Animal Person

What are YOUR favorite sites for vegan stuff?

Due to TS Noel, there are already power outages in Palm Beach County and my meetings have been canceled so I get some unexpected time to gather much-needed data. Before my power goes, I'd like your help.

At the near end of my pamphlet in the What You Can Do section, I have the following:

Living by example and showing those around you how easy and inexpensive it is to be healthy, happy and stylish without using animals is the best way to generate interest in veganism. But when people start asking you questions and challenging what you say and do, you must have a list of resources to direct them to for further information. Here are some of my favorites:

I have PPS for farmed animal info (and later with regards to sanctuaries and there's a brief discussion about what you're looking for in a sanctuary). I have Tribe of Heart for movies to check out, then I have the links to the University of Chicago Study as well as Livestock's Long Shadow and a brief statement about the environment.

Here's what I need:

• What's your favorite site, and it's probably not an environment one, that handles the environment/animal-eating connection the best? (I find environment ones skirt the issue of don't deal with it adequately.) I usually prefer to go directly to the source, like the studies, rather than read someone else's interpretation. Also, then I don't look like I'm promoting anyone--just providing information.
• What's your favorite vegan stuff site? Vegan Essentials, maybe? Again, I don't want to promote any national group that endorses cage-free eggs and the like.
• Any other ideas?

Thanks.

On Civil Discourse for Newbies to Animal Person

I was going to leave this as a comment, but in order to get broader readership, here it is, and it's not just for Kim.

Kim,

I published your comment, but I'm going to assume you composed it because you didn't get the memo that it's time we raise the level of discourse. And if you're just giving back as good as you got, I personally think the high road is to refrain from doing that. That's my free advice for today.

This blog is now being heavily moderated, and you all can disagree all day long if you do it respectfully. From now on, comments that are abusive simply will not be published. Heck, I might ditch the comments all together.

If any one of us is going to make a positive difference in this world it is not going to come from being sarcastic, obnoxious and mean-spirited. That is what I have learned, and this is my blog.

It is clear that some people call themselves abolitionists and campaign for welfare reforms at the same time. It is clear that some people think that is not abolition (I am one of those people). And it is abundantly clear, at least to me, that the banter about this topic is--and has been--going nowhere, and will continue to go nowhere until the discussion experiences a significant infusion of kindness.

Write a Nice Letter to Ellen, and Other Stuff

First of all, may I just congratulate my father-in-law, Hamilton, for spending three weeks as our guest and eating only vegan meals in our home (except for some Chinese food he bought). I offered to buy and cook him whatever he wanted, but he said he wanted to see and taste for himself what makes his son look so darn good (he really meant "better," but didn't say it). I prepared especially rich meals as I knew what he was accustomed to, he never once made a face or complained, and he asked loads of questions.

Next, we were dining at the gorgeous home of a girlfriend, and she, her husband and her three unspeakably handsome kids asked us dozens of questions about what we eat, as they observed us being very careful and asking questions about what was being served. We had exactly one dinner with them, one week later, and my girlfriend and her daughter stopped eating animals on the spot. One of her sons is transitioning, the other never will from what I can tell, and the husband is on his way. (He's busy looking for pizza alternatives. It's always the damn pizza.)

Here's the question: the daughter goes to college in Baltimore and needs some local help. Anybody have any? Yes, I'm going to search around myself, but I figured if anyone knew a vegan group or happened to live in Baltimore and had college-age kids, that would give me a head start.

Finally, you may have seen what Gary Francione wrote about Ellen and Iggy, then Ellen (and others) and the saying of one thing and doing of another.  I wrote about her a while back regarding her American Express commercial, and wrote her a letter, and from what I know of her she really does care. She just hasn't heard the message in a way that makes sense to her.

There I was yesterday morning, ironing the sheets to the guest suite and preparing for the next set of guests (my mother and my sister--at the same time--heaven help me), while watching Ellen. And, as Gary referred to in his post, she mentions what she eats and the fact that what she eats is on her website, as evidently people are interested in what she eats. I can't imagine a more perfect time to write to her and make some connections that she doesn't appear to be making. In a kind, compassionate manner, of course. She even has a post about her lunch, and if you'd like to comment my only suggestion is, once again, to be over-the-top nice, crystal clear, and draw connections as if you're explaining them to an alien. Remember, she means well. And if she doesn't, treat her as if she does. No one responds positively to personal attacks and venom. All that does is close their ears and their minds. We have a valid point with regards to the love of animals she speaks of so frequently, and if we explain that simply and kindly, she just might get it. E-mailing her is also a good idea, as though I bet it's somebody's job to read the comments, it's probably not her job. The more places the message is, the greater the odds she'll see it.

Oh, and that's Charles' nail/claw. He was sprinting this weekend, as he does every weekend at a location I shall not disclose, and he runs so fast you can hardly see him. He cut a couple of turns a bit too close while racing his friend Bonnie the Greyhound and was limping around leaving a spot of blood everywhere he stepped. His nail was hanging off and his quick was just dangling in the breeze. My poor boy. I had to tear off the nail, which was barely attached, and of course he's just fine. This happened once before and it was a $200 trip to the vet because I was too wimpy to tear off the nail and didn't know the technique. Now I know better.

I have meetings all day so I'll only be available sporadically to moderate. I'll eventually get to everything, though. I thank you for your support and kind words, as usual.

And have a happy and safe Halloween. We've got squalls to look forward to all day and night from Tropical Storm Noel, so the kids are sure to have a scary evening.

On Opting Out and Decreasing Mail

This has nothing to do with animals. It's about the environment.

1.    Go to www.catalogchoice.org and bookmark it. Register--it's free--and starting today, when you get the three or four daily catalogs you get this time of year, add them to your list. You're opting OUT of getting them by mail in the future.

• Make sure you enter all possible configurations of your name, as this is done by computer and it's only correct if it's completely correct.
• When you get a catalog, choose the name that catalog is addressed to.
• Note that there is a "Current Resident" field.
• If you already have a customer number, there's a field for that too (your customer number is usually above your address somewhere).

