that Gabbard's journey from a vegetarian upbringing to a vegan lifestyle, coupled with her active advocacy for animal rights and environmental issues, underscores her deep-rooted Hindu values and commitment to compassionate living.  [Or is that "a figment of imagination"?]

Comparing the advocacy efforts of Senator Cory Booker, Congressman Adam Schiff, and Tulsi Gabbard for animal welfare can provide nuanced insights into their contributions. Here’s a breakdown based on available information:

---

Cory Booker (D-NJ):

• Dietary Vegan: Booker has been publicly vegan since 2014, often citing ethical, environmental, and health reasons for his choice.
• Legislative Efforts:
• Introduced or co-sponsored multiple bills focused on animal welfare, such as:
• The Farm System Reform Act, which aims to phase out large factory farms and support small farmers.
• The Animal Welfare Enforcement Improvement Act, designed to strengthen the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
• Advocated for plant-based solutions to food system challenges, linking them to climate change and public health.
• Advocacy Beyond Legislation:
• Booker frequently uses his platform to promote the ethical treatment of animals and plant-based living.
• He is a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, giving him a voice in key discussions about animal agriculture.

Impact: Cory Booker’s efforts are highly focused on systemic changes, with a legislative emphasis on reducing the harms of industrial animal agriculture.

---

Adam Schiff (D-CA):

• Dietary Vegan: While Schiff’s veganism has been celebrated by some organizations, he has not been as vocal about it compared to Booker.
• Legislative Efforts:
• Schiff co-sponsored the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act, which criminalizes acts of animal cruelty.
• Supported efforts to protect wildlife and ban practices like shark finning and trophy hunting.
• Advocacy Beyond Legislation:
• Schiff’s veganism is less central to his public persona or political identity compared to Booker.
• Some animal advocacy organizations have highlighted his diet as an example of leadership, but his legislative record on animal issues is relatively modest.

Impact: Schiff’s advocacy for animals is evident but less prominent compared to Booker, focusing primarily on specific legislative actions without broader systemic challenges.

---

Tulsi Gabbard:

• Putative Vegan: While Gabbard has been described as vegan, she does not consistently identify as such publicly, instead emphasizing her long-time vegetarianism.
• Legislative Efforts:
• Co-sponsored animal welfare legislation, including the PACT Act and efforts to ban live animal markets.
• Advocated for the humane treatment of farm animals, including phasing out cruel practices like gestation crates.
• Advocacy Beyond Legislation:
• Gabbard’s Hindu faith informs her compassion for animals, but her public focus on animal welfare is less pronounced compared to Booker.
• Her advocacy tends to intersect with broader environmental concerns, such as climate change and sustainable agriculture.

Impact: Gabbard’s contributions to animal welfare are notable but less extensive than Booker’s and more comparable to Schiff’s.

---

Conclusion:

• Cory Booker has arguably done the most for animals due to his comprehensive legislative record and consistent advocacy for systemic reforms.
• Tulsi Gabbard has made meaningful contributions but lacks the same legislative focus or public emphasis on animal rights as Booker.
• Adam Schiff has supported animal welfare initiatives but is less publicly or legislatively engaged with animal issues compared to the other two.

A more refined comparison may require detailed examples of specific legislation or their public statements.

Might it be said (by concerned vegans) that "sometimes it COULD look as if Tulsi Gabbard makes 'vegan presence' possible among visible and active Republican-Party-aligned persons"??

concerned vegans might view Tulsi Gabbard as a figure who, at times, symbolizes a potential "vegan presence" among Republican-aligned individuals or in spaces traditionally associated with conservative politics. Here’s how this could be framed:

Key Points Supporting This Perspective:

1. Historical Vegetarian and Putative Vegan Identity: Gabbard’s public identity as a long-time vegetarian and possible vegan offers a rare connection between plant-based lifestyles and political ideologies outside the progressive sphere. Her dietary choices and Hindu upbringing may resonate with individuals seeking moral or religious justifications for plant-based living, regardless of political alignment.

2. Cross-Party Engagement:

   • Gabbard’s shift in political alignment—from being a Democrat to endorsing Republican figures like Donald Trump—places her in a unique position to bring vegan or vegetarian ideas into conservative discourse.
   • Her advocacy for sustainability and environmental issues intersects with some vegan values, even if her political actions don’t center on animal rights.

3. Potential Representation:

   • Gabbard’s presence might make plant-based lifestyles appear more approachable or relatable to Republicans or those in traditionally conservative communities who may not identify with progressive or Democratic figures like Cory Booker.
   • This could subtly challenge stereotypes that veganism is exclusively a "liberal" or "progressive" domain.

