Animal Person

On "Dr. Bronner's Magic Soapbox" and Foster Care

I finally saw Dr. Bronner's Magic Soapbox yesterday and it made me rethink my personal soft boycott of the products. The religious messages on the labels always bothered me, plus I found the soap to leave a tacky sort of film on my skin and hair. I never brushed my teeth with it, as I'm very particular about tooth care products. But my relationship with Dr. Bronner's ended years ago, and I just might give it another whirl.

Here's what I discovered, which is something confirmed each time a new youth comes to Turtle Nest Village out of foster care: Most people abused and neglected by their parents can't wait to get another opportunity to try to have a relationship with their parents. In the case of foster kids, they might have been shuttled to a dozen homes or more before they turned 18, and on their 18th birthday, their first question is: Can you help me find my (birth) mother?

Dr. Bronner left his three children with various people and in orphanages over the years and went off to evangelize and sell soap. Once in a while he came back, arms wide open, and his children were thrilled to see him. But he would inevitably leave. For him, saving humanity and spreading his message about love and God ("The Moral ABCs") was more important than his own children (he does say that, by the way. That's not a judgment by me.).

And guess what happens to the son who was most neglected by his father all his life (Ralph)? He spends seemingly every waking moment in the service of his father, spreading the message about his father's remarkable life (that included, as you may know, getting institutionalized and given shock therapy, and then escaping). He has embraced his father's message in his own way, and travels around hugging people, giving away soap, and connecting with one person at a time, touching each one's heart.

The Bronner family history is fascinating and I didn't know much about it (including decades of soap making, intervention and taking over by Nazis, death in concentration camps, and lots of mental and physical illness). And the Bronner's of my generation, who run the daily business, don't seem at all as colorful as their parents and grandparents. But apparently they're good business people, and that's what matters for their positions.

What makes me ponder trying Dr. Bronner's products again is that in a world full of corporate corruption and malfeasance, the executives at Bronner's make only five times what the lowest-paid workers make. And everyone gets treated with respect, no matter what their position is (that comes directly from the workers). And they give away 70% of their profits (although one of the projects they give to has to do with turning 1,000 chemically treated acres of farmland back into a natural buffalo range, which isn't exactly a vegan investment, but I don't think veganism is a value of theirs, as some of their products are not vegan).

If nothing else, this documentary gives us a window into the life of an eccentric man and shows how the choices he made profoundly affected--and in fact shaped--the life of one of his son's, whom I'm sure would give anything to spend an afternoon with him, despite the way he was treated as a child. In that respect, this is a story that is played out every day, everywhere. It is both ordinary and extraordinary.

What the Heck is Sapience?

First, in honor of yesterday's rant on pizza, a veggie pizza made with Vegan Gourmet mozzarella. I forgot to take a photo of it after it came out of the broiler for a minute (when the cheese got all bubbly and melty), but trust me when I say it was beautiful and most delectable. We used the DeLonghi indoor grill for the asparagus, zucchini, yellow squash, onions and shiitakes. As for the sauce, I finally found a store-bought bottle I like for pizza: San Marzano's Marinara.

And now, on to sapience.

When Animal Person reader Chico asked for some history on the word "sapience," my reaction was "that's a word?" I was going in the direction of Homo sapiens, without an actual plan for my next step, and I wasn't that far off, as an alternate spelling is sapiens.

I consult my trusty Oxford English Dictionary and discover that this is one of those words that started meaning one thing, then evolved to mean nearly the opposite, but the original meaning was still sometimes used. Originally, way, way back in 1377, it meant wisdom or understanding, and more specifically of the spiritual or divine variety by the 14 and 1500s.  But the 1600s saw a turnaround of sorts, with sapience used ironically as: would-be wisdom, as in Milton's 1642 "This is a piece of sapience not worth the brain of a fruit-trencher."

From 1386 to 1796 there were a handful of sightings of sapience that had a different meaning and are now obsolete, including:

• 1362-1563: references to "sapiential books" of the Bible, which is the apocryphal book of 'Wisdom,' that I never even heard of.
• 1386-Chaucer used the word to mean: an attribute of God.
• 1651-Hobbes (and others in the 1600s) used it to contradistinguish from prudence. Prudence is choosing what is good and sapience is knowing what is true.
• 1667 saw Milton using it to mean: correct taste or judgment. Others followed with the same usage up to 1796.

From 1836-1901 there were several uses that meant wisdom, meanwhile 1791 and 1893 said au contraire, best demonstrated by Morley's quote: "Wisdom is the real article and sapience is the sham article."

Ouch.

I thought maybe sapient might be able to help, but it has a similar history of meaning wise when it appeared on the scene in 1471, then ending up in 1886 meaning ironical (which by the way really is a word). And there are some random other references throughout the centuries, including several in the 1970s that meant "pertaining to or characteristic of modern man, Homo sapiens." BINGO--but short-lived and not to be seen since.

These days, we seem to use sapience exclusively to mean wisdom (actually, "great" wisdom). Every online dictionary I checked defined it similarly so the days of sapience meaning would-be wisdom appear to be over.

But who knows what the future will hold for sapience . . .

What? Female Calves Get Vealed Too?

I was trying to mow the lawn (with my battery-powered Neuton) and look who was in my way, watching as intently as a Border Collie awaiting instruction. The Neuton is so quiet that I mowed inches away from him and he didn't flinch.

Today I think I'll start a series about misconceptions, rumors, and untruths that activists unknowingly spread regarding animals. The first one, brought to us by Deb Durant, is that:

It isn’t just the baby boys who are killed, it is the majority of the baby girls as well. Again, either at birth or for veal. I think it is a common misconception for us that it is only the baby males who are killed for veal.

It makes sense, once you think about it - it is all about numbers. The farmers have room for only a certain number of female cows, who have five or six years when they produce enough milk to satisfy the farmers, after which they’re sent to be turned into hamburgers. But during those five or six years they have a baby every year, for how else will they produce milk? Since only babies need to drink milk, mothers produce milk only as long as their offspring are babies. And so every year the farmers forcibly impregnate the cows they keep for milk. Yet only one “replacement” is needed by the farmer over the span of a dairy cow’s life, and so all of the rest of the babies will be killed at birth or at 16 weeks, regardless of whether they are boys or girls.

Did you all know this? I've been spreading the veal-calves-are-males rumor for decades.

I'm embarrassed to say that I never thought the whole thing through, otherwise I would've realized that if just the boys became veal, and the girls were milk machines, the numbers of milk machines wouldn't remain constant, but would increase each year.

I guess I'll be revising my pamphlet yet again, which is fine as I rarely consider any writing project "done," and in fact I spend most of my days revising something.

Does anyone have any other tidbits we spread that aren't accurate? Any stats that are of concern? For instance, one of my pet peeves is: 10 billion animals are killed around the world every year for food. Um, it's 10 billion in this country alone, those are just the land animals, and 9 billion of them are chickens. Think about it: there are 6.6 billion people on the planet, and that would mean each one is responsible for the deaths of fewer than two animals. I ask you, does that sound right?

My all-time favorite, for all you pizza fanatics, is: Nobody died for pizza. Au contraire, and I'm not even talking about the horrible life and death of dairy cows. Rennet, which gives mozzarella its yummy elasticity, is an enzyme taken from the mucous lining of the fourth stomach of the calf. THE VEAL CALF.

And thus we come full circle.

Technically, eating pizza is just as bad as eating veal. Tell that one to your vegetarian friends who can't manage to kick the pizza habit!

