Animal Person

USDA Won't Discriminate Against Downer Cows

The latest downer cow situation has become surreal for me on several levels. Once again, every response I have makes me feel like an alien, and when this particular topic comes up in conversation I am amazed by what the focus is: people eating meat that might be diseased.

In "USDA Rejects 'Downer' Cow Ban" by Christopher Lee in today's Washington Post, Lee reports that Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer won't be endorsing a ban on downer cows entering the food supply. This, of course, is after footage of treatment of crippled cows flooded the airwaves.

Let's deconstruct:

• He's the Agriculture Secretary for heaven's sake! Who in their right mind would expect him to say anything else! Do you really think he's worried about the cows?
• Schafer introduced the idea of increasing random inspections against abuse, which by the way he said nothing about other than: "The penalties are strong and swift, as we have shown. . . .  Financially, I don't see how this company can survive." He's not worried about the cows; he's worried about the financial solvency (or not) of the company.
• Schafer thinks the rules are fine (regarding downers entering the food supply).
• Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis) said: "These images exposed wholly unacceptable gaps in American meat inspection systems." Meat inspection? What about hideously, barbaric cruelty inspection?
• One J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute said . . . wait . . . why don't you guess? That the footage we've all seen is "an anomaly, an extreme circumstance." First of all, he has no idea that's true. And second, it takes a lot of desensitization, I'd imagine, to find what happens every day at every slaughterhouse acceptable. Which brings me to my real points, of which I have a trifecta . . .

First, I cannot overstate how disturbed I am that the focus is on whether the flesh of crippled, diseased, tortured beings should be in the food supply. The objection here is about the meat being potentially harmful, not about the fact that the cows are subjected to an extra helping of torture. Wayne Pacelle is quoted at the end of the argument, and even his comment is about people.

"We need a rigorous inspections program because reckless behavior by a single company can have national and global implications . . . . How many other crises, recalls and public scares can we tolerate before we adopt an unambiguous policy of combating mad cow in the food supply? . . . We need a bright line on this."

The cows! What about the cows!

Next, I understand why Schafer wouldn't be for the ban, as he thinks the system of having crippled cows examined by a veterinarian is working fine. After all, he must know what happens to the cows and how they get crippled and why. And he must know how they're treated even when they don't become crippled. He must know that the entire system is disgustingly cruel. But that doesn't concern him. What concerns him is the bottom line of animal agriculture: profit.

Finally, from the industry's point of view, once you open the door to not slaughtering downer cows for food, what's next? You can see why they'd be against banning the sale of crippled-cow flesh for human consumption. 

What I don't understand is the outrage over the treatment of the downed cows rather than how they got crippled in the first place? That's the real tragedy.   

Help a 7-Year Old and His Mom

An Animal Person reader has asked my advice, and though I know some stuff and am resourceful, thousands of heads are better than one.

Here's the situation: A 7-year old decided a few weeks ago that he no longer wanted to eat animals. It sounds like the rest of the family are omnivores, though not daily meat eaters. Mom believes this is a moral issue, she wants to be as supportive as possible, and she doesn't want her son to become discouraged.

Allow me to stop right here and say: Congratulations to the kid! Fantastic! Awesome!

Some details about the individual are that he is allergic to eggs (and beef) already and cannot have peanuts or tree nuts either. I think peanuts are highly overrated, not to mention not particularly nutritious. Tree nuts are a different story; staples of my diet are raw, organic almonds and walnuts, and I'm not sure what I'd do without them (more flax seeds and pumpkin seeds, I guess).

What I'm not at all educated about is soy and boys. Mom says:

I also know that it's not good for boys (especially) to have too much soy. . . . For the past few weeks I have given him some prepared vegetarian and vegan foods, but those are primarily based on soy protein, and anyway I prefer to cook fresh foods for my children. So far I've come up with lots of variations on rice and beans, and quinoa, besides using some of those prepared products (such as "recipe crumbles").  I know that he needs about 29-40 grams of protein daily, and some of the prepared foods meet that in one serving, but as I said I don't want to depend on those primarily.

The Food Allergy Survival Guide, written by Jo Stepaniak, Dina Aronson and Vesanto Melina appears to be a great resource. Also note that in each of the authors' links, there's an opportunity to ask a question, AND there are plenty of questions mom probably has that have already been answered. In addition, there are links to other books about children, nutrition and veganism.

Here are some great stories and photos of real vegan children that I find inspiring. Here are some diet plans for kids, and Healthy Eating for Life for Children has "kid-tested recipes" in addition to the nutritional information needed for planning meals. Here's an online guide to raising vegan children (Erin Pavlina's). Finally, just going to vegsource.com and following the "parenting" link or the "soy talk" link (on the navigation bar) will no doubt be helpful.

Again, I don't know about soy and boys other than it doesn't make them gay (yes, that was actually a controversy for a while). I do know that eating processed foods of any kind, frequently, isn't healthy, and mom's right to prefer cooking fresh foods and minimizing the faux meats.

Anyone have any other suggestions? I think it would be helpful if the entire family had a couple of vegan meals together each week. I think that would minimize how different he might feel as well as make him feel supported and encouraged.

On Captain Boycott

On page 99 of THE STUFF OF THOUGHT, author/Professor Steven Pinker nonchalantly includes "boycott" in a list of eponymous verbs (and mentions that the person who inspired them has been long forgotten). He moves on and I'm frantic.

Boycott? Eponymous? Where've I been?

I begin to feel like this might be one of those precious moments when I can actually get my money's worth from the Oxford English Dictionary (at a steep, just-under $300/year).

I log in and learn of Captain Boycott, an Irish landlord who was the original victim of the treatment we have now come to call the boycott. (And because a person/surname inspired the word, nearly all of the early references to boycotting, boycotts and boycottees were capitalized).

To combine in refusing to hold relations of any kind, social or commercial, public or private, with (a neighbour), on account of political or other differences, so as to punish him for the position he has taken up, or coerce him into abandoning it. The word arose in the autumn of 1880, to describe the action instituted by the Irish Land League towards those who incurred its hostility. It was speedily adopted by the newspapers in nearly every European language (e.g. F. boycotter, Du. boycotten, Ger. boycottiren, Russ. bokottrovat, etc.).

Meanwhile, for an unsteep cost of . . . nothing, I go to Wikipedia, which I have used maybe three times in my life, and find a far more thorough explanation of the history of Boycott, and I'm feeling profoundly underserved by the OED (not a new feeling, by the way).

Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott (1832-1897) was his full name, and although the term wasn't coined until the action against him (which worked, by the way, resulting in him fleeing Ireland for England), the actions we have come to associate with the boycott date back to at least 1830.

To add further humiliation to my dearth of knowledge about the boycott, a film called CAPTAIN BOYCOTT was made in 1947 and tells the whole flippin' story!

Please note that neither Blockbuster.com nor Netflix carry the film, so you'll have to find it elsewhere if compelled to check it out.