This is a very underwhelming way to do this, as you do a tad a day, right after you get the mail, then toss the catalogs into the recycle bin. Make it a part of your daily routine and it's no big deal.

2. Go to OptOutPrescreen.com to opt-out of firm offers of credit or insurance (a.k.a., "You're Pre-Approved!"). You can opt-out for five years through the website (and permanently if you mail in a form available at the website). This is the only site I know of that is legitimate, though I'm sure there are others that use your information to steal your identity. If you want to opt-out and stop this particular kind of junk mail, use this site. It's free.

The Animal Person Minute: Clorox and Other Odd Developments

The now-infamous Clorox commercial has been changed. Not re-shot, just re-dubbed. Now the kids whisper:

"I wipe my nose on my shirt."
"I play sneeze tag."
"Germs can't hurt me."

And guess who's still there? The baby pig.

Clearly, Clorox has listened to its customers. I had dozens of hits to my blog from people who googled: "I play with my poops in the toilet." I kid you not. Also, there's some kind of Clorox forum that dozens came from to Animal Person. The pig part evidently wasn't as big a deal as what the kids said, which wasn't fabulous but I don't know if it warranted a re-haul. I guess enough people heard "poop" and that was the issue.

Naturally, I'm sending another message, noting the revision but that it doesn't address the real issue of pigs equal filth and germs.

The next odd development is the sporadic arrival of hateful, mean-spirited, and often creepy people to Animal Person. It's actually largely my fault, as it has most-often happened when I direct you to a blog or article where someone has written something that is dubious or untrue, or to someplace where there's an opportunity to explain what animal rights really means. I have had to alter comments to officially moderated (i.e., they don't show up until I approve them) and also several IP addresses can no longer send comments. Easy enough.

For anyone who wants to claim "free speech hindrance!" I say, this is a private space and has nothing to do with anyone's constitutional right to free speech. I want to have a space for civil discourse--it's that simple. And some people simply have no interest in or are incapable of that. So be it.

I thought of getting rid of comments all together, but I have such wonderful, bright, articulate readers (for the most part) and I enjoy your compassion, enthusiasm and support. However, I completely understand why some people don't have comments, as they can poison the eyes and the mind and the energy, if only for a moment.

On one site where commenters are calling me crazy, someone raised a nearly-legitimate point. I say "nearly" because when you think about it for a moment, you realize it's bunkum. I won't direct you there because the site's not important and I wouldn't want any one of you to waste a moment of your precious time re-visiting. This person claims I don't know anything about language (or something like that. I don't care to get the exact verbiage.) This person says I don't want animals to be property yet I use terms like "my dog" and "my kitty." And I do. I also say:

• my neighbor
• my neighbor's car
• my neighbor's employees
• my mother
• my father
• my husband
• my airport
• my cousin's dog
• my sister's fiancee's mother

I ask you: Does the word "my" in any of those instances connote ownership? No. "My" is a modifier before a noun that can in fact mean there is ownership. But it can also denote relationship. Connection.

I realized yesterday that the answer to most nuisances on Animal Person was to go back to what I did when I started this blog and was called The Daily Kos of animal rights: Deconstruct what was happening in the mainstream media and maybe sometimes on major "animal rights" sites. This is not meant to be an insult to any bloggers; just a strategy to keep bringing mainstream people here to learn about animal rights, and make it less interesting to fringe-types who, from what I hear and what I've experienced, sit at a computer all day trolling around for people to abuse. Anonymously, of course.

I too usually sit at a computer all day. But for most of the time I'm working, pro bono or for a fee I'm grateful for and try not to take for granted. My intention is never to hurt anyone--only to educate according to my beliefs. Of course, "educate" has recently been turned into a four-letter word. So be it.

If you know anything about karma and about energy, you know that the way you behave in each interaction has energy to it, and that energy affects you and others. A therapist friend of mine who was directed to an anti-animal rights site (she was a meat-eater until very recently) said to me today: "You're not equipped to deal with these people. It's not your thing to behave badly or deal with people who have such bad energy. It's toxic and you need to stay away." And I agree. I'm happy to converse with well-meaning, kind people, but frankly, I'm not interested in toxic people. We can disagree all day long, but poison is something I won't tolerate. Some people thrive on it, but it's not healthy and those people can go elsewhere.

To make my day just perfect, I received a phone call from PETA, as apparently someone left $1,000,000 in their will to PETA and they're using it as an opportunity for a matching campaign, which is a great idea, and PETA, which I supported since 1985, by the way, and stopped only last year, wanted a donation. I took the opportunity, not that it matters, to tell my caller that though I had contributed thousands of dollars to PETA in the past, they were no longer on my list of approved charities because of the way they are basically promoting animal exploiters and slaughterers with their "victories" regarding cage-free eggs and the like. The caller had no idea what I was talking about. I explained further, and even sent him to a couple of web pages, and he said not to listen to the group (he was probably referring to the Center for Consumer Freedom) that was bad-mouthing them publicly and was made of alcohol, tobacco, and rancher lobbyists. He honestly didn't see that PETA was saying one thing and doing another. So be it.

Animal Person will not be adding a forum anytime soon, despite requests, as I simply don't have the time with all of my work, plus my household, creature and husband duties (my? Do I own those duties? See how ridiculous that is?). But I'll still be posting every day and I welcome you all to comment--if you're kind and civil.

On Photos of "Euthanasia"

As I've often written, I'm not a fan of using gruesome photos when it comes to animal rights. In fact, the photos in my pamphlet, which were taken by Deb Durant, are all close-ups of healthy individuals, looking directly at you (and of course there's the token photo of Violet: the only great one I've ever taken).

When I wrote about "The Stark Reality of Animal Euthanasia" last week, I commented that I thought the photos were powerful:

What is most effective, for me, other than the numbers, are the photos. Fontaine takes the reader through each step in the euthanasia process, from the decision to kill the animal until inmates from the Palm Beach County Stockade cremate her (and I'm not sure it's a good idea to have inmates do that. Might that desensitize them? Might they already be in a delicate state of mind that could be negatively affected by burning animal carcasses all day?) Fontaine has pictures from various points in the process. And there is also a slideshow of "sheltered living" that I challenge you to complete without crying.

