Animal Person

On Paul Watson and Property Damage

In fact, it is only through diversity that any movement can survive, and this diversity demands tolerance of all participating groups within the spectrum of action for each other. It makes little sense for a mainstream group to waste resources and time attacking the ALF or the ELF. There is nothing that a mainstream group can do to prevent actions by covert activist groups or individuals. Agreement to disagree is the only solution. When challenged to justify an action by a covert group, a mainstream group should reply by saying that it is unfortunate that the problem or the threat is so extreme that some people have been moved to take extreme measures to address it.

                --Paul Watson, "ALF and ELF--Terrorism Is as Terrorism Does" in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

The mainstream world got a small dose of Paul Watson in Newsweek's "The Whale Man," by Jimmy Langman.

You have argued that your tactics are legal. How so?

We are upholding the U.N. Charter of Nature and operating within the principles of this charter, which allows for non-governmental organizations to intervene to uphold international conservation law. For instance, in 1986 we sunk half of Iceland's whaling fleet, and that might sound like it's illegal, but I did go to Reykjavik to demand that they charge me and they refused to do so. Because they knew that to put me on trial would be to put themselves on trial.

So here's my question: If you believe that property damage (you know, like sinking half a whaling fleet) is violence and you don't believe violence has a place in the movement, what about property damage in the service of upholding the law? Is that okay? Does the law have anything to do with how you feel about property damage?

On ANIMALS AS PERSONS

Gary Francione's Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation is a collection of previously-published individual essays (some with postscripts) and a new chapter, the "Introduction: The Abolition of Animal Use Versus the Regulation of Animal Treatment."

Animals as Persons is, in my opinion, more readable than Francione's Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? and Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. This latest book also covers much of the same ground, in addition to much of what Francione writes about on his blog. In that sense, it's the one resource for all things abolitionist (as he defines it). As this is a scholarly book, I would have a hard time recommending it to the average person. However, for animal rights activists, who are constantly bombarded with questions and scenarios from people often intending to try to stump them more than to try to understand them (unfortunately), this book puts all of the classic Francione stories and responses in one place. And though I was initially startled by the absence of an Index, the Reference Guide to Selected Topics, which is in narrative form with page references, is very useful.

Ex: "Ethical theory concerning nonhuman animals seeks to clarify how we should resolve conflicts between humans and nonhumans. These conflicts are, for the most part, ones we create because we regard animals as property and bring them into existence so that we can treat them as our resources. See pp. 13-14, 63-66, 152, 164 (232)."

On Columbia University Press, Zoographies and Francione

Senior executive editor for Religion, Philosophy, and Animal Studies at Columbia University Press (CUP), Wendy Lochner, recently wrote:

What is required is no less than a radical rethinking of the nature of humanity itself as inextricably cojoined with our nonhuman kin and in common cause with them.

It is this point of view that I (and many others) call animal studies, and it is my intention as an editor to foster interdisciplinary work from all fields that considers these and many other interrelated questions.

This, of course, is very exciting, and I encourage you to check out the titles, which are on sale until August 1 and include Gary Francione's new book, which I am half way through. There was an interview with Francione on the press' blog yesterday, where part of his final thought is: "The most important thing anyone can do is to become vegan and to educate others about why taking animals seriously means being vegan." For all of you who read yesterday's post, that sentence says either that being vegan and educating others are two separate things, or that they're one because he introduces them as the most important thing (singular).

I'm kidding! Let it be over! Smile! We agree to disagree!

As for Zoographies, by Matthew Calarco, here's the blurb on the CUP site:

Zoographies challenges the anthropocentrism of the Continental philosophical tradition and advances the position that, while some distinctions are valid, humans and animals are best viewed as part of an ontological whole. Matthew Calarco draws on ethological and evolutionary evidence and the work of Heidegger, who called for a radicalized responsibility toward all forms of life. He also turns to Levinas, who raised questions about the nature and scope of ethics; Agamben, who held the "anthropological machine" responsible for the horrors of the twentieth century; and Derrida, who initiated a nonanthropocentric ethics. Calarco concludes with a call for the abolition of classical versions of the human-animal distinction and asks that we devise new ways of thinking about and living with animals.

Now, before you try to reread that, let me say this. Like the blurb, the book starts off rocky, but it's worth it to stick with it to the end.

