Animal Person

On Kid Nation-WTF?

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here because I have never actually seen Kid Nation. But for what I will address, it doesn't matter (you'll see why).

All you need to know for now: Last week, the kids killed chickens and ate them.

Let's deconstruct:

• I heard two things: they killed them because they needed protein (that's all over the website) and they killed them because they wanted chicken soup (that's more like what they say in the clips). Apparently, the kids had access to nuts, beans and whole grains, and didn't actually need to kill anyone. Why didn't they think they had enough protein in their diets already? Where did that come from? The only close-to justification for killing a chicken would have been a B12 deficiency, and even over the course of the entire show (40 days), the kids wouldn't have suffered from that yet. Did they just have a hankerin' fer some chicken soup? If they were having the protein discussion, they clearly weren't qualified enough and in that case it was unethical for CBS to allow that discussion to continue without telling the children that they do indeed have all the protein they need.
• As soon as I heard about the show I immediately knew that it would eventually come around to food and slaughter. After all, this is a reality show we're talking about, and it is on CBS, which is a fan of slaughtering animals for ratings, as they have on Survivor.
• To put children in a position to come to care for nonhuman animals (that part is important, as it makes it far worse for the kids who cared) and then corner them so they think that they must kill those animals has got to be traumatic for them. And for all those who say the kids voted to kill the chickens, from what I understand it was the kids who didn't have a relationship with the chickens who convinced the rest that the chickens needed to die.
• Part of me wants to say: GREAT! Now maybe they'll all go vegan because they see what must happen to get their chicken soup. But even if that did happen--and it didn't--I ultimately don't agree with what actually occurred.
• Did the kids who cared about the chickens eat the soup? Some kids can easily be persuaded to forget about a principle they were beginning to develop, and I'd hate to think that something like that occurred here. And for what? Ratings? Shame on CBS.

For all of you who have seen the show? What do you think?

On Clorox and Not-so Subliminal Advertising

There I was, minding my own business, doing Pilates while watching All My Children (several friends have been on AMC through the years, so I've always tuned in to support and laugh at them. And I used to live near Susan Lucci and see her often and may I just say she makes me look fat.). And the following commercial comes on:

Two children are whispering. We hear one say: "I eat food off the floor."

Two other children whisper and we hear: "I play with my poops in the toilet." (Do they really do that, by the way? I was a nanny for years and I never saw anything like that. And mom, if I did that, now's your chance for payback.)

Cut to two children on a hill playing with a baby pig.

No dialogue.

Another two children: "I don't wash my hands."

The announcer then says: "Kids pass around more than germs . . . When their world is cleaner, their lives are healthier."

Let me get this straight: Playing with a piglet is on par with playing with poop? And pigs equal filth and germs (and more than germs, apparently). It's gross to touch live ones, yet it's fine to eat dead ones? Pigs are the personification of "dirty?"

Why weren't the kids playing with a puppy or a kitten? Why a pig? To add to the list of things they do that are yucky and unhealthy. Advertising companies do nothing accidentally. That pig was there in lieu of dialogue, to send the message: filth.

Thank heavens we have those Clorox disinfecting wipes.

When are we going to stop vilifying pigs?

Sure, some ad agency was responsible for this commercial, but we can let Clorox know that perpetuating stereotypes of nonhuman animals, and conditioning children and their parents to associate pigs with germs, doesn't help sell wipes (although I'm sure it helps with developing speciesism).

I know this isn't global warming I'm talking about. But I think part of our activism should be to stop people in their tracks (and register our malcontent with corporations) every time something is said or alluded to that perpetuates negative stereotypes or is otherwise misleading or downright incorrect.

But that's me.

On Killer Chimps, Big Cats and Alligators

The backstory of Daniel Flynn's "Orphan Chimps Turned Killer Find Leone Refuge," is vaguely familiar--except for the chimps. In South Florida (and other places in the US), the main characters are big cats. Baby animals born in the wild are basically abducted and used as pets. To the surprise of the humans involved, they inevitably become large, difficult to deal with, and/or deadly. Lesson? Don't use wildlife as pets.

Humans appear to have a not very steep learning curve, however, and despite our proclamations of our own brilliance, and we fail to learn this lesson.

Let's deconstruct:

• In Sierra Leone, chimp populations are in steep decline as hunters butcher entire families, often using them for bushmeat.
• Babies are often spared and brought to town and adopted by people who think they're cute.
• Chimps have demonstrated 38 vocalizations, their family bonds are strong, and they are "prodigious toolmakers." In other words, they are like us.
• "Chimps are fierce and territorial and their powerful bodies are five times stronger than a man's. Wild chimpanzees will not attack humans because the latter are taller, but domesticated chimps quickly realize their physical advantage. The orphaned chimps are scarred by years of abuse. For almost all of them, their first experience of mankind was the slaughter of their families. Many were forced to drink alcohol to entertain humans; some had their teeth smashed or were kept in tiny cages."
• Bala Marasekaran, who used to be an accountant, started a sanctuary for them 20 years ago and hopes to rehabilitate them and return them to the wild. He says, "They are all individuals, they all have different characters so it's never boring with them." When he describes the chimps as his passion he says, "It would probably happen to anyone who gets close to a chimp. You see your reflection in them and want to help them." Except if you're a hunter, in which case your reflection makes you want to kill them.
  
• Several chimps escaped their enclosure and mauled a man to death. They were recaptured and are back at the sanctuary.