PS-I'm talking about the pizza at the average restaurant or even in the freezer at your local supermarket.

On Veganism, Atheism and Tiger Attacks

January 2008's Harper's has a fascinating article by philosopher and author John Gray (and thanks to Rob for alerting me to my confusion about which John Gray), called "Faith in Reason: Secular fantasies of a godless age." And what does it have to do with animals? Nothing, directly. But indirectly there's a parallel between religion and the eating of animals.

Let's deconstruct:

• Gray begins with: "There exists a widespread belief that as people become more modern they become less religious; that the ongoing growth of human knowledge contributes to the development of human reason, with the result that societies become more secular. Religion retreats as science advances" (85). The reality, as Gray will demonstrate, is in fact the opposite. He will close with: "Despite the advance of science, humankind remains incurably religious, and the place of religion in society continues to be intractably contested. The belief that we are moving into a secular age looks ever more like an unwitting tribute to the perennial power of faith" (89).
• Now let's look at the way we treat animals, and at the perennial power of the palate, if you will. With the increase in knowledge about the sentience of nonhuman animals would come--you would think--an increase in reason and a decrease in the usage of animals. You would think that once humans knew the truth about the capacity of certain nonhumans to experience states of being that we thought were unique to us, we would then act accordingly. And, just like some of us whose religious preference changed when new information was available (or when we really started examining what we were doing and believing, and what we were being told), some of us also changed our eating and other lifestyle habits as a result of the knowledge that the animals were were using are sentient.
• However, just as many people will indeed alter their lives based on new information, the majority of people continue not to, and in fact become more defensive and adamant about what they believe than ever before.
• And tiger attacks are related how? People who continue to use animals often spout the gem: we're at the top of the food chain. Tell Tatiana, the now dead tiger that. Newsflash: we are not predators. Our physiology doesn't say "predator," even if we've got a rifle in hand. Now, that doesn't mean we haven't chosen to act like predators, simply because we can. And there is no one food chain, although we like to think there is and that of course we're at the top.
• I used to think it was funny that some people would ask me if I'm an atheist when they found out I'm a vegan. (And as I've mentioned before, depending on your definition, I'm an agnostic, and atheist, or a Buddhist.) And I'm sure that for most of them the connection is: this person is anti-establishment. But there's a far more legitimate connection there, at least for me. Both my spirituality and my lifestyle are driven by what I know to be true (and I'm not saying I know that there is no god, depending on your definition).

The real question is why do some people insist on adhering to a system of belief that is so fraught with problems? When it comes to religion, if you're not hurting anyone because of your belief, as far as I'm concerned you can believe whatever you want. But the belief system that includes using animals despite our knowledge of their sentience simply cannot be justified. It is a belief system that harms at every twist and turn. Why don't more people find it objectionable? You would think that we'd be well on our way to being a vegan society based on the knowledge we now have. But despite advances of science, mankind remains seemingly incurably lacking in moral fortitude when it comes to nonhuman animals.

PS-Oddly, William Blake was always my favorite poet. Here's an homage of sorts, to both he and Tatiana, by Scott Horton in Harper's. (Those who know Blake will know what's coming . . .)

On Insulting Newcomers and Tigers

Yesterday I had to delete four ranting comments from people who clearly had never visited Animal Person before and completely misconstrued my post about the mauling (and death) by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo. I even tried to write the people to tell them of the etiquette of Animal Person, but alas, their e-mail addresses weren't valid (I should've known by simply reading them aloud).

First, this is a civilized blog, where I ponder serious questions and expect commenters to treat what may even seem like silly questions, as genuine inquiry. Yes, there is a healthy helping of sarcasm in Animal Person, which aids me in getting through the day, but this isn't fun and games.

As for the tiger maulings and killings, and my suggestion that we not keep 300-pound predators captive, at no point was my solution to show them the door and release them into the wild streets of San Francisco or the wild where they would have belonged had we not been keeping them captive. Yes, captive. They cannot leave.

In fact, I don't know one person who would suggest such piffle, yet all four (2 anonymous--shocker!) of my irate commenters believed that was what I was suggesting.

Here's the deal: If we stop breeding animals, their captive populations (including cats and dogs) will naturally decline. Naturally, laws that prohibit the owning of wild animals by individuals might be a nice idea. Oh, and enforcing such laws. To step up the plan, send wild cats to sanctuaries to live out their natural lives. Removing the cats from zoos sends a message to the public that they don't belong in zoos. But it also sends a dangerous flipside message, unintentionally, that the other animals do belong in zoos. And I don't like that message.

For those of us who don't believe nonhuman animals are ours to use, even as entertainment or for "education," this is a grave issue because it speaks to our strategy. And some acts that might at least in the short-term appear to serve that strategy do our cause a disservice in the long-run (and maybe even in the short-run, too).

And with most of the population of the world against us (some of whom express that in the vilest of ways, quite frequently), we must make sure our philosophy and our actions are aligned to the best of our abilities.

For those of you who find what vegans do to do be silly and meaningless, I ask you about the meaning in your lives. What mission do you serve? I hope it is a kind one of nonviolence and justice--one that has making the world a better place as its focus--and I wish you the best with it.

On a Plan for Incremental Abolition?

That's Charles on the beach on Christmas morning, shortly after sunrise. I managed to get wiped out by a wave as I was coaxing him into the water (unsuccessfully). Now that would've been a great photo. Violet had no interest in the water, choosing instead to search for dead fish and munch on their carcasses. Nice.

And now back to our regularly scheduled deconstructing and kvetching.

When I read "Tiger Escapes S.F. Zoo Cage and Kills 1" by Louise Chu this morning, my first thought was: Why do zoo people insist on keeping animals who continue to maul people? Frankly, this tells me that the zoo people don't have the best interests of people in mind when planning whom to buy or breed next for their menageries.

This seems like a no-brainer in terms of abolition: Remove big cats from zoos. Not because it's utterly wrong to keep them, but because they're killing people! Why? Because they're wild cats whose needs cannot possibly be adequately met in a zoo! I don't ever expect a zoo person to sincerely consider the needs of the animals, but I do expect him to consider the needs of people. The zoos are for people, anyway, so why would you continue to have exhibits that maim or kill your customers? Isn't that irresponsible?

In February of this year, I wrote about other maulings by big cats and raised the topic of incremental abolition. Isn't there enough evidence of the kind that zoo people might find compelling that zoos don't make good homes for wild cats? Zoos as an industry aren't going anywhere any time soon. The whole concept isn't going to get banned, but why not work on the most egregious cases and dismantle zoos one animal at a time? Marine mammals, for instance, who are accustomed to traveling thousands of miles, cannot possible have a satisfactory life in a tank. I don't care how big it is. If it were a mile long, that still would be woefully inadequate. And big cats, who continue to express their discontent by making their ingenious escapes and maiming people, clearly need to be somewhere else.

Here's my Gray Matter: Is this like when Americans were convinced that "red meat" was bad for them and now nine billion chickens are tortured and slaughtered a year because we eat less red meat? We vegans don't tell non-vegans to give up one animal at a time, as that just causes them to eat more of the remains of whomever remains. Instead, we say: Go one day a week without eating animals, and increase to two days, etc..., right? So why would we campaign for getting big cats out of zoos? Isn't their suffering going to be replaced with the suffering, perhaps qualitatively different, of other animals?

Working to ban Greyhound racing is different, as it's not going to be replaced with any other animal racing. But is it a good idea to work for the banning of certain animals from zoos? I'd rather (and I do) spend time educating at the consumer level to get people to boycott zoos, as that hits the entire industry and sends a message I'm comfortable with (i.e., no matter what, zoos are not okay).