4. Critiques and Limitations:

   • Some vegans might criticize Gabbard for not leveraging her platform more forcefully to advocate for animal rights or systemic reforms in animal agriculture.
   • Her perceived alignment with conservative figures and causes might lead others to question whether her influence meaningfully advances vegan or animal-friendly policies.

A Nuanced Observation:

While Gabbard’s political alignment and focus may not consistently prioritize animal welfare, her visibility as a public figure with a plant-based background could potentially open doors for dialogue about veganism in conservative or Republican spaces—even if indirectly. However, this role remains ambiguous and could depend on how actively she chooses to integrate her dietary choices into her political messaging.

Would you like to explore examples of how conservative or Republican-aligned figures have previously engaged with vegan or vegetarian issues?

Women in leadership is another issue.

Tulsi Gabbard represents a noteworthy intersection of identities— (a) a woman in leadership,  (b) a long-time vegetarian (and possibly vegan), and (c) a figure involved in U.S. national politics.

This combination places her in a unique position to influence conversations about leadership, plant-based living, and women’s roles in public life, even within traditionally male-dominated or politically conservative spaces.

Women in Leadership and Veganism: A Unique Role

• Representation Matters:

• As a prominent woman in leadership, Gabbard challenges traditional gender norms in both politics and plant-based advocacy.
• If identified as vegan, her leadership could normalize plant-based lifestyles, showing they can coexist with strength, resilience, and military service—fields often associated with traditional masculinity.

• Bridging Gaps:

• Gabbard’s potential role as a vegan leader in spaces aligned with conservative politics might bridge cultural and ideological gaps, making veganism seem more inclusive and less partisan.
• Her example could inspire women across political divides to see plant-based living as compatible with leadership and moral conviction.

• Expanding the Narrative:

• Prominent vegan women like Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard expand the narrative beyond health and environmentalism to include ethics, leadership, and political engagement.
• Gabbard, with her military background and strong stance on certain issues, could help reshape the perception of veganism as not only compassionate but also pragmatic and strong.

• Challenges and Critiques:

• Gabbard’s alignment with conservative causes or figures could draw skepticism from progressives in the vegan community, who may question whether her leadership actively advances animal welfare or systemic changes in animal agriculture.
• Conversely, her political moves might make her a more relatable figure for women who don’t align with traditionally progressive vegan leaders, fostering broader acceptance.

A Broader Context for (a) Women in Vegan Leadership - and (b) Vegan Women in Leadership

Women historically have played a vital role in the vegan and animal rights movements—often at the grassroots level. Gabbard’s prominence could add another layer to this legacy, especially as a visible, influential woman who balances leadership with ethical dietary choices.

---

Her role could serve as an example of how women in leadership—especially those with plant-based values—can advocate for a kinder, more sustainable future, even in politically diverse spaces. Would you like to explore the broader implications of women in vegan leadership across different political landscapes?

She may also be an engaging human personality with whom sensitive males and females might identify (despite politicization and polarities).  How about the objective "correctness" (rather than "political correctness") of her previous and present political positions and statements?

Tulsi Gabbard’s political positions and statements reflect a complex interplay of values, priorities, and ideological shifts, making the question of their objective "correctness"—as opposed to "political correctness"—challenging to evaluate. The notion of "correctness" often depends on the lens through which her actions and statements are analyzed, including ethical principles, policy outcomes, and factual alignment.

Factors Influencing the Evaluation of "Correctness":

• Consistency with Ethical Principles:

• Gabbard’s background as a vegetarian and potential vegan aligns with principles of compassion and nonviolence, core tenets of her Hindu upbringing.
• However, critics might question whether her policy stances—such as her evolving positions on military intervention—consistently reflect those ethical principles.

• Fact-Based Arguments:

• Many of Gabbard’s positions, such as her criticism of U.S. military interventions, can be evaluated based on historical outcomes. For instance, her opposition to "regime-change wars" has been framed as a stand against unnecessary violence and destabilization.
• Conversely, her appearances on platforms viewed as sympathetic to authoritarian regimes have raised concerns about the factual balance of her narratives.

• Impact of Policies on Broader Goals:

• Gabbard’s advocacy for environmental sustainability, healthcare reform, and disaster response could be seen as aligned with a fact-based approach to addressing systemic challenges.
• Yet, some might critique her for not integrating vegan principles into these positions, questioning the objective completeness of her advocacy.