First let me say that starting a sanctuary is brutal business. I've watched someone do it and it takes the utmost dedication to the animals and often every other part of the person's life is sacrificed.

It is interesting that the appeal of chimps is that they are like us. We see ourselves in them. We see them as individuals because we see their human-like qualities. They "vocalize," they make tools, they have strong family bonds. In a sense, their genetic and behavioral similarity to us is what saves them. It's what makes us want to save them. Even after they've killed a person (not that I don't think we should save them--I'm just making a point).

Here in South Florida, baby alligators are often left orphaned. People usually don't think they're cute or see themselves in the gators, so they might used them for alligator-wrestling or stick them in a box in a restaurant as some kind of exhibit. Often as they grow they prove to be too much to handle and are discarded (i.e., killed).

If they come to close to people or injure someone they are hunted down and roped, and their eyes and mouth are taped shut with electrical tape. Then they're killed. We see it all the time on the news. People cheer. The news anchor jokes and congratulates the gator wrangler. That's what happens to animals who aren't enough like people.

My Blog Against Abuse

As many of you pointed out to me months ago, I used to use the phrase "use and abuse" (more often than I do now) and abusing is usually only possible if you're using in the first place (there's always wanton cruelty to an animal you have no relationship with, and that is terrible, but that's not what I'm talking about).

The problem is the institutionalized use of nonhuman animals. Nonhuman animals are, against their will, important parts of industries that produce food, clothing, drugs and consumer products, as well as industries such as entertainment, sports and research.

In order to be unwitting accomplices in these endeavors (and sometimes they're the unwitting sole focus): we breed them or abduct them (i.e., take them from their home and family); bring them to wherever we decide they will live; feed them what we decide they will eat (whether or not it is good or natural for them); drug them if it will serve our purposes (to make them produce more or run faster or feel less pain so they can perform better or run faster while injured); decide when they will reproduce and how (often artificially, and often violently); decide if they will ever see the light of day; determine when they are no longer useful to us; and end their lives in whatever way we see fit. And there's often transportation involved in various stages of the process.

Even if all of those elements are accomplished the most comfortable way possible, two factors are always present: we take their physical and reproductive freedom from them, and we kill them when we want to. When I conjure up the kindest scenario possible, say, taking an animal from the wild and putting that animal on display in surroundings that closely mimic her natural home, I'm still left with: why do that? The answer to that question and any question regarding why we use animals is the same: because we can and because we want to. If it benefits us in any way--even as entertainment or as a curiosity, we  will use animals.

In my mind, that's not right. When there is absolutely no dire need to use sentient beings, say as food or clothing or transportation or sport, I find it morally unjustifiable to do so.  Someone will always write in with some extreme circumstance situated on some remote deserted island and ask me to choose between dying and killing a fish for food (which I'm not sure I am capable of doing, but you never know), and I'm not talking about that.

In 2007, in the developed world, where we know that a perfectly healthy diet can be created from vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, legumes and grains (sure, and 15 drops of B12), and we certainly have no need to wear animal products in any weather, and there are effective, efficient models for research that do not require animals, and I don't even have to discuss sports or entertainment because I've yet to meet a person who attempts to claim to need animals for those purposes, why haven't our ethics evolved more?

Using the life, body, time, energy, secretions, skin, and natural abilities of another to your benefit is the abuse I fight every day. 

Join me.

And check out Deb Durant's post as well as Kenneth Cassar's! They, too have blogged for a cause today.

On the Language of the Meat/Climate Change Connection

I've been trolling around reading some heated debates regarding meat-eating and the environment (one on Grist regarding PETA and another on Grist regarding veganism immediately come to mind). It appears that meat-eaters are trying desperately to continue to feel good--or at least not so bad--about eating meat.

Let's deconstruct:

• As far as the insanity regarding can we say Meat-eating is the #1 cause of global warming, there's a staggeringly simply solution: Don't say it. There is enough evidence that eating animals--particularly given the way they are "produced" (bred, raised and slaughtered) in 2007, is deleterious enough to the environment that quibbling about whether or not it is number one is a waste of time.
• The meat-eating environmentalists are correct about one thing: If you, say, have a small plot of land and raise chickens, eat their eggs, then slaughter, butcher and eat them when they're spent, your carbon footprint could indeed be smaller than a vegan who drives an SUV, has two kids and lives in suburbia (in Grist on veganism, there is reference to a spreadsheet you can download that compares the footprint of vegans and non-vegans, given other considerations such as the having of pets, size of house, usage of a car, and whether the person is overweight).
• Glaringly absent from the discussion is something that some Grist readers actually think is inappropriate to discuss on Grist: ethics (they will say Grist is the inappropriate forum for a discussion about animal rights or veganism, which is basically saying that ethics apply to the environment and somehow nonhuman animals are unrelated).

Reading these debates was the first time I was embarrassed to consider myself an environmentalist. The meat-eating enviros had nasty things to say about vegans (and yes, that might have something to do with the fact that they put all of us in the PETA pile), all while saying vegans are the ones whose approach and/or personalities are in need of revamping. And there was no shortage of "humans are designed to eat meat"  and "some people just can't be vegetarians."

I'm writing a brief section regarding the impact on the environment of raising animals for food for my pamphlet, and I won't be saying you can't be a meat-eating environmentalist (though I have said that in the past), because I think there is a way you can do it. However, you have to remove ethics toward sentient beings from the equation to make it work. If you're an enviro, I'd assume that ethics toward the beings who live in "the environment" are important to you. But I have learned that I cannot make that assumption.