This does seem like a great time to suggest that big cats be removed from zoo collections and sent to sanctuaries (where they can continue to maul people. Anyone getting the message? Three hundred pound predators aren't that easily controlled. Maybe we should throw in the towel and stop trying.). I'm just worried about after-effects on other animals, whose numbers--and misery--will likely increase in the absence of the cats.

Anyone have any thoughts? Is it worth it to campaign for the removal of certain animals (elephants, whales, big cats) from zoos?

My Christmas Story

Please open your mind. Whatever your beliefs are about Christmas, people who celebrate Christmas, and people who aren't even Christians yet blog about shopping for Christmas gifts, hold that thought, take a deep breath, and read My Christmas Story . . .

The beautiful tree above, and the gifts under it, are for the "turtles:" youth who have aged out of the foster care system (at 18 they're booted out) and are fortunate enough to be cared for by the amazing people at Turtle Nest Village. The majority of them have never received a Christmas gift, decorated a tree, or had Christmas carols sung to them (the kids from the School of the Arts stand on the steps of the spiral staircase and sing for them). They certainly have never attended a Christmas party at a castle, in their honor.

Though the turtles are touched, and some overwhelmed, the board of directors and donors who attend the event, in my experience, are the ones so touched as to be called devastated. To see a young person who was left at a 7-11 by his mother when he was a toddler (with nothing but the clothes on his back) and was shuttled to over a dozen foster homes by age 18, and who came to Turtle Nest functionally illiterate (yet with a high school diploma), learn to read and write, learn how to be an employee, learn how to save money, learn how to have healthy relationships and release anger and resentfulness, and get a job (with benefits an a 401k), buy a car, find an apartment and fall in love, all within three years . . . . is, dare I say, a miracle.

But not a miracle from "above." A miracle of human love. A miracle of a community that has come together and said, "It's not okay that we do this to our kids."

Foster kids are abandoned twice. First by their parents, an then by the system designed to raise them.

Should the organization, which teaches the youth about the many stories people believe in regarding a god or even nature as divine, not hold a Christmas celebration? (And before you say anything, everything--everything--is donated. Nothing comes out of the budget of the organization.) If you were at the castle and saw the serenity and gratitude of young people whose childhoods you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, I think you just might find it in you to be merry about Christmas just once.

To make matters even more touching, the turtles got together and wrote a poem for the staff, board and donors. And each one wrote a thank you letter for a board member. And they pooled their own money to buy a gift for each board member: a crystal keepsake thanking us for our service to them and to Turtle Nest Village.

Wherever you are, whatever your thoughts are about Christmas, remember that tremendous joy can come from the day, and from the idea of Christmas . . . if you let it.

A Very Buddhist Christmas Eve

People who know me well know that I'm a vegan and that I don't believe in god. Depending on your definition, I'm either an agnostic or an atheist. I don't worship a heavenly being or believe that if I pray to anyone hard enough, frequently enough or sincerely enough, that  my prayers will be answered.

Why, then, do people insist on asking me what I'm doing for Christmas, and seem offended when I say "Nothing special." They want me to be Catholic again for that one day, and express my Catholicism through the consumerism of Christmas. No one comes a-callin' on Good Friday (when Jesus was crucified), which I'd think would be a fairly important day to ponder the life of Jesus. And when he allegedly rose from the dead on Easter, I don't get many people calling me gravely disappointed because I haven't gone to church or bought any Peeps (which I believe aren't vegan anyway).

So what's with the obsession with Christmas among people who don't even go to church and who think that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is the day Jesus was conceived (it's not)? And why do they assume everyone on the planet wants to celebrate Christmas (either as the day of Jesus' birth or the day of consumerism)? If I were Jesus, I'm not sure I'd be too happy with what has developed in my name. In fact, I think I'd be quite sad.

Having said all that, I'm going Christmas shopping today. And no, I'm not going to impose my sense of what's a good gift on others. Gifts are supposed to be for the receiver, not the giver. Now, I won't be getting a goat for anyone from Oxfam or Heifer Int'l, even if the receiver wants a goat more than anything. There's always a fallback. But my point is that for one day that is apparently important to many people for a variety of reasons, I'm happy to do something to make my friends and family happy. Not make them think if they haven't exhibited the desire to think, not make them ponder the way they live their lives, just make them smile, because that's what they want. That's what they expect on Christmas. Even some of my Jewish friends.

I'll spend the day meditating as I shop around, and at least try to focus on my breath and be present for everything I'm doing. And drive with intention, park with intention, elbow my way through crowds with intention, and be grateful that I have money to spend on gifts that will make people smile.

My statement--my activism--for the day, is to surrender and find the shortest, least painful path to making other people happy for a day, even if they don't respect what makes me happy.

On Cheesecake and Cherokee Tales

First, vegan chocolate peanut butter cheesecake with chocolate graham cracker crust and a sliver of dark chocolate, topped with cream. I definitely have to work on my slicing, plating and photographing of pies, but a crappy photo is better than nothing. After having made a dozen pies in a month, my most important advice is to make the pie an entire day before you need it. When it has chilled for 24 hours it is perfection. And though the dark chocolate is a great idea, it makes it difficult to cut into the pie without making a mess. Everyone ended up picking up their cream-topped dark chocolate with their fingers and eating it separately. But since it was so yummy and this particular dinner was hardly formal, no one cared.

The Cherokee tale, sent to me by a child advocate I adore, is helpful for anyone working for social change, as is his personal commentary:

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.  He said, "My beloved grandson, the battle inside every person is between two wolves. One wolf is Evil. It is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, pessimism and negativity. The other wolf is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, compassion, optimism and faith."

The grandson thought for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee gently grasped the boy's shoulder, looked deeply into his eyes, and replied, "The one who wins is the one you feed."

. . .

My 30-year career as an advocate has taught me a few basic lessons, the most important of all is this: Influence does not come by accident.  I urge you to be a voice for others, and for yourself, by expressing your opinions, sharing your experience and passions, and participating in every opportunity to inspire positive change.  When we feed the wolf with positive and effective communications, we all win.

Abraham Lincoln once said "You can't dip clear water from a muddy stream."  If we are active and assertive, our leaders will respond.  If we are passive and apathetic, they will go their own way, thinking they know best.  Our voices and votes are key ingredients for progress.

It's disturbing to know that most well-meaning, intelligent people think that considering animals is simply a matter of choice and opinion, and doesn't reflect on them negatively if they continue to use animals for food, clothing, entertainment and experimentation. Nevertheless, we must continue to be the lone voice in a crowd that says: If we are to evolve to even approach our potential as human beings, that evolution must have a moral component. And that moral component must include nonhuman animals, who have a right to their own lives, and do not exist solely for our use.

On Funny Stuff and Gifts for Pets

First, I've got to tell you an awesome string of words someone used to find me earlier today: are vegans communists?

I don't know about any of you vegans out there, but twenty years ago I got that question all the time. Also, try telling someone you don't believe in god and see how long it takes for them to ask if you're a communist.

Next, a business acquaintance, who clearly hasn't been paying attention, sent me a gift marked "Perishable" yesterday. Quite a large styrofoam box. Inside was dry ice marked "Handle Only While Wearing Gloves," at which point my husband put his hand on it and nearly burned off his fingerprints and he just might be scarred for life. Under the ice was a small box (small compared to the colossal outer box), containing, as I'm sure you've guessed by now, twelve filet mignon medallions from Pfaelzer Brothers ("Gourmet foods of the finest quality"). You just can't make this stuff up!