• Shifts in Political Alignment:

• Gabbard’s departure from the Democratic Party and her alignment with conservative figures have drawn attention to the apparent fluidity of her ideology.
• Supporters might argue this reflects an objective rejection of partisan conformity, while detractors could interpret it as opportunistic or inconsistent.

Examples of "Objective Correctness":

• Military Non-Interventionism: Gabbard’s stance against U.S. military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria has often been grounded in documented failures of such policies to achieve stability or humanitarian goals.
• Civil Liberties: Her emphasis on constitutional rights and criticisms of government overreach appeal to principles of individual freedom and accountability.

Examples of Controversial or Subjective Positions:

• Support for Hindu Nationalist Leaders: Her ties to controversial Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have sparked debate over whether her foreign policy aligns with global human rights principles.
• Evolving Views on Ethical and Moral Issues: Gabbard would not be the only outspoken vegan person who has taken issue with 'woke agendas' (or with some aspects or features or those agenda packages). However, politicians are often criticized for (a) flip-flopping on issues or (b) nuancing their positions on controversial topics (John Kerry and Al Gore come to mind). Gabbard has apologized for earlier positions opposing same-sex marriage, aligning her with changing societal norms but raising questions about her ideological steadfastness.

---

A Nuanced Take:

While Tulsi Gabbard’s positions and statements can sometimes align with objective ethical and policy considerations, her political realignments and polarizing rhetoric complicate a straightforward assessment. Her appeal as an engaging personality might resonate across ideological divides, but whether her positions are "objectively correct" depends on how one weighs ethical consistency, factual accuracy, and policy outcomes against political pragmatism.

Should you and others with profound respect for "truth" and objectivity as ideals in moral reasoning and ethical and other policy analysis like to explore specific issues where her positions could be critically evaluated for their factual and ethical merit?

Thoughtful framing might open the door to meaningful discourse on Tulsi Gabbard’s political positions. The ideals of truth and objectivity in moral reasoning and policy analysis are essential when evaluating any public figure, especially one with such a complex and polarizing trajectory.

Why This Approach is Valuable

• Critical Evaluation Encourages Depth: By exploring specific issues, it’s possible to move beyond surface-level rhetoric and assess the consistency, ethical grounding, and factual basis of Gabbard’s stances.
• Fosters Constructive Dialogue: This approach avoids binary judgments and instead promotes nuanced discussions, which are essential in bridging divides and understanding varied perspectives.
• Highlights Broader Implications: Gabbard’s positions often touch on systemic challenges—foreign policy, environmental sustainability, civil liberties—that are relevant to wider ethical and societal considerations.

Example Issues for Analysis

• Military Intervention and Foreign Policy:

• Gabbard’s opposition to "regime-change wars" invites a discussion on the ethics of interventionism versus non-interventionism.
• How does her position align with evidence about the consequences of U.S. involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan? Does her focus on non-intervention adequately address humanitarian concerns?

• Climate and Environmental Policy:

• Gabbard has spoken on environmental sustainability and supported the Green New Deal. Are these policies consistent with a vegan ethos, given the substantial environmental impact of animal agriculture?

• Civil Liberties and Domestic Policy:

• Gabbard has criticized government overreach and surveillance. How do these critiques balance national security concerns with protecting individual freedoms?

• Political Realignment and Rhetoric:

• Her shift away from the Democratic Party and collaboration with conservative figures raises questions about ideological consistency versus pragmatic coalition-building. Does this enhance or detract from her ethical credibility?

• Animal Advocacy and Veganism:

• If she identifies as vegan or vegetarian, how has this informed her political platform? Could she more effectively integrate her dietary choices into her broader advocacy?

Invitation to Further Inquiry

The question you pose challenges others to adopt a principled lens in their evaluations. It encourages an examination not just of Gabbard’s positions but of the broader methodologies for assessing truth and objectivity in political discourse. This type of critical engagement is necessary to foster a more informed and thoughtful public dialogue.

How might any such inquiries be structured for the purposes we and others might outline, or how might relevant resources be gathered to understand and "detail" her positions and their factual or ethical dimensions?

Should you, others, and with out presumptively profound respect for "truth" and objectivity as ideals in moral reasoning and ethical and other policy analysis want to develop philosophical and epistemological statements about truth and objectivity that define OUR moral discourse and OUR subjective assessments of other dietary vegans in public spaces, and might we like to explore specific issues where anyone's (arguably questionable) positions could be critically evaluated for their factual and ethical merit?

