Animal Person

NYT Has an Epiphany

Because we all spend a greater-than-average amount of time thinking, reading, writing and talking about issues related to sentient nonhumans, when someone says: "What's wrong with drinking cow's milk" or "It doesn't pay for farmers to abuse their animals, they'd never do that," I understand the temptation to say, "Where have you been?"

However, when what is still considered by some to be the newspaper of record, which has reported on factory farming many times and has been a platform for factory-farming critic, Michael Pollan, has an epiphany  like:

In short, animal husbandry has been turned into animal abuse. Manure — traditionally a source of fertilizer — has been turned into toxic waste that fouls the air and adjacent water bodies. Crowding creates health problems, resulting in the chronic overuse of antibiotics.

  . . . it makes me say: "Where have you been?"

Evidently, the Pew report and "CAFOs Uncovered," by the Union of Concerned Scientists (released in April) were critical to the development of The New York Times editorial board's opinion about factory farms, and the University of Chicago study and Livestock's Longshadow, both of which they reported on last year, didn't make much of an impact. Or maybe the two more recent studies were the tipping point.

"CAFOs Uncovered" is a welfarist's dream. Its Executive Summary begins:

The livestock industry (including poultry) is vital to our national economy, supplying meat, milk, eggs and other animal products and providing meaningful employment in rural communities.

(Meaningful employment?)

And it ends with policy recommendations such as reducing CAFO subsidies and "Substantial funding for research to improve alternative animal production methods (especially  pasture-based) that are beneficial to the environment, public health, and rural communities."

That last one is particularly amusing, as no research--let along "substantial funding" would be needed. If these welfarists were paying attention, they'd realize that their biggest concerns (not mine--don't yell at me) are all a direct result of intensive farming, and all they'd need to do is stop working that way and their problems would be solved.

Not to let the Pew report go without commentary, I always cringe when I read something like:

The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and  damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food (viii).

We wouldn't want to cause any unnecessary harm.

The Pew report's conclusion states:

While industrial farm animal production has benefits, it brings with it growing concerns for public health, the environment, animal welfare, and impact on rural communities (19).

My favorite line of all, on page 43, is: "Unfortunately, it can be difficult to define what actually constitutes a decent life for animals because doing so includes both ethical (value-based) and scientific (empirical) components."

How about this: if you wouldn't do it to your kid, don't do it to a sentient nonhuman. Done. What's so "difficult" about that?

There is talk about the "Five Freedoms" on page 47 that must be read to be believed, as it assumes that they can actually be satisfied by farming. Noticeably, tragically absent, is any discussion of the word "freedom," and what it would mean for farming (probably because farming and freedom are mutually exclusive).

As you might imagine, the Pew report wants "food animals" to be treated well because they will be "healthier and safer for human consumption (38).

It's so strange to me to read about using sentient nonhumans, treating them like machines, and referring to them as if they're inanimate objects. And when the editorial ends with, "These are all useful guideposts for the next Congress and a new administration," that doesn't make me feel any better about the future for sentient nonhumans.

If you desire, you can respond at letters@nytimes.com.

On Direct Action and the FBI

Because not everyone follows the comments, I wanted to reprint a passage from yesterday where I quoted pattrice jones' "Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist Imperatives and the ALF" in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

"Direct action includes only activist tactics that, like boycotts and sabotage, are intended to have an immediate impact on a problem or its causes. In contrast, indirect action aims for future change through more circuitous routes, such as education, legislation, and symbolic demonstrations of opinion. . . . Ideally, direct action will illustrate or illuminate the problem at the same time as it interferes with its causes or effects. The very best direct action contributes to a long-term strategy for future change even as it offers tangible results in the here and now. . . . People who have integrated segregated lunch counters, put their bodies int he paths of troop transport trains, distributed illegal clean needles or birth control devices, boycotted chocolate or Coca-Cola, staged rent strikes, or built 'tent cities' for the homeless have all taken direct action against one or another form of oppression. Direct action for animals is similarly diverse" (137-8).

In addition,the ALF considers its actions to be nonviolent (they don't consider property damage to be violence), and because it's not as if I'm a spokesperson, I recommend exploring the site yourself and deciding where you stand based on what they say. Note that in the guidelines is: "TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human." I also recommend an examination of the history of direct action (and also violence) in social justice movements. You'll find that it isn't necessarily true that violence begets violence.

With all of that said, I still feel uncomfortable with violence, and I do realize that might make me sound like a hypocrite (hi Joseph!) and a speciesist as I always come back to this: If we were talking about humans being bred and slaughtered by the billions (and remember it was military might that defeated the Nazis), would we be writing letters, circulating petitions and using education as our first line of defense? The question's been asked many, many times (as I'm sure you all know), and I still don't feel satisfied with an answer that doesn't make me sound like a speciesist.

I'd be thrilled if someone could provide me with an answer that helped them feel better about this particular issue.

And finally, when Colleen sent me "Moles Wanted," about the FBI soliciting informants for vegan potlucks and such, I thought, "Oh, this is what Will Potter wrote about a couple of weeks ago." And it was, except it was a different story about the topic.

Here's the set-up: FBI tracks down a college sophomore (whom we'll call Carroll) who had spray-painted the interior of a campus elevator and then turned himself in to the police.

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered.

“I’ll pass,” said Carroll.

Check out the article (and note the part about how those who infiltrate might be responsible for inciting violence), and of course Will Potter's and his commentary.

On Pluralism, Lies and Mink

A dozen people who apparently think I'm a member of the ALF want to know why I'm writing about this controversial topic and were fearful of commenting publicly. That terrified me but demonstrated the effect the US government has had on our freedom. This, the free world, has become a place where people are afraid to have a discussion about a controversial (un)organization that they don't even support!

Here's why I'm writing, and the idea for today came from Bea's most recent comment: the importance of pluralism. I've yet to read an interview or a chapter regarding direct action where the activist says that property damage--or boycotting, for that matter--is the only answer. Every situation is different and requires a different strategy--that's pluralism. As Steve Best often says (and I'm paraphrasing): We shouldn't be wedded to one dogma or another. Instead, we should look for what works in different situations. There is no universal rule to cover all situations.

I'm merely interested in thinking critically about an easy target (the ALF). I've had all the same preconceptions as everyone else, but the more research I did, the more I discovered I was wrong about a lot of them. One particular fact that many people aren't aware of, is that many campaigns by the ALF in the UK were successful and put breeders and other exploiters permanently out of business (think of the Greyhound track Ronnie Lee mentioned). It's not true that exploiters will always replace animals and recover from "attacks." There is often enormous economic impact that forces them out of business.

Another fact that we all should have no problem believing, is that when direct action campaigns are reported on in the media, the result is often a pack of lies. One lie I've seen on blogs (including my own) in comments and posts (and I by no means think the author of the post or comment is aware that what they write is not true), pertains to the mink liberation effort in 1997 in Ontario. The common comment is that the activists "liberated" the mink only to have them all die overnight, by starvation, getting hit by cars and freezing to death, and because they were raised in captivity they didn't stand a chance when liberated (specifically, they contracted stress-induced pneumonia as a result of being liberated).

In Gary Yourofsky's essay "Abolition, Liberation, Freedom: Coming to a Fur Farm Near You" in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Mr. Yourofsky, who was part of the mink liberation effort, writes:

Let's look at the facts. (1) Mink are clothed in natural fur coats that make it impossible for them to freeze to death; also note that the Ontario raid took place not in the dead of winter, but in April. (2) It takes several weeks for a mink to starve to death. It cannot happen overnight. . . . . (3) Mink do not spontaneously contract pneumonia or stress when they are not in cages. Being kept in a cage for your entire life causes stress and neurosis. Freedom is the cure for cage-induced stress and neurosis. (4) There are no cars on rural roads at three in the morning, except for those of fur farmers and police who are trying to recapture the liberated mink. . . . According to the fur industry, 400 mink instantly died after my Easter Sunday raid. Yet, on my request, the lawyers asked them to provide proof . . . . [W]hen I was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison, the furriers brought in photographs of two dead mink who had allegedly died the night of the raid.