But wait, there's more . . . .

The next box (from a different person) contained gourmet cheeses (I'm not even sure what that means). Maybe I'll make cheese encrusted filet for Christmas. No chance!

All parties will be getting a thank you card explaining my choice to demonstrate nonviolence at each meal.

In keeping with not being (too) negative, check out "Ultimate Creature Comforts," by Ylan Q. Mui in today's Washingtonpost.com. The premise is simple: People are spending lots of cash (like $40.8 billion) on gifts for their pets (mostly dogs, who will stand for being dressed up like little furry people. Try doing that to a cat.). But there's more to the article than that, thank heavens.

Let's deconstruct:

• People are sending out Christmas cards from their pets. Now, I received a handful of cards with animals rather than people on them (from the child-free people). But they're supposed to be from the people, not the dogs.
• "It's no longer comfortable to reward these animals in pet terms," said Bob Vetere, president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, a trade group. Now the thinking is, "My dog means so much to me that I have to give him something that means something to me," he said.

Bingo. This is about people, not pets.

• "Tracy Ryan, an associate professor of advertising research at Virginia Commonwealth University who has studied pet gifts, said owners have three main motivations, which mirror the roles we take on when giving to each other.
  
  Most commonly, owners want to make their pets happy, or they feel a responsibility to provide for their pet's needs, she said. But a surprising minority of people gave gifts to compensate for a guilty conscience, such as not walking the pet enough or not being able to spend time with it."

It. At least people are feeling obligated to provide for the needs of the Its they buy. I'm not sure how stupid gifts provide for any needs, though. As far as the "surprising minority," I'm unclear whether the minority part is surprising or if it's surprising that people have guilty consciences (but not to worry because those people are in the minority). My observation would say that people buy gifts to make their dogs even more of a status symbol and that the majority of them are compensating for not actually meeting the exercise and stimulation needs of the dogs. My experience is loaded with examples of pure breeds who eat Ziwipeak (which is $4.00/can for dogs and $2.50/can for cats and Emily-the-non-pure breed LOVES it), but who don't ever go for a walk (the only outside experiences they get are in their teensy backyards). These are mostly small dogs I'm talking about, and they sit in their Louis Vuitton bags while their mommies shop at Neiman Marcus, they go for lattes at  Starbuck's (they do have to sit outside, though), they go everywhere with their moms in their Mercedes or Land Rover and they dine al fresco at the many cafes here with seating outside. But they don't run, they rarely exercise, and they've never seen a dog park so they're not socialized and they're a total yippy menace when they see another dog while they're being trotted around town.

The moral of the story? Cesar Millan is right about one thing: our dogs may not be wanting for affection, but they're wanting for exercise and stimulation. My dogs don't wear collars (collars freak me out) inside the house and they have the same ones and the same leashes that the Greyhound adoption people gave me years ago. Here's what they're getting for Christmas: after their regular 45 minute morning walky, they're going to the beach for an hour to run like the wind and chase the waves. There's no chic gift in the world that can beat that.

On Birthdays and Atrocious Christmas Gifts

This photo is from several years ago, shortly after we moved into our new house and my cousin was visiting with his wife and son for his birthday. I bought the candles that don't blow out and didn't read the package carefully (or, um at all). Rather than putting one or two on the cake, all 38 candles were of the can't-blow-out variety, and we had to run through the house out back to douse the flaming cake with a hose. (That's me in my PJs holding the cake--at a safe distance.)

Happy Birthday to me!

Yes, 41 years ago, at 10:08 pm (and by the way 1008 is considered a sacred number second only in importance to 108, so I've got that going for me, which is nice), I came into this world to make it hell for my parents.

My rising sign is Leo and my moon is in Aries, which makes me a triple fire sign, hence all the, shall we say, intensity I sometimes exhibit.

If you're interested in getting a reading, and some of you have already written me about this, Jyotish (Sanskrit for "the science of light") is the system that I swear by. It's Vedic Astrology and very different in my experience from western astrology (and you may even be a different sign!) and it's bizarrely accurate. It's been around for over 5,000 years with people setting up their lives (food, meditation, exercise, corrective remedies) to maximize their innate advantages and minimize their disadvantages, largely through Ayurveda and the  making of strategic life choices.

I might not believe in a God/creator, but I certainly believe that there is an order that we cannot directly seen but that can be seen with the right tools. I don't believe in fate, but I do believe that we each have inner tools (including karma) that direct us in specific directions, and we can either work with or against those tools. I've seen all of this work first hand, and in fact I have landed exactly where I am supposed to be on my 41st birthday (and that's good, by the way). I am most fortunate.

As for atrocious Christmas gifts, a girlfriend who has stopped eating meat and is now trying to rid her diet of dairy and a lot of animal skin, received an impeccably-timed gift of an envelope full of photos of animals that a friend bought in her name through Oxfam or Heifer International (she was so distraught telling me the story I couldn't get the name out of her).

She was completely unhinged, as she has recently embarked on a journey of nonviolence and justice for nonhuman animals and this "gift" couldn't have come at a worse time. Or a better time, as it gives her the opportunity to shift someone else's perception regarding animals.

Now here's the rub: the sender is shockingly evolved and you'd never, ever think such an unconscious gift would come from such a conscious person. What is my friend to do? Nothing? A letter? Wait a bit and then send a letter? Send a thanks, but no thanks card?

Any suggestions?

On the Dreadful Future of Lab Mice

Now that we know that monkeys are comparable in the kinds of intelligence that we value in our college students, I shall go out on a proverbial limb and make the following prognostication: in my lifetime, I will see the abolition of monkeys as laboratory animals for human disease and toxicity research.

Heck, we may even see the end of live dog, cat and pig labs.

Why am I so certain of this? Because we are only increasing the numbers of mice we use (after, of course we've genetically manipulated them and/or caused them to have diseases they would never have). And though many are in an uproar over the use of creatures who are too much like us for comfort, I don't hear many people crying out for justice for lab mice. Yet.

I'm going to make a concerted effort to write only about positive stories from tomorrow until (and including) Christmas, but for today I present you with a deconstruction of the less-than-uplifting "Of Men and Mice" by Greg Critser in this month's Harper's.

• The most ironic, and saddest, part about the article is best explained by Critser. When George W. Bush explained why he'd veto attempts to expand access to human embryo-driven stem-cells for research, here's why:

A mouse had come to the rescue. Never mind that the viruses used to stick the genes into the cells had caused cancer in a number of the mice, or that, compared with the human embryo–driven stem-cell techniques that already show likely treatments for the cruelest of diseases, the mouse method was still in its infancy. No, the mouse breakthrough, as a
Los Angeles Times headline writer put it, "may put ethical concerns to rest."

That a 20-gram rodent could lay to rest one of our most divisive medical/ethics debates might strike a visitor from Neptune as being a bit odd, but that alien visitor would quickly go native were he to spend some time acquainting himself with the practices of the modern research laboratory.

There he would discover that the mighty mouse is king (65).

So here's the ethical dilemma: rather than using stem cells, which Bush has called "the taking of innocent human life," we create, torture and destroy mice. Here's the truth about the human embryo from which stem cells are extracted (from the same Boston Globe article with the Bush quote, which is a must-read primer on the debate).

It is not implanted and growing in a woman's uterus. It is not a fetus. It has no recognizable human features or form. It is, rather, a blastocyst, a cluster of 180 to 200 cells, growing in a petri dish, barely visible to the naked eye. Such blastocysts are either cloned in the lab or created in fertility clinics. The bill pending in Congress would fund stem cell research only on excess blastocysts left over from infertility treatments.