I studied philosophy, but only as it related to linguistics and critical theory (which is a lot), and I was familiar with some of the texts referred to by Calarco but by no means all. In addition, Derrida was my personal favorite (there's a no-brainer), and I had no idea about the extent to which he was interested in the question of the animal, so I started out with a handicap. Calarco lets me off the hook for not being familiar with certain Derrida texts, though.

While Derrida's readers can perhaps be forgiven for being caught off guard with respect to the importance of the question of the animal in his work, it is not difficult to demonstrate that this question is in fact important and decisive throughout his vast oeuvre (104).

My initial interest in this book was its treatment of Derrida, and because I'm writing my own book (about the animal question, rather than the question of the animal, as my reference point was the woman question), which is vastly different, however part of my job is to read all books relating to animals (definitely trade ones--academic ones are less urgent).

You don't have to know much about Heidegger, Levinas, Agamben or Derrida to understand the thrust of the book, which is a building or evolution toward current thought (which is to say, I'd venture: Where you are right now) regarding the human-animal distinction. You also don't need a dictionary of terms used in philosophy, although I'd recommend brushing up as parts of the book are loaded with jargon. But you have to remember that it's an academic book, so that's appropriate. Besides, there's always something in the discussion that you'll find accessible, such as a reference to someone more widely read, like Dawkins, Darwin, Singer or Regan. Furthermore, even if you remove all words or references you're unfamiliar with, you're still left with the story of how philosophers from Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries considered animals and our possible responsibilities toward them.

The payoff, for me, is the chapter on Derrida, which includes:

Despite his sympathy for the animal rights and animal liberation movements, he remains deeply skeptical of the notion that fundamental changes in our thinking and relation with animals can be effected through existing ethical and political discourses and institutions. . . . [H]e departs from dominant forms of animal rights discourse and practice inasmuch as he believes that a fundamental transformation of human-animal relations requires a deconstruction of the very notion of moral and legal rights and its underlying metaphysical and philosophical support (115).

Based as they are on a metaphysics of subjectivity and presence, it is clear that modern legal institutions will simply never regard animals as full legal subjects anymore than anthropocentric moral discourse will ever regard animals as full ethical subjects. And this should come as no surprise, given that traditional legal and moral discourse emerges out of an anthropocentric and metaphysical horizon that is grounded on chauvinism and exceptionalism. The dominant strategy of trying to reform this tradition rather than calling it radically into question is understandable but should be seen ultimately as a failure of imagination on the part of animal rights theorists.

Derrida would have us recast the question of the animal along entirely different lines and try to imagine other ways of conceiving of animal life and ethical relations between human beings and animals. The first thing to which Derrida would have us attend is the manner in which the concept of subjectivity has been constituted historically (131).

There's also a section linking deconstruction and vegetarianism (132-135), which I appreciated, but this is already getting a bit long.

What all of this leads to is an idea I think we can all benefit from:

Might not the challenge for philosophical thought today be to proceed altogether without the guardrails of the human-animal distinction and to invent new concepts and new practices along different paths (149)?

Stay tuned for a post on Francione's new book, as well as another book on CUP's list: This is Not Sufficient, by Leonard Lawlor.

Deconstructing a Review of The Compassionate Carnivore

I guess I'm going to have to buy The Compassionate Carnivore and review it myself rather than continue to write about what a ridiculous notion it is and how delusional its author, Catherine Friend, is. I'll purchase it from Amazon, as authors get a minuscule amount of cash for each book sale, and I shutter at the thought of Friend profiting in yet another way from the exploitation and slaughter of sentient nonhumans. Maybe I'll read it at Barnes & Noble. I've never done that, but certainly plenty of people do, and now that bookstores have designed their spaces as reading-friendly, I assume no one would mind if I spent a morning reading an entire book that I don't want to purchase.

Roger Yates directed me to "How to Love Animals and Eat Them, by Tim Lott in the UK's Telegraph. Though deconstructing a review is a bit odd, there are a couple of points that are worth raising until I'm able to take notes on the actual text.