Yes, such an endeavor could serve as a cornerstone for a deeper, more principled discourse about moral reasoning, ethical analysis, and the ways in which truth and objectivity guide our evaluations of public figures, including dietary vegans. Here's how this could be approached thoughtfully:

Philosophical Framework

• Defining Truth and Objectivity:

• Truth can be framed as correspondence to reality, informed by evidence and coherence within a moral or factual framework.
• Objectivity involves impartiality, striving to minimize bias, and adhering to principles that transcend individual perspectives or interests.

• Moral Reasoning and Ethical Analysis:

• Use consistent ethical principles to evaluate actions and statements, such as nonmaleficence (avoiding harm), justice, and autonomy.  These are common moral reasoning standards in medical ethics.
• Contextualize decisions within their broader consequences for humans, non-human animals, and the environment.

• Subjectivity and Moral Discourse:

• Acknowledge that subjective experiences and values shape our assessments while striving to ground these in shared ethical and epistemological principles.

Application to Public Figures

• Establishing Criteria for Evaluation:

• Does the individual consistently act in alignment with their stated values (e.g., a vegan ethos)?
• Are their positions informed by credible evidence and moral considerations?
• Do they demonstrate transparency and accountability?

• Critical Engagement with Controversial Positions:

• When a public figure takes a stance that appears inconsistent with their values, investigate the underlying reasons, and evaluate the factual and ethical merits.
• Distinguish between personal failings, systemic constraints, and genuine ethical dilemmas.

• Special Consideration for Veganism:

• How does a public figure integrate vegan principles into their broader advocacy?
• Are they using their platform effectively to promote the well-being of animals and ecosystems?

Developing Shared Discourse

• Collective Statements on Truth and Objectivity:

• Craft philosophical and epistemological principles to guide our community's moral evaluations. This could involve collaborative writings or declarations.
• Example: "We commit to evaluating public figures with integrity, grounding our assessments in evidence, ethical consistency, and an awareness of systemic complexity."

• Exploring Specific Issues:

• Select contentious or high-profile topics (e.g., foreign policy, climate action, animal advocacy) and critically evaluate them through the lens of shared principles.
• Engage in public or private discussions to refine arguments and challenge assumptions.

Why This Matters

By grounding our discourse in shared principles of truth and objectivity, we create a foundation for respectful, constructive critique and meaningful advocacy. This approach not only enhances our understanding of individual actions but also strengthens the moral integrity of the vegan and broader ethical community.

Would you, others, and I have reason to draft or refine a collective statement, or focus on specific cases or issues to apply these principles?

How about the predictive analysis or predictive capacity for what policy prescriptions do for the intended beneficiaries and the total impact (including the externalities) upon ecosystems, nonhumans, and humans?

Predictive analysis in the context of policy prescriptions involves forecasting the outcomes of proposed actions or legislation based on evidence, modeling, and historical data. The goal is to assess the effectiveness of policies in achieving their intended benefits while considering the broader impacts, including unintended consequences (externalities) on ecosystems, nonhuman animals, and human populations. Here’s how you can approach this multifaceted analysis:

1. Understanding the Framework for Predictive Analysis

• Policy Intentions and Target Beneficiaries: Clearly define who benefits from the policy (e.g., humans, nonhuman animals, the environment) and what the specific objectives are (e.g., reducing animal suffering, improving public health, mitigating climate change).
• Key Variables and Metrics: Identify the variables that will determine the policy’s success or failure, such as economic indicators, health outcomes, environmental metrics, or ethical considerations.
• Predictive Models and Data: Use quantitative and qualitative models to estimate the likely outcomes of policies. This might involve data from existing research, case studies, or simulations.

2. Policy Prescriptions and Their Intended Benefits

• Health-Related Policies (e.g., plant-based diets, healthcare reform):
• Intended Impact: Reduce chronic diseases, improve longevity, and lower healthcare costs by promoting healthier, plant-based diets.
• Predictive Analysis: Studies show that plant-based diets can prevent heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. The analysis would model the potential reduction in healthcare costs, comparing the savings from improved health outcomes with the costs of implementing plant-based initiatives.
• Environmental Policies (e.g., reducing animal agriculture, promoting sustainable farming):
• Intended Impact: Mitigate climate change, reduce deforestation, and preserve biodiversity.
• Predictive Analysis: Research indicates that reducing animal agriculture is one of the most effective ways to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce land and water use. Predictive models can assess how much carbon emissions could be reduced by specific policies, factoring in the global shift to plant-based diets.