That fur farm has since gone out of business.

I don't know Mr. Yourofsky (who says he always prefers nonviolent activism), and I do know how controversial he is (read more of his thoughts here). But that shouldn't take away from the reality that we often don't have the facts of a situation, as any reader of Will Potter knows. All I'm asking is that if you are going to be for or against something, especially if you're going to make your case as passionately as many animal rights activists do, it behooves you to refrain from quick judgments--even those based on instinct--and think critically about what you are being told and what you read.

My life isn't set up to include breaking the law and going to prison for it. Not because I have the utmost respect for the law, but because I have made choices that don't allow for certain kinds of direct action. In addition, I have heard and read about activists who advocate for physical harm of exploiters, and though we might be waging a war, in my mind it shouldn't include harming anyone (and remember not one person has been injured or killed so far, but there is some amount of talk of that nature and that makes me very uncomfortable).

My hope is only for activists to be open to at least learning about the variety of actions they can take--or support--to put a dent in the machine that brutally massacres billions of sentient nonhumans each year for no good reason.

Ronnie Lee on the ALF

Because the ALF discussion has a tad of momentum, I thought this was a good time to hear from Ronnie Lee, one of the founders of the ALF. His interview with Claudette Vaughan at Abolitionist-Online might be helpful when you're thinking about where you stand. Mr. Lee presents a brief history and I believe he answers many questions that come up over and over again in relation to the ALF, direct action in general, and violence. You might be surprised by what he says. (My commentary, as always, is italicized.)

Here are some of the passages that struck me:

• I think a wide range of different activities need to come together to actually defeat animal abuse and a hell of a lot of it will come through the use of education, because if you look at the greatest area of animal abuse it’s the rearing and slaughter of animals for food. The best way to combat that is to educate people to become vegan and that doesn’t involve direct action at all. I’m not going to criticize anyone who wants to put a brick through a butchers shop window. I’ve done that many times myself, but a more fundamental way is to educate people. An educational effort won’t change everybody, but it can make a difference with many, many people.
• I don’t think anything useful will come out of the major political parties, so the Greens are probably the best bet in terms of making things better for animals and obtaining social justice for people too. We now have a political party in England called “The Party for Animals” but they are only single-issue, so, in my opinion, it's better to support the Greens. I'm no longer an anarchist, like I was in my younger days. I've come to the conclusion that, as with all other animals, there's a very strong pull within most humans to follow leaders. Rather than try to fight this reality, we need to take account of it in our battle for animal liberation. Sadly, those who advocate anarchism allow the bad guy to lead, because they say that not even the good guys should be leaders. Advocates of animal liberation need to seize political power, if we really want to have things our way.
• To achieve animal liberation we need to change the way people behave and there are two ways of doing that - education and coercion. Educate those we can educate into behaving properly towards animals and force the others to do so, through legislation etc. Most people will never lift a finger to oppose animal persecution. We have to accept that. They are too busy watching soap operas or Big Brother. However, this public apathy could be advantageous once we seize power, as it would mean that most people would not resist legislation passed by a pro animal liberation government. We need to get active in the political process, in my view through the Green party, with a view to one day forming a government that will pass stringent animal protection legislation. If you succeed in educating people but, at the end of the day, there’s no-one for those people to vote for, half the potential benefit of educating those people is lost. (I was surprised by this one!)
• If I see a picture of a person torturing an animal I don’t think, “Oh my God, that poor animal”. I think “That bloody bastard. I want to stop them”. That’s probably the difference between what makes a campaigner and what makes a rescuer. We just want the animals to be left alone.
  
  It’s about changing people's attitudes and it’s about changing the way that people behave. People only ever change their behaviour for 2 reasons. One reason is because they want to and the other reason is because they are too frightened not to. We have to educate people, so that they want to change, but we also have to make it so they have got to, or else. I know that sounds very stark, but that is the actual reality of what we are up against. We live in the middle of a holocaust for animals. If you begin to think in terms of 1% of what happens to animals, your mind would just explode. You know it’s happening but you can’t go into it because you’d just be destroyed by it but what I think we have to do is concentrate on how to stop it, develop good strategies for stopping it and try to think in terms of what works and not waste time on things that don’t really work. Each area of animal abuse has its weakest link, where we need to exert pressure in order to bring it to an end.
• [L]ast year a local branch of greyhound protection group Greyhound Action were running a campaign to close the dog track at Glastonbury Stadium. This consisted of demos, leafleting, street stalls etc. Then bang, bang, bang, the ALF carried out three damage attacks on the stadium and the guy in charge there decided to close the track. To their credit, Greyhound Action didn't condemn the ALF, like other similar "peaceful" organisations have done in the past, but accepted that there was "no doubt that the ALF actions contributed significantly" to the closure of the dog track and even went so far as to say that they were "quite sure such activists would be regarded as heroes" by greyhounds persecuted by the dog racing industry. (Violet Rays and Charles Hobson Booger, III are delighted by the track closure, as am I.)
• Obviously I’m happy with how effective the ALF has been, but, if I were back again now at the beginning, I would do things differently. In terms of my input into the ALF there are three things I would do differently today. (Teaser--you have to go to the article to find out what they are, and you might be astonished to find out what they are.)
• The discussion about PeTA at the end of the interview is particularly useful for anyone new to PeTA, as if you don't like the organization now, you probably would have when it started. For me, it is nearly unrecognizable now.
• [W]hat many of the large organisations tend to do is constantly start new campaigns while ending those that have been running for a certain amount of time, even if those original campaigns haven’t achieved their objectives. This is because the main aim isn’t to win campaigns, but to get money. It’s a huge problem, which involves many of the larger national organisations, even some of the better, more radical ones.
• Finally, though, I would like to state quite firmly that this is a war we are definitely winning. I don't know about that one. Maybe you'll agree with his rationale, which is UK-specific. I certainly don't feel like we're winning here in the US.

What do you agree with/disagree with? Does the interview bolster your beliefs or does it make you think differently about anything?

On Why I Can't Let Go of Capitalism

One of my two current Gray Matters is capitalism. I have a difficult time seeing it (rather than greed or unethical behavior) as the core problem. Like any system, it's only as good as the people involved, which I guess is the problem.

I don't think profit is bad, I don't think money is bad, and I don't think everyone should have equal amounts of everything. Equal opportunity would be optimal, though we all know we don't have that.

Why can't we simply (and by that I don't mean it would be simple) replace the businesses that are founded on principles of exploitation with businesses that aren't? Why can't we create new ways to deal with all of the problems we have caused, and then profit from those technologies or products? I'm not talking about greenwashing; I'm talking about a legitimate alternative. What's wrong with the idea of vegan businesses that are in business to make money? Is a system based on the production of commodities to be sold for a profit necessarily bad? Is it the system that has to be replaced? Can't we instead work to transform the ethics involved? (I realize that hasn't worked in most corporations with accounting practices and executive pay, but it has had some success.)

Do you think that:

A)    Capitalism is the problem?

B)    The way we do capitalism is the problem (subsidies, etc...)?

C)    People are the problem?

D)    All of the above?

And finally: If sentient nonhumans were not relegated to the status of property, would capitalism still be the problem in your mind?

Cyrano Interviews Steve Best

When I started blogging two years ago, I was thought that campaigning for welfare reforms at least accomplished something, as my goal of a society that doesn't use animals wasn't going to see the light of day. I held a fundraiser for HSUS' Legal Fund, I gave thousands to PeTA (despite not agreeing with their sexist tactics), and I was under the impression that the more we regulated animal use and the more "humane" it became, the closer we'd get to abolition.

