Animal Person

Three Takes on "Humane" Animal Products

Today's theme is "humane" fill-in-the-blank.

1. First, from Dallas Rising of Minnesota's Animal Rights Coalition, we have The Humane Farming Myth brochure, which ties into HumaneMyth.org. I like that #1 under "What You Can Do" is "Eat plant-based (vegan) foods," and of course the focus on how the public is being misled by all the talk of "humane" treatment is fantastic. The "humane" discussion makes the factory farm discussion moot, I think, in that if you know what's going on to produce "humane" animal products, there's no way you'd find factory-farmed products acceptable. Later today I'm going to add a category--or maybe a page--for pamphlets/brochures/handouts (/leaflets? And what's the difference, anyway?) to facilitate easy access of everyone's materials.
2. Check out Compassionate Cooks tomorrow for an audio file of Colleen's commentary about "humanely raised animals" that is airing on KQED, her local NPR station.
3. Once again, The New York Times demonstrates its confusion about animal rights. This time, it's Nicholas D. Kristof, ironically, the champion of the voiceless, exploited and massacred (humans, that is) in his "A Farm Boy Reflects," which is largely about California's Proposition 2. I'm surprised by how flippant he is when speaking about animal suffering, considering how passionate about and dedicated he is to decreasing the exploitation and suffering of humans. There's an odd disconnect there.

If You Can Eat a Cow, You Can Eat a Rabbit

We've all heard they myriad rationales people tell themselves to justify taking-or paying someone to take-the life of another sentient being because they like the taste of that being's flesh.

A week ago, Kim Honey of the Toronto Star wrote about her flirtation with locavorism by attending a class taught by survival expert Gino Ferri where she killed a rabbit (called "it," of course). Or at least she tried.

As my right arm began its downward arc, thick stick in my left hand, I hesitated. In an instant and without thought, my killer hit turned into a tap on the temple. The rabbit wasn't even stunned.

I lost my nerve and handed it over to Ferri, who killed it with three sharp hits.

If you were stranded alone in the bush, would you kill a sentient being? Ferri (shown in the video) teaches people valuable survival skills, killing animals that he doesn't need to kill, but someone else might someday need to kill, which I suppose is the justification he uses to assuage his conscience. He calls the killing of the animals "dispatching" and says "I'm still tied up in knots every time I dispatch an animal."

There's an easy way to prevent that tied-up-in-knots feeling. Oh, wait, teaching survival classes is a business, so I assume that there's an amount of money that makes that feeling go away, or at least suddenly become worthwhile.

Stuff to Watch, Stuff to Pass Around

"A Life Connected," Part 1

Part 2

I particularly liked the part about how 95% of Americans feel it is wrong to unnecessarily hurt and kill helpless animals, while 95% of Americans continue to unnecessarily hurt and kill helpless animals so they can eat them. Go to A Life Connected, which is a project of Nonviolence United, where you can find a Nonviolence Guide. There's also a brochure for A Life Connected which is gorgeous and has some beautiful photos.

Next, Joey of Animal Emancipation (/The Starting Point) created a trifold brochure promoting veganism that is in English on one side and French on the other and has a haunting photo of a cow. It addresses "Being used like an animal," the belief that animals aren't ours to use, the reality that welfare is not a commitment to ending animal exploitation, and of course the ways individuals can promote change.

Gary Francione also has a trifold brochure called Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, also available in German (click here for that one), which I'm sure you already know about. But just in case . . .

On Helping Animals Then Using Them

Did you catch the story of Molly the pony, who was left behind in her barn during Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana? She was found by a rescue group two weeks after the hurricane and subsequently attacked by dogs who badly injured one of her front legs. The leg was amputated, which is unusual for a horse. The surgery was done at Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine and she was fitted with a prosthetic leg.

That's enough to make you cry.

But then there's the end of the story, which is that Molly is trucked around from hospital to hospital, as sort of a therapy pony. She goes to places where there are sick children, who apparently learn about survival from Molly and that being different or having a prosthetic limb isn't a big deal. The journalist in this particular story says: "It's about what you do with your life . . . And Molly is giving back . . . giving hope where it's sometimes hard to find. A little pony with a higher purpose."

