Animal Person

Personal Changes Doesn't Equal Political Change

Derrick Jensen comes right out of the gate mentioning Hitler (as opposed to later as per Godwin's Law) in "Taking Shorter Showers Doesn't Cut it: Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change," which might annoy some people. But what's more annoying is the reality that the personal choices we make and hold so dear, that we're so convinced are going to change the world, might not really be working as effectively as we would like.

Here are some highlights, just from the article (the comments are a bit of a maze, but if you can negotiate them I think they're worth reading through). They are all Jensen's words exactly, except what's in brackets (not parenthesis-they're him too).

• Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance.
• People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
• I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.
• If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. 
• Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. [And by the way, I would not have said that, necessarily, and perhaps this is a language issue here.]
• [Neo-Luddite] Kirkpatrick Sale . . . : “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
• [Capitalism] redefines us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming.
• We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

It's posts like this that make me feel like an ineffectual white, suburban elitist. I have such a difficult time giving up the notion that I can buy or not buy my way out of a problem, and that my one vote to buy or not buy really does count because if more people did it we'd develop the mythical critical mass that would indeed change the way things are or are done.

While I go to bed in my cushy home each night after a long day of blogging, reading, writing, working, baking vegan cookies, buying local, organic and vegan foodstuffs, recycling, taking short showers, driving very little, volunteering a lot, taking care of the creatures, wearing the same "Life is Good" T-shirts and flip-flops and trying to buy only what I need, and feeling like with each of those decisions--my decisions--the world gets better, I must admit that that last part just might be an illusion. It might be a lie I tell myself to make me feel like I have power to change the world and am changing it with my choices.

What are your thoughts?

Sowing the Seeds of Veganism

I was thinking about the Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary calendar of rescued animals photographed by Deb Durant that's on my refrigerator.

It's on the refrigerator, but when you open the refrigerator door you'll see nothing that came from the animals in the calendar. No animal secretion smells, nothing that's dripping bloody liquid. People flock to photos and calendars on refrigerators. You're telling them what's important to you, and they always at least take a gander, but usually ask some questions, too.

I could be reading into this, but it does appear that there's some discomfort on the part of non-vegans when they look through the calendar and I tell them the story. Most had no idea that there were sanctuaries that include animals we use for food, though they don't flinch at the idea that I have a friend who spends her Saturdays (or is it Sundays now?) shoveling poop.

The calendar is a seed--it's a way into the conversation that is likely to continue once the refrigerator door opens and the guest is looking for something to eat.

Books are seeds, pamphlets are seeds, the horrifyingly dry gluten-free cookies I made last night would be seeds if I weren't about to throw them into the garbage (luckily I made only a dozen and can try to fix the remaining 2/3 of the batter). Films are seeds (and Eric of I'm Vegan took a bit of a spill and when he's healed a bit more he'll get back to finishing up), blogs are seeds, vlogs are seeds, my recycled inner-tire rubber handbag is a seed. Websites can be seeds if they don't promote animal products while saying animals aren't ours to use; I find that confusing.

And when you're checking out at the health food store with your cans and bag of vegan dog food, how could that not be a seedy opportunity?

I call my greyhounds sneaky activism opportunities. They're discussion starters and it's up to me to steer the discussion based on how it begins. Here are a handful of conversations I've had over the past few months, with people who stop me to say whatever they need to say about greyhound racing (most people can't wait to tell you their opinion):

• Greyhound racing should be banned (and why).
• Segue into horse racing.
• Possible segue into the tie to gaming that's artificial, but legislated, and needs to change. There are plenty of places to play poker here. Doing it at the dog track when you don't believe in dog racing is supporting an industry you don't believe in. And furthermore, the "I use less gas than going to a casino in Fort Lauderdale" excuse is nonsense. You don't really care about the gas. And look at it this way, you can spend more time in your $85,000 car! (You think I'm talking about someone specific?) And the casino's a much nicer place!
• Parlay greyhounds aren't for entertainment to they're not for eating to chickens aren't for eating either (this one takes a couple of minutes + a willing receiver).
• Parlay greyhounds aren't for entertainment to they're not for experimenting on to neither are mice (again, takes a minute, but I've done it).
• Of course, there's the pure breed discussion as well as the breeding of dogs, in general, discussion (most frequent after the racing discussion for me).

All of this, just from walking through the neighborhood 4-5 times/day. And evidently the dogs are interpreted as an invitation, as when I'm not with them no one stops to talk to me (hmmmm). So there you have it: greyhounds are seeds, too. Big, lanky, bony ones, but seeds nonetheless.

On Vegan Grenades

You know those jokes that you get a minute later that are referred to as joke grenades? Well, I think the grenade metaphor also applies to conversion to veganism. There is often lag time between the critical mass event and its accompanying decision to go vegan--and the the actual doing: being a vegan. There's intention, then the becoming, then the vegan.

I don't personally know anyone who read a book or a pamphlet one day, became a vegan the next, and is still a vegan. I do know people who became vegan (also after watching "Earthlings") who are now vegetarians, pescetarians and run-of-the-mill omnivores.