• I must admit to a juvenile satisfaction upon reading: "Anyone expecting a philosophical treatise will be disappointed. Friend's writing style is hokey and sentimental with lots of exclamation marks and use of the vernacular - 'whoa!' 'nope!' 'oooh'."
• "Central to her argument is that vegetarians do nothing to help animals because by 'leaving the table' they do nothing to ensure that the inhumane, non-sustainable factory farming of the big meat producers can be ameliorated by small farmers like herself." The book is a 300-page advertisement for exploiting and slaughtering sentient nonhumans. Whether the way she exploits and slaughters them is different from the way things are done in a factory farm is irrelevant to me. By leaving the table, contrary to what Friend apparently thinks, I'm saying no to "big meat producers" and Friend. I'm doing far more for animals than she is. In fact, she treats animals as commodities "produced" for profit and other gain (her palate--she likes to eat them), just like Jim Perdue. Catherine Friend=Jim Perdue in the only way that matters; she uses and kills them and doesn't need to.
• Lott for some reason calls Friend "admirably practical in achieving her goal (although purists might also see her as conveniently flexible in her principles). To be a compassionate carnivore, you don't have to cut out factory-farmed meat, you don't have to eat organic (her own small farm is humane, but non-organic) you don't have to shun conventional farming." Friend, therefore, demonstrates the strength of her convictions (that are full of holes) by saying you don't really have to follow them.
• You all are going to love this next one, and it's the main reason I want to read the book: "All you have to do is respect animals and be prepared to make a little effort to search for what Friend calls 'happy meat'." Friend calls it happy meat? That's a fascinating twist. That's like a PeTA member calling himself a "new welfarist."
• Here's where it gets a bit scary. Friend admits that the suffering of animals cannot be eliminated (because she isn't considering eliminating their suffering by not using them, I assume), and then Lott writes: "It would all sound a bit of a cop-out, if it wasn't so clear that Friend loves animals so much - to an almost nauseating degree, in fact." No matter what Friend writes in her book, there is a word for people who say one thing but do another: hypocrite.
• Lott writes: "She squares this to herself by two not entirely rigorous arguments. First, she likes meat so why shouldn't she eat it? Second, so long as the animal lives a reasonably healthy and enjoyable life no moral law is being contravened." Ah, we finally get to the crux of the matter. She likes the taste of the flesh and secretions of sentient nonhumans, and she's going to say and do whatever is necessary to make it all okay. I'd like to hear more about her "moral laws" and why what she does is acceptable. I suppose though she won't use the word, speciesism is the answer.
• The other reason I want to read the book is that Lott refers to Friend's suggestion to "cultivate some sense of sacredness about the animals you eat." I look forward to Friend invoking sacredness while she's writing about the unnecessary slaughter of beings she claims to love.

My brain hurts thinking about what Friend must go through each day. All of the cognitive dissonance. All of the lies. All of the rationalization. If she really respected the lives of the animals, she wouldn't have to write a 300 page defense. She'd just stop using and eating them, and her actions would speak for themselves.

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 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 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.

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.

On AFTERSHOCK, by pattrice jones

I finally read pattrice jones' AFTERSHOCK: Confronting Trauma in a Violent World-A Guide for Activists and Their Allies, and found multiple points of entry, probably the most significant being the trauma of being lied to about nonhuman animals. Not just by my parents, but by my American "culture," by my teachers, and even by my therapists (one of whom asked me at age 15: You seem upset that the animals are being killed for food. Why is that? She did her best to make me feel mentally unstable for wanting to stop eating animals.).

Sure, there have been other traumas, such as from being a witness to extreme poverty in Haiti or the annihilated towns and orphaned children with missing limbs (or with limbs intact) in Bosnia. Or visiting a slaughterhouse. But being lied to and made to feel crazy for being cursed/blessed with experiencing the pain of nonhumans and the planet, is a wrong that is not easily forgotten. ("Any idea that creates or maintains an unnatural division both makes trauma more likely and makes recovery from trauma more difficult" [19]).