Finally, part of the debate on Grist regarding veganism, which confirms the point above, is that having cats and dogs (and the creator of the spreadsheet assumes the dogs are vegans) adds to your carbon footprint. Though I won't argue with that, there is a larger ethical concern. We created the cat and dog overpopulation crisis, and we have a moral obligation to attempt to do something about it by ceasing breeding and giving loving homes to homeless cats and dogs if we are in a position to do so. To omit that aspect of the cat and dog issue is to refuse to deal with the actual problem (perhaps similar to: if we weren't using animals for food we wouldn't be having this debate about the environment. You have to deal with the root cause: using animals for food.)

My message, as an environmentalist and vegan, is that you must factor your behavior (direct or indirect, as in by purchasing food) toward sentient beings into the decisions you are making for the environment. If you don't, what are you telling the world about your values, your goal, and your ability to close your eyes to suffering as well as to the root cause of what ails our planet?

Make Blogging History

First, the title could mean "be a part of blogging history" or "put an end to blogging." My intention was the former, but I kept the language just to underscore the degree of ambiguity in three simple words. I read about a blogging challenge at Invisible Voices:

On September 27th, join 1,000s of bloggers around the world in BlogCatalog’s Blogging for a Great Cause Challenge.

This Blogging Challenge will be:

Bloggers Against Abuse
September 27th, 2007

The Outcome we are after is to be part of the largest group of bloggers to ever blog about an important cause, all on the same day.

So how do you participate?

On Sept. 27th,  blog about putting an end to some sort of Abuse (you decide what kind of abuse to blog about).

In the meantime though,

*  Spread the word among all  the bloggers you know.   Perhaps even give them a link to this Discussion.

* If you are a graphic designer, perhaps you can come up with some small badges announcing the event, that we can then place on our blogs. To share the badge, place it on this thread.

*  List any organizations, on this thread, who are involved in putting an end to abuse.

What do you get?

You will receive a link to your Blog Post from the Blogcatalog blog when we list everyone who participated.

You get to use your blog for an important cause.

You get to create blogging history.

As someone who is careful to say she's against "use" and not just "abuse," I'll definitely make sure my discussion is that use is abuse. My topic will be sentient beings. Yeah, you've heard it all before, but if other people will hear about it because the idea of use vs. abuse is new to them, I think the challenge is worth accepting.

The Animal Person Minute: On Internet Debates

Disclaimer: I haven't been to a McDonald's in years.

Today's photo is of my husband Dave, on the left, and his brother Joth getting french fries at the McDonald's in Asheville across from the Biltmore. At about 11 pm, after 6 hours at our family wedding and not eating anything (it wasn't exactly a vegan friendly affair), and after having dropped off 40 people at their hotel, it was Dave, Joth and I in our very own tour bus with our very own, very accommodating tour guide/bus driver. Mickey Dees was closed, so Dave and Joth walked in the back door into the kitchen and promptly asked for three orders of large fries.

Upon being told they had to use the drive through, which was impossible with the behemoth tour bus, they walked through the drive through and here they are paying.

Those fries were the best I've had in years and if they were fried in greyhound oil I don't want to know.

Today's topic is two interesting discussions that have nothing to do with me that you might want to join. I've already mentioned the one at Grist regarding Alicia Silverstone's PETA ad, and Ellie and Ruxandra have been conversing with Bruce Friedrich and some others and, man or woman, you should chime in if you think you've got something to add. I will forever be astonished that there is even a debate about this and some people do not see some of PETA's ads as objectifying women, or sexist, or at the very least downright insulting, but that's me. While you're at the Grist site, by all means check out the discussion around, and the link to, anti-feminist bingo, which is AWESOME!

The other discussion is at a new social networking site called Rethos, which seems something like Zaadz, but a bit less spiritual maybe? I'm not sure yet. I have a Zaadz account and I must say that my experience on the site hasn't been great. The moment I signed up I received dozens of e-mails from people who wanted me to buy their books, go to their seminars, or otherwise be involved in their thing. There's a huge Ken Wilbur and Integral contingent, which you may or may not like. Just know it's there. And of course, John Mackey, illustrious CEO of Whole Foods and his Flow Project are ubiquitous. Again, maybe you care, maybe you don't.

I signed up at Rethos after Terry at Sled Dog Watch Dog told me about it, and the first thing that caught my eye was a debate called The Meat Industry and the Environment, which introduces last year's Long Shadow study for discussion. Please note that some of the people involved in the discussion aren't convinced that vegetarianism (let alone veganism) is the way to go and they aren't aware of the many reasons that it might in fact be the only way to go if they believe in nonviolence. As always, be kind while you're being informative, and keep the language simple. We are so accustomed to the lingo of our "movement" and often behave as if the entire world knows what we're talking about or attributes the same meaning to words as we do. That is alienating to others and doesn't help us (or the animals!). I did already inject Gary Francione into the conversation (someone recommended Peter Singer, so that tells you something about where people are coming from), but I'm sure the readership, however big or small, could use more encouragement, facts, and reasoning regarding veganism and abolition.

Should Vegans Give Their Eggs to Science?

When I read that there is a dearth of donated eggs for stem cell research, and because of the shortage animal eggs are being used as alternatives, I wondered whether vegan women in particular have some kind of obligation (and that could be a strong word) to sign up to have their eggs harvested.