What does this mean? Just that we humans can know one thing to our core, we can believe it entirely, and yet, we can do what basically is the opposite. Exhibit A: Mary Martin, PhD--Animal Person. Remember how I went vegan overnight in the 80s and then in 1998 ate filet mignon and salmon for almost two full years? Exhibit B: My animal-eating husband, who about six years ago said: "Trust me, I feel the same way you do about animals, but I need to do this on my time. If you push me, I'll be doing it because you want me to do it not because I'm ready." And four long years later he said: "The only reason I still eat animals is because you keep buying them and cooking them for me."

That was some very lengthy lag time. But he did it, seemingly overnight, but it really took years.

What happened in those years? Not one book, that's for sure (he reads about golf, history or the economy). Not even my abysmal brochure that I would do completely differently (I'd probably leave out the entire first page) if I had the inclination. And not even Earthlings.

He did see "The Witness" and a version of "Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home" just prior to the final cut however, and both reinforced his direction. And, most important, he has me. I'm no prize to be married to, but I do shop and cook and bake and forward links from The Discerning Brute. We go to dinner and events and he sees how I handle people's endless queries or even hostility to the way we live. We role play with questions or comments he gets at work. In short, though I'm just one person, I'm probably the most important person in his life and I support him.

And I don't judge him. Someone who goes from vegan to vegetarian to eating cows isn't really in a position to judge anyone.

My mother and sister have also had similar paths (to my husband) and have cut animals out of their dining habits almost completely. And shockingly, my dad intends to, but his wife is adamantly against the idea and is making it difficult for him to live by his newfound beliefs.

In short, just because you know that something is right doesn't mean you're going to behave accordingly. If it were so obvious that it can be easy and convenient and affordable to go vegan, we wouldn't have to constantly be showing people how easy and convenient and affordable it is to go vegan. Most people have had decades of indoctrination (that they haven't ever noticed) into a culture that assumes myriad uses of sentient nonhumans, not to mention our god-given right to do with them as we please. And then there's all that twaddle about it being "natural," which clearly isn't getting the deconstruction it's begging for as it's easily dismissed once you think it through.

When you've been vegan for a while, I'd say it becomes second nature, but really it's like becoming who you should be and are most comfortable being. But if you're like most people, that feeling didn't come easily (despite that you can't imagine feeling any other way now).

Vegan education, in my experience, is a multi-pronged, multi-year effort if it's going to be sustainable. You're not helping someone change their diet, you're helping them deprogram themselves of misconceptions and hypocrisy, and everyone has their own timeline and their own unique basket of objections and obstacles to sort out. The trick is to listen and hear what their issues are and guide them to responses to those issues rather than tell them what you want them to hear, and do it in the way they'd be most receptive to--according to the way they best learn.

And if you persevere, and their intentions are indeed to stop using animals, it'll happen. Maybe more like a grenade than a shot, but it it'll happen.

On Discounts on Adoptions

Here's a Gray Matter for you (or maybe not): A humane society near me is doing a cat- and dog-adoption promotion this month. You can adopt a dog for $75 rather than $100, and if you adopt a cat for $50 you can get a second one for half the price.

With record numbers of animals being abandoned due to foreclosures and the economy, and let's face it, adopting a dog or cats isn't going to save you any money, do you think it is irresponsible to offer discounts? If someone is going to adopt because of the lower price, how on Earth are they going to be able to provide for the animal(s)?

This sounds like a short-term savings, and it is, but in the case of two cats, you've just doubled your monthly expenses. And I admit to having very expensive (care-wise) dogs, but I imagine that the average dog must cost at least $1,000/year, right?

Two questions:

1.    What do you think about discounted adoptions (or even giveaways)?

2.    If you don't mind sharing, on average, what are your "pet"-related expenses?

A New Use For Those BBQ Tongs

I have wildlife/nonwildlife rescue paraphernalia in my car. A large box with airholes, a small one, a towel or two, a leash, soapy handwipes, you get the idea. I've decided to add the enormous barbecue/barbeque tongs that are collecting dust in the garage (the smaller ones that we use for veggies on the counter-grill still see some action). Why? Because of what happened today, which has happened to me a half dozen times in the past year. I can't do anything about the times it happens when I'm going for a run or walk, but I can do something about the times it happens when I'm in the car.

In case you haven't guessed, it is the relocation of a fresh (or not) carcass, usually with entrails spilling out, to a place more hospitable for the buzzards and hawks who evidently at least in South Florida do not judge the speed of oncoming traffic very well. There's nothing worse than one dead animal being partially responsible for the death of one live animal.

I tweeted about a similar incident about a month ago and someone replied that she was glad there was someone fighting for the safe-dining rights of hawks. I don't know if she was being sarcastic, but in my town I see dead armadillos, opossums, raccoons, all manner of turtles, and squirrels dead in the middle of the road frequently. At least they're dead and it wasn't my fault, but I still have a responsibility.

I've never seen a dead dog in the road but I have seen cats and I always check for a tag, then call Animal Care and Control (or a local shelter) if I can't take the animal myself and have her scanned for a microchip. As someone whose cat (technically my sister's cat) disappeared when we were kids, I know the pain of wondering what has happened. There's no excuse to not at least report the dead animal in case she was someone's "pet" and there's a little girl crying herself to sleep, her mind wandering in all kinds of horrible directions, desperately missing her kitty.