I didn't use those phrases exactly, but the sentiments are the same. Am I embarrassed? Not really, as learning can be a messy process, and personal evolution is just that--it doesn't happen overnight. My arc was: vegetarian to vegan (welfarist) to (vegan) abolitionist to liberationist. The more deeply and broadly I thought, the more open I kept my mind, and the more rigorously I questioned my own beliefs, the more my personal ethic evolved.

Of course, I haven't figured it all out yet. I call issues I'm ambivalent about Gray Matters, and they've included:

• Whether welfare reforms will lead to abolition (no--resolved).
• Whether there is such a thing as humane farming (no--resolved).
• Whether I will give to organizations that have programs I want to support, but also programs I don't want to support (no--resolved).
• Whether vegetarianism and veganism have much to do with each other (not morally, but in practice, when most people are transitioning, yes--resolved).
• Whether God gave us animals to use (just kidding).
• Whether capitalism and liberation of animals can co-exist (yes and no--unresolved).
• Whether violence includes property damage, sabotage and intimidation (yes and no--unresolved).

Today's post will refer to an interview on Cyrano's Journal Online (Thomas Paine's Corner) with Dr. Steve Best. Some of it is similar to Best and Anthony J. Nocella II's Introduction to TERRORISTS OR FREEDOM FIGHTERS? and it will address the two unresolved issues. Here are some passages that were helpful to me:

• [T]he peaceniks regurgitate the repressive and speciesist discourse of the corporate-state complex and demonize the tough tactics all-too often needed to liberate an animal as “terrorist” or “violence.” But no sooner do they bray these platitudes of betrayal do they sink in the quicksand of hypocrisy and inconsistency. For any schoolchild knows that sometimes sabotage and even “violence” are necessary to stop evil.
• Whereas corporate society, the state, and mass media brand the liberationists as terrorists, the ALF has important similarities with some of the great freedom fighters of the past two centuries, and is akin to contemporary peace and justice movements in its quest to end bloodshed and violence toward life and to win justice for other species. . . . The ALF believes that there is a higher law than that created by and for the corporate-state complex, a moral law that transcends the corrupt and biased statues of the US political system. When the law is wrong, the right thing to do is to break it. This is often how moral progress is made in history, from the defiance of American slavery and Hitler’s anti-Semitism to sit-ins at “whites only” lunch counters in Alabama.
• I came out in favor of the ALF because after careful study of their history, arguments, and results, I concluded that their actions are effective, necessary, and just. Governments, animal exploitation industries, and most mass media characterize the ALF as violent terrorists, but I see them as freedom fighters and counter-terrorists. The ALF is a new justice movement defending innocent beings under attack and fighting the real terrorists who torture and kill animals without justification.
  
  Breaking and entering locked buildings, smashing fur store windows, torching delivery trucks — it all sounds nothing short of vandalism or even terrorism. But I believe ALF actions are defensible because (1) what happens to animals is wrong, and (2) legal channels to stop it are blocked by speciesism and corrupt governments that support the property rights of industries over the moral rights of animals.
• I wish that legal methods of animal liberation were adequate to free animals from their oppressors, but unfortunately they are not. Governments are grotesquely corrupt and speciesist and serve their corporate masters. Animals are too important a resource and commodity for corporations to voluntarily free them, and so animal liberation requires militant tactics such as raids to rescue animals and property destruction to weaken, cripple, or eliminate oppressors.
• Unlike some brave warriors fighting Nazis, however, the ALF has never used physical violence against any animal exploiter. And like all contemporary movements fighting for peace, justice, and human rights, the ALF intends to help secure all these values for the most defenseless victims of all, the animals who are utterly dependent upon us for their liberation.
• People often say that animals are “the new slaves.” No, they were the first slaves. They’re the first beings human oppressors used to confine, torture, cage, chain down, auction, and sell for labor and profit. The domination of animals paved the way for the domination of humans. The sexual subjugation of women was modeled after the domestication of animals, such that men began to control women’s reproductive capacity, to enforce repressive sexual norms, and to rape them as they forced breeding in their animals. Slavery emerged in the same region of the Middle East that spawned agriculture, and, in fact, developed as an extension of animal domestication practices.
• A several paragraph critique of Gary Francione, including: While Francione tries to define himself as the “radical abolitionist” antithetical to the “new welfarist” capitulations and betrayals of a corporate suit such as Wayne Pacelle, in fact, he is Pacelle’s doppelganger in their shared vilification of the ALF and SHAC, and some of the most effective tactics ever developed in the history of this movement.
• In extreme crimes, in the face of extreme evil and violence, moderate positions don’t cut it, and one is forced to take extreme measures to stop extreme wrongs. The western environment and animal advocacy movements have advanced their causes for over three decades now, but we are nonetheless losing ground in the battle to preserve species, ecosystems, and wilderness.
• I define terrorism as any intentional act of violence toward an innocent sentient being in order to advance an ideological, political, and economic agenda. It is a strange kind of terrorist who has never injured a single person, who is compassionate toward the suffering of others, and who risks his or her own freedom to save another from harm, violence, and death. It is not the ALF who are violent terrorists, but rather the UK and US governments and war machines, global corporations raping and pillaging the world, vivisectors in their blood-stained coats, and all facets of the animal exploitation industry. They are terrorists on the grounds that they intentionally harm and kill innocent living beings for ideological, political, and economic goals.
• If violence is the intentional infliction of bodily harm against another person, then how can one “hurt,” “abuse,” or “injure” a nonsentient thing that does not feel pain or have awareness of any sort? How can one be “violent” toward a van or be a “terrorist” toward brick and mortar? How does one harm or terrorize a laboratory or fur farm with spray paint or a firebomb?

The comments comprise several distracting personal issues among readers, but there are some that do relate to the actual interview.

I'm interested to hear what you agree with and disagree with.

On Horse Blogs and Bird Sites

I was going through footage for a documentary I'm working on and the editor wanted to use a clip of me saying: I work with a lot of non-profits, and all of them are close to my heart, but this is the one issue that we can resolve in my lifetime (the issue is the terrible prospects for emancipated foster youth). Meanwhile, I get that that's powerful and it will make the audience feel hopeful, but it's not true.

I think about Greyhound racing and horse-drawn carriages and say: those are two uses of nonhuman animals that we can abolish in my lifetime.

There are two new blogs, one called The Central Park Blogger, which makes me long for Manhattan. That is, until I think about the horses. The video posted, which is a trailer for Blinders, is of course disturbing, as are most videos about animal use. In the May 23 post, the blog's author (John B. Moore) writes:

During the past few months I’ve been forced to confront the awful truth of the matter - that, no matter how quaint or traditional, there is no defense for making horses live in squalid cells and have to walk through traffic behind buses and trucks.   That’s without even considering the accidents that occur.

Predictably, the first commenter (Sean Flaherty) insists the horses are happy and the tradition of the carriages is "lovely." Don't think for a moment that I let that one go in my comment. There's also the person (Liam McM.) who writes that it's legal, and actually thinks: "If it is so bad why is it not against the law?" There is a desperate need for Critical Thinking 101 regarding this issue, and fortunately Mr. Moore is providing it.

Note that I did not miss the photo in the banner space of a polar bear at the zoo. Perhaps the bear's captivity in a most unnatural environment might one day also be a topic of concern for The Central Park Blogger.

Next we have Horsewatch NYC, a blog focused on the carriage-horse industry, with a tagline that reads:
Time to ban horse-drawn carriages in New York City! You can make a difference for NYC horses." It has photos, stories, interviews, links and things you can do.