I surely wouldn't be a good candidate, as my eggs are over 40-years old and probably quite decrepit. (Remember, women are born with their eggs, which then age with them, and men produce a brand-spankin' new supply of sperm every 90 days or so.) There's pain involved in harvesting, rounds of injections, and some cash for your trouble (but not nearly as much as a donation to a fertility clinic, which is part of the problem. In the UK, there is a new "egg-sharing" program where women are subfertile and would like fertility treatments can get them at a discount if they donate surplus eggs to stem cell research.).

Here's the dilemma: If you feel strongly that we should not be using animals, shouldn't you then sign up for the harvest so that we don't have to use animals? Anyone . . . . anyone?

And here's my other question: If scientists have already demonstrated that eggs aren't necessary, and skin cells can be converted directly into embryonic stem cells (note: this has only been done in mice), why are they concentrating on the eggs and their associated dilemmas? Why not focus on converting human skin cells into embryonic stem cells?

I'm sure there's some kind of economic force involved here that benefits from using human eggs (like maybe fertility clinics and their staff?). Whenever science is slow to change the way it does things, you can usually find a host of foundations, hospitals, research centers and NGOs (not to mention scientists) who have something to lose if they change and will campaign hard to resist it.

And then there is the religious objection, which I would think is solved if you're not starting with a human egg. Or am I wrong about that?

So many questions today . . .

On Converting by Example

Three women in my life recently asked me to take them grocery shopping and show them what to buy to replace all the meat and cheese that used to be in their lives. As we all know, you can easily be a vegan by eating crappy food and snacks all day. But for most people who have subsisted on the Standard American Diet, improving health through veganism (as opposed to simply eating) takes a bit of work.

Two women, when asked why they wanted to change the way they were doing things, said they couldn't stop thinking about something I said about eating their dogs and why they don't (oops). The other wants to lose weight and sees me eating all the time, yet not gaining weight (hey, whatever works). I've known them for years and they've watched and asked questions, piecemeal, over those years.

I've cooked for them, I've brought my own food to their homes, and we've eaten out together. They've eaten lobster, eggs, chicken, filet mignon and something or other with foie gras in front of me (all I remember is the foie gras). I don't recall ever starting a conversation about veganism or animals (as food) with them. But they did, and I was always happy to answer any questions. I never judged their choices and they never judged mine.

Little by little, they began to assess their behavior: their choices. One became a vegan overnight and has been for several weeks and loses weight every day and her husband has joined the bandwagon. We brought Chinese food to their house last night and they asked that we order eggplant and green beans for them. The other two women are negotiating the maze of meat alternatives, cheese alternatives (good luck with that one!), and all the yummy desserts that don't contain animal products. Lucky for them, I've already wasted a lot of money trying much of the transition foods (alternatives to animal products) and I have an opinion about what I think is tastiest. And then there's the reality that a lot of those foods, like any processed foods, aren't that healthy. But one thing at a time . . . I'll steer them to the tastiest products, thereby preventing them from endlessly buying things to have a bite and then tossing them in the garbage, which is wasteful and depressing. And they'll work their way, I hope, toward whole grains and fresh, organic veggies, fruits, nuts and seeds.

It's fascinating to learn what the turning point was for people who go vegan and it's gratifying to know that I played a small part. The one thing I continually hear from people who change the way they live based somehow on my influence is that I never pushed anything on them. I never made them feel guilty. I never told them they were doing anything wrong.

Some might disagree with my approach (and in fact 15 years ago I would have disagreed with it), but it's working. One individual at a time, it's working.

On Using the Holocaust Analogy

Several times last week, I (and a vegan friend) was met with: If billions of cows are going to die this year, how in the world does me not ordering the filet mignon make a difference?

Here was our response: If, during the Holocaust, a Jew or one of the five million non-Jews ("the others") came to your door in need of refuge, and you could save that one person's life, would you say, "millions are dying and are going to die, what difference does it make if I save this one person?"

You would (I hope) save that one individual, despite the harsh reality of what was happening to other individuals similar to that one.

Though there are oodles of differences in the two scenarios, the point is that when you can save the life of an individual (someone who has an interest in living their life free of pain, imprisonment, enslavement, or an untimely and gruesome death), you do that.

With each meal, we have the opportunity to save lives. Others--far more others--will surely die each minute. But with each person who chooses to opt out of the slaughter, more lives are saved. If by being vegan you save 100 lives per year, you will save thousands--all by yourself--in your lifetime. And each person you help transition to veganism will save thousands more.

If that boggles your mind, begin with your next meal today and decide to save a life. I'm having an all-organic meal composed of quinoa, asparagus, broccoli, peas and shallots (with a touch of Earth Balance and some Bragg's) for lunch today. There's plenty of protein, fiber, calcium, Vitamin K, Vitamin C and folic acid, plus all the amino acids in Bragg's. It's low in fat, its glycemic value is nice and low so my blood sugar won't go crazy, and it'll give me plenty of energy for my afternoon run.

And nobody died for it. Each meal gives you an opportunity to express your belief in nonviolence and your desire to save lives.

What are you having for lunch?

Comment on Grist Re: Alicia Silverstone's "PSA"

Grist mentioned Alicia Silverstone's PETA "PSA" and I commented (Bruce from PETA left the first comment). Join the budding discussion!

UPDATE On Maxine Update

Thanks Ellie and Tricia for alerting me that Maxine is currently at Farm Sanctuary in New York. I hope they don't mind that I pilfered this photo of her.