Furthermore, if the animal in the road is fresh and it's easily determined that she is a nursing female, there could be babies close by and scanning the area for little ones unable to care for themselves isn't a bad idea. (And having the numbers of a couple of wildlife rehabbers programmed into your phone is helpful.)

If you've handled fresh carcasses that are open and, shall we say, leaking, you know what a messy, smelly, and surprisingly heavy endeavor it can be. And how difficult it is to get the stench off of you. Depending on where you're going and what you're wearing, you might thank me for what seemed at first like a silly suggestion.

So put those old BBQ tongs in the car (I'm adding that huge spatula, too) and make it easier relocate dead animals to a place where scavengers and vultures of all kinds can eat without being in mortal danger.

Deconstructing Spencer's Comment

As much as I don't like responding to comments that are hostile, they also demonstrate a lack of understanding/education/knowledge on the part of the commenter that perhaps, if remedied, might result in a different opinion.

Such is the case with Spencer R's comment from my brief post recommending The Botany of Desire. Spencer R writes:

Vegans sound exactly like religious fundamentalists. You can't pull the god card to claim superiority over the rest of us so you demonize the consumption of animal products. It's an absurd point of view that really has no logical backing whatsoever. Trying to convince people to go vegan is like trying to convince people to only reproduce once. Sure it would help the planet, but there is no way in hell it's ever going to happen.

It's an especially ridiculous concept because the vegans in modern western society would not be able to maintain their living standards without the exploitation of dirt-poor humans in third world countries across the globe. You purposefully choose to ignore facts like that though when citing the "cruelty and injustice" involved in the rearing and slaughter of animals. You're hypocrites essentially, and the worst kind in my opinion. Loud preaching hypocrites utterly convinced of their infallability.

There is a fine line between optimism and pessimism, it's called realism and (most) vegans have absolutely zero concept of what that is or how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles.

A few patient individuals chose to respond to Spencer R, and I'd like to deconstruct his comment and add my own response because what he writes isn't uncommon in its tone or its content.

• The first three sentences, unpacked, are: Vegans are like religious fundamentalists who act superior and demonize of the consumption of animals. Our beliefs and the way they are manifested are absurd and not logical.

We are people who believe that using animals when we don't need to, and certainly killing them when we don't need to, isn't right. It simply cannot be justified. Logically, it is a perfectly sound position.

• As for a world of vegans being improbable, I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we are not vegans because we necessarily think we're going to succeed in worldwide veganization. We are vegans because it's the right thing to do if we claim to believe that sentient nonhumans are not here to satisfy our wants, desires and profit motives. Should we all wage war because it's unlikely that there will ever be peace on Planet Earth? 
• Saying, "sure, it will help the planet," says that the planet isn't important enough to try to help, particularly if everyone's not going to do it (in the context of that paragraph). Who's not logical?
• The second paragraph, frankly, is a bit confusing to me. I'm not sure what being a vegan has to do with exploiting poor people in third world countries. Perhaps Spencer R would like to look into Eric Schlosser's work, such as Fast Food Nation, and also the recent "Food Inc.," not to mention read more writing by actual vegans. We are not ignorant of the exploitation of humans that often goes hand-in-hand with the exploitation of nonhumans. And we are also not ignorant of the fact that though slaughterhouses often employ unskilled and illegal immigrants, so do tomato farms and other fruit and vegetable farms, particularly right here in the Sunshine State (here's one of my favorite organizations that does great work). As for being convinced we are infallible, the great equalizer in the vegan journey is that no one who lives in mainstream American society can be 100% vegan. We avoid harm and exploitation as much as we can, at least for me with regard to people, the planet, and nonhuman animals. But to claim perfection or infallability--now that would be "absurd."
• Though this comment is riddled with hyperbole and judgment, the final sentence is the probably the worst offender. To say that people whom you do not know have "absolutely zero concept" of "realism" (and I'm assuming that means "reality") and "how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles," after calling us ridiculous, illogical, absurd, and hypocritical, is a strange way to make your point. So strange that I'm not sure what your point is.

Spencer R, here is a suggestion: Without calling me names, and without insulting me, tell me of this "realism." Explain it to me and please include how it needs to be applied to my daily lifestyle. And please don't include the tired argument about what is "natural." Is cooking food "natural"? Is marinating flesh "natural"? Is bread "natural"? Is people flying in planes "natural"? Are condoms "natural"? What does natural mean and what are the benefits of "natural"? And if you haven't, you might want to explore some sites that detail comparative anatomy and demonstrate how much more we are like herbivores than carnivores.

Thanks. You are welcome here any time, but not simply to rant. If you have something intelligent to say, we all welcome it.

Online Survey on Ethics and Animals

A new survey is getting the attention of many within the global animal protection community. Covering both moral and strategic issues, the "Ethics and Animals" survey will provide a snapshot of our movement as of the present moment.

Everyone is invited to participate and share their views on what's best for animals. The survey is at EthicsAndAnimals.questionpro.com, and its closing date has been extended to Monday, July 13, 2009.

For other information, such as banners and links to the survey in other languages, you may visit the blog of ethiQUEST Surveys, the survey administrator: ethiquest.wordpress.com .

The results will be first presented and discussed at the 12th International Vegan Festival, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 22-25, 2009 (more about it here). Later on, a report containing the results and relevant parts of that discussion shall be published at: ethiquest.wordpress.com.