Finally, I must admit that one thing I never thought of was bird mills. Check out Bird Mills: The Hidden Truth for footage of the kinds of operations that produce the birds sold in pet stores. There's so much attention given to the canine and feline "pets" we create, and birds certainly suffer just as terribly. This site is  also the site of Project Perry, which is a rescue and sanctuary operation in Virginia.

The horse-drawn carriage issue might not sound like a big deal if you don't live in Manhattan or another city that has them (we have them here, where it is regularly 85+ degrees, and we might have the country's worst and most dangerous drivers). But when you have to see them regularly they move into a space, not just in your heart, but in your stomach, and cause a low-grade, ever-present nausea. This might be a single issue, but for the horses it's the only issue.

On the Importance of Freebees and Comments

Yesterday, Elaine mentioned something I neglected in my commentary about Ellen's show, and that is the audience was given both Skinny Bitch books, and they tried vegan chocolate chip cookies. That reminded me that I just received my replacement copy of THE JOY OF VEGAN BAKING as well as VEGAN CUPCAKES TAKE OVER THE WORLD and VEGANOMICON. I baked the above chocolate chip cookies using THE JOY OF VEGAN BAKING, as I find that recipe to taste the most like the cookie dough I ate as a kid--raw of course--and kept in the freezer. I even saved some dough in a freezer container, and I'm sure it'll never see the oven. I've always been told not to use the whipped Earth Balance for baking, but I did and it made no difference in the taste and was slightly less fattening.

I re-bought the cookbooks because one of my strategies is to give guests a cookbook--preferably one that contains a recipe they just sampled and enjoyed immensely. Or I'll cook a dessert to bring to a dinner party and take the cookbook with me. The hostess and guests find the dessert delectable, I give a brief spiel about how the goodies contain no eggs, butter or milk, everyone's interest is piqued (or they're amazed, as they cannot fathom desserts without eggs and butter), and I give the cookbook to the person who appears most interested in using it or learning more about vegan cooking or baking.

If the people in Ellen's audience read through the books and learn something and perhaps cut back on dairy, or start replacing a couple of meals with vegan meals, I'd be thrilled. And if the people who are completely uninterested gave their free books to someone who might be interested, I'd be thrilled.

Never underestimate the power of freebees. I know nearly a dozen people who are either vegans now or on their way (by replacing animal-based meals with animal-free meals, not by purchasing different kinds of animal products or eliminating beef and replacing it with chicken), and their entry point was a free book. Of course, a trip to the store to show them that the ingredients are accessible and reasonably priced, helps seal the deal. And the prospect of better health and weight loss doesn't hurt, particularly for women.

In my experience, food is the best way to get someone interested in veganism. Having a discussion about animal rights and what it means is great, but the food discussion has an action attached to it. It allows them to do something immediately that's a win-win-win for their health, the animals and the planet.

And on an unrelated note, for all of you who didn't submit a comment regarding the Kofa mountain lions, the scoping period has been extended to June 23 so you can still let your voice be heard. Also check out Ron Kearns' timeline, which is a great lesson in how exploiters get what they want and attempt to silence (or eliminate) dissent.

On Ellen and Skinny Bitches

The authors of SKINNY BITCH and SKINNY BITCH IN THE KITCH, Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, were on Ellen today, keeping it light and never mentioning the word vegetarian or the word vegan, and I believe the word animal was mentioned once, in list of items the authors now care about. It was fascinating from a marketing and public relations perspective, as if you don't know what the book is about, you still don't know by the end of the interview, but your interest might be piqued. The segment was brilliantly designed, calculated so as to not let you know what the authors are up to.

The only topic discussed was sweeteners (particularly aspartame). There was no talk about not drinking cow's milk, or about suffering, or about not having the right to use animals. And I didn't expect that. I anticipated the health angle and that's what I got.

Four dishes were prepared for Ellen, who liked all of them (and I've seen her not enjoy food--she usually lets you know if she doesn't find an item delectable), and the concentration was on them all being cholesterol free.

Ellen did mention that the authors seem to be yelling at the reader and that their style is abrasive. She also said parts were difficult to read but didn't say why. Fortunately, Ellen said the book has changed her life and that it tells you what you should and shouldn't be putting in your body. She said she's a different person since reading the book.

The advice that was given was about buying organic if you can and keeping food plain, natural and clean, without chemicals and preservatives. Nothing was said about any animal product.

Of course, inquiring minds want to know if Ellen has gone vegan. I'd imagine that she might not want to out herself again, though it would be great if she let the world know the extent to which her life has changed.

You can comment about the books and the episode here, and you can e-mail words of encouragement, questions, and your own story about your experience with the SKINNY BITCH books, if you'd like.

Oprah's Vegan "Cleanse," Part Deux

I started replying to some comments then decided to post my response as a post instead, hoping more people would see.

It's 6am and I just reviewed the latest comments on Oprah's discussion board about her "Look 10 years younger" show (wherein she introduced the idea of the 21-Day Cleanse), and I think there's one other abolitionist one in addition to the one I left yesterday. The idea is ignored. No surprise there. There's a lot of talk from farmers who want everyone to see how well the animals are treated, to a dozen people who say: What's wrong with cheese and eggs? (despite people telling them what's wrong), to talk of God (blessing farmers and such). Thankfully, a couple of people have listed books--they're probably PCRM people from the look of the lists. And there are links to the Pew study, Livestock's Longshadow and the University of Chicago Study--so that's great. One person, katybkaty, whom I think does not have a job, has been on the board since it started and is a reasonable, educated person who has been providing a steady stream of useful information, though none of it abolitionist in nature.

There's a fair amount of ranting, however, and I think that, in addition to Oprah perhaps going the way of happy meat, will indeed create a situation in need of damage control (as Dan commented yesterday). And it's simply up to Oprah and her producers to decide whether they want to present a different story. That's why I suggest designing a show and sending your ideas in. Someone suggested katybkaty be a guest on Oprah because she's been so helpful, and after all of the people recommending certain authors and doctors, I can't imagine them not doing a show on veganism. It's begging to be done and it would take very little effort as an enormous amount of research has been handed to the producers through the comments on the boards.

Now, Bea directed me to all of the other threads that have developed, including "frustorated [sic] miss understood eating meat," by a farmer who wants to see Michael Pollan on the show (that was inevitable), and "21 days toward better health," which informs us that Erik Marcus will be doing a podcast every day during the 21 days. I think that's a great idea (though I do disagree with his welfarism).

Here's the best we can hope for:

• The producers do a show on where your food comes from or on veganism. Michael Pollan is a given for the former show, and I'd assume that Ingrid Newkirk is a given for the latter, as PeTA is the largest "animal rights" organization in the country.
• For where your food comes from, the upshot is happy meat and SOLE (sustainable, organic, local and/or ethical, and ethical means happy meat).
• For veganism, there are myriad points of entry as well as many perspectives, and as you know abolitionists are a minuscule percentage. I'd at least want a voice that tells the world what abolition is, and compares it to past struggles for justice. My pick would have to be Gary Francione as he is an academic and has written books about this topic. Someone needs to plant a seed that isn't about suffering. My other pick would be Rae Sikora, whom I think would be better received (not to mention she is within Oprah's demographic), and whose style I greatly admire. I'd love to see Dr. Steven Best on the show, but I don't think the world is ready for him. Dr. Kerrie Saunders would be perfect for the health perspective, as she also is within the demographic AND she had a successful vegan pregnancy and has a healthy vegan child. From the cooking camp, I'd choose Colleen from Compassionate Cooks. Sistah Vegan would be required, in my perfect world. Jeffrey Masson would be fabulous as he has a great story of evolution to veganism and abolition, and he's a best-selling author and has a new book coming out next year called THE FACE ON YOUR PLATE. This year's release of Peaceable Kingdom would be a great tie-in, as well.