Let's get to my favorite passages (and they are all quotes, but all of the quotation marks were maddening so I removed them):

• One of the myths of human superiority is that we can transcend our feelings, while other animals are bound by theirs. This goes along with the idea that we can and should supercede our bodies, while animals are always bound to theirs (14).
• Like me, you may not entirely understand how your body managed to break food down into energy and mass for you to use to live and grow. But, if you think about it, you can see that your body--your self--is literally made up of things that used to be outside of you . . . . The interactions between nature and nurture begin before you are born, multiplying each other so that their effects cannot be untangled (33).
• People who enjoy privileges rooted in the violent exploitation of others are likely to use violence in defense of their pleasure. Activists who actually succeed in redistributing wealth or power run the greatest risk of backlash. That's why the government has cracked down so hard on earth and animal liberationists (who have cost exploitative industries hundreds of millions of dollars) while leaving antiwar activists (who have not yet lightened the pockets of war profiteers) to stage their marches and rallies in relative peace (42).
• I live at a chicken sanctuary in an area dominated by the poultry industry. If our neighbor who operates a factory farm were to come onto our property without permission in order to takes pictures of the birds at our sanctuary, he could be charged with trespassing. If I were to go onto his property without permission in order to take pictures of the birds locked on his farm, I could be charged with a kind of terrorism (57).
• Activists working within aboveground organizations have more people to talk to and more overt support, but they sometimes must grapple with unhealthy group dynamics. . . . [such as] highly professionalized non-profit organizations that have embraced corporate culture and the highly hierarchical political parties that expect their members to subordinate themselves and their identities (92).
• Movement norms about what is and is not permissible to do, feel, or talk about can exert as much if not more pressure on people to conform (93).
• [V]egans, unlike flesh-eaters, never stop noticing the violence inherent in meat (149).
• As any grade-school friend of family member of a dedicated activist can tell you, it's not always pleasant to be in a real relationship with a person who is always thinking and doing things about problems that most people would rather forget . . . . Every vegetarian who has ever attended a family dinner at which meat is served knows that all you have to do is sit there quietly not eating meat for people to feel attacked about their own food choices (158).
• Memory is a kind of connection. Like trauma survivors, traumatized communities and cultures constantly struggle with the conflict between remembering and forgetting. Most often, the most powerful forces are aligned on the side of forgetting. Often, their very power depends on forgetting. That makes the task of remembering that much more difficult and that much more important (185-6).

We have all been traumatized by the lies we've been told about our relationship to nonhuman animals and the Earth. We have all been conditioned to be disconnected from "nature," and empathy with any being who is not human isn't exactly encouraged (except in the case of cats and dogs, which is simply another layer of dishonesty, as if cats and dogs aren't like chickens and cows).

Activists and their allies are in need of support. We need to listen to one another and tell our stories. Some of us need to write and be read as a way of dealing with trauma.

You all know people who are, to some degree or another, engaged in activism that drains them, angers them, frustrates them, and leaves them vulnerable (which is also how they started). Be gentle with yourselves and kind to one another. We're such a tiny minority in this world, and to spend a lot of time attacking one another is to give exploiters an easy path to destroying us.

On THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS

THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and  Empathy--and Why They Matter, by Marc Bekoff, is similar to Jeffrey Masson's ALTRUISTIC ARMADILLOS, ZENLIKE ZEBRAS (which I reviewed last year) and PLEASURABLE KINGDOM, by Jonathan Balcombe (which I wrote about in 2006) in that it's a useful tool to combat speciesism.

Without ever using the word "speciesism," Bekoff demonstrates that the emotions we are so certain are unique to humans are indeed not (e.g., love, grief, joy, embarrassment, jealousy), and also some cognitive capacities, such as thinking about the future and living by a moral code, are not unique to humans either.

Before I list some of my favorite quotes, I must say that Bekoff does not believe we should be using animals, however in the interim he believes we should work to improve their welfare and their living conditions while we are using them (135). Also, there are many instances of calling an animal "it" (18, 33, 150),  and euphemisms such as "put to sleep" (16).

And now, to the favorites:

• It's because animals have emotions that we're so drawn to them; lacking a shared language, emotions are perhaps our most effective means of cross-species communication (15).
• Rather than presuming that fish feel less than mice and that mice feel less than chimpanzees, or that rats aren't as emotional as dogs or wolves, or in general that animals feel less (and know less and suffer less) than humans, let's assume that numerous animals do experience rich emotions and do suffer all sorts of pain, perhaps even to a greater degree than humans (22).
• [H]umans can be selfish, unfair, and uncaring, and their moral codes can sometimes be self-servingly hypocritical. Just take a cursory glance at the front page of the newspaper: the murder of a family during a robbery is considered unacceptable, but not so killing in self-defense or as part of a distant, "justified" war. Humans can lie, steal, and cheat, and they can justify their actions so they never feel "wrong." At times, indeed, it can be hard to imagine how anyone could consider humans morally "above" any other animal beings (91).
• [I]t is becoming clear that many moral behaviors originate in emotional centers in the brain--a neural architecture that humans share with other animals (104).
• [The] "survival of the fittest" mentality, which pervades so much thinking and theorizing, is increasingly not supported by current research as being the prime mover in evolution. . . . Animals certainly still compete, but cooperation is central in the evolution of social behavior, and this alone makes it key for survival (107).
• Cognitive ethology  . . . relies on anecdotes, analogy, and anthropomorphism to reach its conclusions. They have traditionally been "dirty words" in science, since they smack of the subjective and the personal . . . . But are people who resist these A words themselves reacting out of personal or professional bias? (113).
• No longer do researchers have to clean up their language and sanitize their prose by using quotation marks around words such as happy, sad, jealousy or grief. Animals don't merely act "as if" they have feelings; they have them (120).
• [W]e all recognize and agree that animals and humans share many traits, including emotions. Thus we're not inserting something human into animals, but we're identifying commonalities and then using human language to communicate what we observe. . . . Claims that anthropomorphism has no place in science or that anthropomorphic predictions and explanations are less accurate than more mechanistic or reductionistic explanations are not supported by any data (125-6).
• We must not simply continue with the status quo because that is what we've always done. What we know has changed, and so should our relationships with animals (133).
• [T]he precautionary principle . . . maintains that a lack of certainty should not be an excuse to delay taking action. Sometimes we have to act based on our best judgment, because we may never have "all" the facts, and if we wait for absolute certainty, we might never do anything . . . . We may never know everything that goes through an animal's mind and heart, but we don't need to (137).
• I could no longer abide the killing of any animal, no matter how humane the process, simply for it to become my meal (150). Please note that on the same page, Bekoff promotes mitigating the worst abuses on farms and promotes free-range chickens and livestock.
• [Z]oos operate with two express purposes: one is to educate the public about animals and conservation, and the other is to help preserve species. These are laudable goals, but they rest on two shaky premises. One is that zoos can actually succeed at them, and the other is that zoos can adequately care for their charges. As for their goals, there is insufficient evidence to know the extent to which zoos actually educate visitors or if zoos play any significant role in species protection . . . . So if zoos don't really educate and aren't important for species survival, can they at least be trusted to nurture their animals? Unfortunately, too often the answer is no (152-3).
• If we continue to allow human interests to always trump the interests of other animals, we will never solve the numerous and complex problems we face (162).
• The separation of "us" (humans) from "them" (other animals) engenders a false dichotomy (162).
• No one is an object or an other; we are all just us (163).

As you can see, Bekoff walks the line between his personal belief that we shouldn't be using animals, and his prescription to care more about their welfare when the rest of us use them. I would recommend the book for all animal rights activists to bolster their information regarding the emotional and cognitive capacities of other species, as such ammunition comes in handy, particularly with people who own and claim to love dogs (and that's a significant part of his argument--that dogs aren't unlike us in many ways, but likewise other animals aren't unlike dogs in many ways). However, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to someone as a way to help them change the way they live their life, as that could easily backfire into the world of humane veal and providing more enrichment to animals being tortured in labs. Though Bekoff does speak of use, he speaks far more of suffering and ways to reduce it, and that concerns me.

On Nonhumans and High Culture

I didn't closely follow the case of Hiasl the 26-year old chimpanzee, for whom a lawsuit was brought to have him declared a "person" and assigned a legal guardian. I'm not one who thinks chimps should be granted personhood unless the rest of the sentient nonhuman world qualifies as well.

On page 18 of the April 2008 issue of Harper's, there's a translation of a brief (from German) from the lawsuit that was apparently in response to the notion that Hiasl shouldn't be granted personhood because he is a chimp and does not have culture. Here's the gist:

Admittedly, they have no high culture. The produce no computers, build no skyscrapers, write no books. Homo sapiens has done these things, however, for only a short time span--about 1 percent of the existence of the species. In spite of the influence of industrial societies, there are still indigenous peoples who live as if now is the Stone Age. To deny these peoples their humanity because they have no high culture would be absurd. . . . Homo sapiens needed roughly 190,000 years to develop anything like high culture. Chimpanzees already have a culture, a language, tools, and awareness; they can produce pictures, and, under the right conditions, they could take on a Western way of life. Perhaps chimpanzees will develop a high culture later. . . . If one does not wish to deny the human rights of Homo sapiens as it lived 150,000 years ago, one must give chimpanzees today at least as much consideration.