Chime in!

On Humane Societies and Calf-Roping

 Angus directed me to a story about the Calgary Stampede (rodeo) and the Calgary and Vancouver Humane Societies which had me asking: Whose side are they on?

Here's the backstory:

• Calgary has what they call a "western culture," which essentially is their two word justification for abusing animals in the cruel and not-even-close-to fair venue of people-over-animals-who-don't-stand-a-chance.
• The Vancouver Humane Society wanted to run the calf=baby/roper=bully ad in the Calgary Sun, which decided against the idea as the abuse of animals is part of their "very proud local institution." The newspaper also claims that the advertising department thought the ad was "offensive" and that is why it wasn't run.
• The Calgary Humane Society works with the Stampede to make sure the animals are safe (and by the way that's impossible if the animals are being used in the rodeo. Safe, unharmed rodeo animals is an oxymoron).
• The Vancouver Humane Society wants to ban calf-roping. Not the rodeo. Calf-roping (which of course is a hideous practice, but so are the rest of the animal-related rodeo activities).

Do you see where the average, critical thinker might have a problem with this scenario?

• If the Vancouver Humane Society is on the side of the animals, why focus on calf-roping? I find it hard to believe that that's the only event they think is a disgusting show of injustice and "bullying."
• The Calgary Humane Society is just as bad for working with the Stampede. How can any humane society worker honestly say that they want the rodeo to continue? Why on Earth would they work with the rodeo rather than to ban it completely? (This sounds an awful lot like the previous bullet, I know.)
• I don't really believe the rationales the paper came up with for not running the ad, but that's just my opinion.
• Then again, the ad begs such a basic question (why calf-roping and not rodeo) that I don't quite understand the purpose. Will the VHS support the rodeo if calf-roping is banned? That's what the ad would make me think. Is calf-roping some kind of low-hanging fruit and just the beginning? If so, campaign to ban the rodeo, for heaven's sake! Just be honest about your goal and campaign for it!

I don't get the overwhelming feeling that anyone is on the side of the animals, here. When I look at the Humane Society of the United States' statement on rodeos, I feel much better. It's off to a promising start and includes a promising end:

The HSUS opposes rodeos as they are commonly organized, since they typically cause torment and stress to animals; expose them to pain, injury, or even death; and encourage an insensitivity to and acceptance of the inhumane treatment of animals in the name of sport. Accordingly, we oppose the use of devices such as electric prods, sharpened sticks, spurs, flank straps, and other rodeo equipment that cause animals to react violently, and we oppose bull riding, bronco riding, steer roping, calf roping, "wild horse racing," chuck wagon racing, steer tailing, and horse tripping.

However, the opposition to the use of certain devices tells me that if those devices weren't used, the rodeo would be acceptable. But the HSUS is by no means an animal-rights organization; it is an animal welfare organization. At least it sounds like it's interested in the welfare of all animals in the rodeo, while the VHS statement is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst.

What's the difference between the HSUS and the VHS and CHS? The "western culture" that is allowed to rule. Yes, we have pockets of it, too. And in all cases where there is something held sacred today for the simple reason that it was held sacred yesterday, the people with the voices and the dollars have to stand up and say: This is 2009 and we are better than this. There is no reason to continue to torment sentient nonhumans, and to do so for entertainment and profit is to allow the lowest part of ourselves to rule our behavior.

Societies evolve morally. Perhaps the pace of that evolution is glacial in some areas. The only way to speed up the pace is to stand your ground, not back down, and present a message that makes it clear whose side you're on.

All rodeos, everywhere, should be banned. Period.

Chipping Away at Greyhound Racing

In March of 2007 I wrote, "in a horribly-depressing vote of 198-138, New Hampshire's House voted AGAINST a bill that would shut down live racing at its three greyhound race tracks." E-mails were exchanged between yours truly and NH legislators, and though I knew the hounds would someday be free of racing, they were going to have to wait at least another year. At least.

Nearly two years later, one of the tracks closed. The Hinsdale track ceased operations in December and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

And this year, according to Tom Fahey in "Dog Racing May Be Gone Forever," the two tracks that remained "won permission to drop all racing dates. They will continue to operate as simulcast betting centers, and to host gambling events for charities."

If "won permission" sounds odd, that's because not every track wants to force live dogs to race. Not because it's wrong but because for most tracks it's not profitable. Other types of gambling are profitable, but not usually live dog racing. However, the law in most states where there is live dog racing specifically states that if there is to be gambling there must be live dog racing. So NH tracks "won permission" to drop dog racing, thereby also winning permission to be able to maintain their gambling operations.

This is not a ban on dog racing, but that does often come next.

Thanks to the folks at Grey2KUSA for their tireless efforts for greyhounds.

Finally, I'm off to Orlando to see the neurologist again. Charles looked great the first week after his surgery, and his condition has progressively deteriorated to the point where he is about 80% lame. Not 80% better--80% lame. I'll tweet (http://www.twitter.com/mary_martin)--or you can see updates over on the right column.

Wish me luck!