On Cleaning Up the Mess You Make

I'm pretty sure that if a consequence of my business was that I polluted the air, water and soil of my neighbors, I'd be in a bit of trouble. I'd probably have to report what I'm doing and what I'm, um, adding to the air, water and soil around me to the EPA. Someone would (/should) then crack down on my business somehow. I should have to change the way I do things and/or pay an enormous fine for the cleanup of the mess I created. And that would be fair, as you can't just go around polluting the planet with noxious fumes and walk away.

Unless, of course, your business is the production, confinement, fattening, mutilation and slaughter of nonhuman animals, in which case you're probably off the hook.

Let's deconstruct:

• In "Farms May Be Exempted From Emission Rules" by Elizabeth Williamson in today's Washington Post, we learn that despite the harmful emissions factory farms produce, the power of their lobbyists, combined of course with the spinelessness and/or greed and/or indifference of many members of our Congress, could very well spell the end of the reporting of the gases that pose health threats to people (no mention of the planet or anyone other than humans). Why is the reporting of the large amounts of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide the "farms" produce such a big deal? (And the award for Mistress of the Obvious goes to Williamson for this gem. But evidently it needs to be said.)

Local public health officials say that if people in an area started getting sick with symptoms pointing to emissions, knowing who was reporting big releases of the gases would be most helpful.

• Please, drama queen, you say, it's not like anyone's actually died from the emissions . . .

The [EPA] estimates that livestock operations generate two-thirds of the ammonia emissions reported in the nation. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies blames manure-pit emissions containing hydrogen sulfide and ammonia for the deaths of at least two dozen people working or living near the operations in the Midwest over the past three decades.

• As it turns out, according to an EPA scientist, "ammonia concentrations slightly over the reportable levels caused respiratory irritation and that the minimum reportable emissions of hydrogen sulfide 'could cause acute respiratory irritation and effects to the central nervous system.'"
• Meanwhile, the National Chicken Council is against the reporting rule because it might put their farms "at risk for lawsuits." Isn't that the idea? Accountability? So the National Chicken Council doesn't want to have to be accountable for the damage it does. Why not just say that?
• Lest you feel the urge to blame Republicans, Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn) sponsored a bill that would actually delist manure as an environmental pollutant under the Superfund law. This happened, coincidentally (no chance) right after several lawsuits were brought against factory farms for their pollution of water sources. Peterson contends that Superfund wasn't intended to apply to farms (au contraire. Check out the EPA's response to that here; it's the first one listed).

Finally, "On Dec. 28, with Congress away for the holidays, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register of its plan to proceed with the rule change. The public comment period (to the EPA) ends March 28."

For more details and history, read and follow the links in "EPA's Holiday Gift to Big Ag," By Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel.

On Pigs and "Margot at the Wedding"

I'm going to have to add "Films" to my categories, although that would involve some serious backtracking to reorganize and label everything correctly. I watched "Margot at the Wedding" on my computer while the guests were watching golf on the television (yes, we have only one). It's about a dysfunctional family, which I guess is redundant, and it has some funny moments and some poignant moments, but here's what irked me to no end: a trite usage of pig as metaphor.

The neighbors in this lower-end, waterside Block Island/Nantucket/Hamptons-ish community, the Voglers, are painted as right out of "Deliverance." They're surly. They're savages. They're barbaric. They're naked a lot. And they do an odd ritual around the slaughtering of a pig (or an already slaughtered pig--I couldn't tell). They gut the pig and then . . . . horror of horrors . . . . they cook him on a spit and eat him. And then . . . . then . . . . a pig hoof shows up in the garbage that Jack Black is cleaning up, I guess to remind him of the savages who live next door.

So the family with the bully of a child who bites another child on the neck after taunting and chasing him, is composed of the kind of people who would actually hunt, kill, gut and eat a pig. (Oh, and of course it's a pig, as their house is a mess and you are made to believe they're filthy people.)

Yawn.

The message? The uncivilized people who are stupid, dirty and classless not only eat pigs (appropriately), but they're disgusting enough to take part in the gutting and they cook the pit whole on a spit. When Jack Black finds the pig hoof, he doesn't react as if he found a chicken wing. A pig hoof--now that's creepy and gives one pause.

I know a little about screenwriting and I guess what I'd like to see is the retiring of the pig cliche. Perpetuating the myth that pigs are filthy and consistently associating them with savages seems lazy and unimaginative, not to mention unjust and inaccurate.

To heap on the cliches, the civilized, cultured people have a dog named Wizard (and when he's missing they're frantic), and when several of them are driving at night and pass a woman whose dog was hit by a car, they help her by taking her to a vet and even paying her expenses (she didn't have a purse with her). Part of being refined is being associated with domesticated animals, and wanting to help them. The juxtaposition was no surprise.

I look forward to the day we put the stereotypes to rest and appreciate nonhuman animals for who they are, rather than what we've decided they represent.

On Blaming Vegetarians for Factory Farms

I gotta hand it to Nathan Deuel, author of "The American Way of Beef," in The Atlantic for managing to blame vegetarians for making the situation worse for animals. The article is from October of 2007, obviously before the latest beef recall, but during the time of the Topps ground beef recall, which put the company out of business. After not mentioning the effects of farming from the cows point of view (it's all about the consumer, the rancher and the environment, as if there are no cows in the equation at all!), he concludes:

Ironically then, those who cared most about what they were eating and who had therefore opted for organic vegetarianism may have themselves played an indirect role in the degradation of our nation's meat.

Let's back up a bit and deconstruct:

• We appropriately end the first paragraph with a B.R. Myer's quote: "Livestock are treated better in Europe because Europeans want them treated better. They are treated worse here because we hardly think of them at all. It's as simple as that." At which point Deuel doesn't consider them at all, either, which is sort of ironic.
  
• Standards in meat have declined, what with feeding them the brains of their cousins topped with some corn, when they would rather eat grass (oh, and that's what they're made to eat). Evidently the taste of meat (beef, really) has declined with said standards.
• We are reminded, through an example by one Page Stegner who attempted to buy a steer at auction and fatten him up in search of an old fashioned meal. Many challenges and expenses befall Stegner, none of which pertain to slaughtering the steer, which I found odd. In the end, he finds raising cattle to be a difficult, expensive business. And I guess from that we're supposed to understand why subsidies and feedlots and feeding cows cow and corn makes sense and are natural solutions to the challenges and expenses-problems?
• Ranchers and environmentalists should work together, as it's best for the environment and for consumers for cattle to be raised with "a holistic approach to the ecosystem." However, many environmentalists are back-to-the-land hippie types who are vegetarians and don't want to keep animals. But animals are necessary, some people insist. "There is a contradiction between the aims of organic farming and the notion that we should cut back to a more vegetarian diet."
• Because of the movement to get animals off of farms, they went to feedlots, according to Deuel. This brings us full circle to:  "Ironically then, those who cared most about what they were eating and who had therefore opted for organic vegetarianism may have themselves played an indirect role in the degradation of our nation's meat."