The images aren't that gruesome if you don't know what's going on. They're not happy pictures, but their power comes from the narrative.

Meanwhile, there was quite a controversy about whether to include the photos at all, and a deliberate decision to have them not on the front page. What occurred next was fascinating. People claiming to love animals wrote to the editor, shocked (see 'Shocking is too mild a word') by the images. The one I found most interesting was:

Jane Alesi e-mailed: "It made me sick to see the appalling, atrocious, awful, dreadful, frightful, ghastly, grisly, gruesome, hideous, horrendous, horrid, horrifying, nightmarish, shocking, terrible and graphic pictures (shown) in today's paper. The photos have not left my mind and probably never will. How can you with a moral conscience print this for people to see? We know what they do to the poor animals. We know the miserable people out there and what they do with their so-called pets. You don't have to shove it down my throat or (that of) any other pet lover out there."

Let me get this straight: it's unconscionable to show people what their tax dollars go to? It's "nightmarish" to educate people about an issue that is so important it will likely lead to a mandatory spay/neuter bill (with breeders excluded, of course. Like they're not part of the problem)? It's "horrendous" to show you what happens every single day, to dozens of healthy animals, some of whom never even got to the point where they were up for adoption, and humans are responsible for this situation and it doesn't have to end this way? What I think is "appalling, atrocious, awful, dreadful, frightful, ghastly, grisly, gruesome, hideous, horrendous, horrid, horrifying, nightmarish, shocking and terrible," is that people want to continue to keep their eyes closed and in fact find it morally objectionable when someone else tries to pry them open.

Now that I know the impact of these particular photos, I'm glad they were published. It's time people in our community learn what goes on at Animal Care & Control. Maybe then they'll do something about it. I say we begin by stop using the word "euthanasia" when killing is really what we're doing. I left a comment:

I agree with JohnW. Our tax dollars are funding this killing (and it is killing when you end the life of a healthy animal or person. Ending the life of someone terminally ill or suffering gravely is "euthanasia"). We must work toward being a no-kill community. Though mandatory spay/neuter is important, it should include breeders, as they are in fact part of the problem. We created this problem, and now we've got to fix it. But it's not a problem we can kill our way out of.

Vegan Halloween Candy & That Darn Pamphlet

Tricia reminded me that Halloween is this week. I guess because I am child-free I don't tend to think about holidays for kids. Check out this list of vegan candy if you haven't yet bought your tasty morsels.

On some kind of morning show I saw a segment about alternatives to candy, and funky fun pencils and stickers were suggested. They have the added bonus of not making you fat if it rains and no one shows up (that happened here last year: the Halloween Monsoon).

I'm going to sit in my front courtyard and watch a movie on my laptop so my poor dogs aren't tormented by the constant ringing of the bell and the running to the door every five minutes.

I'm posting the link to Part II of my Rethos series (a.k.a., the text of the pamphlet) later today. I'm hoping that the code issue is resolved and it won't be randomly bold or otherwise difficult to read. The topic is experimenting on animals. I'm already at six pages total, so religion is going to have to wait (yeah, for my religion pamphlet--no chance). The What Can You Do (or What You Can Do) page is sort of filling up faster than expected. On the final page are resources, though there are currently exactly zero listed so far, and in fact I might not have one. Also, there's a blurb on me, as you ought to know who I am and that I have never been paid one penny by any person or organization mentioned in the pamphlet. What do I personally have to gain?  The warm, fuzzy feeling of helping people think through something very important to their individual lives as well as the lives of the hundreds of animals they might impact. Then of course, there's little ol' Planet Earth.

That's it. I hope someone finds it helpful.

On "Exterminating" Animals

In the AP's "Agents Killed 1.6 Million Animals in '06," Matthew Brown reports that:

Federal wildlife agents killed more than 1.6 million animals last year - including a record number of endangered wolves and more than 1 million birds - because of threats to livestock, crops and air travel.
. . .
Environmental groups seized on the figures to renew their call for the elimination of Wildlife Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that removes animals at the request of the livestock industry, government agencies and others.

"We don't think the government should be in the extermination business," said Jeff Ruch with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

The extermination business.

Now, there's already a discussion, composed mostly of ranchers talking about protecting their "interests." Here's a comment that struck me, by Freedom of Speech:

Over 1-Million birds the federal government has killed in 2006 ......and the environmentalists complain about a few thousand birds killed by Wind Turbines each year around the nation. We need renewable energy, but we must consider the migration of birds when the government is killing over a million of them a year!!

That certainly is an interesting point.

Probably the only serious and as-thorough-as-possible-in-a-comment, is by MyGreenPlanet (and yes, I did catch the speciesist language--give the person a break):

Why is it that people never see people as the problem? We reintroduced wolves to the parks because we had exterminated them in the past--not because we thought it would be a cute idea. It is WE and always WE who upset the natural balance of the environment. The first problem is--and has been for a long time--that there are too many of US. WE encroached and overpopulated. WE have upset the balance by taking survival and making an industry out of it--That is to say we, like all the other living things on the planet--used to take what we needed from the existing "stock." When we created businesses out of agriculture and livestock, we threw everything out of whack. We took over vast spaces, created hyperpopulations of plants and animals that was all out of order with nature's process. We are no longer participating in the cycle, that is trying to continue around us. Now, what are we to do? There is no way humans are going to go back to the land and live communally in small manageable bands. We would be wise, however, to recognize that nature has no concern with our economic system. That has been manufactured by us, and nature--in the end--will triumph. Long after humans have perished from the earth, nature will restore itself with a new hierarchy. In the meantime, we ought to think about how to live with and understand the balance of nature. A coyote isn't a pest--he has been making his living on these lands long before we arrived. We've left him little room to operate, and he is adapting. That is all any living thing can do. With our big brains, we ought to be able to come up with workable adaptations too, that recognize we need to live in harmony with the natural world around us.