Again, I suggest all of you creative types dig into whatever bag of tricks you use to develop a show idea (and submit it here, and keep it to 2000 characters). We may never get another opportunity to do this, so let's at least do our best to be heard. And I don't like raising this topic, but remember that television is a visual medium and remember who Oprah's audience is. You don't want to alienate her viewers. Furthermore, you want to provide them with alternatives to the image they have in their minds--right or wrong--about who vegans are, what we look like and how we present ourselves to the world.

Oprah Tries Veganism as a "Cleanse"

Kathy Freston has a new book, Quantum Wellness, wherein she writes of the importance of "Conscious Eating," which sounds very much like part of Right Action from The Eightfold Path mixed with The Four Noble Truths. The book made Oprah consider vegetarianism and she's doing a 21-day "cleanse," which will include no animal products (or at least that's the goal) and no alcohol, caffeine, sugar or gluten.

As you might imagine, the audience was shocked as Oprah introduced welcomed Ms. Freston and her "radical approach to eating."

Not a good start.

Oprah asks Ms. Freston, "Are you nuts now? Have you gone to the nuts' side?"

Again, not good.

Did she do it all at once? "If I tried to get to where I am right now I'd be out of my mind! It's just too radical."

"You don't even wear leather."

"No."

Oprah will be blogging each day during her cleanse, and she's also asking for stories.

Here are my concerns:

• Oprah asks (and this one might not be an exact quote but it's very close), "What if we're really nice to them and treat them humanely and we tell them they're beautiful and we pet them [and she motions the petting and everyone laughs, including Ms. Freston] and then we give them a shot and they pass on to the other side, then can we eat them? Ms. Freston does nothing but giggle, and then they cut to a commercial. The difficult questions are never asked, never addressed. There is no talk about justice or violence, although there is an allusion to karma when Ms. Freston speaks of eating the energy of another's suffering.
• What caught Oprah's attention was the idea of being conscious about where your food comes from and "how the animals were treated." My prediction is that if she makes it the 21 days, she will indeed be transformed and will be a proud consumer of animal products that are allegedly produced more humanely and might even be labeled "Certified Humane." I don't think that's cynical of me; I think it's realistic.
• When you call something a "cleanse," that spells deprivation. In fact, Oprah warns that when attempting any kind of cleanse or fast, you should consult your doctor first. When you do a cleanse or a fast, implied is that you will stop doing it at some point, and hopefully not go back to how you used to eat. You'll transition from the fast (extreme deprivation) to a new way of eating. But it won't be like what you did during the cleanse or the fast. The message is that veganism is a strategy to be used for a short period to achieve a certain result. I've fasted for several weeks at a time (anyone know Dr. Doug Graham?), with no intake other than distilled water. Transitioning out was fruit for a week, and then to raw food only. My experience of cleanses and fasts is that they're not fun. You can't work 12 hour days. You shouldn't exercise heavily. You feel terrible as your body purges itself of toxins. You're exhausted. And that's if you go into it as a vegan! Imagine going into a cleanse as an omnivore! I wouldn't call what Oprah's doing a cleanse; she'll just be eating better. The question now becomes: What's next? Once 21-days of veganism is over--and it has an ethical component around the concept of welfare--does the veganism disappear to be replaced with "humanely" slaughtered sentient beings?

When the student is ready, the teacher appears. If Kathy Freston is Oprah's teacher and will help her transition to a more healthy, ethical way of approaching her life, that's fabulous. And if one viewer looks into veganism (a word mentioned once) and stops using animals as a result of the show, that's great.

I look forward to reading about Oprah's journey. I suggest writing her and perhaps proposing a show featuring vegans from all walks of life to put a non-"nuts" face on what we do in the name of justice and nonviolence. And of course, send her all of your favorite books.

I hope that during this experiment of Oprah's she is exposed to the idea of abolition, and the connection between nonviolence and eating, as well as social justice and eating. If this becomes all about suffering (which is how it started) it will lead straight to happy meat. Please write encouraging notes to Oprah, perhaps even on the discussion board (which you have to register for). And remember your audience. They already have the words "nuts" and "radical" in their minds. Don't give them cause to ridicule us further (and don't think I'm not going to jump in there when I get five minutes today for some kind, articulate deconstruction).

I wish that all of the people who broke down in tears during Oprah's puppy mill show make the connection between dogs and cows and humans, and alter their lives accordingly.

Why Matt Lauer Will Never Eat Another Burger

Today's original post has been preempted by a trip into the family room, where the television was on and Matt Lauer, of the Today Show, was describing his stint as an apprentice barrel man at the Houston Rodeo.

As the overture to The Magnificent Seven played in the background, Mr. Lauer learned how to crouch in a barrel and take hits from a 1500 pound "angry animal, with horns," as Ann Curry described the bull. Mr. Lauer "had the best time" as he "entertained" the 60,000 men, women and children who gather to watch animals be tortured in the name of tradition, probably. After all, there's no legitimate reason for any rodeo event--and there never was--so we chalk it up to tradition (i.e., we did it yesterday, so we should do it today. They actually call it "Western Heritage" in rodeo land).

There was, oddly enough, no talk of why the bull was so angry. There was no explanation of the flank strap, without which the bull wouldn't buck. There is no mention of the electric cattle prod, which rodeo people claim merely gets the bull out of the chute quickly and doesn't harm him.

The Truth About Bull Riding tells quite a different story than The Today Show.

When looking into the eyes of the individual bull who was about to charge him, Mr. Lauer jokingly begged, "I swear I'll never eat another burger again." He was lightly tossed by the bull and emerged unscathed, but with a greater respect for the barrel clowns.

I wonder if Mr. Lauer ever found what he was participating in to be disrespectful of the bulls? I wonder if he gave their thoughts and feelings any consideration? I wonder if he knew why the bulls were so distressed? Did he just mindlessly go through the taping of this segment, thinking it would be entertaining to America? The segment spent several minutes showing us the make-up, wardrobe and preparation of the barrel men. I'm going to write to Mr. Lauer and suggest that bull riding get equal time from the bull's perspective. Maybe that would force him to momentarily reconsider the entertainment value of his segment, and maybe then he would be telling the truth when he says he won't eat another hamburger.

On Yogic Food Plans

What I didn't know until I read the article was that Yoga Journal's "How to Eat Like a Yogi" was really about Ayurvedic Philosophy as it relates to your body (and mind and constitution) type and what you should be eating to keep it in balance, at least according to the Vedas.

I've had this type of "nutritional" counseling, and here's my experience, with some resources if you're interested:

• Holisticonline.com has simple, clear charts and lists regarding the three Doshas (think body type, plus): Vata, Pitta and Kapha. Many people are more than one thing. I am Pitta, and my sister is Pitta Kapha. Genetics will play a part. As a triple fire sign, in any system I'm whatever has the most fire (in this case, Pitta).
• Check out the links to pages for characteristics of each Dosha and signs of the Dosha's imbalance. For instance, Pitta aggravation often manifests as: irritable, impatient, critical, weakness due to blood sugar.
• Each Dosha has a food plan, which is where it gets really interesting if you'd like to do a little experimenting with/on yourself. Here's the plan to balance Pitta. Apparently I should be avoiding red meat and seafood, but can eat shrimp (I thought it was from the sea, oui?), chicken and turkey in small amounts. Note that there's no talk of ethics in the food plan; it's all about what is appropriate to maintain balance for the constitution.
• A general rule is that tastes you crave are probably tastes to avoid. For instance, as a fiery type, I should avoid spicy food, so I should back off the cayenne pepper, which is difficult, as sometimes I crave it.
• Results: Forget about the animal products for a moment (everyone can eat some according to Ayurveda, although Kaphas should definitely avoid dairy as it is mucous-forming and one of their biggest problems is mucous, if you must know). My experience is that the food plan for Pitta does indeed make me feel balanced and light, and my digestion is easy. I simply don't eat ghee or any of the other (few) animal products acceptable for Pitta people.