The blastocyst represents such an early stage of embryonic development that the cells it contains have not yet differentiated, or taken on the properties of particular organs or tissues -- kidneys, muscles, spinal cord, and so on. This is why the stem cells that are extracted from the blastocyst hold the promise of developing, with proper coaxing in the lab, into any kind of cell the researcher wants to study or repair.

If the President found stem cell research so morally abhorrent, he should be banning it, not just refusing to allocate federal funds to it.

The president's refusal to ban privately-funded embryonic stem cell research is not the only way in which his policies betray the principle that embryos are persons. In the course of treating infertility, American fertility clinics routinely discard thousands of human embryos. The bill now before the Senate would fund stem cell research only on these excess embryos, which are already bound for destruction. (This is also the position taken by former governor Mitt Romney, who supports stem cell research on embryos left over from fertility clinics.) Although Bush would ban the use of such embryos in federally funded research, he has not called for legislation to ban the creation and destruction of embryos by fertility clinics.

But if embryos are human beings, to allow fertility clinics to discard them is to countenance, in effect, the widespread creation and destruction of surplus children. Those who believe that a blastocyst is morally equivalent to a baby must believe that the 400,000 excess embryos languishing in freezers in US fertility clinics are like newborns left to die by exposure on a mountainside. But those who view embryos in this way should not only be opposing embryonic stem cell research; they should also be leading a campaign to shut down what they must regard as rampant infanticide in fertility clinics.

Genetically engineering mice with diseases they'd never get is an ethical step UP from using an undifferentiated cell mass that is not sentient? What kind of twisted logic got us in this position, and why are respected journalists and scientists stepping all over each other to endorse it?

Back to the original article.

• "The Unites States consumes some 80 million rats and mice a year--one for every four Americans--for the ostensible purpose of making our lives better" (65).
• "Science can now make mice that mimic depression, develop Alzheimer's and heart disease, show the symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism, drug addiction and obsessive hair-pulling" (66). Remember, this is supposed to represent an ethical dilemma resolved.
• "Even the pesky animal-rights community, from the sincere PETA to the thuggish Animal Liberation Front, seems to be on board with mouse science. PETA's over-the-top public ad campaigns prefer to focus on the fate of empathogenic monkeys, dogs, and cats--despite those animals' minuscule role in modern science. Ask a roomful of animal livers what they think of mice, as I did at a recent family gathering, and you're likely to get blank stares. . . . If you decide to kill your pet dog or cat and people find out about it, you're likely to face trial and imprisonment. Mice, however, seem to be the great exception to America's animal-welfare consensus, which is curious, since the mouse, because of genetic engineering, now stands as the ultimate medical proxy for humans" (66).

Sincere PETA? I'm not even sure what that means. But he's right and it's our fault. Through our hierarchical thinking, we're furious about experimenting on either the cute and furry or those who are most like us. And in the end, we've saved the bulk of our abuse for the cute and furry whom we've made more like us.

• Critser humanizes the individuals who spend their days abusing and slaughtering mice. He presents them as "good folk" who are supporting their families with their honest work. They managed to get used to what their doing, including "all that euthanasia" (the mice are all inevitably killed).
• Critser presents "the humane imperative: never cause the animal unnecessary anxiety or pain" (66) and acts like that means something when you've engineered a creature to keep her captive, stick needles in her constantly, watch her suffer and deteriorate, and then kill her.
• There are jokes about "splatting" the mice (use your imagination), and how the practice is discouraged, even if the mice bites you (gee, why would she want to do that?).
• "But if the mouse is such a good model, with the feds and big pharmaceutical companies spending billions on mouse-based science, then why is the pharmaceutical industry's vaunted 'research pipeline' so dry? Ask that question too many times in the modern lab world and you're in for, as I was, another background check to make sure you aren't some animal-rights type. Yet the question deserves an answer, however unsexy, and it is this: It takes time to understand human diseases with any animal model, and even longer to develop a compound to treat a disease without killing the patient first. . . . As PETA is fond of pointing out, there have been no new drugs, to date, that were discovered using genetically modified mice" (70).

All of this time, all of this money, a burgeoning industry worth billions, and all to avoid using an undifferentiated mass of cells that could probably give us the answers we need without involving anything Faustian.

• "The mouse, like the computer, has become a driving force behind the commodification of science--science as product, wrapped in its own black box, the ever-mutating modern mouse as its foreman, architect, and shill. And commodification--as we know from our experience with cheap convenience food and obesity, for example--comes with new prices and new responsibilities. The mouse model may require that we reevaluate our moral stance toward these animals" (72). So once a being becomes useful enough to get bumped down (up?) in status to "thing" or "commodity," we have a moral obligation? Talk about moral relativity!
• Driving the change to treat mice better (they aren't included in the Animal Welfare Act, as I'm sure you know) are independent ethologists, who basically showed that when you don't treat mice well they're not reliable research tools. (Note that change has not come from pressure from animal welfarists, mainly because they're so busy with chimps and dogs).
• Critser mentions the three R's (reduce, reuse, refine) and thinks we need to "be consistent in our beliefs about animal welfare, [and] give to the lab mouse what we give to our pets" (74). That's all well and good if you believe breeding and using them is some kind of moral imperative (and I still don't understand why anyone would, particularly considering the existence of stems cells).
• Mice, as it turns out, are capable of empathy (you do NOT want to know how that was determined), which paradoxically, brings us back to them being a lot more like us than not.

If mice are really mini-monkeys, emotionally speaking, how long before the pitiful stares on the anti-vivisection posters feature mice? After all, we may use 40,000 lab monkeys in a year in the United States, but we use 80 million rats and mice. And that is NOT counting the 70 percent of all male mice--usually too aggressive for use in studies--that are euthanized before weaning (74). (And note that that stat is repeated several more times on page 75 in case it didn't sink in the first time.)

• Critser does appear to support the development of non-mouse alternatives and notes that the NIH doesn't take a firm enough stand calling for "consideration" of non-animal means (76).

The mouse story, then, has come full circle because of one deficiency of humans: we value life that is most like ours. Now that we know how much mice are like us, and can be made to be like us, is the exponential increase in the mouse industry going to provide the discoveries and cures that scientists have been unable to provide for all these years using their less-genetically modified ancestors? Or will the industry collapse because scientists (note--not animal-rights activists) grow a moral limb and realize, for whatever reason, that creating mice, particularly when there is no pressing need to, to experiment on and slaughter them probably isn't right no matter how you slice it.

On Pigs, Bees and Pollan

That's Michael Pollan, not bee pollen.

In "Our Decrepit Food Factories," in The Times Magazine, Michael Pollan, who clearly still can't shake the notion that animals are ours to use, takes on "sustainability," among other things, and almost gets me to like him.

Almost. But not quite.

Let's deconstruct:

• "Confucius advised that if we hoped to repair what was wrong in the world, we had best start with the 'rectification of the names.' The corruption of society begins with the failure to call things by their proper names, he maintained, and its renovation begins with the reattachment of words to real things and precise concepts." Animal rights, anyone?
• No, Pollan isn't referring to the term animal rights meaning animal welfare. He's referring to "sustainable" and "unsustainable." His point will be that what we've been doing to animals through factory farming ("concentrated animal feeding operations") and to honeybees not only isn't sustainable, but may in some cases be lethal. To people, of course (it's already lethal to the animals, by design, and to many bees during transportation, but that apparently isn't a problem).
• Here's a paragraph, the likes of which I say all the time at dinner parties once someone has made the mistake of asking me about veganism. I'm sure it'll be familiar to you. But it's in The Times Magazine, so people unlike you may actually read it, and I think that's fabulous.