I kept thinking: After all she's been through, can't you just leave her alone? Can't she live at the sanctuary and have (as many as possible of) her decisions be her own? Does she have to have a job? Of course, as far as "jobs" go, hers probably isn't so bad. But that's not the point. She's not really "giving back" so much as humans are finding another way to take from her. And for me, at the end of the story, that was the point.

Chinese Vegan Rock Musician Denied Visa by Germany

Chinese vegan rocker Xie Zheng was invited to play and speak at the International Vegetarian Union's World Vegetarian Congress, which begins in Dresden today. Xie is also an officer of the Chinese Vegetarian Union and founder of the vegan advocacy group "Don't Eat Friends." He was to be the only Chinese delegate at the World Congress.

Unfortunately, the German embassy in Beijing denied him a visa. Vegan Social Club (in Beijing) co-founder Chris Barden immediately implemented a letter-writing campaign to German Ambassador Dr. Michael Schaefer to reconsider, but alas, Schaefer chose not to change his decision (use the "kontakt per e-mail" button if you wish to send a message).

In his blog, Chris writes:

[H]ow often do idealistic young Chinese vegetarians get invited to Dresden by hundred-year-old European institutions to meet “the world”, play music and exchange ideas on peace? How often do Chinese individuals get portrayed positively in the European press? How often do European media have the chance to report positive, accurate stories about progressive areas like vegetarianism, non-violence and animal advocacy in China?

Let me make a wild guess: Not as often as a sort of faceless, impersonal “China” gets portrayed negatively and (almost always) inaccurately for a very narrow range of stereotypical “bad news” items.

And yet, when a real live Chinese idealist of impeccable ethics is invited by a venerable, century-old European institution, you’re not interested in enabling the world to hear that “good news” story.

As we here in the US know very well, there is never a shortage of stories about China (though I wouldn't say Chinese individuals) regarding human rights, animal rights or the environment, that make boycotting China a fairly easy decision for most people.

However, just as we talk about the importance of individual animals, we should acknowledge that the individuals in China, such as Scarlett Zhang, founder of Beijing Cat, who rescues and rehomes stray cats in Beijing, don't all represent the policies of the government and don't all have the wonton disregard for animal life that our news stories about China (particularly from animal advocacy organizations) depict.

I don't understand why Xie Zheng was denied a visa, and I'm going to write to the ambassador and simply ask him about his decision-making process. I'll let you know if I get a reply.

And now for the $64,000 question, the answer to which might be that it's some kind of inside joke, but: What's with the superheroes?

Wayne Pacelle: The Human Conundrum

When I saw Dan's comment on Thursday's post that begins with "Wayne Pacelle is a hypocritical fraud who speaks out of both sides of his mouth" I thought: thems is fightin' words. I don't know Wayne personally, and I've always wondered whether he thinks we have the right to use animals. I would think his vegan standard for himself wouldn't include a more-than-full-time job in conflict with veganism.

He's a walking conundrum, with the root of the problem being his veganism (or so I thought). If he weren't a vegan, I'd feel much, much better about his intentions and his actions. But the manifestation of his veganism baffles me.

As an exercise, I decided to examine some of his quotes to decide if I agreed with Dan, whose comment initially struck me as harsh. What I discovered, much to my chagrin, was that veganism isn't the main issue. The issue is welfare and how little sense it makes to me.

In a Cattle Network interview, Wayne says that 1 in 30 Americans backs the HSUS, and what I want to know is: why? About the HSUS mission, Wayne says:

We confront . . . the worst abuses of factory farming such as confinement of animals in crates and cages; inhumane and unsporting hunting practices such as "canned hunts" of captive exotic animals; and the clubbing of baby seals and other animals for the commercial fur trade.