In my mind, this is completely absurd. People who don't want animals on farms also don't want them anywhere else. We don't want to use them because it's not right, and blaming us for the rise of factory farms is ridiculous.

Finally, I find it difficult to understand why Deuel doesn't consider the animals after he quotes Myers. All he does is perpetuate the notion that the animals are unimportant except as a means to an end. Using them is either good or bad for the environment and for consumers, and we should find the most effective way to use them so the impact of what we do with/to them is the way we want it. He considers the animals only in his blame of those who do care about them, adding insult to injury.

However, the real story is that we care enough about them not to treat them better, but to leave them to their lives, and it seems Deuel has never been introduced to this idea.

On "Baraka," Culture, Religion and Animals

"Baraka" is a documentary with no words but with powerful music (therefore watching it with the sound off is not a terrible idea). According to the website, Spirit of Baraka:

[H]igh quality 70mm images show some of the best, and worse, parts of nature and human life.  Timelapse is used heavily to show everyday life from a different perspective.  Baraka is often considered a spiritual film.

Baraka is an ancient Sufi word, which can be translated as "a blessing, or as the breath, or essence of life from which the evolutionary process unfolds."  For many people Baraka is the definitive film in this style. Breathtaking shots from around the world show the beauty and destruction of nature and humans. Coupled with an incredible soundtrack including on site recordings of The Monks Of The Dip Tse Chok Ling Monastery.

What kind of message is transmitted without words, you ask? A message of contrasts. The juxtaposition of scenes speaks volumes, as does the choice of locations and the choice of topics. Religion plays a huge part in the film, and I was overwhelmed with the amount of time, money, architecture, song, speech and clothing devoted to religious expression around the world.

The cinematography is breathtaking. It took 14 months to film in 24 countries, and you usually aren't quite sure which country you're looking at, or what exactly it is the people (particularly in rituals) are trying to accomplish. (Actually, that's not fair--the purpose of the ritual is the ritual. But the audience doesn't know the context.)

Three things struck me most:

1. The preponderance of religion. There is a beauty in the fact that the people filmed are so involved in their worship. But that beauty, for me, is fleeting, as I immediately am reminded of what has become of the world because of religion. Usually the beauty is in the music, for me. I enjoy chanting, no matter what the language or religion. My experience of the film was that much of human life and endeavor is involved in matters of religion.
2. Beginning at about minute 48 (the film is 96 minutes long), there are two sets of images of animals that I can NOT get out of my head. The first is a very clinical-looking, factory-ish setting, I believe in an Asian country, where thousands of chicks are sent onto a conveyor belt and people check them, one by one, for sex, and the females get a green drop of ink put on their face. Then at another section on this stainless steel contraption, the chicks are sorted and the males are tossed down a funnel and a set of chutes, to their death (which we don't see) and we get a brutal close-up of the searing of the beaks of the females. The next shot is the rows of females in battery cages. This is all juxtaposed with scenes of people in subways going through turnstiles, then cars running as far as the eye can see up Park Avenue in Manhattan.
3. The other image I can't get out of my head is a heartbreaking scene in Yemen of a man riding a cart UPHILL, being pulled by two donkeys who are clearly in excruciating pain as they pull the cart inches at a time.

There are also scenes of tremendous human hardship, such as people (and animals) sifting through garbage in Calcutta and a set of scenes pertaining to Auschwitz.

For those who say that we vegans care more about animals than people, that's rubbish. But the element that is present in our atrocities against animals that is absent in our atrocities against one another is: a lack of outrage. Everyone is outraged over the Holocaust. Everyone is outraged about extreme poverty, starvation and desperation in a world where some have so much. But very few people are outraged over the billions of chicks who get tossed to their death without a second thought. Very few are outraged over tying an animal to a cart and forcing her to work when and where you wish.

We need more outrage about what is truly outrageous: that billions of animals are still living horrible lives and dying horrible deaths, for no good reason.

On Dr. Dolittle?

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous transcribed Dr. Dolittle's speech to his accusers before being sent to the insane asylum for the crime of compassion toward animals (check out "bad footage of the awesome opening credits" to bring back some memories of the 1967 version, with Rex Harrison). I saw the more current version as well, but I don't recall the speech being included (anyone recall differently?).

Transcription is so annoying and time consuming for me that whenever I need it done I pay someone to do it. And I'll pay just about anything to avoid doing this kind of work. That's how much work--how much time--is involved.

Thanks for doing it and for thinking of me! Without further ado, I give you Dr. Dolittle . . .

I do not understand the human race.
It has so little love for creatures with a different face.
Treating animals like people is no madness or disgrace.
I do not understand the human race.
I wonder why do we treat animals like animals?
Animals treat us so very well.
The devoted ways they serve us and protect us when we're nervous --
Oh, they really don't deserve us, all we give them is hell!
Tell me how else man repays them, do we ever think to praise them?
No we don't, and this dismays them, you can tell.
We're riddled with ingratitude, we give no love or latitude,
in every way our attitude is, well, like animals.
Why do we treat animals like animals?
How can people be so inhumane?
Cows and chickens work to feed us, dog and horses show they need us
and though cats don't always heed us, their affection is plain.
What do we do?
We neglect them; we do nothing to protect them;
we reject them, don't expect them to complain.
We ignore them or we beat them; when we're hungry, then we eat them.
It's appalling how we treat them, it's insane!
Like animals!
We humiliate and murder and confine them.
We create their wretched status, then we use it to malign them.
I mean, why should we say, "preening like a dog"?
Why should we say, "working like a horse"?
Why should we say, "eating like a hog,"
when what we mean is "eating like a man"?!
Don't we? Of course!
A man of ill repute is called a "weasel" or a "rat,"
a woman you dislike becomes a "vixen" or a "cat."
A family that is blessed with healthy reproductive habits
occasions the remark, "Well you know them, they breed like rabbits"!
"He's as stubborn as a mule!"
"He's as stupid as an ox"
"He's as slimy as a snake!"
"He's as crafty as a fox!"
Remarks like that really get my goat!
Why don't we say, "noble as a frog"?
Or, why can't we say, "wealthy as a hen"?
True, we say, "devoted as a dog."
What we should say is: "chic as a giraffe," "pretty as a pig, eh?"
That'll be the big day, won't it?
But when? But when?!
When will we stop treating them like animals?
Is the human race entirely mad?
Women see a baby goatskin, or a lambskin, or a stoatskin!
And to them it's just a coatskin --
Oh, it's terribly sad!
When you dress in suede or leather, or some fancy fur or feather,
do you stop and wonder whether, for a fad, you have killed some beast or other?
And you're wearing someone's brother,
or perhaps it's someone's mother in which you're clad!
Like animals, like animals, like ... animals.
Well, it's true, we do not live in a zoo.
But man is an animal too.
So why can't you, like me,
like animals ...
animals.