If you watched Anderson Cooper's, "Planet in Peril" on CNN, there was a nicely done, basic explanation of the near extermination and subsequent reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone and the important role they play (particularly as a predator) for the animals, insects, and bushes, shrubs, flowers and berries. The list of factors they affect is huge and in their absence those factors are negatively altered. You all probably know all of this, but on CNN's site there are lots of resources and free materials you can point others to. (If you didn't watch the two-parter, I recommend checking out the site as the bulk of it had to do with nonhuman animals, and because CNN is so mainstream, directing your friends and family there won't be perceived as radical in any way. Know that the real questions, from an animal rights perspective, are never even raised, but other questions are.)

My original point was going to be why we don't use "exterminating" when referring to what we do to cats and dogs that is otherwise known as "euthanasia." It is unclear from the dictionaries I referred to whether exterminate is supposed to mean the complete destruction of the individual or the complete destruction of a species or either, depending on the situation. It would seem that in terms of the way we phrase what we talk about, "exterminate" would be a powerful word, perhaps more powerful than "kill," which many of us currently use.

I've already defined euthanasia in my pamphlet, and I'm wondering whether I might want to work exterminate in there, as it gets the brain moving in a different direction and might have greater or a different impact.

What do you think?

Chime in Regarding Mushing

Of all the uses of animals, I believe the easiest to dispense with is entertainment, some of which is called "sport." Using another sentient being for fun is the worst kind of exploitation, pursued by people who clearly desire to dominate and control others. These people have two common defenses: tradition (i.e., it's sacred today because it was sacred yesterday); and my personal favorite--the animals like it! Here's what's in my pamphlet regarding this issue, as you may have read:

• I've heard that people who advocate for animal rights don’t think we should be racing horses or dogs. That’s ridiculous! Horse and dogs love to run! They’re just doing what they love to do!

Thousands of horses and dogs are created each year for the purposes of racing, with the hope of making their owners a profit. Early in their lives, animals who do not show promise are killed, and as the training process progresses, there are further kills to narrow the group down to only the most competitive animals. Many injuries during training result in further kills, if the careers of the animals are no longer promising. When the few animals who make it to competition are injured, they are often killed if their injuries are too expensive to fix, or if the injuries will be career-ending even if they heal well. The lucky ones are delivered to rescue groups, who will often pay for their treatment and get them adopted, as in the case of greyhounds and mushing dogs (used most famously in the Iditarod and the Yukon Quest, both of which are over 1,000 miles), or sent to a sanctuary, as is often the case with horses. As of this writing, horses are still slaughtered here for human consumption elsewhere.

There's a fight brewing (actually, I think it's beyond the brewing phase) up in the Yukon Territory, and one way we can register our thoughts and feelings about what is being done to dogs in the name of fun today, is to comment on an Internet discussion where no one takes on the issues of use (it's a cruelty thing), but the author is so blind to the cruelty, that I just might comment on that too. I think his two most appalling sentences are:

1. "Yes, they live much of their lives tethered to their dog houses - how is that any worse than the way much of the human population lives?"
2. And then there's the classic: "How many sled dogs die each year doing what they love to do compared to the number of dogs who are ploughed (sic) under at the Whitehorse garbage dump every year because nobody wants them?" This last one of course assumes that mushing dogs--or any other dogs--have somehow by themselves created overpopulation without the help of breeders and people who don't spay and neuter their dogs.

Chime in. I did. Here's my comment:

I'm from very far away--South Florida. I'm attracted to this issue because South Florida is the home to more Greyhound racing tracks than any other state in the US. Supporters of dog racing down here like to say, as mushers do, that the dogs love it. They love to run. I have adopted two ex-racers and can attest to the fact that they do indeed love to run. However, that doesn't mean we have a right to take over their lives and decide when they will run, for how long, and of course, what the consequences are if they don't run as fast as I'd like.

Greyhound owners down here say, "So they live in a cage for 22 hours a day. At least they're safe from the elements, they get some daily exercise, and they get two meals a day--that's better than some dogs!" I hear the rationalizations echo in what mushers say. But the reality is that the desire to dominate and control the animals and the desire to profit from their lives and hard work is what underlies mushing and racing.

And as for any kind of population problem, it is usually people who are the cause: people who breed the dogs and people who don't spay and neuter the dogs. If that part of the equation were resolved, soon there would not be a problem.

Finally, I take my dogs for chiropractic treatments as well as for acupuncture, as I don't want them taking drugs for their arthritis from racing and I want them to live comfortable lives, NOT so they can continue to run as fast as they can, at my command.

Check out the debate, which has other interesting elements I didn't mention, such as a discussion about whether taking down posters is or should be considered some kind of crime.

Article About Property Rights!

Ah, the rare opportunity when someone in the mainstream raises the topic of property rights. Mark Robison of Reno sent me an article he wrote about Bill Chamberlain, who rescued a dog named Oshata, who is probably a wolf hybrid, after "months of torture" (and if you're thinking Tammie Grimes, this is indeed similar). Bill, of the nonprofit United States Wolf Refuge and Adoption Center, may be charged with theft. Oshata weighed 20 pounds and should have weighed 90 (picture my boy Charles at 20 pounds!). The article/post is called: "Animals as property--how this affects the Oshata case." There are plenty of links within the post that point you to what you need to know about the case, including photos.

In my experience, animals as pets is the only usage of animals that the average person is willing to entertain and may even understand regarding property rights. They're just not as receptive to talking about property rights and cows and meat. So now's your chance to get in there (there is only one comment right now). My advice? Keep it short and simple. Don't use any Latin. Avoid jargon like the plague. And be nice, for heaven's sake!

I like what Mark did in this post; he presented core issues that set the stage for animal abuse and then rescue as theft. And he did it in an easily-followed manner. This isn't exactly a topic being talked about at water coolers around America. Submit comments that will keep this important discussion alive, lively, respectful and respectable.

Thanks!

Verlyn Klinkenborg Virtually Romanticizes Pig Killing

Earlier this year, Verlyn Klinkenborg of The New York Times advocated spaying and neutering for all pets as a way to deal with the pet overpopulation crisis. He didn't mention property status or intentional breeding, but at least he got in the fray. I've always been ambivalent about Klinkenborg. He's got that yearning for the rural life of days past, when things weren't led by efficiency standards and units processed or produced. But killing is killing. Killing without necessity, whether carried out by your local pig slaughterer or by a intensive factory farm, is still killing without necessity.