Welfare, then, as HSUS would never claim to be a rights group, says: You can use and abuse sentient nonhumans. You can slaughter them. You can hunt them. What we want is to curb some of the worst abuses, but we don't want to get in the way of the other abuses that are inherent in the system as well as other abuses that aren't inherent in it. Does 1 in every 30 Americans think that sounds like a worthwhile mission? Are they okay with all of the abuse and cruelty that HSUS doesn't want to stop, like all other hunting and all other ways to kill animals for their fur, and everything else that occurs in order to turn a cow into meat?

Wanna Teach College?

Okay, this offer isn't exactly for everyone. But if you're interested and qualified, and want to move to Ontario (it is beautiful, I must say), or you know someone who fits the bill, please respond and/or circulate . . .

July 23, 2008

The Department of Sociology at Brock University is excited to offer an upcoming tenure-track position in Critical Animal Studies.

http://www.brocku.ca/hr/careers/position_detail.php?id=545

Assistant Professor Sociology
Posting #:  Fr 29/2008
Posted: Jul 9, 2008
Employment Status:  Probationary Tenure Track
Start: 2009-07-01
Faculty: Faculty of Social Sciences
Department: Sociology

Responsibilities
The Department of Sociology at Brock University invites applications for a probationary (tenure track) position at the rank of Assistant Professor, effective July 1, 2009, subject to final budgetary approval.

Qualifications
The successful candidate will have a recently completed Ph.D. in Sociology or related discipline, evidence of successful undergraduate teaching, and an independent research program. Areas of interest may include animal rights, environmental justice, animal exploitation in economic systems, interlocking animal and human oppressions, and cultural politics of animals. Ability to teach research design, methods and/or theory from a critical sociological perspective is an asset.

Notes
Applicants should submit by January 15, 2009, a letter of application, accompanied by a curriculum vitae, selected reprints of published work, and three letters of reference to:

Dr. June Corman, Chair
Department of Sociology
Brock University
St. Catharines, Ontario,
L2S 3A1

All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. Brock University is actively committed to diversity and the principles of Employment Equity and invites applications from all qualified candidates. Women, Aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities, and people with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply and may choose to identify
themselves as a member of a designated group as part of their application. Candidates who wish to have their application considered as a member of one or more designated groups should fill out the Self-Identification Form available at http://www.brocku.ca/humanrights/images/selfIdentification.doc and include the completed form with their application. More information on Brock University can be found at www.brocku.ca and on our department at www.brocku.ca/sociology.

Application Deadline: Jan 15, 2009

Brock University 500 Glenridge Avenue
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
L2S 3A1 Phone: 905-688-5550
Questions?

Brock University
Linda Landry
Administrative Assistant
Department of Sociology
Brock University,
St. Catharines, ON
L2S 3A1
905 688 5550 Ext 3455

On "Why Vegan is the New Atkins"

Call me crazy, but the title "Why Vegan is the New Atkins" (a post by Kathy Freston at The Huffington Post) tells me that vegan, whatever that is, is a way to lose weight quickly that will spread, as a trend, like wildfire, only to be proven unhealthy and fade away.

But that's not the point.

Freston rehashes a handful of basics about why low-carb diets aren't healthy and why eating animals, in general, isn't good for you. There are links in the article, and for people for whom this is all news, I'm sure that's helpful (until you get to the several links to PeTA pages. The pages themselves might not be a problem, but if they persuade someone to give money, not realizing the scope of the activities of PeTA, such as promoting animal products, that's a problem).

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Freston uses "animal flesh" rather than "meat," here and there, and that in the penultimate paragraph she does say that veganism "is not a diet, it's a lifestyle transition." Yeah, "transition" is odd, but I think I understand what she's saying. Then again, the final paragraph says "it's worth reading up a bit on how to maximize the health advantages of a vegan diet." So now it's a diet.

I'm happy that Kathy Freston is able to reach millions of people and get some of them, including Oprah, to consider veganism. But comparing it to Atkins screams Look here! A strategy for quick weight loss! And that's in addition to the post being ambiguous about whether veganism is a diet.