On Food and Karma

What do you do when your father-in-law is on his way for a 12-day visit?

Bake scones. Chocolate chunk scones with the help of Vegan with a Vengeance.

Then bake vegetable lasagna, courtesy of The Candle Cafe Cookbook .

And make a list of his favorite foods to veganize over the next 12 days.

And meditate a lot.

And exercise a lot.

And probably drink a lot of wine.

Wish me luck!

I posted an article I wrote for Rethos on Zaadz/Gaia, called On Animals and Culture. Not exactly news to Animal Person readers. I'm broadening my audience through those sites, and I've been successful at getting a couple thousand new people to read about veganism and animal rights, so I believe it's worth the effort. I've received some wonderful e-mails and comments over at Rethos and Gaia, and I shall continue with those efforts as long as they appear to be reaching people who are on some sort of path--either spiritual or activism--but have yet to incorporate animals into their path.

Lynne left a fabulous comment on Gaia that might throw some of you for a loop:

"I also think about the flood of chemicals released during the animal's terror. I don't want to consume terror, pain, and death."

I don't write much about spiritual matters on Animal Person, though I'm fairly sure my thoughts about the world's religions and whether or not there's a god are pretty clear.

Though I do believe in karma, you don't have to to appreciate Lynne's comment. In fact, her point is more  urgent. Reread what she's saying about what you're consuming. You're consuming suffering and terror when you eat animals, and that's certainly not something I want any part of.

I have a bunch of friends who have lived in ashrams (where veganism isn't always on the menu, believe it or not, as ghee and other dairy products are often consumed), and they're about as insightful as humans can be regarding the energy of life and death. And most of them still eat animals in one form or another, which I find odd.

And I think I know at least one reason why: karma. But this time, it appears to be misused. When questioned about why she still eats animals despite everything she knows about energy, one friend said to me: "It was the animal's karma to be my lunch." She actually thought it was acceptable to enlist karma to completely absolve her of any wrongdoing. But karma is about you and your actions, and you don't get to excuse yourself from doing whatever you want by using karma as a weapon of rationale. This particular friend is obviously yet another person who simply doesn't want to give up her meat, no matter what happened to it before it reached her plate.

I didn't think of it at the time, but an appropriate response would have been, "How do you think your karma is affected when you decide to cause harm when you don't have to?"

What do you think about consuming the energy of suffering and terror? What do you think about karma? And are you surprised to learn that people who've lived in Hindu or TM ashrams for years come out and eat animals? (I was stunned.)

On the Activism and Self-Esteem

This is a new one for me. Perhaps that's because I don't get out much and the term has been bandied about for years and it just hasn't gotten around to me until now. Nevertheless, I give you "animal welfare extremists," as in:

Bob Stallman, President of American Farm Bureau Federation, indicated that animal welfare extremists pose a clear and present threat to American agriculture, according to a story in Brownfield Ag News. Stallman referred to the Humane Society of the US (HSUS), an anti-livestock group that intends "to prohibit the use of animals for food or for work," he warned. Not only in the US, also in Europe and other developed countries these action groups gain ground. It is interesting to philosophize about the reason why activists almost put animal rights above human rights.

Let's deconstruct:

• The author of this opinion post on WorldPoultry.net is one Dick Ziggers, who is mighty confused about a couple of key points, the most obvious being that activists "almost" put animal rights about human rights. That "almost" clarifies that he does not indeed think we put animal rights above human rights, but lets us know that he thinks we come dangerously close.
• Newsflash: Animals before people isn't the point or the intention for us. People who say we put animals first, in my experience, are usually the types who aren't doing anything to help animals, and the excuse they use is that we're more important. What's odd is that the speciesist mind doesn't allow him to understand that animals and people are important to each other, and also that caring about animals and people is not the mutually exclusive process they like to think it is.
• Newsflash: The HSUS is not anti-livestock. They're anti-too-much-torture.
• And what's this about "animal welfare extremists?" What kinds of things do they do? While Ziggers is utterly misconstruing Maslow's hierarchy of needs to make activists look pathological, he writes:
  • Cognitive needs is the expression of the natural human need to learn, explore, discover and create, to get a better understanding of the world around them. Animal activists are misusing this need. They see that their acts (arson, freeing animals) are widely covered in the press and that they can easily get away with it because it has low priority with the police. Misinformation or manipulated information further helps to spread their truth.

Again, "animal welfare extremists?" Doesn't he mean "animal rights activists?" And why does he think the HSUS is involved in arson and freeing animals? They don't even talk about veganism! And to say that we're misusing our need to understand the world is nothing if not bizarre.

• Next, we have: "The negative effects of their activities never reach the popular press. For example an undeniable tsunami of horse abuse cases has swept across the USA since a ban on horse processing - pushed by vegan driven animal rights groups - went into effect in early 2007." So now we're talking about vegan-driven animal rights groups. Um, they'd better be vegan driven, as that's what animal rights means. And what happened to animal welfare extremists? I haven't seen such confusion since the New York Times displayed its ignorance about animal rights last July.
• We come to blackmail, which is the word Ziggers uses for, um, consumers letting companies know what they want.
  
  • "Large retail companies are visited and forced to sell or use cage-free eggs. If the retailers hesitate, their image will be badly damaged through media-campaigns. Even peaceful living monks don’t get a pass." Ziggers evidently doesn't know how the monks make money.
• And finally, the conclusion. "These fundamental animal right activists lack self-esteem." What's a "fundamental animal rights activist, by the way?"
  • He completes his piffle with: "All humans have a need to be respected, to have self-esteem, self-respect, and to respect others."  True, true.
  • "Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem, inferiority complexes. People with low self-esteem need respect." But wait, he just said all humans need respect. Now I'm the one who's thoroughly confused!

There are 10 comments following the post, some of which for some reason agree with Ziggers' point (which I think is that people who act like they care about animals have low self-esteem). One comment, by Cate, which left me speechless is: "Since free range eggs almost fly off the shelves where I shop I guess buyers must be afraid there are animal rights activists lurking in the aisles. What else but fear would make a customer spend this much on eggs." Is that a real comment? Does someone really believe that?

It's clear that when we're not looking, or in places we're not looking, people who have no problem using and abusing animals will say all kinds of nonsense to make themselves look good. Lucky for us critical thinkers, though, that we're all over the place, as other comments on Ziggers' post clearly demonstrate with statements such as:

• Wanting better conditions for animals and informing the public about the effects of animal agriculture has nothing to do with my self-esteem.
• The people with a problem are those who are oblivious to such suffering or who think it is justifiable if the almighty buck can be made from it.
• I can assure 'dick' that i do not suffer from any self-esteem issues, and suggest on the contrary that those who create this hierarchy, that gives anthropocentric precedence to the intricacies of this complex web of life, are the ones who have such issues.