Someone recently asked what good it would do to not order a steak for dinner when billions of cows would be slaughtered anyway.

This is why. Maxine is an individual. When you are in a position to save an individual, you save her or him.

Thanks to Farm Sanctuary and everyone who has donated to the Maxine Rescue Fund.

And if you haven't donated and you'd like to, sponsor Tricia Glynn, who is walking for animals and has chosen Farm Sanctuary as her designated charity.

Alicia Silverstone Strips for Animals?

This week, PETA launched a 30-second commercial featuring Alicia Silverstone emerging naked from a swimming pool. PETA is always thrilled to participate in the exploitation of women to get people to stop eating animals. Do people really stop eating animals because they see a naked woman, by the way? I don't at all understand the connection. When I see a pornographic image of any kind, my immediate thought is: What is going through that woman's head that makes her think what she is doing is a good idea for her. Or for ME?

PETA has dedicated an entire page on its site to Silverstone's  Public Service Announcement. Clearly, I must not be a member of the public, as it certainly doesn't serve me well at all.

Watch the video. Read Silverstone's testimonial. She does actually have something to say, and I think she and PETA minimize the principles of veganism by assuming people will only care if they are first seduced by a thin, gorgeous, young woman. As a woman and a vegan, I find the ad, like most of PETA's sexist campaigns, insulting and disturbing.

Naturally, you can be just like Silverstone by learning about her favorite things and giving to her favorite organization (it rhymes with PETA).

I met Silverstone in the rest room at a PCRM event a couple of years ago in Washington, DC. She was sweet and shy and awkward. I wonder what she could've been thinking when she agreed to do the, um, PSA. As my husband reminded me this morning: "Oh please, you of all people know that Americans have the attention span of a gnat and you need to grab them while you have them with something really provocative. She appeals to women, who want to be skinny and gorgeous, and to men, who, well, you know . . . ."

That may be true. But it doesn't make it any less offensive or unacceptable.

If Silverstone were doing a PSA for an autism organization or for Turtle Nest Village, which provides housing and support for youth who have aged out of foster care, would that be acceptable? My guess is that there'd be public outrage for connecting autism or foster care with pornography.

The reason Silverstone's PSA is able to hit the airwaves is---unintentional irony. We are as accustomed to the exploitation of women as we are to the exploitation of animals.  Why not exploit women to bring attention to the exploitation of animals?

Maybe because we're trying to rid the world of both.

Check out Gary Francione's recent blog post for more disturbing connections between sexism and speciesism.

UPDATE: Tormented Cow From Yesterday

Yesterday, I was appalled by the way the hosts of NBC's Today Show were entertained by a cow who was wandering the streets of Queens and had been roped and tugged to the ground. She was distraught and being manhandled on national television, and all that was somehow fodder for jokes.

Tricia forwarded an Emergency Alert from Farm Sanctuary (note: not abolitionist--please don't write me) which included:

Late last night, a frightened cow was spotted wandering the streets of New York City … she had likely just escaped from a nearby live market or slaughterhouse in Queens … and was literally running for her life.

During the night, police and firefighters were able to capture her and take her to New York City Animal Care & Control – where she is currently being held.

She had a tag in her ear indicating she was either sold or to be sold, likely for slaughter. Halal butchers, live markets and slaughterhouses proliferate in the city’s five boroughs, and escapees from these facilities are not uncommon. At live markets, customers select from chickens, goats, cows, sheep and turkeys, who are then killed on the premises.

Maxine saved her own life, and now we need your help to fund the emergency rescue effort to bring her to safety.

Farm Sanctuary is in need of donations right now to help send a rescue team, equipped with a large animal transport trailer, hay and medical supplies, as well as lifelong sanctuary care for her and other brave survivors of the food animal industry.

Maxine is a sweet, gentle cow, who only wants to live.

With your help, she will never again know the stress and fear of a live market or slaughterhouse.

She will be safe in a warm, cozy barn with a new herd of cattle friends, and have Farm Sanctuary’s 175 acres of sanctuary pasture to roam. She will receive delicious apple treats, fresh food and water, a complete veterinary assessment, vaccines, and any medical treatments she needs.

She is being held in a small fenced pen at Animal Care & Control, and at this moment is nervous and frightened in strange surroundings. We are eager to bring her to our shelter, where she’ll hear the welcoming “moos” of the sanctuary herd and know that she is safe from harm forever.

Please, make a donation to the MAXINE RESCUE FUND today to help create a happy ending for this beautiful, sweet girl. Please call 607-583-2225 to donate now, send checks to Farm Sanctuary, PO Box 150, Watkins Glen, NY 14891, or click here to donate online.

Maxine was named this morning in honor of artist Peter Max and his wife and activist Mary Max, bovine rescuers who helped bring a Cincinnati slaughterhouse escapee to our shelter in 2002. Maxine is the second cow to come to our shelter from Queens, but this year alone Farm Sanctuary has taken in more than 100 animals from New York City, many from live markets.

Maxine is an ambassador for all farm animals, sending a clear message that they have feelings and a will to live. Thank you for helping Maxine, and all farm animals to live the life they each deserve.

Thanks for the update, Tricia.

Today Show Hosts Joke About Tormented Cow

A cow somehow got loose in Queens last night and the Today Show's Natalie Morales reported on the story.  The video was the brown and white cow with ropes already around her legs, being jerked to her knees and trying desperately to get up. She is frantic, she is clearly terrified. Morales reports a police officer didn't know where the cow came from. "The cow wasn't talking," she reports. Al Roker jokes that "the cow gave them a bum steer," and Ann Curry and Matt Lauer laugh and joke.