"The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades."

The consequence of the pumping of massive amounts of antibiotics into the food supply is that we're forcing bacteria to evolve that will be resistant to all those drugs (eg., MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant strain of Staphylococcus that currently kills more Americans annually than AIDS).

• Luckily, our trusty government is on the case and, oh, wait . . . it's not.

"Scientists have not established that any of the strains of MRSA presently killing Americans originated on factory farms. But given the rising public alarm about MRSA and the widespread use on these farms of precisely the class of antibiotics to which these microbes have acquired resistance, you would think our public-health authorities would be all over it. Apparently not. When, in August, the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition asked the Food and Drug Administration what the agency was doing about the problem of MRSA in livestock, the agency had little to say."

• In March, I wrote on supervegan.com about Colony Collapse Disorder, which at the time was so new that it was thought to be some kind of colony collapse disorder. Now that it has been capitalized and studied for nine months, during which time several potential causes have been eliminated, we're down to the obvious: the way we're treating them is causing them catastrophic harm. Of course, we only notice the harm when we realize they're not showing up to do their jobs.
• Pollan is interested in the welfare of pigs and honeybees, and the unsustainability of the systems we've created to alter their natures. This is in no way an argument for not using animals or honeybees.
• The stories of MRSA and the honeybees have a lot in common, not the least of which is that the systems that we've created that have resulted in antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the mass dying off of honeybees are not sustainable. "Whenever we try to rearrange natural systems along the lines of a machine or a factory, whether by raising too many pigs in one place or too many almond trees, whatever we may gain in industrial efficiency, we sacrifice in biological resilience."

Pollan writes: "We’re asking a lot of our bees. We’re asking a lot of our pigs too." Our bees. Our pigs. Well, we did breed them for our use, and according to the law, then, they are indeed our property. Nevertheless, I wonder what Confucius would say about the use of our.

New Scenes from Peaceable Kingdom

Today's post was going to be a bit of a downer, based on Greg Critser's "Of Men and Mice" in this month's Harper's. But at the last minute I decided on something more upbeat and affirming: Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home. Jenny Stein and James LaVeck have released three scenes from the upcoming film, which will be released next year.

I am fully convinced that the way we are going to shift human perception regarding nonhumans is to find or create as many ways as possible to present the reality that nonhuman animals are individuals. Yes, the capacity for pleasure, pain, boredom and affection is important. Sentience cannot be underplayed. However, to see a goat at play, a mother hen teaching her baby chick, and a cow grazing with and nuzzling her calf as they walk, unremarkably, across a field, says: these creatures are simply going about their lives. And they have a right to. They have a right to live their own lives, without being branded, without being de-beaked, without being crammed into a shed or crate, without being raped, without being drugged and without being slaughtered.

Watching the first clip, Scene 9, reminds me that we have barged into the lives of chickens and completely taken them over. We've altered their bodies, their behaviors, and their families. And then we cheer when their abusers agree to giving them a bit more space. Their lives are still not their own. Their bodies are still not their own. Their babies are still immediately taken from them and the males are slaughtered soon thereafter.

Watching the second clip, Scene 18, of Willow Jeane Lyman, is disturbing as I have yet to grasp how anyone can brand a calf the first time, let alone ever get used to doing it. When you have to restrain a creature, who then screams in pain as you and he both smell his burning skin, flesh and hair as you create a wound that will leave a lifelong scar, what goes through your mind? More important, what goes through your heart? And why do some people look at what they're doing and realize how wrong it is, while others laugh at them?

The third clip, Scene 6, is what I would send to friends if I could choose only one. Cayce Mell describes when Seneca, an abused cow at the farmed animal sanctuary she started, began to trust a person (Jason Tracy):

Rather than just not trust anyone ever again, it's like they recognize that not all humans are the same. Animals are capable of recognizing us as individuals, and I think the greatest gift that we can give to them, is to recognize them as individuals.

It's evidently easy to look away when an "other" is being used in a way you'd never allow a family member to be used. Our mission is to shatter the illusion that there is an "other."

On Internet Puppies as Christmas Gifts

In a stunning discovery that will rock the foundation of the animal-exploitation industry, it has been revealed that Internet-Ordered Pups Are Frequently Imported, Diseased (click "Read" to go to the original article). I know, I know, you're thinking, "How could that be?"

There are over a dozen comments on the ABC News site regarding this article, and here are a couple of concerns I have:

• How can we begin to educate the kind of person who would go onto the Internet to buy a puppy, when within a dozen miles of their house, there's probably a shelter, and when Petfinder.com is so easy to use? Who are these people? Where are these people? It's a given that they have Internet access, which means they can be reached via the Internet, but that's the easy part. Anyone have any ideas? If tens of thousands of puppies are coming into the country in crates, it's because there's a demand for them. How can we reach the "consumers" of these animals and get them to think for a moment about what they're doing? Trying to educate the suppliers, for me, is futile as they exhibit a dearth of conscience and ethics that I cannot even begin to deal with. I'd never try to convince a Greyhound farmer to grow a conscience and get out of the business, but I can easily convince people who go to the track without really thinking about what they're doing to stop going to the track. Consumers, in my experience and observation, are easily manipulated if they're not doing something on principle. People who would get a puppy on the Internet are being manipulated by somebody, how do we get them away from those somebodies and press them to think about all of the issues involved in what they think is a quick and cheap decision and transaction? Anyone . . . anyone . . .

• One of the comments on the ABC site, by aprillbonner, was telling:

Rescue places are VERY hard to work with. We tried for about 6 weeks to find an adoptable Dalmatian . . . They would not even consider us if we were out of state, didn't have an installed fence, wouldn't agree to being randomly inspected and agreeing to having the dog taken back if they did not like our care! It's no wonder that people turn to puppy mills. I even talked to some breeders who wanted to insure we would feed the puppies certain food (BARF diet). I completely understand asking for some references, including a vet reference--but the other stuff is out of control!  . . . Breeders and Rescue places are pushing people to these puppy mills; it's a lot easier.

Part of me is enraged that aprillbonner is so upset about all of the requirements. Rescuers know better than anyone the kinds of people who will breed or have pets and what the animals must endure, and they work very hard to make sure they don't then give their charges to other abusers!

When you adopt a Greyhound, you most--often must do so locally and indeed agree to random checks. And you must have a fenced in area. And they come to your house and interview you and inspect the dog's potential new home. And ask for a vet reference. And see what you know about dog food and suggest some food. And they can take the dog back if you aren't treating the dog well, and though that is a bit dicey, it sends a message: Rescuers are serious about finding good homes for the dogs. They'd rather foster more dogs or have more at their kennel and home, where they know they won't be mistreated, than blithely hand dogs off to people at the asking. I think that's how it should be. Does the Department of Children and Families give away children or ship them to you over the Internet without lots of questions and bureaucracy?  No. And though children and dogs aren't the same, they're similar enough in this situation, and those who are caring for them temporarily take finding them homes very seriously.

When I was looking for Violet (whom I found on Petfinder), I originally wanted a "broken leg hound" (there are plenty of them, most people don't want them, and they will probably need special care). I inquired but was rejected because I'm over 100 miles from where the dogs are and the people who run the place want to make sure they can always check on the dogs. And I think that's admirable.