Finally, when you provide links in your posts, there's an unspoken approval of the content and the host of the links, at least in my mind, unless you specifically provide a disclaimer. For instance, "I don't agree with the way PeTA exploits women in their campaigns, and I certainly don't agree that people interested in animal rights should promote animal products, which PeTA does, but they do have some helpful material on cooking" (or whatever. Cooking is actually a terrible example due to the many cooking sites that at no point endorse animal products, but you get my point, I hope.) So Freston's links, including PCRM, which I don't have a problem with, and PeTA, which I do, tell you about her and what she approves of (and whom she might give to), so the links aren't just harmless suggestions (depending on how you feel about the hosts of the links).

On Progressives Who Aren't So Progressive

Part of the "compassionate carnivore" phenomenon, in my experience, is that many of these omnivores (I can't write carnivore and take is seriously) are not being honest, which I think is clear by now, but they also think they're being "progressive," which is worrisome. Many are already anti-Bush (but then again so are most Americans according to polls, so I don't know if that should count as significant), and are educated and would consider themselves to the left on the political spectrum. They demonstrate compassion toward others in different parts of their lives, and they have decided it's time to demonstrate compassion toward nonhumans, and they're going to do that by . . . killing and eating them.

Why is it so difficult for most progressives to take the rights of sentient nonhumans seriously? Doesn't it follow that those who respect and participate in the struggles for justice toward others (including the environment), would include the close to 50 billion nonhuman animals we slaughter each year? Why don't they acknowledge that speciesism can be thought of as a form of (and probably the oldest form of) fascism? When one race or breed proclaims that it is superior (/exceptional) and has been endowed with the right (either by a god or by what it sees as the undeniable fact of its superiority) to dominate and exploit all other races and breeds (who of course are inferior), that is fascism.

With few exceptions, the people in my close social circle consider themselves progressives. They will fight for the rights of others and their friends consider them "bleeding heart liberals." They are voting for Obama. They work for social justice in various ways, either by trade or in their philanthropy. And with few exceptions, they all eat animals, often including lobster, veal and foie gras, which most people consider "worse" than other foods made from animals. Some even reject capitalism (theoretically). My friends know what fascism is, and despise the very idea of it, yet don't recognize it when they see it in behemoth proportions.

I find it all unfathomable. But at least I'm not alone.

As Patrice Greanville wrote last year at Cyrano's Journal (and the Daily Kos and the Smirking Chimp, and some of the most embarrassing comments follow):

Do Not Read if Already Annoyed

Roger directed me to "Ethics@Work: Animal Rights: Are they good for people?" (and yes, there's a double colon), which I wasn't going to write about because I was almost too annoyed by it. But then I read " A Locally Grown Diet with Fuss but No Muss," by Kim Severson in today's New York Times, part of which was just as annoying so I figured I'd put them together, toss them to you, and perform some kind of exorcism to remove the memory of having read them.

Let's deconstruct:

• The Ethics@Work article at The Jerusalem Post, by Asher Meir, and the subsequent comments may cause multiple rollings of the eyeballs, so be prepared. This is a great opportunity to correct misconceptions and introduce an idea that the author has apparently never heard about--in whatever language you wish--the idea that animals aren't ours to use. Meir writes:

Today's animal-rights movement is strongly influenced by the utilitarian approach; a leading figure in the movement is the orthodox-utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer of Princeton, who asserts that great apes have the same cognitive level as human children and should therefore be granted comparable rights.

I perceive a philosophical fallacy in the activists' position. They speak in the absolutist rhetoric of rights, yet the underpinning of their approach is utilitarianism, a philosophy of expediency that is ultimately incompatible with rights.

So he thinks he's onto something and he's the first one to notice that Singer might not be interested in animal rights.

• The real issue is the "they" that follows, as if all animal rights activists=Peter Singer, who's not even an animal rights activist.
• "Peter Singer, the main philosophical authority behind the animal-rights movement." If you're going to talk about animal rights, at least mention Regan or Francione, who actually address the topic. What's funny, but not, is that Meir is a research director. You would think that one who knows how to research wouldn't make the mistakes Meir makes.

On Small Increments of Success (?)