I recommend researching what type you are and spending a couple of weeks following the food plan, minus the animals of course. It's not necessary to not eliminate Ayurveda from consideration just because animal products are included. You just might find that with a little alteration in your choices of fruits, vegetables, grains, oils, beans, nuts and seeds, sweeteners and herbs and spices, you might feel better. Feel better for me also includes less mental anxiety, which is alleviated (or at least that's the plan) by daily meditation.  And yoga a couple of times a week.

I have had several practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine try to persuade me to eat ice cream, believe it or not. They said I need something cold and smooth to counter all of my edges and my fire (inside and out, as I do live 30 minutes from the Bahamas, and it's rarely cold here). I wasn't about to start drinking anybody's milk, but I did increase my consumption of frozen fruit shakes with added pea or hemp protein and almond milk and I did find that there was a positive shift in the way I felt, both physically and mentally.

I'm always in search of strategies to increase my mental and physical performance, and if you are too, I recommend at least exploring Ayurveda. For those people who used to be vegans or vegetarians (if I recall correctly there are two in the Yoga Journal article) and say that once they started eating animals again they felt better, I'd say that it's not the animals they need, but some nutrient or other, and they should try harder to obtain that nutrient rather than kill anybody.

On What We Should Do With Race Horses

I watched "Hidden Horses" a couple of nights ago on REALsports, which is an HBO series hosted by Bryant Gumbel. Here's the blurb:

Few casual horse racing fans are aware that many former racing horses are slaughtered for profit. When a thoroughbred race horse reaches the end of its career or is simply no longer profitable on the track, it is often taken directly to auction and sold for meat. Because horse slaughter is no longer practiced in this country, these thoroughbreds are now being shipped by "killer buyers" to slaughterhouses abroad, which are frequently less regulated and less humane than former U.S. slaughterhouses. Correspondent Bernard Goldberg, who recently won the 2008 Sports Emmy(r) for Outstanding Sports Journalism for his 2007 REAL SPORTS story on the NFL concussion crisis, traces the disturbing journey many of these young and healthy horses take from the track, to auctions, to slaughterhouses, and finally to the plates of European and Japanese diners who pay top dollar for the delicacy.

There wasn't any talk of not racing horses, which of course would eliminate numerous problems, both for horses and humans. And there was the usual vague disdain for anyone who would eat a horse, in addition to some fairly gruesome footage of the slaughter of horses. Meanwhile, slaughter just like it occurs hundreds of times per second--but not with horses--and the uproar about that fact is minuscule. The number of horses slaughtered per year is in the tens of thousands, which is horrible, but the outcry isn't enormously disproportionate given what occurs to non-equine sentient beings all day long.

Still, it's great to see a mainstream, manly kind of show (if sort of intellectual-manly) address this topic, as I've come to discover that most people have no idea what goes on in the horse racing industry. If that segment turned one person against horse racing (I'm not sure how it would, though), I'm happy.

Here's the real reason I'm writing about this, though. I had no idea the Preakness was yesterday, therefore at first I didn't understand why there was a flurry of news stories about what happens to horses when they lose--and even when they win. In "Hidden Horses,"as well as in "Saving Horses, One Thoroughbred at at Time" in yesterday's New York Times, and the AP's "Losing Racehorses Killed in Puerto Rico" from Friday, the focus is on the killing of horses used to race. There is no mention of how many horses are killed on the way to determining whether they ever will race, and there's no talk about the horses used in rodeos or pony rides or polo or the other ways we use horses, but at least they're covering this aspect, I thought.

Upon closer inspection (actually it doesn't even take that much effort), the real story emerges. Rescue organizations cannot keep up with the number of horses going to slaughter but they try. They try to outbid horse killers at auctions, and often succeed. They often go to sleep at night haunted by the faces of the horses they couldn't save.

Here's the rub (and these quotes are from the NYT article): The rescuers speak of "fixing the industry" (said Diana Koebel, owner and trainer at LumberJack Farm, which rescues and rehabilitates thoroughbreds). Then there's ReRun, "which prepares discarded racehorses for a second career — as jumping show horses, maybe, or just as pets — and then makes them available for adoption." Just as pets.

"But there is a lot of life left,” the ReRun president, Laurie Condurso-Lane, said. Horses can live to 30 years or longer. “They are young. So why not find them new jobs?”

In other words, there is no hint in any of the articles, or in the REALsports segment, that we shouldn't be using horses--that they might not be ours to "find jobs for." And where do they go when they're fired from their second jobs? Are the rescuers merely postponing the inevitable slaughter of the horses by filling the time with a new form of enslavement? (I don't know the answer, by the way. I'm just asking.)

In the AP article, a businessman is quoted as saying:

"A lot of times people will have good luck with one horse, that horse will make them a lot of money, and they feel they can do that with every horse. What ends up happening is this renewable resource, which is the racehorse, ends up being treated like just another raw material. When it doesn't produce, you toss it away. And that's sad."

What's sad is considering them a renewable resource or a raw material.

Finally, today the editorial board of The New York Times gives us,"The Horse, Familiar and Unfamiliar," with the stunning statement: "It becomes clear that we are human by virtue of horses and that horses are what they are by virtue of us." We are human by virtue of horses? What they really mean is that we have used horses for a long, long time, and bred them and trained them for our use. We now use them less.

"Horses are what they are by virtue of us?" Where's the virtue in enslaving sentient beings and forcing them to work for you? Where's the virtue in breeding them for the sole purpose of using them and even profiting from who they are and what you make them do?

You can try to romanticize the bloody history of the relationship between horses and humans, but the reality of what we've done to them since they were unfortunate enough to meet our acquaintance, doesn't bring the word "virtue" to mind. Yes, "by virtue of" is an idiom, but a different one--one without "virtue" could have been used.

On Why I'm Still Wary of Mark Bittman

When Angus directed me to a Mark Bittman video that's a 20-minute argument for eating less meat, I was wary. I was annoyed with Bittman back in January when I deconstructed his "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler" and, well, I'm still annoyed because he tends to present an incomplete picture. He tends to leave out a crucial component in the food equation: ethics as they relate to nonhuman animals.

Let's deconstruct:

• The fact that Bittman isn't a vegetarian is appropriate because once again, though there may be en ecological ethic that ties his points together, there is no ethic that includes the premise of eating nonhuman animals when you don't need to. In fact, he does believe we don't need to eat animals, and he even says that "We eat animal products not for nutrition, but for an odd form of malnutrition."
• Bittman (like Michael Pollan) thinks we should be eating fewer animals (though Pollan's language is that we should be eating "less meat"). However, Bittman also says, "Let's get the number of them we're eating down, then worry about how we're treating the rest of them." He finds the factory farming system unacceptable, but he has no ethical problem eating animals. I am taken aback by the way he casually relegates the suffering of animals to an afterthought.
  
• He takes on the food pyramid, which is helpful, and notes that Americans eat twice as much protein as the FDA suggests (1/2 pound per week is the suggested amount). There isn't a vegan on the planet who hasn't been asked to justify their protein sources and intake, and it's nice to have an omnivore tell the truth about protein.
• He describes what it was like in 1950 in America, when people were real locavores and ate real food (and there were no Skittles or TV dinners and corn wasn't in just about everything), which is interesting, but again, no question about the ethics of food.