Klinkenborg seems to not understand that or be willing to deal with it. Let's deconstruct Two Pigs.

• He begins:

"Very soon, a farmer and his son will come to the farm to kill our two pigs. If that sentence bothers you, you should probably stop reading now — and you should probably also stop eating pork."

Yes, you should. And I'm not going to say he should stop eating pigs. But I will suggest he stop deluding himself that what he does is somehow morally different in the end than what any other meat-eater or animal killer does.

• He continues:

"I truly love being with the pigs. And taming them means it will be that much easier for the farmer and his son to kill them swiftly, immediately. If I had no more foreknowledge of my death than these two pigs will have of theirs, I’d consider myself very lucky."

I have no idea how he manages that kind of mental acrobatics. And how does he know how much "foreknowledge" the pigs have of their death, I wonder?

• And now, for the amazing:

"The questions people ask make it sound as though I should be morally outraged at myself, as if it’s impossible to scratch the pigs behind the ears and still intend to kill them. If I belonged to a more coherent, traditional rural community — one that comes together for pig-butchering in the fall — I would get to celebrate the ritual in it all, the sudden abundance a well-fed pig represents."

Celebrate the ritual of the killing? The abundance a well-fed pig represents? It's 2007, and I find Klinkenborg's romanticizing of killing and of a community killing together outrageous. Now that we know pigs are as sentient as dogs, why do we still kill them? Tradition? Because we did it yesterday?

• He continues, as if what he just wrote wasn't completely absurd. And we learn he finds the pig killing process and what it yields, somehow . . . beautiful.

"[Watching the killing] is how we come to understand what the meat itself means. And to me, the word 'meat' is at the root of the contradictory feelings the pig-killing raises. You can add all the extra value you want — raising heritage breed pigs on pasture with organic grain, all of which we do — and yet somehow the fact that we are doing this for meat, some of which we keep, most of which we trade or sell, makes the whole thing sound like a bad bargain. And yet compared with the bargain most Americans make when they buy pork in the supermarket, this is beauty itself."

It is a bad bargain, for both your karma and for the pig. And it is in no way beautiful. It is human behavior at its ugliest: the rationalizing of killing. And all for something as unnecessary as the taste of meat.

• Finally, the assumption:

"Knowing that you’re doing something for the last time is a uniquely human fear. I thought that would be the hardest thing about having pigs. In fact, it’s not so hard, though it does remind me that humans have trouble thinking carefully about who knows what. One day soon I’ll step into the pen and give the pigs a thorough scratching, behind the ears, between the eyes, down the spine. Their tails will straighten with pleasure. It will be the last time. I will know it, and they simply won’t."

We like to think we have fears that are uniquely human, and maybe we do. It certainly makes killing easier on our conscience. But it doesn't make the killing any more justifiable.

We don't know what the pigs are thinking, but we do know that regardless of how Klinkenborg chooses to defend himself, he has committed the ultimate act of betrayal.

Write a letter to the editor and describe how it makes you feel to read Klinkenborg's words.

On Butterfly Exhibits

More than a decade ago, I remember telling a girlfriend we'd do anything she wanted for her birthday. (Here's a tip: Never say that; you're just asking for trouble.) We were living in Manhattan at the time and she wanted to go to the Museum of Natural History's Butterfly Exhibit. The one at the National Museum of Natural History is coming soon for all of you in the DC area. I know, I know, you're getting your tickets as soon as you're done reading this post and you're giddy with excitement.

Though I said I'd go wherever she wanted to go, I did say I'd rather not attend the butterfly exhibit, but she was a bit butterfly-obsessed and didn't seem to care that they would spend their entire lives in a tiny space surrounded by ogling humans. And maybe there is a god because as soon as we entered the exhibit, my friend was struck by the number of butterflies who were, um, dropping like flies, and how frantic they all were to escape either us, or their entire man-made prison. They would cling to the ceiling, the vents, the lights--anything up high, and the closest you'd get to them was when they were falling--dead--in front of your eyes. My girlfriend and I spent all of five minutes in the exhibit, and she swore off all such things that day. It's like taking someone to a slaughterhouse (but you're paying to continue the exploitation) in that although it's disturbing, you have the opportunity to open someone's eyes in a way that words fail to accomplish.

The exhibit in DC will open on Valentine's Day and will be housed in a 2,500-square-foot pavilion (at a cost of $3 million) where 300-500 butterflies and 323 plants, including flower and nectar-producing plants will live (and die, as the butterflies live from two to four weeks "and they have to be replenished. The museum will receive live shipments once or twice a week, organizers say.")

Replenished. Live shipments.

"The annual budget for running the exhibit space and replenishing the butterflies is $800,000 to $1 million." Sunlight will be created with 1,000-watt bulbs, and 80 degrees Fahrenheit and 80% humidity will be maintained.

"And, it turns out, butterflies seem to like luxurious natural materials. The walls are marble and three patterns of tile on the floor give an upscale, spa-like touch."

I'm not sure if playing out your entire life as an exhibit, regardless of what materials surround you, is preferable to spending it free to travel wherever you want, whenever you want, with the sun playing the part of the sun, and the sky playing the part of the sky.

The Animal Person Minute: On Getting Ripped Off at the Vet

I'm going to attempt to make The Animal Person Minute into a real podcast, possibly today, and use the podcast for general issues that might attract people new to considering animal rights. Kind of like the pamphlet. In fact, I might just create a series: Thinking Critically About Animal Rights, in an effort to help a larger audience think about why they use animals and if they should, and to whom they give their hard-earned cash if indeed they do want to help animals.

Today will be the last day with a photo and a Minute, although I'm going to increase my usage of photos the rest of the week. Also, I'm setting up a link to the most talked about posts such as Why Did YOU Go Vegan as well as the abolition-survey post on the sidebar so you can find it easily and keep discussing. At this point, that's the best I can do within this blog, without going elsewhere to set up a forum, although I do reserve the right to do that at a later date.