I was going to write today@nbc.com, but the teaser for after the commercial break was for a segment regarding the Philly cheesesteak, and whether or not it is indeed the best sandwich in America.

I'm not sure why I expected the hosts of the Today Show to demonstrate any respect for a cow desperate to preserve her life.

On Deadlines and Abolitionist Pamphlet

You may recall that today is my self-imposed deadline for my abolitionist pamphlet. I am proud to say, that as someone who is probably clinically obsessive compulsive and has never been late for an appointment or missed a deadline, I am not finished with the pamphlet. In fact, I'm not even close.

In my defense, I was out of town for a bit and there were a couple of dramas here in Jupiter that screamed for my attention. Oh, then there's the money I need to make that doesn't fall from the sky or grow on trees.

But I'm back on track.

I've written to a couple of experts regarding proper verbiage and also regarding using their words or ideas and all is swell. The only one whose response was a bit disappointing was Jonathan Balcombe's. I wanted to address sentience and say that a chicken has the same capacity to experience pleasure, pain and terror as your dog does, or even as you do. But Dr. Balcombe's opinion was that scientists would not agree and I should change "the same" to "similar." I'm sure I could get a non-research scientist to sign off on the words "the same," but I don't know if that's a good idea.

While I've got you, what would you want to add to the following section entitled, "What do YOU want for animals? What do YOU believe about animals?" ("Let’s deconstruct some common beliefs about our relationship to nonhuman animals." I do so following each statement.)

• Nonhuman animals don't feel pain
• There is such a thing as "humane farming"
• There is such a thing as "humane slaughter"
• Eating meat is clearly a problem, but eggs and dairy are a different story
• Experimenting on animals is okay, as long as it's humane and necessary
• Dogs and horses love to run, so racing them is fine. They like it!

The point of this section is that people who think it's okay to use animals are often operating under a series of profoundly flawed assumptions. And deprogramming them of the nonsense they have been convinced is true is a crucial part of helping them develop a belief system that is based on all of the facts of the case and on exploring the entire context of each item (e.g., Yes, dogs and horses love to run. But that's a fraction of the story.)

I was going to include a statement about leather, wool and silk. Oh, and fur (duh). Do you think it's necessary? Notice the absence of God or religion. Still think that's a good idea? How about pets and the disaster we've created with cats and dogs?

There is also a set-up page that includes definitions (abolitionist, vegan, vegetarian, AR, animal welfare/protection), and a page of tips for entertaining and going out and also for shopping and cooking (from Colleen at Compassionate Cooks). Finally, there's the "What Can You Do" page that gets into national groups and thinking about who has something to gain from a message you are being sent (like my pamphlet--what does Mary Martin, Ph.D. have to gain? Who gives her money? To whom does she donate? Whom is she affiliated with, and does that matter? What is her intention?)

My intention is primarily to get readers to question their own assumptions (which is why I wanted religion in there, as it's an important source of assumptions for many people) and to develop a way of thinking that they can apply to religion, politics or any other messages they receive, from the media, "leaders," or even pamphlets about animal rights.

The Animal Person Minute: On "Year of the Dog"

Today's photo is of my niece Grace at the wedding I went to outside of Asheville, North Carolina last weekend. It was at a ranch and I was bracing for the worst and was pleasantly surprised. Though there were horses walking around on one side of the lake and longhorns strolling on the other, all of whom I tried not to think too much about, that was the worst of it (and yes, I did have a nightmare or two about the end all of the animals will meet when they aren't as healthy and gorgeous as they are now).

"Today's topic is the portrayal of vegans in "Year of the Dog," which I pondered seeing when it came out, but there are live animals in the film and I do my best to avoid animals in entertainment. PETA doesn't think animals are ours to use, yet teamed up extensively to promote the film, so I figured there must be an important message that makes the use of the animals okay. I didn't find that to be the case.

Next, the film was written by Mike White, who calls himself an "erstwhile vegan." He's a vegan who eats fish, so basically he's not just not a vegan, but not even a vegetarian. And maybe that's why he presents vegans in an unfavorable light. To be fair, he presents everyone in an unfavorable light. I couldn't find one character whom I actually liked.

Here's the problem, the main character played by Molly Shannon, is one of those people whom we've all met who sort of comes undone when she learns about the cruelty involved in the various ways we use animals. I don't think the portrayal of her is unrealistic, but with exactly zero other films featuring vegans as main characters, I would have preferred if White took this opportunity to send a message that not all people who are interested in helping animals have some kind of personality disorder. The other vegan in the film, played by Peter Sarsgaard, is White's final opportunity to refrain from stereotypes and craft a character who is, well, anything but odd, vaguely misanthropic and unlikeable. The result was a character who is odd, vaguely misanthropic and unlikeable.

Molly Shannon's character dips her toe into hoarding, forges checks, wants people who clearly have the inability to care for a dog to adopt one anyway, and takes her brother's kid to a farmed animal sanctuary and then almost to a slaughterhouse. That behavior doesn't represent us or do us any favors. It merely perpetuates stereotypes.

"Year of the Dog" may be on the mark in some respects, but if you're a vegan--or even a pescetarian--I can't imagine you'd be pleased with this film.