The positive aspect of this particular speech is that it's not a commercial for happy meat. Bittman's message isn't to stop buying animal products from factory farms and buy only from "free range" or family farms. His message is to cut down drastically on your meat intake (he also says animal products once or twice). He doesn't tell you to replace all the cow flesh you're eating with chicken flesh (and certainly not farm-raised or "organic" salmon. After he describes them, you wouldn't want to eat them.). In a way, then, part of his message is similar to ours. We say: Start by eating vegan meals one day a week (or even one meal), then increase from there. Though Bittman uses the word vegan only once--and he doesn't lump it with vegetarian, which is thoughtful and accurate--it appears that the sentiment (or something like it) is there. He provides health and environmental arguments for cutting down on the consumption of animal products.

Of course, the part of his message that is dissimilar to ours is that he says he'll never stop eating animals and I assume he doesn't believe there is any kind of massive injustice to nonhuman animals as long as we use them for food.

I'll try anything to get people to examine their beliefs about nonhuman animals. And if watching this 20-minute video gets someone to start going vegan a day or two a week because Bittman has convinced them of how detrimental the production of animal products are both nutritionally and environmentally, I guess that's a step in the right direction. But I'm skeptical.

It's difficult to forget who the messenger is: Just another guy who doesn't want to give up his animal products, despite all of the arguments he just presented against eating them.

Do-Something Friday

Several comments from the past couple of days have provided great suggestions if you happen to have some time for a little unplanned activism today.

First, Terry Cumming alerted us that Ron Reagan Jr. will be featuring Eight Belles' death and the cruelty of horse racing on his radio show on Air America TODAY (12-3pm Pacific time). You can call in with comments.

Next, Emily wrote that:

The current issue of Yoga Journal has a prominent story called "How to Eat Like a Yogi" (page 35)? It compares several different diets ranging from ethical vegan to conscientious omnivore. As a vegan, I found the article troublesome, though I certainly understood that the magazine's editorial team was in a very delicate position and couldn't risk alienating thousands of readers and advertisers. I run up against this problem myself constantly as a public relations person trying to place a veg-friendly article in mainstream papers.

I hope that vegans who read the article will send a polite letter to the magazine. You can also go to yogajournal.com/foodvalues to post your responses about how your own yogic values have affected your thoughts on diet.

As a long-time meditator and yoga practician, I find the eating of animals to be in direct opposition to my daily practice. What's odd to me is that if your practice is at all Hinduism- or Buddhism-based, you'd view the eating of animals as the ingestion of suffering, which wouldn't exactly provide you a boost in the karma department.

I happen to have to run out to several health-food stores today. (With all that is available to me, and so close by, I have yet to find a store that offers everything I need/want. At least they're all within blocks of each other so I haven't created a new environmental problem for myself.) I'll purchase Yoga Journal, read the article, and write a letter this afternoon.

And then I'll catch (and record) Ron Reagan's show for listening later.

Next, Bea had mentioned that horse racing is subsidized in the recently passed Farm Bill. The New York Times' editorial board lets our illustrious lawmakers know exactly what they think about the bill in "A Disgraceful Farm Bill" (a title which leaves no room for suspense). My favorite quotes are:

• Congress has approved a $307 billion farm bill that rewards rich farmers who do not need the help while doing virtually nothing to help the world’s hungry, who need all the help they can get.
• The bill includes the usual favors like the tax break for racehorse breeders pushed by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader. But the greater and more embarrassing defect is that the bill perpetuates the old subsidies for agriculture at a time when the prices that farmers are getting for big row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat have never been better. Net farm income is up 50 percent.

(For the record, I don't think tax breaks for horse breeders are any less embarrassing than subsidies for farmers.)

Maybe today's a good day to see how your representatives voted, and make a note of that for the next election. Go here and follow the links in "House Passes Farm Bill."

Finally, "Making Their Own Limits in a Spiritual Partnership," by Leslie Kaufman, is the most e-mailed article from The New York Times at this moment. It's about a Buddhist couple who are teachers who live in a yurt in Arizona and are celibate. That's a dramatic oversimplification, as my point comes from the Audio Slide Show, where the Michael Roach, the male half of the couple, says:

We're trying to sell an idea. And the idea is that everything in your world is coming from how you treat other people. And if that's true, then you could control your future. Then you could design your own world. You could decide what kind of world you want. And then just do that to other people.

I was profoundly disappointed to hear a Buddhist omit the earth and its nonhuman inhabitants. I'm sure he means well, but his language sent the message that people are the only ones that matter. The way you treat people determines what your life looks like.

Obviously, I disagree. I think the way we live, and that includes our choices regarding people, nonhuman animals and our planet, determines what our life looks like.

What does your life look like today?

On Delusional Authors

I was actually going to let this one go because I knew I would write about the snubbing of Peaceful Prairie yesterday, but Bea (in the comments of this post) just couldn't stand by and have it go unnoticed.

What, you ask? An article about yet another book from Susan Bourette about how great it can feel to have animals killed for your meals. This one is called MEAT: A LOVE STORY. The article, "For Meat-Eating Authors, a More Tender Approach," by Jane Black of the Washington Post, features a photo of a smiling Catherine Friend, author of "THE COMPASSIONATE CARNIVORE" (which is a "warm and witty" book that tells you how to "reduce your hoofprint and still eat meat"), holding two sentient beings whom she apparently has no problem killing, or having someone kill for her.

The article is rife with delusion, as it merely describes books that are rife with delusion. At first, I thought, "Wow, these people have great publicists." But whether or not that's true, the real story is that the American reading public wants to have "experts" of any kind (or authors of any kind) provide them with ways to make the using and killing of animals sound acceptable, or even beneficial (for farmers, for instance, whom Friend wants to save).

"People are worried, but they still want to eat meat," says Roger Horowitz, author of "Putting Meat on the American Table" (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), which charts historical patterns of meat consumption. "So there's a great market opportunity for people to talk about what really happens when you eat meat and tell people that it's okay."

So you can kill animals, but in a nice way and maybe after snuggling with their cuteness, and you can save small farmers at the same time. Plus, because the small farmers don't pollute on the scale of factory farms, you help the planet too. It's a win-win-win-win, right?

No, it's not. It's never--I repeat, never--a win for the animals. That's impossible, and that's why I call these authors delusional. They are not being honest with themselves or with their readers when they provide excuses for them. I haven't read the books and I don't know what the excuses are (but I can guess). What they are denying is the reality that whatever their equation is, it cannot be in the best interest of the animals. Period. No matter how you treat a nonhuman animal you created to use and kill, what you're doing cannot be called ethical because of the very premise of creating a nonhuman animal to use and kill. Why does that fact elude so many otherwise intelligent people? (I think the answer rhymes with: speciesism.)

This article has the obligatory and absurd:

"To be a real carnivore, a true carnivore, you have to be conscientious and discerning," Gold says [author of THE SHAMELESS CARNIVORE]. "Eat good meat and source it well. Acknowledge where it comes from. And respect the fact that the animal died for your dinner."

I think he's used that quote before and I even think I referred to it. Regardless, acknowledging you've paid someone to kill someone isn't respect. The animal didn't just die--she was slaughtered for you and you paid for the convenience of not having to do it yourself.

The language that The Delusional Carnivores use cannot be allowed to continue without commentary and correction. Friend writes a "Letter to the Lambs" in her book that says:

"Tomorrow morning, when we load you onto the trailer for your trip to the abattoir, we will be thinking about the life you've lived on this farm -- running around the pasture at dusk, sleeping in the sun, and grazing enthusiastically for the tenderest bits of grass. We will say out loud, 'Thank you.' "

Thank you? Did they have a choice? Did they do anything for her? No. All she did was take from them--there was no giving. She shouldn't be expressing gratitude, she should be begging for forgiveness.

Check out the comments and/or add your own, or write a letter to the editor.

Peaceful Prairie Snubbed

Michele Alley-Grubb from Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary updated me yesterday about her purchase of ad space for "Milk Comes From Grieving Mothers" and "Can You Tell the Difference?" (between battery and free-range hens).