All deconstruction of Ziggers' twaddle aside, what do you think about self-esteem and animal rights activism?

How to Stop the Torture of Downed Cows

I received eleven e-mails yesterday, two of which were from people who don't eat meat, about the beef recall and the HSUS expose of torture of downed cows. I called the e-mailers to reach out and use this opportunity for some gentle conversion.

I kid you not when I say all nine non-vegans were apoplectic and wanted to know if there was anything they could do about the situation in California. Two wanted to send HSUS some cash to make sure the guilty parties were properly prosecuted or something like that. These individuals were so upset that I had to tread lightly while reminding them of their hypocrisy. Here's what occurred with one of them.

I meekly suggest, "Well, there is one sure-fire way to make sure you don't ever have that kind of blood on your hands."

At this point you'd think she'd finish the sentence for me, but she really didn't know what I was getting at.

Silence.

"You could stop eating animals."

Silence.

"Yeah, but that's not gonna stop horrible people from being so cruel to cows!"

"So you're not gonna stop eating meat, then?"

"You know me, I'll never stop"  (or something like that).

"So let me get this straight: You're really upset about what's happening in an industry that you can directly impact by boycotting it and making sure it never gets another penny from you, but you instead choose to continue to fund it? You want to do something, but the one thing you could is the one thing you're not willing to do?"

"Isn't the HSUS doing something about it? Doesn't helping them help the cows?"

(At this point I'm vaguely feeling like I'm on the spinning teacup ride at the local fair. And although my self-monitor appears to be back in business, it's still a bit vulnerable.)

"Look, Friend, the reality is that what happens to cows by the tens of thousands each day at each slaughterhouse isn't that much better than what you saw. Not one non-crippled cow is treated humanely, is enjoying the experience and is not living and dying in abject terror. The 'downer' cow situation upsets most people because they don't want to eat meat from an animal who was so sick before she was slaughtered."

"No, I saw what those evil men did to those cows! I'll never forget it! I'm gonna have nightmares about it for the rest of my life! I would never want to eat meat from a situation like that. That's bad karma!"

"Would you like to see what happens to cows who aren't crippled? Do you think eating their meat is better karma?"

"I'm coming to you for help, not for you to impose your beliefs on me."

"The way I see it, you're coming to me for help, and I'm giving you just that. I'm trying to get you to see that the downed cow situation isn't the real problem. If the cows weren't in the slaughterhouse at all, the problem of workers torturing crippled cows wouldn't exist."

"Don't change the subject."

"The way I see it, I'm not changing the subject--I'm trying to get you to see a larger picture. We have developed a system that by its very nature disrespects and abuses the animals. Though heaping further abuse on top of that abuse is certainly terrible, the real tragedy is that the entire system isn't seen as barbaric."

Silence.

Maybe I planted a seed. Maybe I failed completely. But one thing I learned--and I learn it at least once a week--is that for some people, no amount of gruesome truth seen with their own eyes is going to keep them from their filet mignon.

My Self-Monitor Broke Last Night

Not to unload inappropriately, but this is after all a personal blog: Some very unfun things have occurred in my life in the past couple of weeks, and I hear that Mercury has been in retrograde and I'm happy to blame that for the crappiness of my recent life. Mercury goes direct tomorrow, if that matters.

I was in a funk and it culminated in a dinner with friends whereat for approximately three hours I didn't have the energy OR the inclination to monitor myself like I usually do. Here's a choice moment:

• MB to waitress: Do you have frog's legs? (Thinking that would annoy Mary.)
• Mary to waitress: Do you have Shih Tzu legs? (MB has 2 purebred Shih Tzus.)

Then there was the completely unsolicited, yet short, description of shark finning (Shark Fin Soup was on the menu). Oh, and check this out. MB and his wife are expecting their first child, so they're buying a new house. Because, you know, you can't raise a child in a 3,000 square foot house; that would be cruel!

• Mary: Do you really need 7,000 square feet? Do you know how many Planet Earths we'd need if every three people lived in 7,000 square feet? Do ya? Huh?

Now, I didn't say that in a tone as obnoxious as it may sound. Everything was, as always with them, fun and games. But my message got across.

Guess what the message was?

• MB: Wow, Mary, you're really bearish on like, everything today. Why are you so angry?

Meanwhile, I'm thinking that for sure my message was that there's no difference in eating frog's legs or dog's legs, and that over 2,000 square feet per person isn't a good decision for the environment.

I have decided I am not going to allow the past--meaning everything before right now--to affect me. After all, if it does, it's entirely my fault and my doing, as the past is gone and being upset about it is unproductive, not to mention destructive.

So, onward. There are lessons to be learned from everything. May you live in interesting times, and may you learn your lessons the first time you have the opportunity to (unlike, say, me), thereby saving yourself days of potential headaches--or worse.

And may you remember that self-monitoring can help you send the message you really intend to send.

On Why Marilu Henner Has Disappointed Me

I don't watch much regular television, but my husband did record The Celebrity Apprentice, as vegan Marilu Henner is on it playing for Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (i.e., PCRM is the charity that will get any money she wins). Raw foodist, Carol Alt, who eats raw milk, cheeses and meat is on the show as well. Then there's Stephen Baldwin, who is a minister and is the brother of outspoken Animal Person Alec Baldwin. Another brother, Billy Baldwin, who will become important to this story, is a vegan. Don't forget that choice morsel of information.

This is all relevant because last week's task was to see which team could make more money from carriage horse rides around Central Park. Donald Trump gave some ridiculous plug for the carriage horse business and how romantic it is and how everyone wants a carriage horse ride, and sent them on their way. Meanwhile, a bill to ban the horse-drawn carriage industry (Intro 658), supported by  Councilpeople: Maria Del Carmen Arroyo, Tony Avella, Charles Barron, Melissa Mark-Viverito, Miguel Martinez, Rosie Mendez, Annabel Palma and David Yassky, just might be passed this year, but of course there was no mention of it.

I urge non-New Yorkers to register their support of the ban. Here's what the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages has to say:

You can help by calling Mayor Bloomberg at 212-639-9675. This connects you with our 311 service, which is NYC's number for government information and non-emergency services. You will speak with a customer service representative who will take down a complaint. This a script for you to use as a guide:

Although I do not live in New York City, as a tourist I come to see many of the wonderful sites and attractions that no other city has to offer. But one of the things that I do not wish to see is the terrible plight of the Carriage Horses. These horses deserve better treatment than to be forced to work in dangerous traffic conditions on a daily basis often in bad weather where their lives are threatened and the safety of pedestrians and drivers are put at risk. I'm asking the Mayor to support Council Member Avella's Int. 658 and to follow the lead of the animal protection groups like the ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, the New York State Humane Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Friends of Animals, Coalition to Ban Horse Carriages, the League of Humane Voters of New York City and In Defense of Animals in demanding for an end to this inhumane industry. Several major cities around the world such as Paris, London, Toronto, Beiijing and Oxford have banned horse-drawn carriages. NYC should do the same.