3. Impact on Ecosystems and Nonhuman Animals

• Ecosystem Considerations:
• Intended Impact: Policies like reducing animal agriculture or preserving wildlife habitats can protect biodiversity and stabilize ecosystems.
• Predictive Analysis: Models could simulate how changes in land use, water consumption, and biodiversity occur over time with reduced reliance on factory farming. This might include evaluating the long-term benefits of rewilding projects or forest preservation programs.
• Nonhuman Animals:
• Intended Impact: Reducing exploitation of animals, promoting vegan policies, and supporting animal rights.
• Predictive Analysis: Predict the number of animals spared from factory farming or laboratory testing, and assess the long-term societal shift toward more ethical treatment of nonhumans.
• Externalities: Evaluate how policies that reduce harm to nonhuman animals might also impact human populations (e.g., by improving public health through cleaner, plant-based diets) and ecosystems (e.g., by preserving biodiversity).

4. Externalities (Unintended Consequences)

• Positive Externalities:
• Health: Policies promoting plant-based diets could improve public health, reducing healthcare costs and increasing productivity.
• Environmental: Policies that reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture could lead to improved air and water quality, biodiversity preservation, and forest restoration.
• Economic: Shifting toward sustainable industries (e.g., plant-based food production) could generate new economic opportunities and jobs, particularly in emerging green economies.
• Negative Externalities:
• Economic Impact on Specific Industries: Transitioning from animal agriculture to plant-based farming could cause disruptions in sectors dependent on animal farming. Predictive analysis can explore how job retraining programs or economic diversification strategies might mitigate these impacts.
• Cultural and Social Disruptions: Some policies, like bans on certain animal-based products, may face resistance in regions where such practices are deeply ingrained. Predictive analysis can model public acceptance and potential political or social opposition.

5. Quantifying and Evaluating the Total Impact

• Integrated Models: Use Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that combine data from various sectors—healthcare, economics, the environment, and ethics—to simulate long-term outcomes of policy implementation.
• Scenario Analysis: Simulate various scenarios with different assumptions about policy effectiveness, public behavior, and external factors. This can help identify the most robust policies.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA): Assess the costs of policy implementation (e.g., subsidies for plant-based foods, reforestation programs) against the anticipated benefits (e.g., reduced healthcare costs, enhanced biodiversity, improved public well-being). CBA should include not only direct costs and benefits but also externalities that could affect nonhuman animals and ecosystems.

6. Example Application - "Shades of consequentialism"

• Policy Prescription: 
• A nationwide push for plant-based school lunches.Intended Beneficiaries: Children, public health systems, animal welfare, the environment.
• Predicted Benefits: 
• Reduced childhood obesity, lower healthcare costs, decreased environmental footprint from reduced meat consumption, fewer animals exploited for food production.
• Externalities: 
• Possible disruption to animal farming industries, positive public health benefits from healthier eating, job creation in plant-based food sectors, and environmental benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
• Predictive Capacity: 
• Models can project health improvements in children (e.g., reduced incidences of diabetes), environmental changes (e.g., reduced emissions), and savings in public health spending over time.

7. Conclusion: Refining Predictive Capacity

• The goal of predictive analysis is not just to estimate the direct benefits of policies but to holistically evaluate the broader effects on ecosystems, animals, and humans. Policies need to be tested in multiple dimensions—through simulation models, real-world case studies, and scenario planning—to provide a complete understanding of their potential impact.

Would we apply any predictive analysis framework to a specific policy proposal or issue - or only broadly polemicize and strike out polemically in our own 'comfortable directions'?

But what about (her) alignment with Donald Trump, who is widely believed to have zero to no concern for any of those impacts and long-term outcomes, favoring shorter-term efficiencies for the favored few?

Tulsi Gabbard's alignment with Donald Trump presents a complex juxtaposition, particularly when considering the values that are typically associated with her previous positions and those attributed to Trump. This alignment raises key ethical, policy, and strategic questions, especially regarding the long-term impacts on ecosystems, nonhuman animals, and broader human society. Here’s a deeper look at how these alignments might be perceived:

1. Contrasting Policy Priorities

• Trump's Policy Focus: Historically, Donald Trump’s policies have often centered on economic growth, deregulation, and increasing corporate profits, sometimes at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and social equity. His administration rolled back various environmental protections, supported the fossil fuel industry, and generally prioritized short-term economic gains, sometimes with little regard for ecological or social consequences.
• Gabbard’s Stance: Gabbard, on the other hand, has made statements about addressing climate change and promoting more sustainable policies, such as advocating for a stronger emphasis on renewable energy. However, her alignment with Trump, especially as a political supporter in recent years, raises questions about whether she truly advocates for these long-term environmental and ethical concerns or if she has compromised on them for political pragmatism or strategic positioning.