Steve Ross, the supervisor of behavioral and cognitive research at the Lester Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes at the Lincoln Park Zoo, is pleased that a growing number of companies have said they will stop using primates in advertisements. He explains why in "Chimps Aren't Chumps" in today's New York Times.

I assume no one reading this wants primates to be used in advertisements. Ross says that having companies pledge not to use them is some sort of progress: a small increment of success.

I also assume that some people are going to say it's not progress because it's based on a speciesist premise (it absolutely is). In addition to how exceptional (and exceptionally like us) chimpanzees are, Ross refers to the public's "dangerous impression that chimpanzees have a safe and comfortable existence" because of their use in advertisements. This is very much like yesterday's post about orangutans no longer being forced to "act."

Ross writes: "Misrepresentations of chimpanzees may not be as repugnant as racism, bigotry or sexism. But they can still serve as a benchmark for our society’s moral progress." I do want to ask him why he stops at misrepresentation and doesn't consider the idea of holding them captive in a zoo and using them for entertainment. Perhaps then his sense of repugnance might rise. I also want to ask him why being like us is so darn important that it appears to be one of two reasons they deserve respect (the other is that they are in danger in the wild--as presumably captivity isn't a problem for them).

Given the myriad points of disagreement I have with Ross, part of me wants to make it simple and object to everything he says and stands for. And I can come close. But it's not that tidy, as I can agree that ceasing the use of chimpanzees in advertising is indeed a small increment of success. (Got a microscope?)

I'd imagine that any time we stop using a sentient nonhuman, in the beginning (i.e., now), the reason will be either that they're so much like us or that the use causes them too much suffering. Discontinuing the use of any species isn't likely to happen because it's not right to use them--at least not in 2008. This doesn't mean we change what we say or what we want, but it does mean we have to address what others will believe are successes and decide where we stand.   

Is it a small increment of success that chimps won't be used in advertisements and orangutans will no longer be forced to "act?" What do you think?

On Speciesism and Animal Actors

I saw The Dark Knight on Friday and when the Rottweilers came on screen I thought, "People who have Rottweilers sure must do a lot of damage control because of movies like this." (There are vicious, man-eating Rottweilers in the film, and in fact one gets through Batman's gear to injure him--that's how vicious and powerful Rottweilers are. . . . I guess.) I've got it easy. In Charlie Wilson's War, when Julia Roberts as socialite Joanne Herring glides across the screen flanked by these Greyhounds, and her home has paintings of her with the regal hounds, no one leaves the theater thinking, "Boy, I'm crossing to the other side of the street the next time I see one of those things coming my way."

Poor Rottweilers. Speciesism takes many forms and works for some sentient nonhumans, and against others.

And whether all of the dogs were fake (some were these dogs) doesn't really matter, as the damage is done for the breed. (Though I'd much rather fake dogs be used.)

One thing's for certain regarding animal actors: "Hollywood's sole supplier of orangutans decided to quit renting them out and send six of them to an Iowa sanctuary" last week. Of course, that's great news for the orangutans, who don't care why they no longer have to work. The reason isn't related to their genetics or intelligence, but to their small numbers.

"Using nonhuman primates in entertainment venues like films, television and advertisements certainly doesn't enhance public attitudes toward their conservation, and doesn't get across the message about their precarious situation in the wild," said Lori Perkins of Atlanta's zoo, who heads the Orangutan Species Survival Plan. . . .

Wildlife experts say the estimated 62,000 orangutans remaining in the wild could be wiped out within decades as loggers and palm oil farmers destroy their Asian forest habitats.

(There's that orangutan/Earth Balance connection again. Can't seem to shake it, these days.)

So the reason the orangutans won't be forced to act anymore is because people don't treat conservation seriously when the animals are forced to act? That makes no sense to me, but I'm happy the decision has been made.

Why is it that humans take whatever they can from nonhumans, and when they've used and abused them to the brink of extinction, then they start to care about their well-being and future?