There was not a word against the industry during Celebrity Apprentice, nor a word of concern for the well-being of the horses, and that was part of the deal. The show would not have aired if anyone objected to the way the horses were treated or the condition they're in, according to the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages, which also noted:

The worst moment of the show came when country singer Trace Adkins who was team captain for this horrible project said to the camera "My horse is slow, near a heart attack, when he comes back around I'll shove a bottle-rocket up his ass!"

I fast forwarded through any part of the show I saw a horse in, so I didn't see that particular moment.

What was surreal was watching vegan Marilu Henner workingto promote the rides, and Stephen Baldwin recruiting his vegan brother Billy to help promote them. Note that the PCRM website says nothing about the horse-related task. There must be some air-tight contracts regarding what the contestants can say and how the show can be portrayed.

The Coalition says:

PLEASE MAKE PHONE CALLS TO THE PRODUCER OF THE APPRENTICE AND THE DONALD TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND VOICE A LOUD OBJECTION OR EVEN BOYCOTT THE SHOW AS YOU SEE FIT! see below for phone number: Mark Burnett Production Co. - 640 N. Sepulveda Blvd. L.A., CA 90049 - PHONE #: 310-903-5400. The Trump Organization - 725 Fifth Avenue - New York, NY 10022 (212)-832-2000. You can also comment on the Celebrity Apprentice blog.

The blogs seems like a waste of time, where people rant and rave and curse. It's not moderated, and I doubt anyone at the Trump Organization takes it seriously. Because Trump is all about money and attention, the boycott seems like a great idea. I'm going to call, register my disgust, and say I won't be watching anymore.

I've never expected Donald Trump to have an ethical bone in his body, but when a vegan who is giving money to PCRM goes on his show and doesn't do something to not look like a hypocrite, that's immensely disappointing. We don't know what they're contracts say, and I'm sure Henner was prevented from saying anything. But she could have resigned and then made a statement through PCRM. She could have done something. Billy Baldwin's something was easy---refuse to show up to support animal use.

What are these people thinking? Probably that this is a short-term obstacle and causing a problem now might hurt their chances of winning the big prize at the end (for PCRM, in Henner's case). But in my mind, that's no excuse for betraying your own ethics--not to mention the horses and their cause. We are closer than ever to banning the carriages, and if Trump's show presented them in a positive light and in any way swayed a Council person to change their vote, or if the show in any way contributes to the failure of the ban, I wouldn't want  to be Marilu Henner. It's such a shame to see someone who is so passionate about a cause appear to betray it (I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but I do know how it all appeared in the end).

Richard Dawkins Redeems Himself, Sort of

New Animal Person reader Fredrik commented yesterday on a post about Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion. You may recall that Vegan Screenwriter posted part of an interview with Dawkins in a comment last month and it broke my heart. Dawkins said he saw no reason to not use animals for their meat as long as they're treated humanely. And thus he toppled from the pedestal on which I put him. But it appears that his thinking has evolved regarding our moral obligation to nonhuman animals. In a podcast, which I'm going to try to locate, he admits that he still isn't a vegetarian, but thinks we ought to be.

Fredrik recalls the interview and writes:

Dawkins also gave a NEW argument, at least to me, for why we should be vegans. I'm not as eloquent as Dawkins, but in short, it's based on speciesism. "We" claim that we have the right to use animals because they are different than us, just as white men used skin color as a justification for slavery. However, from a genetic perspective the gaps in genes between us and our closest animal relative is arbitrary. We just happen to be the lucky survivors in the evolutionary race. As a thought experiment, it's perfectly acceptable to imagine a world where all the genetic "gap species" were still alive. Thus, between us and the bonobo (I think?) there would be a continuum of living beings, all almost identical to their genetic neighbor. In such a world, it would be impossible to draw a line between us and the bonobo where we could say "From hereon oppression begins", and justify it with any kind of argument. The primates on either side of the oppression line would be identical except for one gene. The differences in appearance, intelligence and senses (if such a word exists) would be so small that no test except a careful DNA test could tell them apart, and I'm not sure even DNA tests are accurate enough. Thus, they would be identical to each other, yet one of them would be doomed to be oppressed while the other would benefit from our protection. Since this would be a totally unacceptable and morally indefensible stance, we'd have no choice but to grant the bonobos the same rights as humans, to not be used as property. Of course, the though experiment is easily expanded to include ALL living beings since we share a common ancestor.

What do you think? The only counter-question I could imagine is the fact that we also share DNA with plants. The thought experiment would also have to include plants and where would WE draw the line for what is acceptable to eat or not?

I like the thought experiment! Of course, if you begin with the premise that killing sentient beings without necessity is morally unjustifiable, you don't really need it. However most people simply don't grasp the idea that killing animals is morally unjustifiable, unless of course we're talking about cats, dogs and maybe horses and dolphins. They have actually bought into the idea that animals are here for us to use as we wish. And I think the thought experiment is a great idea for them. I'll have to try it and report back what happened. As you know, people say all kinds of wacky things to convince themselves it's okay to eat bacon and eggs.

Stay tuned . . .

And let us know what you think of the thought experiment.

On "Vegangelicals"

In Grist's "Love me, love my food habits," Sarah van Schagen explores veganism within relationships and eventually comes around to: veg-an-gel-i-cal: noun, a "holier-than-thou" vegan.

What I'm really interested in is the comments section, where "spaceshaper" writes:

When I first came across this coinage a few months back, I'll admit I was annoyed. It was in a context where it was clearly intended to be insulting, demeaning and dismissive - the president of a biodiesel company defending his turf and his market, seeking to deflect yech-factor criticism of his CAFO chicken-fat feedstock sourcing.

The irritation resurfaced when I read the post above: "I'm not a vegangelical" says Balcavage, clearly wishing to dissociate herself from the strident, shrill etc. image which the word is intended to convey. And in the many emotional anti-veg diatribes we see whenever Gristmill examines the environmental ethics of meat-eating, such an image is constantly invoked. "I'd eat less meat myself if PETA just weren't so strident" runs the complaint.

Then my thoughts went to the fact that despite living in a community where veg*ns are not at all rare, I've never actually encountered this trope myself. Just where are all these strident veggies?

And then I suddenly began to wonder if this absence was actually such a good thing. I've always been one of those "polite" veg*ns myself, always responding with a quiet deflection when someone asks at a party "why aren't you eating the ham/beef/turkey - it's delicious!" I hold back from mentioning the short unhappy life and nasty brutal death of the animal they're eating. It seems so unfestive and awkward, so I say something nonconfrontational, like Oh I just don't like to eat meat. The carnivore at my elbow usually backs off at this point and changes the subject.