The Best in Vegan Education

Other than being a vegan, the most important actions you can take to help animals who are used for food are:

• Give generously to organizations that help those sentient nonhumans directly, such as Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary, Maple Farm Sanctuary, Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary and Eastern Shore Sanctuary.
• Encourage others to go vegan by educating them about the issues, and particularly about why we should not accept alternatives to eating animals that include eating animals (i.e., if they are "farmed" or slaughtered in a certain way).

I have always been a believer that film is the ultimate medium for thought change, and then behavior change for the average person. Of course, the precise nature of the film is crucial to its success as a vehicle for conversion, and I'm sure you've all seen and perhaps even participated in debates about Earthlings and its degree of efficacy. (As you are likely aware, very few people can actually get through the film in one sitting, plus the first third, about "pets," sends the troublesome message that puppy mills are the problem, rather than breeding in general.)

What makes Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home the best in vegan education and animal rights education is that, without getting too much into the hideous treatment of anyone, James LaVeck and Jenny Stein (a.k.a. Tribe of Heart) have managed to leave the viewer no option that includes eating animals. The film addresses the humane myth straight on, with unprecedented transparency in the discussions of animal farming, by simply letting its characters tell their personal stories. And the characters know better than anyone that animals cannot be farmed humanely, as they, for the most part, are all people who once profited from the use of animals. (Note: I have not seen the final cut but one prior, and the story remains the same, though the percentage of time devoted to each story might be different.) 

I've not had great luck veganizing anyone through books. Someone has to be very, very committed to learning and to challenging their thought processes to read a book they know is in direct contrast to the way they think. I'm not saying it cannot or does not happen (e.g., I still hear people say they went vegan after reading Peter Singer).

However, everyone wants to see a good film and even if it's challenging to the way they think, it's an under-two-hour commitment and an easier sell.

But in order to make sure that there is broad access to the film, it's got to make it to the public. And in order for that to happen, it's got to have funding. You might not be in a position to write a pamphlet or book or blog (or even interested), and even if you are you are there's no guarantee of your reach or success. But you probably can donate $10 to Tribe of Heart, though you might have to forego a couple of soy lattes.

Give generously to Tribe of Heart. To my knowledge, there is currently no opportunity like this for vegan education. This film does show some anguish in the eyes of animals, and that's always a very powerful image. But Peacable Kingdom: The Journey Home is the only feature film that shows the anguish in the eyes of people--people who were courageous enough to risk everything by admitting they were wrong and standing up for what is right. I'll never forget the eyes of the dog who had been shot and was thrown, alive, into a garbage truck as it the truck closes on him in Earthlings. But at the same time, I'll never forget the haunted eyes of Harold Brown and Cheri Ezell-Vandersluis as they speak about their lives as animal farmers.

On "Food Inc."

(Sigh.)

Here's the idea you have to get used to when it comes to Food Inc.: One message is that there's nothing wrong with eating animals, and in fact it's fantastic and thrilling and a win-win-win (people-planet-profits) when you eat animals that were "produced" by Polyface Farms. There's no remotely vegan or even vegetarian (though I'm not even sure what the latter would look like) message. We eat animals, and the CAFO system is an evil, filthy, cruel one, but it doesn't have to be that way. The moral of the story is that it's all about the way we farm animals, not that we farm them that is what needs changing.

Film is a visual medium and through direction, dialogue, editing, music and any effects, the filmmaker presents (in this case) his agenda. And though I left my notebook at home and was one of three audience members at yesterday's 12:10 pm showing and could easily have taken notes, I think I should be able to say what I need to say without exact quotes.

Everything you need to know about what director Robert Kenner wants to say about animals comes a bit more than half way through the film with what I can only describe as a giddy, ecstatic Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. The tone of the film has just changed from here's-the-terrible-state-of-affairs to look-how-some-ingenious-individuals-are-doing-it-better, and enter Salatin, grinning ear to ear, as he and his family/friends toss chickens upside down into those cones where only there heads stick out so you can yank said heads and access the attached throats to slit. Then they yank the heads, slit the throats, and de-feather and gut the chickens. And all while inspirational music is playing and a breeze is blowing across the fields on a gorgeous, sunny spring day. They grill the chickens, and trust me when I say it's all presented as a peak spiritual experience.

Now, if you can get beyond that, and if you haven't read Pollan and Schlosser and seen King Corn and The Future of Food (both of which are far more thorough on gentically-modified food, corn and Monsanto), you might actually learn something. I tweeted that according to Grist's "Should You See Food Inc.?" quiz, I got a resounding No, so I did know what I was walking into. The film wasn't made for me, so it's almost unfair of me to critique it as I have considering I don't have the same beliefs as the filmmaker or his main sources when it comes to an enormous component of what/whom he calls "food."

Here's the lesson: We have all been lied to about where our food comes from and what goes into making it and who is running the show. We have (and this is true of so many things in this country) the illusion of choice when we go grocery shopping. We are made to believe not only that the tens of thousands of products available in the store come from different companies/sources, but that they are the result of good old fashioned farming that to this day we teach our children about in their books and their toys.

In addition, our system of subsidies has made it so that it is less expensive to exist on fast food than on fruits, vegetables and grains. And then the way we eat causes diabetes. And then the medication we must pay for costs so much that we have to continue to eat fast food rather than choose to eat well because the money that could have gone to eating better has to go to the medication for the disease caused by eating poorly. That's criminal.