On Atheism, Animal Rights and God

There I was, about half way through Christopher Hitchens' THE PORTABLE ATHEIST on a rainy Wednesday. I stopped for a break to have some lunch and go to my post office box, wherein I discovered a copy-for-review of EVERY CREATURE A WORD OF GOD, by Annika Spalde and Pelle Strindlund (originally published in Swedish and recently translated into English). The subtitle of the book is "Compassion for Animals as Christian Spirituality," while the subtitle of the Hitchens book is "Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever."

I may not believe in a god but I do find religion fascinating and I realize that far more people than not are members of some religion or other, and I've always considered it part of my job to try to understand why they believe what they believe and where it fits into their lives. My dad, for instance, was a seminarian and wanted to be a Roman Catholic priest for many years and in fact trained to be one. He is what most people would call a "progressive Catholic," though when I list his beliefs I wonder if other Catholics consider him to be one of them. For instance, he thinks women should be priests, he has less of a problem with homosexuality in the Church (and elsewhere) than any other 75-year old Catholic man, and he does not believe that all of the Bible should be taken literally. That last one is the cause of many frustrating conversations for me, as if you don't believe there really was an Adam, an Eve and a Noah, and that all of that is metaphor, why do you then believe that (there was a) Jesus (who) was resurrected?

My dad's the person I mentioned a while back who's still waiting by the mailbox for his medal for not eating veal. Kielbasa's his favorite food (you can take the man out of Eastern Europe, but you can't take Eastern Europe out of the man, I suppose), and yes, he knows what it is.

I was eager to read my new book because I thought I might pass it on to my dad, with whom I have made no progress regarding animals in two decades. My thinking is that maybe people who share his beliefs will be able to convince him to examine what he chooses to eat a bit more closely. He looks at me as being so different from him and considers my personal ethics so alien--yet my choice. Perhaps an ordained deacon (Spalde) and a person with an MA in Religious Studies (Strindlund), both of whom have been imprisoned for their beliefs and both of whom have extensive knowledge of the lives of the saints as well as the Bible, will be the teachers my father is ready to hear. I have nothing to lose.

The book's Introduction states that it will "offer tools for reflection on how to follow Jesus today . . . [and it is] also a book about the joy of living a value-driven life (1)." Part of me gets defensive when I read that, as I have a value-driven life that I enjoy already, and it has nothing to do with Jesus, any religion or any god. But then I remind myself that I'm screening the book as a possible resource for my dad.

And it doesn't disappoint, although there is one major concern. First, the ways it doesn't disappoint:

From Vegan to Butcher

Here's a free book idea in case anyone is fresh out: stories about people who were vegans and now eat animals (or are butchers, and here's one who's new to me, care of Grist) juxtaposed with stories about people who used to eat animals and now don't.

I can understand vegetarians deciding to eat animals, as their focus, from my experience, is on harm. If it were on use, they wouldn't be eating eggs and dairy. (And according to this article, if it were on the environment, they'd be eating chickens instead of eggs and dairy.)

What I find far more difficult to understand is how someone can be a vegan, and I assume that person objects to the exploitation and slaughter of sentient beings, and then for some reason decide that maybe they were misinformed about the exploitation and slaughter. Maybe they've convinced themselves that some other cause, such as the environment, is at odds with veganism and is indeed more important than their previous stance on sentient beings. Maybe the kind of vegan they were involved a lot of processed and/or fried food, and they have convinced themselves that "everything in moderation" is a healthier diet.

Maybe they convinced themselves that they couldn't get enough protein.

The Grist article referenced above ("Confronting Your Inner Carnivore") features a butcher who used to be a vegan and a "committed vegetarian" who attended a class on "whole-carcass breakdown," but was permitted to attend only after she demonstrated that she was not an "anti-meat activist."

The author of the article, Roz Cummins, was I think as stunned as I that the butcher/chef is a former vegan and will be posting an in-depth interview with him about his "dramatic transition." I'd like to see more interviews like that, as I think they'll help us, as activists, determine where we are going wrong.

I'm not saying that anyone's backsliding is the fault or responsibility of anyone else. I'm simply saying that the stories of former vegans might teach us something about our outreach and education efforts.