But perhaps I'll have the courage to take a more aggressive line, now I have a label to cling to. Instead of cringing defensively when this trendy coinage reappears, as surely it will, I'll emulate the Impressionists who turned sneering insult to badge of honor. "Meat is disgusting", I'll say, " you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm a vegangelical and you're infringing my rights to a meat-free environment. Why are you insisting on eating that crap in front of me? Take it somewhere where I don't have to see it."

The non-smokers did it. God, wouldn't it be great if the hard-core carnivores at a dinner party were banished to the back deck in the rain to chew their slim jims away from polite company. Are we being just too nice? Fellow vegangelicals: rally to the banner. Our hour has come!

This got me thinking about yesterday's post and self-monitoring. There's got to be a balance, I'd imagine, where you have the ability to read a person and deliver your message in such a way as to maximize its reception, without diluting it. Meanwhile, I read "spaceshaper" and I say, "Yes! Let's humiliate them to cease their nefarious practices, like we did to smokers!" Whether you're killing yourself and harming me with your smoke, or killing a sentient being with your animal products, it's all equally offensive to me. (Though I admit that's a hard sell for most people involving a quantum leap.)

What are your thoughts? Do you like "vegangelical" and do you use it? And what about the tactic? Do you too secretly wish you could tell people what they do is disgusting and they should be ashamed?

On Valentines and Self-Monitoring

Happy Valentine's Day and Quirky Alone Day! Above is Dreena Burton's "You Got Peanut Butter in My Chocolate" Cookie from Eat, Drink & Be Vegan, which I made as one big cookie that I carved into a heart and topped with leftover ganache. After it was refrigerated for a bit to set the ganache, it was spectacular with some fresh strawberries and blueberries.

What is "self-monitoring," you ask?

I just happened to be thinking about how activists, generally speaking, tend to have a different, shall we say, communication style than people who at least don't wear their beliefs on their sleeves. Time after time, and this is especially true of animal people, there's an accusation of misanthropy that is often traced back to the faint whiff of disdain that some people have for the way humans treat animals.

I have definitely exhibited misanthropic tendencies as I can get so disgusted at the way we run roughshod over anything and anyone in our way. That's not some lofty human trait we should be proud of that attests to our intelligence, industriousness and superiority--that's greed, arrogance and ignorance at work.

A couple of people in my social circle are what I call "politicians." They are gorgeous, articulate, passionate and charismatic (and they're not running for any public office), and they can walk into a room and win over every person in it. They make people feel special and smart and they compliment every person several times during a conversation. They are popular and everyone wants to be around them.

This morning, on Live Science, "Why Perfect Dates Make Lousy Partners," I was provided with some language about this topic. It turns out that popular people usually do a significant amount of "self-monitoring." This is what makes them able to fit in anywhere, with anyone. They are attentive to social cues and use those cues constantly. Social cues are their discursive mechanism. People who self-monitor immediately notice if someone is getting upset or losing interest and they quickly shift whatever it is that they're doing to manage the situation in their favor. I see this at least once a week at certain functions and I'm always amazed that I appear to be the only one who notices. Everyone else simply adores the "politicians" for their charisma and they way they make people feel.

As it turns out, there's a downside to self-monitoring: "High self-monitors may appear to be the kind of people we want to have relationships with, but they themselves are less committed to and less happy in their relationships than low self-monitors."

Low monitors are my point, here. I can be a high monitor for about 15-30 minutes if I need to, and then I become completely exhausted because it takes so much energy to be someone you're not. But when I self-monitor I have dramatically different interactions than when I don't. In my experience, self-monitoring results in superficial exchanges largely designed to manipulate (even if simply to make someone happy by saying what they want to hear), and low self-monitoring results in honest conversations about things that really matter to people.

Because we are all salespeople, charged with convincing those around us that veganism is desirable and just, we could probably all benefit from developing self-monitoring skills. After all, before you can persuade someone to go vegan, they have to be listening. They have to like you.

On Vegan Birthdays and Animal Fighting?

Welcome to Vegan Birthdays, an offshoot of Veganizing Your Guests and Friends by Cooking for Them, which is apparently my new calling. We have a 44 and a 50-year old, and of course my husband making his obligatory let's-see-if-I-can-ruin-the-picture face. The other young gentleman is a new vegan as are his mom and sister, and his dad (pictured) eats fish sometimes. We shared a vegan meal (lo mein and massive amounts of veggies) and I made the famous ginger-macadamia-coconut-carrot cake along with chocolate cupcakes with ganache frosting (some of which were filled with raspberry cream) and coconut cupcakes with coconut frosting. My frosting technique clearly needs some attention, but other than that all went well and a yummy time was had by all. 

As for animal fighting, I found it odd to discover that both the New York Times and the Washington Post published something (an article in the former, an editorial in the latter) about cockfighting.

If you're feeling the need to be nauseated, check out the slide shows that accompany "Dominicans Say Cockfighting is in Their Blood" by Katie Thomas in the "Other Sports" section of the NYT.

"[I]n the Dominican Republic, cockfighting is celebrated as a symbol of the country’s warrior spirit. Nearly every neighborhood and country village has a gallera, or cockfighting arena, and the sport is legal and regulated."

I've been to the Dominican Republic on a humanitarian mission, and to Haiti as well. And I can tell you that I have rarely seen such disregard for the lives of animals in public. Of course, what we do here in the name of food is just as bad as what they do in the name of "sport."

Nevertheless, thanks to Michael Vick moral outrage over animal fighting is in vogue, whether or not it's loaded with hypocrisy. Therefore, I do think it's a great idea to jump on the bandwagon and make sure that the meaningless rational that "it's part of our culture" is exposed for what it really is. As many animal rights activists are probably thinking right now, slavery was once part of our culture. Culture should never be an excuse to act without concern for the lives of sentient beings. And yet culture is often the only excuse we provide.

At the Post's editorial, "Cruel but Not Unusual" states, the attitude toward animal welfare is changing (read: it's starting to be taken seriously). And no one wants more suffering rather than less. However, what we need is not a change in our attitude toward animal welfare. What we need is a revolution in our attitude toward the right of animals to live their lives free of our domination, breeding, control, mutilation, enslavement and slaughter. What we need is to stop thinking that animals exist for our pleasure, whatever form that takes.

On the Yukon Quest

Photo by Ian Stewart of the Yukon News

In keeping with this week's inadvertent twisted-things-we-do-to-dogs theme, I give you the Yukon Quest, which is sort of the less-popular stepsister of the Iditarod, but no less horrible for the dogs. It is in fact called "The Toughest Sled Dog Race in the World." As you may know, both the Quest and the Iditarod are grueling races of over 1,000 miles. The competitors are called "mushers." The Quest has 50 mushers, each with a team of 14 dogs, and the first 15 finishers share a $200,000 purse.