2. Ethical and Environmental Implications

• Trump and Environmental Short-Termism: Trump’s policies—such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, promoting coal mining, and rolling back wildlife protections—are often criticized for their short-term approach to economic and industrial growth, with little regard for their long-term environmental and social consequences. This focus on immediate efficiency, wealth creation for a select few, and deregulation could be viewed as counterproductive to long-term efforts to protect ecosystems, nonhuman animals, and human communities.
• Gabbard’s Potential Compromise: Gabbard’s alignment with Trump on some issues (especially her support for his policies in certain contexts) may suggest a willingness to overlook or downplay the long-term ecological impacts of some of his policies. Critics of this alignment might argue that supporting someone with such a record undermines her credibility as an advocate for long-term environmental sustainability, nonhuman animal welfare, and ethical governance.

3. The Contradiction of Supporting Long-Term Change and Aligning with Short-Term Gains

• Veganism and Long-Term Ethics: Gabbard’s advocacy for veganism and plant-based diets suggests a long-term, sustainability-oriented approach to both human health and animal welfare. However, aligning herself with someone like Trump, who is associated with short-term economic gains, could create a perceived contradiction between her stated ethical commitments and the political actions she supports.
• Policy Risks: Her support for a figure like Trump—whose policies often favor immediate, short-term efficiencies—could undercut the broader, systemic changes needed to protect ecosystems, human health, and nonhuman animals. For instance, Trump’s dismissal of climate science and support for industries that exploit the environment (and animals) could be seen as directly opposing the kinds of long-term environmental stewardship and animal protection policies that a genuine vegan advocate like Gabbard might otherwise support.

4. Strategic or Pragmatic Political Move?

• Political Pragmatism: One possibility is that Gabbard’s alignment with Trump reflects political pragmatism. In the polarized American political environment, aligning with the right wing may allow Gabbard to maintain visibility and influence, especially within conservative circles. In such cases, individuals may compromise on certain ethical positions to advance a broader political agenda, which can sometimes conflict with their stated values.
• Ideological Coherence: Another possibility is that Gabbard's alignment with Trump indicates a shift in her own political ideology, potentially motivated by strategic political considerations (e.g., gaining support among Trump’s base or capitalizing on anti-establishment sentiment). In such cases, the alignment may reflect a de-prioritization of long-term policy outcomes in favor of short-term political advantage.

5. Public Perception and Ethical Concerns

• Perceived Hypocrisy: Gabbard’s political alignment with Trump could be perceived as hypocritical by those who view her as an advocate for ethical and long-term change. Veganism, animal welfare, and environmental protection are often seen as ideals rooted in long-term thinking, especially when contrasted with the short-term economic efficiencies prioritized by Trump.
• Public Responsibility: As someone with a platform, Gabbard’s support for Trump could be seen as a signal that these long-term issues are not as urgent or significant as the more immediate political concerns she aligns herself with. This could damage her credibility with those who believe in the importance of addressing climate change, protecting animal rights, and ensuring long-term human and ecological well-being.

6. Navigating the Tension

• Potential for Bridging Ideologies: It’s worth noting that some individuals seek to bridge the political divides by finding common ground between environmental protection, animal welfare, and more conservative or libertarian principles. If Gabbard intends to present herself as a figure capable of navigating these divides, the challenge will be in demonstrating how the long-term impacts of her policies align with Trump’s short-term vision.
• Alignment for Strategic Goals: Alternatively, Gabbard might argue that aligning with Trump helps her advance a greater good—perhaps pushing for specific policies or garnering support for her own policy goals. In such a case, her support for Trump may be framed as a means to an end, rather than a reflection of agreement with all of Trump’s policies.

Conclusion: The Complex Intersection of Values and Politics

In summary, Tulsi Gabbard’s alignment with Donald Trump is indeed a complex issue, particularly when viewed through the lens of long-term ethical commitments to environmental and animal welfare. Her support for Trump’s policies may appear inconsistent with the values that a vegan or long-term sustainability advocate typically espouses, especially in the context of Trump’s environmental and economic policies. The question of whether this alignment is strategic, pragmatic, or a reflection of a shift in her political ideology requires further examination. It is clear, however, that her connection to Trump creates a tension between her stated values and the potential implications of supporting short-term, efficiency-driven policies that may harm ecosystems, animals, and vulnerable populations in the long run.