On Asheville, Snowballs and Greener Grass

Here's the deal with Asheville, which is by no means fair as I was there for four days: some fabulous vegan restaurants; non-vegans, at least who work in restaurants, know what a vegan is; and when you go to a non-veg restaurant and say you're a vegan, you just might get some really tasty food (though not necessarily the most healthy food). Best of all, the non-vegans don't mock you for your diet that's an expression of your nonviolence. How refreshing! I almost wanted to move there.

Oddly, it's more like "the South" than South Florida, which is really just a bunch of whiny New Yorkers and other northerners who've had enough of shoveling snow and chipping ice from their windshields.

I lived in Manhattan's East Village, and Asheville is reminiscent of the thrift stores and non-Starbuck's coffee shops of my old neighborhood, complete with young people who look as if they could use a shower, a haircut (or at least a comb) and a fresh set of clothes. I discovered that the young rebels would hang out around veg places, which told me that not much has changed since I was their age: people with non-mainstream beliefs make it a point to create an appearance that expresses their edgy-ness, and they congregate around places that support their choices. And once again, now that I'm old enough to be their parents, I see them as my parents and other grown-ups saw me: as trying really hard to tell the world that they don't want any part of the way the establishment does things.

It's like wearing a uniform to protest the uniform everyone else is wearing. I observe their interactions with others and the way people avoid them if they're not on the same team. And I wonder whether they're hurting or helping (or neither) my cause, because a lot of my time must be allocated to explaining the obvious--they're young and rebellious (so get over it and move on).

Appearance is far more important than it should be, for all of us, but I feel like vegans are particularly under a microscope. It's just another area where non-vegans are lurking to see if they can catch you being a hypocrite. What are your shoes made of? What on earth is that purse--chain mail? (It's made of recycled soda tabs.) Where was it made? I hope not in China. And what's up with the nail polish? Didn't that at some point go into the eye of a rabbit? And isn't it terrible for the environment? And how do you justify wearing diamonds? Didn't you see that Leonardo DiCaprio film?

Talking about veganism is like going downhill with a snowball, and I used to resent all of the implications that I'm a communist (yes, "I'm a vegan" is sometimes met with "Are you a Communist?" or at least it was in the late 1980s. Now it's met with "Are you an atheist?"). But the good news is that although mainstreamers have a list of connections they make based on stereotypes and generalizations, at least they're engaged and giving us multiple opportunities to address and debunk the myths and misconceptions.

As "progressive" a city as Asheville is, I still spent a lot of time explaining that there's no such thing as a humanely-produced egg and that perhaps if you're going to get a dog only to chain her to a tree all day, you might want to rethink that proposition from the dog's point of view. And while you're at it, you might want to reconsider that giving money to TerraPass for its investments in turning cow manure into electricity (via methane) isn't as effective a solution to ridding the world of the methane as not breeding and slaughtering cows needlessly to begin with.

Though I mock Palm Beach County for the many ways its residents appear to be entirely clueless about the needs of nonhuman animals, my trip to Asheville demonstrated that the grass is always greener until you get there . . . wherever it is.

On Horses and Street Musicians

I'm at the rehearsal dinner for Dave's cousin and my mother calls:

"Did you hear? Did you hear about the horse in Central Park?"
"Um, no mom, I've been kinda busy."
"There was some accident and the horse either died or had to be sedated."
"Poor girl. I'm sure she's dead by now if she didn't die immediately."

Her name was Smoothie and apparently she was spooked by a street musician playing a drum. In response, there's been a call to ban street musicians--as if that's the real problem.

In Drummer Denies He Intentionally Spooked Horse That Died, we learn that "the musician, whose stage name is Ayan, plays a full set of six drums and four cymbals. He said he did not know until yesterday morning that a horse had collapsed on Friday, and he was upset by the implication that he had scared it."

It.

“Spooking a horse right here could mean a baby carriage getting run over, or a person hurt,” he said.

Um, and it might mean a horse dying, too.

According to the newsletter of the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages:

Smoothie, a gentle mare, was only 13 years old and relatively new to the harsh noisy and unwelcoming streets of New York City. Just her luck that some kids were playing on drums not too far from where she worked on Central Park South, waiting to pull that cart load of lazy and ignorant tourists. And she freaked out. Horses are prey animals - this means that regardless of their large size - 1,500 to 2,000 pounds - they can spook when frightened - and they get frightened often. When 2000 pounds of horse comes barreling down the street looking to hide- Watch Out! They will run rough shod over anything in their way in a beeline to get away from the terror chasing them. This fateful horse, terrified of the sound, bolted, but got stuck on a light post. When she tried to free herself, she got her foot stuck in the carriage wheel and broke her leg. And to make matters worse, this insanity spooked the horse in front of her who bolted straight across the street into traffic. He ended up on the hood of a Mercedes, which was damaged. A customer from a local restaurant (where were the carriage drivers?) knew to unhook the horse from the carriage and remove him from the car and to try to help Smoothie. But Smoothie was struggling to free herself from her carriage. She fell to the ground in panic, kicking and shaking. She went into shock, collapsed and died.

Keep the letters to the NYT coming (letters@nytimes.com).