The Yukon Department of Tourism and Culture markets the event, and children are taught about it in the classroom, sometimes by teachers who are on the board of the Quest! There's even a Junior Yukon Quest, to make sure the youngins are completely desensitized to the reality of what they're doing.

I'll say this once: The dogs love to run.

And I'll say this once: To make them run when you want them to run, in treacherous conditions in subzero weather (it was -40 F the last time I checked the weather on the trail, and winds can reach 100 miles per hour on mountain summits), for over a thousand miles in 10-16 days (while you watch and "mush" from your sled), is, in my mind, an extreme injustice regardless of whether one dog is injured or dies during the race, before it (during culling), or after it (from injuries and/or exhaustion).

And by the way, musher Donald Smidt has already been withdrawn from the race "for failing to provide the dog care expected of a Yukon Quest participant." If the Quest isn't considered cruel on the face of it, just how badly do you have to treat dogs in order to get withdrawn on the second day of the race? (Check out what you have to do to get disqualified from the Iditarod: It rhymes with "beat your dogs in front of young children.")

As for culture, remember that it's sacred only because it was sacred yesterday. If your culture involved a 1,000 mile sled dog trek at one time, chances are in 2008 the only reason something like that is necessary is to promote tourism and grab a glimmer of glory and a bit of cash if you're a musher. And as for what happened yesterday, the Quest commemorates the 1890s Klondike Gold Rush and river mail delivery routes. It started in 1998, the centennial of the 1898 Klondike Gold Rush. If you really need to commemorate it, I'm fairly sure there's a less ugly way.

Last year I learned just how venomous mushing-defenders can be when criticized (I won't dignify them with any more exposure than that). Activist Mike Greico learns that lesson over and over again, all year round. As does Terry Cumming, of Sleddogwatchdog.com, who works tirelessly to open the eyes of his neighbors and the rest of the world to the cruelty inherent in the Quest and the Iditarod. Judy Stone of the Animal Advocates Society in British Columbia has dedicated her life to chained, abused, ill and neglected dogs (including sled dogs) and TNR efforts. All three are vilified by people who apparently believe that the most valuable activities they should spend time on are the use of dogs for their own gain, and the ridicule of people who disagree with them.

For those of us who will never visit or move to the Yukon or Alaska, thereby withholding our dollars (by default), at least we can spread the word. Check out the sponsors of the Quest, and if you do business with any of them or own their stock, take appropriate action. Sponsors are just following what they believe will be a trail to some sort of gain. Let them know they've taken the wrong path.

On Canine Eugenics

The timing of the PeTA video about breedism went, as they say, right over my head. I had no idea that the Westminster Kennel Club's annual dog show begins today. It was only when I started reading "Top Dogs Live on, and On, in Progeny" in the "Other Sports" section of today's New York Times that I became suspicious that a story was in full play and I was the last to know.

I'd imagine that the average person would be offended (as the PeTA video suggests) by the idea of pure bloodlines and selective breeding for desirable characteristics (not to mention the reality of trends in desirable characteristics) in humans. What I fail to understand is why eugenics is not just accepted, but celebrated--glorified--when it comes to any other species.

This particular story is largely about a champion Kerry blue terrier named Mick, whose sperm has produced 61 champions. Twenty of the 45 dogs of Mick's kind in the show since his retirement were his offspring. ("Perpetuating the bloodlines of purebred animals is as crucial to the dog business as it is to thoroughbred horse racing. If there is money to be made in showing dogs, it is in stud fees and in puppies like Mick’s progeny.")

A judge and breeder of Norwegian elkhounds says, "True dog breeders live for their dogs, not off of them. The people who show at Westminster are trying to develop a quality bloodline of dogs, and they recognize that they won’t pay for themselves.” I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or worse. A quality bloodline of dogs? To what end? Why? Do we need more dogs? Do we really need to freeze the sperm of certain dogs in the hope of producing others like them? Why doesn't that sound creepy to most people?

Perhaps this issue, just like all the others relating to animals, has a simple, obvious answer: they're animals. And animals are here for our use. They serve at the pleasure of humans. We fiddle with their genetics, we mutilate them, and we prize them as specimens worthy of our admiration (for no other reason, really). We will continue to allow them to exist as long as we find them worthy of our time and money. And what's worse, we've somehow convinced ourselves that a hobby or occupation like the breeding of show dogs is an elite, highbrow endeavor.

The worship of the purity of bloodlines is disturbing to me whether you're talking about Greyhounds or Caucasians.

When Animals Might Be Used for Education

The sea turtle rehabilitation center I volunteer at has a healthy "education" turtle who has been there since he was a hatchling, two years ago. He'll be released in spring or summer and there will be no more education turtles at the center (it is allowed one legally), so the space may be used for someone who needs it.

Phew! That's a relief. No need for intervention o' the Animal Person there (truth be told, I did already make a couple of teeny waves).

I recently found out the center will be getting a shark or two. A healthy shark or two. For education purposes. To help turn around the image of the shark and help people understand how much, deep down, they really do love and appreciate us for everything we do for them.

Or something like that.

I'm hoping to be able to inject a different perspective. Before I'm the first volunteer to be fired, that is.

The people there are fabulous. They're smart, compassionate, funny, hard working. But they just have a different perspective on our relationship with animals than I do. They fully believe that animals are a resource for us to manage, in the kindest way possible, and they don't have a consciously malicious bone in their bodies when it comes to animals.

I'll probably be volunteering elsewhere soon, as my views aren't welcomed and I'm the only person who has ever voiced views like mine. I wonder if I'm completely wasting my time, all while observing some pretty depressing stuff. I'm fairly sure my time is better spent elsewhere (meaning, where I have a better chance of making a difference).

This is precisely why none of my volunteer work is with animals--or ever has been.

On the upside, I was recently referred by Deb to a curriculum (I've been thinking a lot about the Social Justice 12 I wrote about a month ago) founded by Cheri Brown Thompson of South Carolina called The Healing Species.

Mission: The mission of the Healing Species is to intercept crime and violence by reaching children with our innovative, successful, and unique 11-week violence intervention curriculum. Rescued dogs - dogs nobody else wanted - assist us in teaching children:

• life-lessons in respect for the feelings of others,
• gaining power and authority from principles and acts of mercy and compassion instead of from bullying or "violence for violence,"
• age-appropriate awareness on abuse and how to get help and that what happens to us does not have to define us.
• methods for conflict resolution,
• self-esteem from developing responsibility, and
• how to take the initiative to create a more compassionate planet.

The program has had great results, with dramatic decreases in both aggression and out-of-school suspensions for violent behavior. Clearly the program isn't about not using animals, but when it uses animals (rescued dogs who were once unloved and unwanted), it appears that it does so in the most respectful way.

Do you think this is an acceptable use of the dogs? Do you think it would be as successful if it didn't include the dogs? What's your take from the point of view of the dogs? (Okay, not a good question. But still . . .)