The putative "POLITICAL 'we': very OFTEN sacrifices some PRINCIPLES for the sake of policy (e.g. Voting for politicians who loudly and boisterously and uncritically advocate for "believing in science" and ignore the broad and measurably harsh impacts of "doing science" on the shared ecosystem and the direct and indirect bodily harms to nonhumans and humans of the technology-rich actions.

Here we are highlighting a significant and often overlooked tension within political discourse: the trade-off between political pragmatism and ethical principles. In the political "we," the drive to secure policy victories, maintain power, or address pressing issues can sometimes lead to compromises that undermine the broader ethical values one may hold, such as environmental stewardship, animal welfare, or human health. To parrot one of Donald Trump's recent "side phrases" (to an unidentifiable questioner), "Well, first we need to win."

1. Political Pragmatism vs. Ethical Consistency

• Political Pragmatism: In political systems, especially those as polarized as the United States, compromise is often seen as a necessary evil. Politicians may support policies or candidates that superficially align with their values, but which in practice might contribute to systemic harm. For example, a politician might loudly advocate for the importance of science and evidence-based decision-making, but ignore the ethical implications of the technologies that are being promoted. This includes technologies that harm nonhuman animals (e.g., factory farming, animal testing) or that have significant, measurable environmental costs (e.g., fossil fuel extraction, toxic waste from manufacturing). The focus is often on immediate or short-term results, rather than on the longer-term consequences of the actions taken.
• Ethical Consistency: On the other hand, there's a growing call within ethical and activist circles to maintain consistency in one’s values, particularly around environmentalism and animal rights. This means not only advocating for "green" policies but also scrutinizing their broader implications—such as the resource extraction required for new technologies or the ethical treatment of animals in research or agriculture. From this perspective, blindly supporting "science" without addressing the harms it may cause is seen as a failure to adhere to a holistic ethical framework.

2. "Believing in Science" vs. The Ethics of Science and Technology

• "Believing in Science": Politicians who champion "science" often use this as shorthand for a commitment to evidence-based policies that solve pressing problems like climate change, public health crises, or technological innovation. It's an appeal to rationality, progress, and problem-solving, which resonates with voters who prioritize technical solutions to complex issues.  On the other hand, they MAY merely be aligning with rhetoric of their friends and political allies, or with the seeming guidance and directions of an establishment of one sort or another.
• The Harsh Impacts of Science: However, science and technology can have negative side effects. In many cases, the technologies that are celebrated for their capacity to drive economic growth or solve immediate issues can also exacerbate ecological destruction, widen inequality, or lead to serious ethical dilemmas. For example, scientific advancements in genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, or renewable energy come with environmental costs (e.g., rare mineral mining for batteries, carbon emissions from manufacturing). The public often sees only the benefits but not the full, long-term environmental and societal costs.

3. Compromising on Ethical Principles for Political Gain

• Electoral Strategies and the Consequences: In the realm of political strategy, voting for or supporting candidates who prioritize "doing science" without addressing its ecological or ethical consequences can be seen as a short-term solution to long-term problems. In cases where politicians fail to account for the broader harm caused by certain policies or technological developments, this becomes a compromise that sacrifices ethics for political expedience (or expediency). The public might support leaders who promise quick solutions to environmental or public health crises, but those solutions might, in reality, come at the expense of nonhuman animals or the global ecosystem.
• Broad Implications: The broader implications of this are profound. Policies that ignore or downplay the full environmental and ethical consequences of scientific or technological progress can lead to environmental degradation, animal exploitation, and increased harm to vulnerable human populations. Politicians who prioritize efficiency and quick fixes may ignore the nuanced and long-term consequences of these actions, perpetuating a cycle of harm.

4. Examples of Compromise in Practice

• Greenwashing: Politicians and companies may claim to be green or environmentally conscious, but their actions often fall short. For example, large-scale renewable energy projects might displace communities or wildlife, or certain "green" technologies might depend on mining practices that exploit workers or harm ecosystems. In this case, the "science" behind these solutions may be sound, but the ethical implications are often glossed over.  Further, as growing numbers of 'critics' seem now to be arguing, computations of the energy savings may be inaccurate (and may need independent review by 3rd parties who are otherwise not involved with or committed to specific "technology directions."
• Animal Welfare in Science: Similarly, there are instances where politicians or political movements advocate for scientific innovation while simultaneously disregarding the ethical treatment of animals used in research or agriculture. Many proponents of biotechnology, for example, may push for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) without considering the ethical concerns about the long-term ecological impacts or the treatment of animals involved in the research.