Now, today's topic. Our kitty, Emily, started vomiting about a week ago. A lot. Like six times a day. She couldn't hold down any food, but she would drink water, from a scotch glass only I might add, and her behavior and mood were fine. After two days, I tried to get an appointment with a specialist in internal medicine, but there wasn't one for a week. I ended up at my vet's practice, but not with him, and I adore him. I got some new guy who worked with horses until this summer.

Here's the problem, and it's a legitimate one: the vet knows no more than I do. Either there's an obstruction or she has some kind of intestinal distress, perhaps from eating a bad lizard (in South Florida, lizards and geckos are all over the place, including in your house). So the vet orders over $1,000 of tests and expects me to say yes, as I want to help my kitty. If I say no or try to negotiate, I must not want to help my kitty.

Here's my solution: go test by test and say, do we really need this first? Or do we really need four of them, like with x-rays. Is there one x-ray that will tell us much of what we need and can we do that first and only do the others if there appears to be an issue (surprise! The answer is yes and you've just shaved almost two hundred dollars off the bill). If you send the bloodwork out rather than do it in-house, do you save money? ($100 at my vet.) Is there a test you can hold off on and only do if you get a helpful positive result on another test (yes, I could hold off on the barium and x-ray series, which was $450). Do you need to take an antibiotic with you if you don't even know whether she has an infection (no you don't, but I didn't think of that so I paid for it like an idiot).

I'm joking when I say "getting ripped off at the vet." Because Emily can't tell the doctor what she ate or how she feels, we have very little to go on and must do a bunch of diagnostic tests. However, we don't have to do everything immediately, and we certainly don't need antibiotics immediately, and we don't need a complete set of x-rays immediately. When you're at the vet you're probably a bit distressed to begin with, but that doesn't mean you should leave your common sense and good business sense at the door and agree to everything they suggest.

Emily is perfectly fine now. Her vomiting increased a bit when I took her home and I was concerned, but once I stopped giving her the anti-vomit medicine guess what happened: she stopped vomiting. And when I asked the vet if I should try to continue the antibiotic, which also made her vomit more, he said no, as there was no infection, and he prescribed it "just in case." Well, I'm going to make sure to ask for my regular vet, just in case someone tries to hand me off to that guy again.

"The Stark Reality of Animal Euthanasia"

I was thrilled to see "X-ed Out: The Stark Reality of Animal Euthanasia," by Janis Fontaine in yesterday's Palm Beach Post, which explains why and how of the 2,438 animals taken in in August by Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, 954 cats and 380 dogs were euthanized (and the numbers are similar all year). Though 25 dogs and 35 cats arrive at Animal Control each day, there is a "daily surplus" of 16 dogs and 28 cats, who either aren't reunited with their "owners," are ill, are aggressive, or there isn't space for them, so they are killed. Sixteen dogs and 28 cats. Each day. (And 50% of the dogs at the local Peggy Adams Animal Rescue League, which is also a kill shelter, are pit bulls or pit bull mixes, most of whom are also killed.)

What is most effective, for me, other than the numbers, are the photos. Fontaine takes the reader through each step in the euthanasia process, from the decision to kill the animal until inmates from the Palm Beach County Stockade cremate her (and I'm not sure it's a good idea to have inmates do that. Might that desensitize them? Might they already be in a delicate state of mind that could be negatively affected by burning animal carcasses all day?) Fontaine has pictures from various points in the process. And there is also a slideshow of "sheltered living" that I challenge you to complete without crying.

Finally, in the paper version of the story, there is a large, bold quote from an Animal Control employee: "People think we're killers. (Euthanasia) is a necessary component, but the problem was created by people." Of course, the second half of that is true. The other quote, from the Director of Animal Care and Control, Dianne Suave, is: "I'm an absolute proponent of stopping breeding of animals, or at least issuing a moratorium on breeding until the situation is under control." Though that is impressive, I don't think it can work unless there is also some kind of TNR program for feral animals as well as spaying and neutering for pets (Suave, of course, supports the latter).

TNR wasn't mentioned at all in the article, and I wonder why. Any ideas? I want to write a letter, but I'd like to have a better idea about why anyone wouldn't be interested in TNR.

International Vegan Initiative

Often, fantastic ideas get potentially buried in the comments and I post about them to prevent them from being neglected. This is one of the reasons I have comments, although you can e-mail me too, and a handful of people do that each day. I'm going to be changing the site a bit today, adding subscriptions to comments and other fun stuff, once I figure it all out.

Today's daily dose of vegan activism comes from Roger Yates, and it's a campaign that has text about why we shouldn't be drinking cow's milk (entitled, "We are Weaned"), followed by photos of vegans from all over the world. You can learn about the campaign at indymedia ireland, and follow the link to the English version and also a link to Vegan Peace, which is new to me and has some great information and photos, one of which (or an adorable rodent) I might pilfer (with permission and copyright message, of course) for my pamphlet.

Check out the campaign and the links!

Two Videos to Make You Think

For your entertainment and edification today, check out the video posted on the Poplar Springs Volunteer community, and have a hanky handy.

Then, if you've got 12 minutes, check out the video I helped produce (and I'm in it toward the end and let me just say right now that I look hideous) about emancipated foster youth and Turtle Nest Village (it's right on the home page--just press the play button or click anywhere on the screen).

The best thing about working with the cause of youth who have aged out of the foster care system--and you'll all appreciate this--is that the problems can be solved in our lifetime. Talk about "victories!" The victories we achieve are real:

• 96% of the youth who graduated from our program are living successfully, independently within the community and they're happy!
• For the first time, our community is able to serve the 13-17 year olds in foster care and prepare them for what they will have to deal with when they turn 18 (like finding a home, getting a job, finishing high school or their GED, and learning what community resources are available to them).
• 85% of youth who enter the program graduate from it.
• Our results are so impressive that one of our donors funded the short video on the site as well as a feature-length documentary that is now in the editing stage about emancipated foster youth and several programs in the country that are considered model programs (like Turtle Nest Village).
• Our administrative expenses have always been under 10%.
• Our Executive Director, Elizabeth Brown, has received a handful of "Social Worker of the Year" awards over the past couple of years, from local, regional and national organizations for her work with former foster youth.