Luckily, we know who the criminals are who have put us in this position: the politicians who either came directly from Monsanto or the poultry farmer's association to a position of making food policy, or who are simply bought by them. Our own legislators have put us in this position because they and their friends benefit from it. They are in league, also, with the people who continue to strike fear in migrant workers by performing regular arrests (not of managers, though, but of people more easily replaced), and keeping people with no rights terrified, at tremendous physical risk, and extremely poor.

We also know that many companies with admirable business practices have been bought by colossal corporations (e.g., Tom's of Maine by Colgate, The Body Shop by L'Oreal, Kashi and Mornigstar by Kellogg) and that if voting with your dollars means anything, you need to find out who really owns the food you're buying.

If you dare, check out this small chart and these diagrams, and also please let me know if you know of any from 2008 or 2009. If there's a lesson in Food Inc., it's that you don't know what's in your food or where it came from until you read the label, and then investigate beyond the label.

On Cat Killers and Mental Competency

People in South Florida are still in an uproar over the mutilation and slaughter of 19 house cats (allegedly) by 18-year old Tyler Weinman, who was declared mentally competent and not a danger to himself or others (!). There have been inquiries as to the possible relationship between his dissection of cats in school and the 19 counts of cruelty he is being charged with. (Felony animal cruelty is the cruel killing of an animal, and he is also being charges with 19 counts of improperly disposing of an animal body.) The four counts of burglary he is being charged with carry a heftier sentence than the animal killing. Weinman had participated in cat dissection in school, and that is being discussed as a possible trigger for his behavior.

The outrage I've been seeing and hearing is typical, as we like cats. We humans have decided that, for a combination of reasons that are important to us, cats are worthy of our respect. I do find it interesting that there is a subculture we've all seen via vicious bumperstickers that attest to the existence of people who hate--and I mean hate--cats and want to see them dead or dying. I also find it interesting that I've never heard of a woman among their ranks. I don't trust people who hate cats because there's something else going on there. Cats represent something: independence. Cats are slaves to no one, at least according to their reputation, which in my experience holds true. And people who want to kill those they cannot control scare me.

I can't think of another animal so hated by humans that they have actually created an industry to publicize their hatred and their wish to hurt and kill them. We don't say we hate cows. In fact we say we love them. Grilled. We don't say we hate pigs and want to see them writhing in pain and slaughtered. Pigs definitely don't get much respect from humans, but the evil (and I can't think of a better word and I don't mean it in a religious sense) I see around cat-haters is different. There's sadism there, and that's not good.

I don't know if dissecting a cat corpse can lead to the desire to steal and mutilate 19 live cats; that seems like a stretch. If someone had it in him to kill cats and cut them open and toss out their entrails, I'm fairly certain that cutting open a dead cat isn't the reason. At some point, he was going to kill cats and cut them open. What is most surprising is that he was declared mentally competent, as mentally competent people don't go around killing cats.

Or maybe that's not so surprising.

Mentally competent people, oddly enough, go around mutilating and killing deer and ducks and cougars, though, when doing so either is in season or some governmental body has decided their numbers need trimming. And mentally competent people slice the throats of flailing cows hanging by one leg. And mentally competent people chain calves to crates. And mentally competent people shovel hundreds of day-old male chicks at a time into what is basically a giant blender to be macerated. And mentally competent people tear babies away from their mothers, as both wail in distress and agony. And mentally competent people anally electrocute mink or skin them alive.

And some mentally competent people know that all of this occurs and they still eat and wear animals.

On a New Level of Absurdity in the Slaughter Business

Bea sent me a link to an article in Gourmet called "Humane Slaughterhouses," by Rebecca Marx, that is absurd. And the absurdity is in the reality that the author and the featured person who kills sentient nonhumans for a living, think they're onto something. And they were, before they stopped their train of thought prior to it reaching its most important station.

Let's deconstruct:

• The heading is: "Okay, so your steak comes from a cow that lived a happy life--but how did that life end?" It's a cow who--who--lived an allegedly happy life. And I guess this is where the pro-death penalty people might have an argument. They believe you can take a life that doesn't want to be taken in a humane way, and I don't agree. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
• The voice of Temple Grandin is of course the foundation. And when that happens, you know what direction you're headed: the justification of taking the lives of sentient nonhumans to please the palates of humans.
• The second paragraph needs to be looked at sentence by sentence. "While plenty of people pay attention to the question of what it means to raise an animal humanely, far fewer stop to consider the notion—and the ostensible paradox—of humane slaughter." It's not an ostensible paradox; it's an actual paradox. But of course the success of the author in manipulating the reader depends on the reader's belief that the paradox is indeed "ostensible."
• Interestingly, the campaigns of happy meaters are acknowledged for perhaps being somewhat of a scam with the next sentence. "Words like 'pastured,' 'grass-fed,' and 'free-range' are now synonymous with quality meat; they carry a potent if symbolic meaning that has eased many a consumer’s conscience and driven many a marketing campaign." Potent if symbolic? In other words, it's a scam.
• Finally, "But the idea of how an animal meets its ultimate fate is usually ignored—until, of course, we see YouTube videos of sick cows being hauled to their deaths on bulldozers." The animal is an "it," but I wouldn't expect anything more in this type of article. And though being hauled to their death on a bulldozer is terrible, any other form of slaughter at the hands of another, on that other's timeline and terms, is nevertheless slaughter. It is murder. But by presenting that example to the reader, the author positions herself to then present an alternative that is worlds better by comparison. And perhaps that "better" will distract the reader from the undeniable fact of the unjust slaughter.
• The featured slaughterer is Bev Eggleston of EcoFriendly Foods, who says, “My perspective of what is humane is broader than how you harvest a cow. It’s how we treat humans, too. . . . To treat animals fairly, he needs to treat his workers fairly." Wait . . . harvest?
  