The part of me that isn't enraged by aprillbonner goes back to my first point. She (I'm assuming) is probably right that people go to puppy mills because rescuers (and some breeders, apparently) make things difficult. How do we reach the "dog-consuming public" and help them ponder the many factors and issues that they are making decisions about completely unconciously? It should be difficult to adopt a dog. Would you give your dog to just anyone if you were suddenly thrust into a situation where you could no longer keep her?

I'm one of those people who thinks we should have to have a license to have a child, so all of this is in line with what I have observed: too many people approach (having children and) buying animals as a fun kind of acquisition that they believe should be cute and entertaining and not change one's life too much or inconvenience anyone. It's no wonder in a society with so many throw-away children as we have, that we wouldn't treat our "best friends" any better.

Until we approach the act of caring for someone who might die on their own without us far more seriously than we do now, we will continue to treat dogs like trendy Christmas gifts, to be enjoyed for a few weeks then neglected and/or discarded. I don't know how to do this, but somehow we've got to change our nation's perception regarding the having of pets. The idea is to give someone a safe, loving home, not to give someone a new toy.

Of Cheesecakes and Morals

Last night I went to a holiday party and brought a vegan eggnog cheesecake with a graham cracker crust and maple-ish frosting and may I say it was spectacular!

First, the all-purpose crust, with which I've made a handful of pies with recently:

Nabisco Original Graham Crackers (no honey) or Health Valley's Amaranth Graham Crackers (use 10 crackers if the former, 35 if the latter, but who's counting)
1/3 cup Earth Balance
1/4 cup date sugar
1/2 tsp. cinnamon (optional)

Preheat oven to 350, put crackers in a sandwich bag with melted Earth Balance (microwave for 15 seconds), sugar and cinnamon, and crush. I don't use a blender because I like big chunks of cracker. Nabisco can easily be crushed by hand, but for Health Valley I wrap in a towel and whack it with a hammer a bunch of times.

Press crust onto pan and up sides, if possible. (I used a cake pan, as the only pie ones I had were the flimsy aluminum ones, and this cake is too deep and has frosting and it would overflow. Going up the sides was a bit tough.) Bake for 8-10 minutes.

Here's the filling recipe, which I modified from the FatFree Vegan Kitchen. Please note that it isn't even CLOSE to fat free (and it's not meant to be). I modified because I realized I had only the cubed tofu, which when drained is 8 oz. (and note that the original recipe calls for light tofu), and I was too lazy to go up the block to the supermarket (Publix, which by the way rocks and has lots of tasty vegan and organic morsels). I also stay away from regular sugar and use arrowroot rather than cornstarch.

8 ounces of extra firm silken tofu
12 ounces of Tofutti Better than Cream Cheese
3/4 cup date sugar
1/2 cup vegan eggnog (I used Silk's)
2 tablespoons fresh-squeezed lemon juice
2 1/2 tablespoons dark rum
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
1/2 teaspoon freshly ground nutmeg, packed
3 tablespoons arrowroot

Blend cream cheese, eggnog an tofu until smooth, then all the rest of the ingredients and blend until re-smooth. Pour into crust and bake for 55 minutes-1 hour. Remove, cool, then chill in refrigerator. As with other vegan pies, this one probably should be baked the day before you need it. I needed it 6 hours later and it was fine, but could have been better set.

I made frosting because I put a knife into the center of the cake and it left a gash and I had to mask it. I made a cream cheese frosting for some of the pumpkin pies I baked around Thanksgiving, but I wanted something a bit lighter.  I improvised with what I had in the kitchen, as I was dedicated to not having to shower and leave the house until I absolutely had to. Here's what I came up with, and it was delicious:

The remaining 4 ounces from the second package of Tofutti Better Than Cream Cheese
1/2 cup maple syrup
2 Tbsp. Earth Balance
1 tsp. vanilla
1 Tbsp. arrowroot

Blend, then chill a wee bit, then pour onto cake and jiggle pan around to fully cover the top with a smooth, even glaze. If you chill the frosting until it sets completely, it's thicker and needs to be spread.

As soon as my battery is charged for my camera, I'll post a photo if there's a good one among my many attempts.

As for morals, I noticed something yesterday regarding welfare and rights, and the details are unimportant but the gist is that welfarists are enraged by the way we treat animals, and those of us who don't think using animals is right are just as enraged. I often feel like welfarists believe our argument is some kind of intellectual, philosophical one and isn't at all visceral and has no sense of urgency. But I am nauseated when I see a horse pulling a carriage. Not because that horse is being mistreated, but because that horse is there, being forced to do that work. It sickens me to see people prancing around wearing the skin, hair and fur of sentient beings. Not because of how the animals were treated or how their parts were "harvested," but because we breed them to harvest them. And I even provide my Greyhounds with plenty of opportunities to be off leash because whenever I put their collars on (they don't wear them as a rule), I imagine what it's like to have a collar put on me and to be at the mercy of a person at the other end of a leash. I find it bizarre that most human beings think nothing of using animals to fill their wants and needs. And I feel so strongly about not using animals that I cannot possibly campaign to merely change the way they're being used. This isn't a mere difference in strategy, this is a completely different principle, and no less urgent.

PS-I forgot the most important detail! The chef at last night's party loved my cake and asked for the recipe. He has been dipping his little toe into the dairy-free world and hasn't liked most of what he's tried his hand at. This particular cake is something he needs this time of year, and he's adding it to his menu! Frosting included!

On Vegan Dogs and Vegan Sea Turtles

Yesterday, while I was busy complaining about a reference to the green sea turtle as a "vegan" rather than an "herbivore," the commenter known as the bunny was busy compiling quotes from Animal Person where I refer to my Greyhounds as vegans.

Busted, indeed!

I go to my trusty Oxford English Dictionary where I learn/relearn that in 1944, Donald Watson's November 2 issue of Vegan News states:

Vegetarian and Fruitaraian are already associated with societies that allow the ˜fruits of cows and fowls, therefore..we must make a new and appropriate word... I have used the title The Vegan News. Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as the vegan diet, and we should aspire to the rank of vegans.

Perhaps more important is the definition: A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.

I know, I know, veganism doesn't equal strict vegetarianism these days, as the latter involves only food. What I'm most concerned with is "A person who on principle abstains." According to those words, a vegan must be a person. But let's try a more liberal interpretation and say the person doesn't have to be a human person. Now we're left with "who on principle abstains."

The green sea turtle is an odd creature as far as sea turtles go, eating worms, jelly fish and aquatic insects as well as plant matter as a hatchling and juvenile, and transitioning to a diet of plant matter only as an adult. The green's teeth, digestive enzymes, and length of intestines are all what tell us they're herbivores. Just like the teeth, enzymes, and length of intestines (and jaw, etc...) tell us that dogs are in the carnivore family.

Now, what they can eat and maintain health and even thrive on, may in fact be something other than what they are.

The principle of choosing to abstain from animal products cannot be applied to dogs or cats whom we have decided will eat a plant-based diet. The dog isn't a vegan, as that would imply her choice to abstain.

So what about all of the vegan children who eat plant-based diets because that's what their parents choose to feed them? Are they really vegans? The physiology of the human does certainly scream "herbivore," but can you call a child a vegan when she has not made that choice for herself?

Richard Dawkins has often been said to believe that raising a child in a religion is a form of child abuse. Here's one of his responses:

What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. I find it very odd that in our civilization we're quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim of child that is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion. And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child.

I agree. It follows, then, that people who feed their dogs or children plant-based diets, should not be referring to their vegan children or vegan dogs. The most important concept in vegan other than animal-free, is the conscious choice. And though language certainly is like a living organism, always evolving, it would be disappointing for vegan to evolve to exclude the moral deliberation necessary to make the choice.