And on an unrelated note, and in light of the Carol J. Adams-inspired post from earlier in the week, check out another Grist post, also from yesterday, on PeTA's exploitation of women (and the subsequent discussion), and the much longer discussion from earlier this year ("Which PeTA campaign do you hate the most?" at Feministing.com.

On Misunderstanding What Compassionate Carnivore Means

Tuesday's post, "On Honest Meat and Absent Referents," as well as others that mention "compassionate carnivores" have been frequented by some people who are then misconstruing them. I have no control over that, nor do I have the time to visit forums and discussion boards. I get in my daily blog early in the day and that's about all I'm able to do other than check in to moderate comments.

I can definitely see how one could spend entire days chatting with others, discussing the myriad important issues that veganism raises (or responds to), and I do wish I could spend some days (or even hours!) doing that. But alas . . .

Here's what I've seen, as well as what I've read in my inbox: that by saying compassionate carnivore is an oxymoron, I'm saying that the person who does the eating of the animals cannot in any way be considered as behaving compassionately in any area of their lives.

Not true.

Compassionate is a modifier (and is one of many syntactic functions): a grammatical element that is usually an adjective (or adjective clause) or an adverb (or adjective clause) that qualifies the word it is next to.

Basic Principle: Modifiers are like teenagers: they fall in love with whatever they're next to. Make sure they're next to something they ought to modify!

It is a "pre-modifier," if you must know, in that it is placed before the "head" (that is, the modified component, which could technically stand alone).

Compassionate is modifying carnivore. Not because I said so, but because of where it is placed and how it is (correctly) used by the people who describe themselves as such.

On Coconut Avocado Pie and Vegetarian Eggs

I've tweaked my famous Coconut Avocado Cream Pie, which was originally a macaroon recipe and a raw pie recipe, artfully combined, if I say so myself, and which is technically a tart.

• I no longer use Ener-G egg replacer because I've been trying to make my food as healthy as possible, with the simplest ingredients.
• All ingredients are organic, but that's certainly not necessary. Some are local. If I plan well, which I didn't this time, I can use coconut and coconut milk from a neighbor's tree.
• I used a combination of fresh, organic coconut and unsweetened organic shredded coconut I bought at Whole Foods.
• Though I'm not overly-concerned about fat, I did start using light coconut milk, as neither the crust nor the filling is particularly wanting in fat (read: this recipe isn't for those on low-fat diets).
• I cooked the crust for under 10 minutes, but then wondered why I had to cook it at all. Any ideas?
• Then I wondered why I needed spelt flour at all, and was thinking that some crushed walnuts would do just fine AND add Omega-3s! I think that's my next revision.
• The original recipe called for one teaspoon of lemon zest, which is fine, but I upped it to two because I like a bit more than a vague hint of lemon.
• As with the original recipe, there will be a lot left over after you've pressed the crust to the pan (and I made my crust pretty thick). There's enough for two pies if the crust doesn't creep as much up the side, or one pie and a dozen macaroons (which do take nearly 30 minutes to cook). I tried melting dark chocolate and dipping the macaroon bottoms in it, but the carrot taste is fairly strong, as is the lemon, and I didn't love the taste of it. But that's me.

Believe it or not, the original recipe I posted last July is one of my five most popular posts of all time and still gets hits daily. Who knew?

Without further ado . . . 

On Honest Meat and Absent Referents

Angus directed me to Honest Meat (did I lose half of you? Does your head hurt?), and I couldn't stop thinking about Carol Adams' The Sexual Politics of Meat (and other texts by her). It's just a blog, like Animal Person is just a blog, but it nevertheless raises important concerns for us as it gives us yet another small window into the lives and thoughts of people who probably think that they care a lot about nonhuman animals, and that their actions demonstrate how much they care.

I will use only one passage: a mere two sentences from the July 9 entry at Honest Meat, and then quote Adams. Referring to a gorgeous cow (there's a photo), the Honest Meat author writes:

"Yes, she will be sitting on my dinner plate eventually, a fact of life for most farm animals.  We are not operating a farm sanctuary- we have to make a living from what we raise, and thus, those animals have to produce something for human consumption."