• Here's where the train of thinking falls short of the station: "Because of his plant’s small size (it employs 15 laborers), his unwavering conviction that 'the animal needs to be respected,' and his concern for his workers’ welfare, Eggleston’s operation is an expensive and relatively inefficient one." Seriously, folks, if you are going to respect someone, you're not going to hold them captive and kill them. What kind of definition of respect includes: I don't need to kill you but I'm going to because it will make me money?
• The chef's perspective is represented by Dan Barber, who serves Eggleston's meat. "For him, the importance of humane slaughter manifests itself in the quality of the meat." The needs of the cow aren't even mentioned. That sounds a lot more honest to me.
• At last we come to Grandin's thoughts: "Ultimately, for Grandin, 'humane' is a loaded word. 'I’d rather say low-stress, painless slaughter,' she says—ideally as stressful as a vaccination shot. The biggest obstacle, she feels, is quantity. 'Quality and quantity are two opposing goals,' Grandin says. 'But there’s a sensible balance.'" Where to begin . . . All you need to know is one word: slaughter. The rest is just noise trying to distract you from what's really going on.

For all of the verbiage that is supposed to convey legitimate care, and care that is above and beyond the norm, one thing will always be true: these people are in the business of killing sentient nonhumans for profit. They have no moral justification for taking the lives of the nonhumans other than that certain humans like the taste of their flesh but don't want to do the killing themselves. 

It's absurd that this has to be said, but respecting the needs of cows is the same thing as respecting the needs of dogs. It involves not killing them. Not eating them. And there's no way around that. Even death by vaccination shot doesn't change that.

Note to Those Wanting Promotion: Pay Attention

We bloggers often get e-mails from individuals and organizations in search of promotion. And that's fine, as we all want to spread the news of fantastic work that needs support. Case in point: AnimalEquality.

But there are two types of requests that are irksome to me:
1.    People I hear from only when they want me to promote them, and I have never asked them to promote me (I'm terrible at that) nor have they ever done it of their own accord. I should recognize their work, yet they won't recognize mine. And though it's not a colossal problem by any means, it's annoying for a moment, and with the world being the way it is, I have enough to be annoyed about.

2.    People who want me to promote them but they clearly haven't spent any meaningful time reading what I have written. They probably have a list of people whom they blast an e-mail to, changing only the field after the Dear in the letter, and they hope some of them will stick. And that's when I get e-mails like this:

Dear Mary
 
I’m Caroline and I’m one of the Supporter Services team members for Compassion in World Farming.
 
Having read your blogs I thought you might like to hear about Compassion in World Farming’s Bake with Compassion fundraising week.
 
From the 6th -10th of July we are asking everyone to get their aprons on and bake with free-range or organic eggs.

By encouraging people to bake with higher welfare eggs (as well as organic milk, butter and chocolate) vital funds will be raised to campaign against battery cages. We are hoping you might be interested in spreading word of the event to readers of your blog, or may know someone who would like to blog about this fundraising event.

Now, I'm the first one to say that when I began blogging I thought the end of the use of animals would never come, so in the meantime, welfare reforms could at least be supported. But that was back in 2006. And if Compassion in World Farming wanted to see if I knew of their campaigns and might want to support them, they could have easily Googled CIWF right at Animal Person, at which point they'd find:

• On Compassion in World Farming
• Eat More Veal? How About Be More Honest
• On Graphic Images We DON'T See
• The PeTA I Knew and Loved, Sort Of
• On Egypt's Pig Cull

When someone takes the time to write a personal e-mail and it's obvious they've interacted with me and readers or at least know what I stand for, and their cause is aligned, I'm always happy to oblige. It's not as if I have an enormous readership, and certain folks stay away because it's not in my nature to travel with any flock, but if I can make even a small contribution to someone who does great work, I'm thrilled.

Note to Compassion in World Farming: I want to see the end of farms that use sentient nonhumans. An end. Not a change in the way they do things. An end.

On Being Upset by Carnage That Comes Too Soon

It never ceases to amaze me that people will get upset about the death of an animal whose killing was their job.

This time, and thanks to a tweet from CaptainGraviton, it's "beef farmer" Jim McDougal in Scotland. In "Cows Killed by Lightning Strike," by Angie Brown of the BBC Scotland, which today was updated to "Lightning Strike Kills Bullocks," we learn that Mr. McDougal was "very upset," numb and shocked by "the carnage he saw." That carnage wasn't observed after the animals were slaughtered, but before he could get to slaughter them. The evildoer responsible for the carnage . . . was lightning.