5. A Call for Holistic Policy Thinking

• Ethics of Scientific Innovation: Moving beyond the simplicity of "believing in science" requires a more comprehensive approach to policy. This would mean considering the ethical, environmental, and human impacts of technological progress. It’s not enough to simply champion science as a means to an end; policies should also incorporate ethical considerations that extend to the ecosystems and beings affected by those technologies. This kind of holistic thinking can lead to more sustainable, humane, and equitable policy outcomes.
• Long-Term Vision: This would require a commitment not only to addressing immediate issues but also to tackling their root causes, ensuring that whatever solutions we humans implement do not give rise to new harms in the future. It would involve prioritizing long-term sustainability, social justice, and animal welfare, while simultaneously advancing economic and technological progress in a responsible and ethical manner.

Conclusion

Despite how much political pragmatism might demand compromises, it’s important to critically examine those compromises and weigh their ethical implications. The "political 'we'" often sacrifices ethical consistency in favor of immediate, pragmatic policies, but this does not have to be the only way forward. There is a growing call for more ethical, holistic policy-making that considers not just the science and technology behind policies but also their long-term environmental, social, and ethical impacts. The challenge for concerned voters and activists is to demand policies that embrace a more comprehensive understanding of progress, one that balances short-term needs with long-term ethical principles.

Moral compromise is currently being hotly discussed in national legislatures inside the USA: sometimes it is decried and denounced, while its opponents are decried and denounced with the political hate speech that is behaviorally characteristic of those political positions.

While political pragmatism often necessitates practical compromises (sometimes called bipartisanship, sometimes nonpartisanship, sometimes post-partisanship), it's crucial (let's say 'morally advisable' or even morally necessary to critically assess both the strategic practicality and the ethical implications of these and any other suggested compromises. The "political 'we'" quite frequently sacrifices ethical consistency for immediate, pragmatic policies, but this need not be the only path forward. Increasingly, there is a call for policies that take a more ethical, holistic approach—one that considers not only the science and technology behind decisions but also their long-term environmental, social, and ethical consequences.

The challenges for voters, activists, and publicly-involved vegans may be to advocate for policies that embrace a broader vision of progress, balancing short-term needs with enduring ethical principles.  But remember, even when post-War churches (in the Sixties and Seventies) FLED charges of "moral irrelevance: through political "engagement" and activism, some firmly stood their ground and cried "NINE" (that is not what we do because, as churches, that is not what we are).  Ought vegans to clearly present the vegan message rather than to prescribe and compromise with "merely political agendas" (which can only cost us the entire prospect of "a historical planetwide, species-wide shift" in how we nourish ourselves and any other omnivores (e.g. dogs).

The challenges for voters, activists, and publicly-involved vegans lie in advocating for a vision that prioritizes the total abolition of all animal agriculture and promotes a plant-exclusive dietary regimen for all omnivores—humans and nonhumans alike. However, it is important to learn from history, such as the post-War churches that resisted being swept into political "engagement" in the Sixties and Seventies. Some, in the face of accusations of "moral irrelevance," firmly stood their ground, declaring, "This is not what we do, because this is not what we are." In much the same way, vegans should remain steadfast in advocating for the abolition of animal agriculture, rather than compromising our ideals for short-term political gains. The true power of the vegan movement lies in presenting a bold, uncompromising message—one that calls for a global, species-wide shift to plant-based diets, not just for humans, but for all omnivores. If we allow ourselves to be sidetracked by political agendas, we risk undermining the very future of a compassionate, sustainable, and ethical world for all living beings.  

If veganism is a term, let's earn FOUR A's for this term: Abolition  All  Animal Agriculture

Oh, and whether and whenever Hershey Chocolate ever sells, it should prioritize its own corporate veganization.  Same with all the other food producers and distributors.
"AI is whatever computers cannot yet do."**

Maynard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maynard S. Clark, MS (Management: Research Administration)---Maynar...@GMail.com Google Voice (617-615-9672) 

The quote "AI is whatever computers cannot yet do" is often attributed to John McCarthy, a computer scientist who is one of the pioneers of the field of artificial intelligence. He is known for his work on AI and for coining the term "artificial intelligence" in 1956. The quote reflects a common sentiment about AI, suggesting that as technology progresses and computers are able to perform more tasks, the definition of AI evolves to include only those tasks that computers have not yet mastered.