On Why Poor Kids Eat More Meat, Veganism and the Death Penalty

I had a bit of a stream of consciousness morning, with a handful of ideas swirling around in my head.

First, I've always wanted to share some of the interesting and often hilarious strings of words people use to search Google and end up at my site. For instance, every single day, I still get at least one person who searched using "i play with my poops in the toilet." For your personal edification, Clorox has changed its commercial several times, and the poops (which was really "boats") is gone, but in all versions, the pig remains.

Today's Google query was "how many fish does a vegan eat each year?" And in the event the enquirer is reading this post, the answer is zero. Vegans, by definition, do not eat sentient beings, and fish are sentient beings.

While I'm on the topic of what a vegan is, I recently started volunteering at a sea turtle hospital and rehabilitation center on the beach. I basically clean tanks and vacuum up turtle poop all afternoon. It's truly delightful. I bought a couple of books from the gift shop, including Sea Turtles, An Ecological Guide, by David Gulko and Karen Eckert. It's hugely entertaining, colorful and informative. Here's my only problem, so far. Of the handful of species of sea turtles, one, the green sea turtle (and with names like Kemp's ridleys, leatherbacks, hawksbills and loggerheads, green seems a bit of an underachiever as a moniker) eats only plants as an adult and is called a "vegan turtle" (40). Because of the fun and cheeky nature of the book, I wonder if that's a joke. Isn't vegan supposed to imply lifestyle choices? Does the green turtle make some kind of choices I should be aware of outside the realm of food to intentionally exclude animal products?

And while I'm thinking about choices, check this one out. According to Harper's Index for January 2008 (for which the source is the USDA):

Average amount of meat, in pounds, consumed by a wealthy US child each week: 1.7
Average consumed by a poor US child: 2.1

I find that offensive. Our government that feigns an interest in capitalism, enables industries that produce the unhealthiest of foods to do so at the lowest price points. I spend $300 a week on fresh food for two adults. There is nothing processed in there, there's no corn, there are no genetically-modified soybean products and everything is organic. My blood pressure is 80/50, my heart rate is 52 and I'm fit. But none of that would be true without my food choices. We live in a country that physically abuses its poor (creating the perfect environment for obesity, diabetes, and other health problems) through nutrient-lacking food and substandard healthcare choices, and that's embarrassing.

And while I'm on the topic of embarrassing: the death penalty. New Jersey has approved the abolition of the death penalty,  but apparently because the cost of keeping an inmate on death row for a year is $72,602, rather than the $40,121 it costs to keep him (yes, they're usually men) in the general prison population. (Um, ethics discussion, anyone?)

Here's where my mind finally ended its whirlwind journey of connections this morning. My objection to capital punishment is a moral one. I do not think it is right--and in fact I think it's absurd--to send the message that we think certain kinds of murder are so bad that we'll kill you if you commit them. Whether or not the guilty parties suffer as their lives are being ended by the state is immaterial to the issue of morality of the act of ending their lives. If indeed they suffer, and we could develop some kind of technology that would guarantee they wouldn't suffer, why would I actively support the development of such technology? Why would I spend my precious time, energy and money campaigning for an allegedly cruelty-free death penalty when what I really believe is that claiming that taking someone's life is cruelty-free, nonviolent, or just is simply an oxymoron?

On the Origin of "Sentient"

The first published use of the word "sentient," according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1603 by Philemon Holland in Plutarch's Philosophie, commonlie called, the Morals (you can buy the first complete edition in English for USD 11,000 or EUR 7,414 here).

Intelligence is the motion of the intelligence about that which is stable..: but opinion is the mansion of the sentient about that which moveth.

That doesn't help much, but in 1632 (in the second edition of John Guillim's A Display of Heraldrie, if you must know), we get a bit more help.

Forasmuch as God would that the faculties both intelligent and sentient should predominate in the head [etc.].

"Sentient" was considered a faculty that God put in our head (or brain, depending on which reference you look at). It is other-than intelligence, and shall prove, through about 1879, to be an adjective consistently have something to do with the capacity to feel.

  1. That feels or is capable of feeling; having the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses.

Beginning in 1815, however, a change in direction displayed itself, with Robert Southey, Elizabeth Barrett Browning and others using it to mean:

Conscious or percipient of something.

(Mrs. Browning wrote: The poet's sight grew sentient Of a strange company around in 1844, for instance.)

In 1839, "sentience" came on the scene in Edgar Allan Poe's Fall of the House of Usher:

This opinion [of Usher's], in its general form, was that of the sentience of all vegetable things.

Yes, vegetables. "Sentience," too, at the beginning, was used strictly to mean the capacity to sense.

"Sentient" briefly progressed from conscious (as in awareness), to a hint of a larger, less elementary conception of consciousness. In 1886, Frederic W. H. Myers wrote:

The insentient has awoke..into sentiency; the sentient into the fuller consciousness of human minds.

Since then, "sentient" has been moving closer to "consciously perceiving," to which now we would add (at least) "pleasure and pain."

"Sentience" has toyed with evolving into something more complex involving consciousness, and only time will tell what will occur. Consciousness is probably the endgame of most discussions of states of being, and we are likely to never find the answer, or agree to, what it is, where it is, who has it and to what degree, and whether or not it should matter in discussions of sentience, suffering and rights.

Petition PeTA Regarding Peter Singer

After I had that conversation with the PeTA solicitor who had no idea that PeTA kills healthy animals or promotes animal products, I received e-mails from people who had had similar conversations.

Then Beijing Chris recently wrote a letter to PeTA explaining why he wouldn't be renewing his membership, and I thought that was a stellar idea. Just days later, Roger Yates, Ph.D., started a site petitioning PeTA  to "request that the misrepresentations and mistakes" regarding Peter Singer's Animal Liberation are corrected.

Please read Roger's full post, "Petitioning PeTA," so that you fully understand the purpose of the petition, and of course sign away if you agree. The crux, for me, is:

I suggest – and I claim that this is entirely reasonable – that those who want to make their basic claims rights-based claims should become known as the animal rights movement. Surely those who reject rights-based claims, or those who shy away from them for whatever reason, should have the decency to allow the name to be used by those who take rights seriously rather than use the name ‘rights’ rhetorically.

The reason I have banged on about PeTA so much is to acknowledge their importance. There is little doubt that PeTA are a big voice in the animal protection movement, and in mass media coverage – and there is little doubt that people take on board the message that PeTA are “the largest animal rights group in world”.

However, in terms of what PeTA say philosophically, they are not an animal rights organisation at all.

Also, I recommend writing a letter to PeTA that explains why you are no longer a member, if indeed you're not. I'm not a member because:

• I disagree with their choice of PR stunts.
• They promote animal products.
• They are not an animal rights organization.

But that's me.

Now, my intention for my letter is not an attack on PeTA; it's feedback. I was a several-decade customer who became dissatisfied with the product and services that are PeTA. I am simply letting them know why I am no longer a member. If they get hundreds or thousands of letters, they might alter what they do or how they do it, as any good business would consider after hearing from dissatisfied customers.

Part of my motivation for Thinking Critically About Animal Rights was to take back the term animal rights. I don't think we should have to say "abolitionist" (I even removed one reference to it). I think "animal rights" says it all but it has been co-opted by animal welfare. We can change that. Maybe not overnight, but we can change that.

UPDATE: If you signed the original petition, it has been moved and started over, so please go to the new petition and sign it.  Thanks.