Emancipated foster youth as a cause is similar to nonhuman animals as a cause in that few people care about them.

"They're 18--they should be able to take care of themselves,"  we often hear.
"They're not people, they're animals. When we've solved all the problems people have, we can move to animals," we often hear.

Being a voice for the voiceless is never easy, and it often involves little or no gratitude. Thank you all for taking on that role.

On the Human Truth Threshold

Yesterday I had lunch (whole wheat pasta with eggplant in a marinara sauce) with a lovely woman who recently sent me an e-mail asking for sponsorship for some kind of run for some disease and the foundation the donation would go to still tests on animals.

Now, I go through this weekly during what is known as "season" (which could be called "fundraising season"): the time when people who live elsewhere during the warmer months return for four or five months (at most) of perfect weather to entertain and attend events for every cause on the planet. And because so many organizations still test on animals, I spend a lot of time directing people to lists of charities that do and don't test as I tactfully applaud their philanthropic impulse while rejecting the charity for using animals.

Some people, as I'm sure you know, get so taken aback by this type of exchange that you never hear from them again. But others, such as this woman, invite you to lunch and want to hear more. (Guess who's taking yet another person shopping? I should start charging for that. In fact, I might just start a business to help people better align their behavior with their beliefs. There's a HUGE market for it!)

She said something I've never heard put exactly this way: Everyone has a limit to the amount of truth about themselves that they can think about in one sitting.

We have our unique truth thresholds, and once they're reached there's a law of exponentially-diminishing returns that kicks in and makes you less likely to do anything and more likely to be defensive once you've reached your threshold. And the problem is that because everyone has a different threshold, unless you know the person you're speaking with fairly well, your enthusiasm to get them to think about what they're doing could easily be the reason you fail (because you say too much at once and it's simply too challenging for them).

She thought I was operating on this premise already (no chance) because she complimented me on the way I plant one seed whenever I see her or talk to her, and I don't necessarily explain anything, though sometimes I do, and I don't initiate the discussion. Ever.

You're probably going to disagree with this, considering 300 animals die every second, but I don't initiate discussions about animal rights. There are myriad entry opportunities in most conversations, and certainly whenever food is involved, but I always wait for someone to say something first.

Why? Because then I know they're interested, and I cannot be accused of lecturing anyone.

I tried initiating the discussion, for about a decade, and I failed miserably because I was deciding what was important to someone and when. In reality, I was just saying what was important to me, on my time table. That's an ambush.

What about you? Do you initiate discussion? And whether or not you do, do you provide information piecemeal? Do you ever suggest someone make a change in his life without him first asking you how to make a change?

I ask these questions because I've developed some kind of critical mass, unintentionally, and I'm suddenly getting a lot more results than I used to get. I like to study excellence so I can reproduce it, and I'm currently studying what I've done to produce positive results in many people at the same time. Oddly, I have never given anyone a book or a pamphlet, and though my own pamphlet sort of mimics the conversations I have with people (over time), I may never use it as a first line of defense (but maybe as a reinforcement). We'll see.

What do YOU think about the idea of a truth threshold?

When Words Get in the Way

A couple of months ago I intentionally stopped using the word abolition for a while. It seemed like using it just invited argument. It's a convenient word, but it also creates problems. Correction--people create problems when they see it. And new welfare? Wanna give yourself a headache? Write a post about new welfare and abolition.

The good things about those words and phrases quickly also become the bad things. I think they perfectly describe what I think they perfectly describe. But because words are, after all, just words, we all attribute meanings a bit differently, and no one owns the definition, so the words I thought were perfectly appropriate become exactly the opposite.

Who is to say that you can't call yourself an abolitionist if you approve of welfare reforms? Gary Francione and Lee Hall? I happen to think it's ridiculous to say you're an abolitionist if you want to continue to use animals. I think it's an insult to the word. But so what? There are millions of people who disagree and have co-opted the term. I hardly see that talking about this all day is helping our cause, although co-opting is a fascinating phenomenon and I do think it has a place in the discussion.

Ron suggested a new term and I'm all for that, although I'm terrible at such things. Many of my clients seem to think coming up with a title for their book is part of my job, and I have accidentally come up with a couple of good ones, but generally I can't be trusted with titles that are anything but quirky and involve wordplay.

Amanda said we sounded like "retarded politicians" and told us to "grow up" and I'm offended by both of those (here's a tip: never use the word retarded, even when you're talking about slow development of growth or anything else. Just don't. It rarely goes over well and makes you look, well, not good.). I don't think this is a matter of growing up. This verbiage difficulty we're experiencing has legitimate roots and many parts of the discussion must be had, at least when you first enter the arena.

The solution? I wish I had one for everyone. What I do have is a solution for myself. And here it is:

• Try like hell to not use the word abolition (in an effort to get fewer headaches). If that means I have to say, as I often do, that I believe we shouldn't be using animals, so be it.
• Though I do find new welfare to be a spectacularly helpful and economical term, clearly it's a major headache invitation and is viewed as hostile. I'm happy to not use it.
• Heck, I might even ditch welfare while I'm at it.
• Refrain, and this part of the plan has been in action for some time, from engaging in endless debates about, um, well, you know. I do often submit one comment about my beliefs and then leave, and if I continue to do that I will make a concerted effort to use language that is not perceived as antagonistic (to the extent that's possible).

I would welcome the opportunity to help craft--or participate in--a study about veganism, particularly one that addresses activism and whether changes in the way we treat animals would make me more likely to return to using them or tell someone else to use them (boy, I wish I had a certain couple of words, here). In fact, if there is a need and a desire, I would create a page at Animal Person where I collect responses to a (less-informal than what I did) survey over, say a six-month period, if you all would help publicize it on boards and other sites so I could get at sample of a couple thousand people.

If anyone has other solutions to this dilemma that appears to be taking up a lot of some people's time, please let us all know!