After Michele spent dozens of hours placing and negotiating the ads, the contact person at Yoga Journal said:

"I am so sorry but we are unable to take your ad.  It is a very strong message and we carry a lot of dairy/cheese advertisers plus only a small % of our readers are vegan and dairy-free."

Perhaps if readers of Yoga Journal knew more about dairy and egg production, a larger percentage of them would become vegans. How are they supposed to make that decision if no one is willing to educate them? Note that the magazine's publisher also publishes Vegetarian Times, Better Nutrition and Optimal Wellness, and use phrases like: "22.8 million people say they largely follow a vegetarian-inclined diet." Largely? Inclined?

I'm not surprised that the magazine didn't run the ads--I'm shocked they so enthusiastically led her to believe that they would run them, thereby wasting her valuable time. She's saving lives every day, while they're collecting ad revenue and kowtowing to animal exploiters, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

The other magazine that was going to run the ads, which I had never heard of, was PINK, which is geared toward successful business women, ages 25-54, who control the bulk of $3.3 trillion in consumer spending. The contact person was passionate about placing the ads and they had given Michele a great price. Moments before the deadline, Michele received this message:

"As much as we would love to help you get your message out there, our sales department has determined that we can not run these ads."

In an e-mail to me, Michele wrote:

The truth is terrifying,especially to those whose complicity in unimaginable abuse is exposed so honestly. They don't realize it, of course, but their reaction to the ads, prove our point of just how effective these ads are. They have also simultaneously insulted the intelligence and maturity of their "empowered professional women" readership. If they think that the readers are too soft headed to process the honesty and compelling presentation of this subject matter,  shame on them.

Of course, Michele is already exploring other options, and if you have any ideas, pass them along. Finally, Michele wrote:

All liberation struggles throughout history have been met with ignorance, fear, aggression, and resistance, but the abolitionists will prevail.  No matter what they do to us, the animals' experience is so unacceptable, that we cannot ever let these cowards stop us from getting the truth to the masses.

I'll keep you informed of how we decide to proceed - and we WILL proceed!

If you'd like to send an articulate e-mail to Yoga Journal, please, please be kind. Here's the page you can use to access the e-mail form at PINK. Publishers and editors need to know that they are doing their readers a disservice by intentionally preventing them from getting information that might dramatically change the way they live their lives for the better, in addition to saving the lives of nonhuman animals. It might be an uncomfortable message for them to hear, but it is a necessary one.

On "Neural Buddhists"

In today's New York Times, Op-ed columnist David Brooks writes about "The Neural Buddhists," which likely would include yours truly, but I'm pretty sure you won't catch me using the term. I've been calling myself a quasi-Buddhist for a while, which is a term not nearly as descriptive as Brooks'. I say quasi because I have no interest in the rituals or in the texts as anything other than literature. I'm in it for the ethics (and because its focus is not the worship of a god), which just happen to be as close to what I believe as anything that could be called a "religion" will ever get.

Brooks says he's trying to "anticipate which way the debate is headed," but the debate about god, spirituality and consciousness has been moving for quite a bit of time in the direction he is anticipating. Brooks writes:

[M]y guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible.

But with The Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris) and their books about religion and god, it appears to me that the challenging the faith in the Bible part has been dealt with handily. (YouTube has both parts of The Four's conversations, if you're interested.)

As for "undermining faith in God," that's inaccurate. What the scientists at the Mind and Life Institute, which Brooks never mentions, or even those within the Transcendental Meditation camp  have been studying for years (decades in the case of the TM people) is that there are levels of consciousness that humans can attain by doing certain things (like meditating) that produce the same or similar chemical and electrical reactions in the brain as people who are in what religious people might call states of ecstasy. In other words, what some call God is more accurately a real state that is occurring in their brain that they have created. Cognitive scientists aren't undermining faith in any god, they're merely explaining that the feelings associated with god might not come from outside us. Perhaps when he mentions Andrew Newberg this is what he means to say, but he never actually says it (unless this is what he means when he writes: "God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments [of transcending boundaries], the unknowable total of all there is").

In addition, these scientists also study the effects of meditation on brain function and have found it to increase hemispheric coherence, help with pain control, aid in concentration, improve learning, and of course improve mood and control/aid in the processing of emotions. Regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired just like regular exercise will alter the health of your body as well as physically modify it.

What I don't understand is why Brooks doesn't mention Sam Harris. Brooks writes:

The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

Harris has already gone in that direction (minus the "sacred"), as have the organizations mentioned above. If I were to anticipate the direction the debate is headed, I would say look to Marc Hauser, whom Brooks does mention, and the nature of moral judgment (and also Steven Pinker). Here is where we might find that religion and god are not as necessary as we have been conditioned to think (but we experience them as necessary, as evidenced by the fact that they won't go away). Then maybe we can finally dispense with piffle such as: God put animals on the Earth for humans to use.

On "King Corn"

"King Corn" is:

a feature documentary about two friends, one acre of corn, and the subsidized crop that drives our fast-food nation. In King Corn, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, best friends from college on the east coast, move to the heartland to learn where their food comes from. With the help of friendly neighbors, genetically modified seeds, and powerful herbicides, they plant and grow a bumper crop of America's most-productive, most-subsidized grain on one acre of Iowa soil. But when they try to follow their pile of corn into the food system, what they find raises troubling questions about how we eat-and how we farm.

Yes, the film features Michael Pollan, but you'll get over that. And his "Americans are corn chips with legs" quote is verified when the filmmakers get their hair analyzed and find out the dominant ingredient in their make up is indeed corn.

The oddest thing about the film is that after having visited feedlots and seen the conditions cows are forced to live in, and been within inches of a cow's diseased stomach (while she's alive and in a contraption that holds her still while a researcher reaches into her stomach through her side), they still have no qualms about eating meat (or anything else, for that matter). There is one moment at the end where they enter a convenience store (which they do often in the film) and realize there isn't one thing they can purchase that doesn't have a corn-based ingredient in it (they look through the products to check). You think there's going to be some commentary--some hint that the young men have changed as a result of their journey.  And maybe they have. But if so, I missed it. That moment in the convenience store was ambiguous, and perhaps as documentary filmmakers they didn't want to comment. But let's face it, with every frame of them eating another hamburger, they're commenting.

Check out PBS' Independent Film arm, Independent Lens, which has an interactive section dedicated to King Corn. It provides behind the scenes details, clips from the film, an "eating challenge" (Can you go a week without eating corn?), corn facts, and of course a page on Cows and Corn. I found the Learn More page useful, particularly for its sources.

Though this film addresses the eating of animals, it in no way--no way--makes a statement that eating them should stop for any reason or is terribly unhealthy. In fact, in the section of the film where corn syrup is addressed, soda is painted as the real evil, causing obesity and diabetes. And when medical experts are consulted regarding diabetes and they talk about diet and exercise, they at no point mention any particular foods as being unhealthy (except soda and other sweetened drinks). If I were an average American, this film might scare me into exploring "sustainable" meat (which is more expensive, and it's our requirement for cheap food that largely got us into this mess) and eliminating soda from my diet, but that's about it.

King Corn is great for enviros, though most I know are already familiar with the story. For those of you who are filmmakers, there's make a statement about food contest that closes on May 30. You make your own short using clips from the film and your own clips (and the Eyespot tool), and you can win $1,000 and lots of other prizes.

I wouldn't recommend using this film as a tool for conversion to anything other than meat produced someplace other than a factory farm. There are several clips of cows--and calves--meandering across grassy fields on sunny days that would make the average person run to Whole Foods because, you know, the meat they sell there comes from places like that, which makes it okay to eat. Oh, and healthier. In that sense, this film is a 90 minute commercial for grass-fed beef. However, it's not to be completely dismissed because of its treatment of the history of corn (and farming and subsidies) in America, which every American needs to know.