The court ruled against the suit.

Of course those petitioning for Hiasl had his best interests in mind; I have no doubt about that. However, they were using speciesism as a weapon against speciesism, and I'm not sure why they thought that would work.

Richard Dawkins Redeems Himself, Sort of

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

Fredrik recalls the interview and writes:

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

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

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

Stay tuned . . .

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

On Valentines and Self-Monitoring

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

What is "self-monitoring," you ask?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Origin of "Sentient"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conscious or percipient of something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On SKINNY BITCH

I was urged to read SKINNY BITCH, by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, by several friends whose transition to veganism increased in velocity exponentially after reading it. All I had previously heard about the book was that some of the language was a bit vulgar an tasteless, and I usually choose to stay away from books like that. Plus, I'm a vegan already, and I'm thin. Whether or not I'm a bitch is debatable.

Here's what I think: It's probably great for young adults. Maybe 18-25. There is a lot--A LOT--of foul language and the authors do the one thing I am never comfortable doing: Tell people they're idiots if they don't go vegan. But guess what? It's working. The book is a New York Times bestseller. AND, it's also full of information about the evils of sugar, artificial sweeteners, alcohol (except organic, red wine), dairy, and the USDA and FDA, and provides an introduction to the politics of food.

Barely a page is turned without seeing some word that children shouldn't be reading or saying--at least not in my world--but the authors have done a great job tossing a variety of topics together and making you feel like, well, an idiot, if you're not a vegan. As far as raising the level of discourse goes, they authors appear to be deliberately going in the opposite direction. And they do also say things like: "You will be a fat, unhealthy, bloated pig if you live this way" (p. 40, and they're talking about the Atkins diet. My biggest problem with that sentence is the pig reference.).

What was especially helpful for my friends was the focus on reading labels, the glossary, the list of products and the sample menus. Note that the menus are loaded with faux meats, but expecting someone to go from omni to a mostly raw food diet, which would be far healthier, is unrealistic for most people.

If you have a college-aged daughter or friend whom you'd like to introduce to veganism, this is probably a good book for the job. I'm going to give it to a male friend who is a personal trainer and thinks he eats really well (he's a grilled chicken with white rice guy, but because of how much he works out, he could eat anything and be thin). He's youngish and might find the book appealing because he is concerned about being healthy. I'll let you know how it goes.

Finally, please note that there is a page--the last page--that says being skinny really isn't their goal, and that being healthy and taking care of their bodies is.

If the title and the tone and the slant are all about marketing, and they're working for a specific segment of the market, more power to Freedman and Barnouin.

The Animal Person Minute: On History Repeating Itself

Our photo today is of Emily Fokker Loder, our kitty who's still alive and content despite her Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP). Next month is our seventh anniversary as a family, which also means it's been seven years since the neurologist told us she'd probably die soon.

The topic for today is history. If you haven't read For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States, by Diane Beers, I recommend doing so as it provides pre-Peter Singer history of animal rights that we all need to be aware of.

Because I consider myself an abolitionist, I was particularly interested in how people who lived in the 19th century and had similar views fared in a society that was just starting to get rid of bear-baiting and pigeon shoots (although we still shoot doves and geese and ducks).

All I want to do for this post is to read some passages from a small section of the book. You might be surprised by how familiar they sound. Pay careful attention to the years they refer to.