Without rereading Adams, I flip through the text to what I have already underlined, and here's a smattering:

• "One does not eat meat without the death of an animal. Live animals are thus the absent referents in the concept of meat. The absent referent permits us to forget about the animal as an independent entity; it also enables us to resist efforts to make animals present (51)." The animals are "what" the author of the blog raises and they "have to produce something." The animals are mere commodities whom we have decided must "produce" so we may take from them, by force of course, whatever (and whenever) we wish.

NYT Says Animal Rights is "Easy to Mock"

Today's New York Times presents Adam Cohen, begging to be mocked with his "What's Next in the Law? The Unalienable Rights of Chimps." I was surprised that the "Editorial Observer" piece was published in its current form because it sounds so ignorant and insulting. But then I realized it's simply a reflection of what the average educated, well-read person in America thinks.

Let's deconstruct:

• The backstory is that Spain's parliament passed a resolution granting legal rights to apes. The resolution calls for "banning research that harms apes," which is like saying they shouldn't be subject to "unnecessary suffering." What is harm? Why not have a complete ban on research on them? Or say they can only be observed and not touched and their sanctuary environment cannot be altered, leaving ethology the only option?
• Cohen writes:

Granting legal rights to apes is, of course, easy to mock — and animal rights activists don’t do themselves any favors. In media accounts, they usually come off as loopy — whether it is Matthew’s supporters insisting that “everyone is entitled to a fair trial, even chimps,” or Pedro Pozas, the secretary-general of the Spanish Great Ape Project, declaring “I am an ape.”

Here are my questions: Why is it easy to mock? What doesn't Cohen understand about the right to not be owned and used by another? What isn't he grasping about the significance of "I am an ape?" Cohen's unwillingness (I'm trying to be kind and assume it's unwillingness rather than obtuseness) to comprehend such a simple concept--that I'm assuming he researched in order to write his article--is puzzling.

• Cohen then writes:

The animal rights movement also suffers from association with its least appealing advocates. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals constantly sets back its cause with boneheaded moves, like the ad it ran juxtaposing photos of penned-up animals with starving Jews in concentration camps.

Boneheaded? What has the world come to when the (arguably) venerable New York Times uses a word like boneheaded? Meanwhile, I coincidentally have been watching "Holocaust," which was a miniseries featuring Meryl Streep, James Woods and Tovah Feldshuh that first aired in 1978, and I was thinking about what we do to sentient nonhumans the entire time I was watching. I couldn't help it. And as I've said many times, what we do to sentient nonhumans is worse because we breed them only to exterminate them, and more important, the reality that appropriate moral outrage over what we do to sentient nonhumans is expressed by only a minuscule percentage of humans is frightening.

People Hurt at Bull Run Survive, Bulls Don't

Like many people, when I think of Pamplona's bull run, I'm disgusted with humans.

Over a dozen people were hurt this year, including an American, and of course the bulls were brutally slaughtered.

When I watch the brief video of part of the run my heart sinks and I am nauseated and embarrassed that so many of my kind find the thought of harming the majestic creatures entertaining. I experience what can only be a tiny bit of the terror and confusion the bulls are feeling. And I wonder if they know that things will only get much, much worse for them.

Then I want justice and I silently wish for the bulls to trample on the people.

There . . . I've said it.

Abuse of Immigrants at Slaughterhouses, Part Deux

When I wrote about Professor Erik Camayd-Freixas speaking up for migrants, I had yet to read his essay in its entirety. Here it is, and the events (and Camayd-Freixas' commentary) are more appalling (though not shocking, knowing what our government is capable of) than I originally thought.

I recommend reading the essay, which is not unrelated to our activism (which of course can easily be deemed "terrorism" by government agencies that want to demonstrate success and legitimize their budgets, all the while not moving any closer to identifying and addressing any real threats).

The "fast-tracking" operation described was a dress rehearsal of sorts for a near future filled with the dehumanization, criminalization and imprisonment of people already being exploited by corporations (such as slaughterhouses) run by people who are unlikely to ever pay a similar price.

But enough from me. Let the Professor fill you in on all the details . . .