Some want street musicians to be banned, which of course is better for the city than banning the carriages. The comment of the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages was:

It is entirely possible that the loud drums spooked Smoothie and led to her death. But there were no street musicians near by when horses spooked on January 2, 2006; June 2, 2006 and July 4, 2007 -- and these were just the accidents that were reported in the press. Many more are under the radar. Horses are prey animals that rely on flight to run from danger. Particularly in a congested city like New York, many things can spook a horse -- from the obvious like loud horns, sirens, cars backfiring, and motorcycles - to the innocuous - like trash blowing in the wind. To ask that street musicians be banned from the horse area is absurd and we hope our City Council does not get duped by this nonsense. A better solution is to remove these gentle giants who are a danger to themselves and to others by BANNING THE CARRIAGE HORSE INDUSTRY!

My sentiments exactly.

UPDATE: Thanks to Ellie for reminding me of the discussion at the NYT's blog regarding this topic, with 33 comments so far, including the obligatory yet tiresome accusation that "AR nuts" care more about animals than children. Chime in!

Wrap Up on Moral Superiority

Yesterday, two things happened in addition to Violet coming close to death while I was 770 miles away:

1.    Dan reminded me of something I haven't heard in a while, but is very important to address: that we are "imposing our beliefs" on others by educating, raising awareness, and encouraging people to question why they do what they do. From the vantage point of the vegan, and I submit also from any attempt at objectivity, it is indeed the opposite. Everywhere we go, every time we turn on the radio or the TV, and certainly virtually every time we enter a restaurant, we are bombarded with a specific message with regard to nonhuman animals. That message is: It's not just okay to eat, wear and use animals--it's American! And if you're not with us, you're against us! There is, in fact, something wrong with you if you don't use animals. Is there some kind of religion that forces such harsh restrictions on you (yeah, it's called nonviolence)? What happened to you to make you this way?

The world is a hostile place to vegans, constantly shoving images of dead sentient beings in our faces, constantly lying to us about where food comes from, telling us cows and chickens and pigs live in luxury, making it difficult to purchase a luxury car that doesn't have the skin of a handful of cows lining it. Our schools don't have adequate (or any) nonviolent options for children in their cafeterias. We are not the ones imposing our beliefs. We are simply asserting ours and encouraging you to think about yours.

2.    Next, Wronald sent a chapter of a book he is writing. The chapter is about animal rights and animal welfare and he has said I may pilfer wildly. What I would like to do is present some of the chapter, verbatim, and welcome you to comment.

We can start by defining righteousness as being morally correct or upright.  Self–righteousness, then, at a minimum, means that one is confident of one’s righteousness.  It means one believes—or, more strongly—that one is certain or totally correct about one’s opinions, ideas, and behaviors.  But most definitions add an extra layer or two, extending the meaning to indicate a moral superiority over and an intolerance of the opinions, ideas, and behaviors of others.  Describe that intolerance as smugly or narrow-mindedly moralistic, furthermore to an irritating degree, and you’ve got the whole enchilada.

Does the definition fit?  I think generally it doesn’t apply to vegans in their normal interactions with you omnivores.  If we talk about ourselves, you take it as a judgment of you.  For instance, if you ask Joe Vegan why he doesn’t eat dairy products, and he talks about how they needlessly cause cruelty, death, environmental damage, world hunger, and ill health, you feel judged because you’re still suckling at the bovine teat, as it were.  Or you may feel judged by Joe’s very presence if he eats with you, as though there’s something wrong with your food (which there is), although he says nothing about what you’re eating.  Just by being there, he reminds you that it is possible for people, including you, to make a conscientious effort to minimize their roles in the web of life as an agency of death.  It’s possible, but you’re not doing it.  He is a beacon of righteousness in your dark world.

. . .

If I’m self-righteous, I’ve earned it.  I have researched all the reasons why my way of life a better way.  Veganism is above all a moral imperative.  If I seem to write from a place of moral supremacy, it’s because I’m writing about an ethically superior way to relate to our fellow creatures.  It is inherently difficult, if not impossible, given that self-righteousness means at its core making a judgment about morality, to discuss the ethics of animal exploitation (I’m using “exploitation” in this sentence in the non-judgmental sense of utilization) without making the exploiters feel that we vegans are passing judgment on them.

Unless, like me, you have fully considered your way of life, you have earned your self-satisfaction with your cruel lifestyle only by sloth.  Underlying the accusation of self-righteousness is the assumption that the accused is not morally superior in his actions or beliefs, despite his opinion of his supposed virtues.  If you want to call me self-righteous, do your homework so that you can determine whether your way of life stands on firm ground or on a moral foundation of quicksand.  Compare the vegan diet and lifestyle I recommend with the way of life to which you have succumbed via the three “shuns,” or have chosen consciously.  Examine the evidence for yourself to decide whether consuming animal products is kinder, more environmentally sustainable, more healthful, and feeds more of the world’s hungry than Wronald’s way.  Better me: approach the question honestly, endeavoring not to justify your position (as I admit I have done), but neutrally in search of the truth.  Or, if you’re going to have a bias, be aware of it, and decide if your bias reflects your values, as mine does for me.  I don’t mind my ahimsa bias.  Do you mind having a self-serving bias that seeks to justify causing suffering and death because you are habituated to consuming animal products and don’t want to change? 

When you’re done with your research, if you determine that your present way of life is better, that my ethical standards are no higher than yours, that people, animals, and the planet benefit from your reliance on animal products, you can state your case, and write your own book if you like, giving all the reasons why I’m all wet.  Socrates said, “An unexamined life is not worth living.”  I posit that it is of utmost importance to examine this aspect of your life because of the enormous impacts of your choice to be dependent on animal products.

UPDATE: Wronald is not the same person as Ron, and there may have initially been some confusion about that in the comments.