• Page 70: "In October 1877, the American Humane Association convened its first meeting, and the early conventions drew a diverse membership. Conservative elements, however, soon commandeered the group and inaugurated a new brand of activism, one that championed collaboration rather than altercation. Suggesting that humanitarians should diplomatically engage in 'conciliatory negotiations with livestock interests,' the AHA invited railroad and stockyard executives to its annual conventions. Together, the parties carved out a safe, noncontroversial balance between profits and protection. In particular, AHA officials consulted with shippers on plans for a more humane cattle car, and beginning in 1880, they awarded prizes for the best designs."
• Later on page 70, Beers writes: "Once the AHA cemented its rapport with the railroads, it formed a similar alliance with meatpacking executives, focusing again on the humane education of slaughterhouse employees and the sponsorship of contests for improved stunning and killing devices."
• And on the following page, Beers writes: "As the national organization's reputation and influence as a political insider spread, its policies increasingly reflected the interests of opponents, and conventions increasingly ousted radical delegations. . . . More-radical groups might simultaneously publish explicit exposes, prosecute companies for violations, admonish consumers for eating cruelly produced meat, and even endorse vegetarianism, but the AHA carefully avoided any tactics that would antagonize its proindustry beneficiaries."
• Later on that page: "Association leaders contended that radical sermonizing about fanciful abolitionist goals such as vegetarianism and unreasonable regulation alienated the public and harmed the cause by making it susceptible to charges of fanaticism."
• On page 93, Beers writes: "Like many social justice movements, when animal advocacy began, it was a novel and sensational phenomenon that attracted a great deal of public attention (mostly hostile). But as organizations proliferated and campaigns succeeded, the notion of animal rights, albeit a very incomplete notion, seeped slowly into the general culture. The movement was no longer the edgy, raging, headline controversy but rather the weekly feature on the radio . . . . And more celebrities than ever aligned with the cause."
• Finally, on page 94, Beers writes: "Acceptance entailed more cultural, political, and economic power, but that power was circumscribed by public expectations of moderation and compromise. In turn, the movement's radicals were further alienated, maintaining that compromise served to entrench cruelty by obscuring only its most viscerally objectionable features. As in the antislavery fight, they contended, there could be no compromise for something so thoroughly wrong."

On THE JOY OF VEGAN BAKING

THE JOY OF VEGAN BAKING, by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau of Compassionate Cooks, came just in time for me to begin choosing what I will cook for my unsuspecting non-vegan guests at Thanksgiving.

This book is perfect for people who have either just transitioned to veganism or would like to in that it is chock full of recipes that result in food that doesn't taste radically different from what the average meat-eater is accustomed to. The photos are gorgeous, the writing is great and no matter how much you think you know about baking, I promise you'll learn something.

This is not a "health food" book, although the recipes are cholesterol-free, lactose-free and healthier than the average non-vegan recipes. Instead, it's a book that helps you understand how easy  it is to bake without eggs and dairy.

My favorite part of the book is the section on milk, butter and egg substitutes, some of which do indeed make the recipes healthier (e.g., using ground flax seed and water rather than egg replacer, using almond milk rather than soy milk for those of us trying to minimize our intake of soy, or using date sugar rather than white sugar). There are loads of tips and "Food Lore," which are interesting trivia tidbits that provide a historical context for the food. Perhaps most helpful, however, are the "Troubleshooting" pages that list the most common problems and their likely origins. Finally, the Appendices will save you a lot of time because Colleen has already organized your pantry and utensils for you and tells you exactly what you will need (/need to buy), and she includes a glossary, lists of what to substitute if you don't have the pan that's called for, and most fascinating to me, a section on the difference between baking soda and baking powder (I always wondered about that).

I've made the corn bread, the pancakes, a couple of smoothies, almond milk and the chocolate mousse because I had the ingredients lying around, and I look forward to trying my hand at chocolate chip scones this week. Then off to the serious holiday stuff so I can bring something yummy to every party I attend--so that I have something to eat (and share) at every party I attend.

Congratulations, Colleen, on converting someone utterly uninterested in baking into someone excited to take on the challenge of going to other people's homes during the holidays when you're a vegan.

Humans are Omnivores, Therefore . . .

You wouldn't think Colleen Patrick-Goudreau's 10 Survival Tips & Tactics for Eating Veg in a Non-Veg World would have been in any way controversial. But it certainly has generated some interesting discussion. Perhaps my favorite comment so far was by "ValkRaider," listing about two dozen examples of animals who are omnivores (including humans) and over three dozen examples of animals who are carnivores. Then he writes:

Get over yourselves. Animals get eaten. Perhaps focus on making farm conditions better, more humane, and safer. But meat is a natural part of many diets.

Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights Malta then writes what we're all thinking after reading the lists:

So some animals are omnivores, some are carnivores, and some are vegan. So what? What matters is that we can be vegan.

Many animals rape the females of their species. Should we do likewise? And should we get over it if some of us do?

That's awesome! I laughed out loud when I read "So what?" Naturally, the laughter was eclipsed upon reaching the word "rape," but Kenneth certainly made his point effectively and efficiently and dispensed with our list-making friend in record time.

ValkRaider misses the entire point by injecting the irrelevant lists into the discussion. We have made a decision--a choice--because we can. We have the ability--and I have no idea if any other animal has this ability--to consider the elements of a situation and decide to do what we think is morally right (is that redundant?). When people say to me: "Animals eat other animals in the wild all the time," I always respond, "So what? How on earth does that affect me or my decision-making process?" I'm not in "the wild" (I don't think) anyway. There is no parallel there at all.

There are people who argue that humans are naturally herbivores. And even to that, I say, "Pfft. So what?" The point of veganism FOR ME is that I don't think animals are mine to use at all. ValkRaider is correct that animals get eaten. But they don't have to "get eaten" by me. I can opt out of that scenario. And as for making farm conditions better, more humane, and safer, I'm not even sure what that means, as I believe "humane farming" is an oxymoron. Once you have bred or purchased someone, assumed control over their reproductive system, fed them what you want to feed them and decided when and how much they would eat, allowed them to exist in a space of your creation, and killed them when and in a manner convenient to you, I fail to see anything humane about those realities.

I've already commented a couple of times on that post of Colleen's. But if you haven't, and you've got an interesting veg in a non-veg world anecdote or a response to the people who are vegan unfriendly (and then of course there are wonderful, well-meaning people who are just beginning to understand why we are vegans), say hi and toss in your two cents.

On "Are You Just a PETA Nut?"

Once in a great while, an individual who leaves a less-than-charitable, yet not deletable comment (because it doesn't have expletives, has somewhat decent sentence structure, and isn't pure rant), also leaves a website and e-mail address that are legitimate. In those cases, I will always leave the comment, as each time they speak worlds about what we are up against.

Yesterday, a man who runs The Countertop Chronicles left the following comment on my post from February 11 entitled "Virginia Thinks Kids Under 12 Should be Able to Hunt:"

And the problem with hunting is????????????

or are you just a PETA nut?

Ah, so much to say, so little time.

First, go to his website/blog. Like mine, it tells you everything you need to know about him (he has children, the movie he wishes he'd never seen was "The Crying Game" -hmmmm, wonder why? and he sends his kids to private school in Virginia, where he lives in "about as affluent a community as your gonna find anywhere in the country with schools generally to match." And, oh, he loves Howard Stern.). He goes to church regularly and his site is riddled with obscenities, porn, foul language, and a clear hatred of women. We can only hope his children have never seen his blog. Here's where he wrote about Virginia losing hunters, which is what the post he commented on refers to (it's below the Labor Day one, where he is clearly excited to kill all day).

I spent a good half hour at his site--and I think he's a paralegal--maybe an attorney, to research exactly what kind of person isn't sure there is a problem with hunting, and exactly what kind of person thinks those against hunting are "PETA nuts."

The important part of his comment isn't so much that he thinks PETA people are nuts, as we're not PETA people, anyway. The important part is that he--and other average Americans--equates any person who is against the senseless slaughter of animals with PETA. This is where we have a lot of work to do. This is, in fact, one of the reasons I feel compelled to devote nearly an entire page of my pamphlet to defining animal rights and pointing out the various ways the term is used and misused by the media as well as by activists themselves.

This countertop person would never be someone I would choose to debate. He loves killing and he wants to make sure his right to do so is preserved (he is a libertarian conservative), along with his right to degrade women. I wouldn't waste my time engaging him.

However, through his blog, and his vitriol toward environmentalists, liberals, women and "PETA VEGAN shit heads" (that's in the entry a bit below the photo of the men smoking a bong that is inserted in a woman's vagina), he alerts us that there are people who don't simply disagree with us, they hate us. They really hate us.

"Countertop" has succeeded in one thing: he has bolstered my commitment to nonviolence and my motivation to help (reasonable) people question what they eat and why, what they wear and why, and what place nonhuman animals should have in their lives.