When/How Did YOU Learn About Abolition?

Tomorrow or the next day I'm going to post a debrief regarding my most informal survey (though if comments and e-mails keep coming in I'll wait). When reading through them I realized that Mary Martin, Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics, failed to ask (specifically) about a crucial topic: When/how did YOU learn about abolition?

At the end of 2006, I somehow stumbled onto Gary Francione's site. I wish I could remember how I got there. I wanted to use a quote of his, and because his site states I need permission, I wrote to him asking permission.

Now, I hadn't read his books or fully grasped what he was saying about welfare and abolition. I was just happy that someone was articulating the way I felt about using animals and commodifying them. The property thing sailed right over my head, not because I didn't understand it, but maybe because I don't think about property law, like ever, I wasn't as excited about it as the general using-someone-for-your-own-gain-or-pleasure conversation.

At the time, this blog had a list of links that included "All things Peter Singer," "PETA," and, well, I think that's all you need to know.

Gary Francione responded to me, telling me that I was not presenting a message of abolition, or at least I wasn't doing so clearly, and basically schooled me and told me to read his books and go through his website and I did (in a rare moment of me actually doing something someone told me to do). And poof, overnight, that was the end of my (unintentional) welfare days, and the start of taking a stand that is intellectually honest.

We all know that Gary Francione is called "divisive" and gets more than his share of vitriol from welfarists. But, as I've said before, if I were introduced to his kind of abolition 20 years ago, I think the subsequent 20 years would've looked a lot different. And that has become the reason I write Animal Person. My intention is to save some well meaning people time and energy and help them in their thinking about our relationship with nonhuman animals in a way that wasn't available to me.

The difference between welfare and abolition isn't some barely-actionable nuance--it's huge. It's not just a matter of strategy, either, it's a matter of philosophy and honesty.

There's a difference between altering your delivery to reach more people and changing your message to reach more people. I spent years changing my message to reach more people and convince them to do things I wouldn't do (like search for meat "produced humanely."). And I made a complete fool of myself.

Now, call me what you want, but at least I don't say I believe one thing, and then tell you to do another (or pay someone to tell you to, via a donation of my hard-earned money).

How/when did you learn about abolition?

Why Did YOU Go Vegan?

In honor of Kim's comment from yesterday, consider this my impromptu survey: Why Did YOU Go Vegan? I'd love to see a large survey too. And I'd particularly love to see some hard numbers regarding whether happy meat is an incremental step toward abolition. Logic (at least my logic) tells me that happy meat would delay an individual's transition to veganism (let's not talk about macro-level abolition, which I do not believe will occur for generations, but again, that's me). Maybe my thinking is flawed, though.

One of my goals is to have a foundation with a program dedicated solely to granting start-up funds for individuals to start vegan groups that do a lot of community education, work with local restaurants on providing vegan options, and maybe even have their own vegan bakeries or other types of eateries. And this brings me to a reason why there hasn't been the kind of research we all would like to see in order to put at least this part of the happy meat debate to rest: money.

If I led a lean, mean abolitionist group, there are many activities I'd consider priorities over funding a study about happy meat. And if I can be said to have had a major during my doctoral studies, it was assessment and evaluation, so if anyone is qualified to do a study about happy meat, I am, thereby reducing the cost of developing and conducting the survey.

The survey as I see it, from reading seemingly-endless debates, would consist of questions like:

• What/whom influenced your transition to veganism most?
• Where you a vegetarian before you transitioned to vegan?
• How long did your transition take?
• If you have back-slided, why do you think that occurred? (I'm curious.)
• Do you think happy meat is an incremental step toward abolition?
• What is your idea of incremental steps, for the individual, to veganism (or don't you believe in that)?

As I've previously written, I was an abolitionist at heart until I got to college, at which time I read Peter Singer and was surrounded by people talking about abuse (rather than use), which led me to PETA (and at that time there was no happy meat discussion, so it was all about ceasing the consumption of meat. The egg and dairy discussion, as I recall, was non-existent). Again, if someone had helped me continue to deconstruct the assumptions behind using animals 20 years ago, perhaps I would have taken a different path.

It took me quite some time (years) to go vegan, and at one point nearly a decade ago I spent an entire year eating medium-rare filet mignon all over the eastern seaboard. And when I quit that I spent less than a year as the single-biggest threat to the wild salmon population of the Pacific.

And as I wrote recently a girlfriend of mine who has been going vegan slowly (by eliminating one type of animal product and replacing it with a non-animal product, in a very deliberate way that I don't think most people are capable of), reached the level of epiphany after reading Jane Goodall!

Clearly, there isn't one way it happens. It's organic. It's a process for most people, and depending on their personal priorities and passions, it goes quickly or not, smoothly or not. But from my observation, it never includes happy meat.

My idea of incremental abolition is to ditch all of the behavioral stuff overnight. No one needs to wean themselves off rodeos (although I doubt the rodeo-folk are our target market). When it comes to clothing and shoes, in the interest of reducing consumption, I'm all for keeping what you have and readying yourself with an explanation for when you get grilled. I never had leather pants or a leather or fur coat, though, so I'm not sure how realistic this part of the plan is.

Ditto for cosmetics and other products around the house that include animal products or were tested on animals. Finish them, recycle or reuse the packaging, and buy vegan products.

Philanthropy? Cold turkey. Stop giving to organizations that test on animals or to non-vegan organizations (again, good luck with that one).

Last, the food. I suggest the one day a week, then two days a week approach. I take people shopping, cook for them, and take them out to dinner, and that significantly expedites their progress to four or five days a week in no time. I don't give them the option to not consider eggs and dairy the same way they consider chicken or lobster. It's all the same. In fact, I emphasize how easy it is to cook without eggs and dairy, and once or twice, with people who do a lot of baking, I've started there.

In other words, it depends. I don't make demands of anyone. I say what is acceptable to me, if they ask, but it's about getting them on board and over their fears as effectively and efficiently as possible. I don't say, "If you really cared, you'd go vegan right now and never look back." But some people do, and if it works, great!

What do YOU tell people about incremental abolition? Why did YOU go vegan?