What I don't understand is why this moment was so upsetting to Mr. McDougal. Perhaps he can no longer profit from the animals. But if he can still carve them up or have them carved up, it would seem to me that nature merely helped him do his job, no? They were going to die anyway, as that's why they were brought into this world--to be slaughtered. Why the phony concern over the death of animals?

And finally, wherever the animals were to be slaughtered and whether or not it was scheduled to be at the hand of Mr. McDougal, in that place, at that moment, would Mr. McDougal use the word "carnage" and would he be "very upset" or numbed by what he saw?

On "Home"

I watched Home earlier in the week and you can watch it on YouTube here, though a huge flat screen is definitely preferable. You get the idea at YouTube but the experience is vastly different on a great television.

Home reminded me of Winged Migration in a couple of ways: the sweeping cinematography and the score. (Important differences between Home and Winged Migration include that the latter had staged scenes, computer generated scenes, took over three years longer to shoot and had narration that was largely superfluous.) The cinematography did present a bit of a problem for me in that I often had difficulties with scale--I didn't know how wide or large things were, and though it might not necessary to know, I like to nonetheless. Also, there was something odd in the editing of Glenn Close's narration and often words would come in late and cut off, not to mention there were grammatical errors that drove me bananas.

And now that I've said all of that you might notice when you probably wouldn't have otherwise.

My husband watched the film over several days and took notes, which was most impressive. And he texted or Facebooked friends with various statistical tidbits and a recommendation to watch the film. As I've written previously, I never pushed him to go vegan, and now that he is I don't push him to do any vegan education. But he has come to that desire on his own, and has found his way of reaching people in his alien world of alpha male types, and I think that's fantastic and I certainly would never have been able to do it.

It's amazing to observe as someone learns about what we humans have done to this planet in such a short period of time, and how dire the situation really is. You can read about it all day long (or be lectured about it by your spouse), but to see it, and filmed so magnificently, is more powerful. Plus though the film isn't long (under two hours), it covers an enormous amount of ground (!), not deeply of course, but sufficiently so you get a clear picture that is impossible to deny.

On the animal front, there is definitely a message that factory farming is unsustainable, and that subsistence farming is and was preferable; there is a vague if-we-did-it-differently-it-might-be-sustainable message. But with so many other topics to cover, such as water and oil, that message that happy meat is acceptable doesn't even get any airtime.

I would like to have seen action points in the film: things the average person can do to stop our hyperspeed collision course with the annihilation of all of our planet's natural resources (and by consequence Earth's nonhuman and human inhabitants). I think that any film that presents a problem should also provide solution. But that's me.

Thumbs up, watch it, pass it around, and discuss thereafter.

On the Eating of Seafood

"We are fighting a war against fish, and we are . . . winning."

The End of the Line opens (limited release) next week. That brief trailer could be a gift in the disguise of paradoxical message about how we can still kill and eat fish, yet not be at war with them. I guess war is defined by death count.

It might be a gift because those pescetarian holdouts we all know who are convinced that for some strange reason eating animals from the sea is not as bad as eating those who live on land, might be convinced that their decision is a bit misguided.

As a way of taking the situation into your own hands and not being a part of the problem, the film's site offers you this widget:

Now, I haven't seen the film, but here's the message: There's something rotten in the state of the fishing industry. We are overfishing, over-trawling, and mutilating and slaughtering bycatch by the millions of tons (17-39 million tons/year, not including marine mammals, sea bids and some invertebrates). Oh, and this is a war we've declared and we're winning.

To then present a widget that helps you eat seafood is strange. That tells me that we're still at war, as we are going to continue to kill fish because we can and we want to. That tells me that, yeah, it's bad that our behavior can actually lead to "the end of seafood by 2048" (and notice how they don't say the end of fish), but that's because it'll lead to the end of somebody we want to eat, and we can't have that!

What about that most obvious of solutions, that requires no cognitive dissonance at all. What about the way to end the war we've waged and save the fish and the oceans is to stop the war! Stop eating fish and other sea dwellers and this problem goes away (and yes, I am over-simplifying). If you don't want to be complicit in the war, don't be complicit in the war.

You don't need a widget to do the right thing.

Go vegan.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Call for 20-year fishing ban in a third of oceans (guardian.co.uk)
• An Inconvenient Truth for Fish (telegraph.co.uk)
• World Oceans Day: Imagine a World Without Fish (greenskeptic.blogspot.com)

Deconstructing Slate's "Pepper" Series

For those who didn't read the five-part Slate series "Pepper, the stolen dog who changed American science" by Daniel Engber, I recommend it for the history, but also for the misconceptions and assumptions that you might want to discuss on the Facebook discussion about the series.

Let's deconstruct:

• Part I: Where's Pepper? I addressed this one last week. Beloved family pet Dalmatian, Pepper, is stolen, and after several weeks of searching is discovered to have been experimented on at a hospital and died on the table when researchers tried to implant her with an experimental cardiac pacemaker. My fears about what the rest of the series would involve were all realized.
• Part II: Man Cuts Dog. This one gives us a look inside the mind of the vivisectionist, Daniel Engber. There's a vague sense that perhaps he cares about the dogs or thinks that what he does to them might present an ethical dilemma, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's all worth it. About cutting a dog open and stopping the flow of blood to her heart, he writes: "Remember to move quickly, as the dog can endure only a few minutes in this predicament. (You can buy some extra time by presoaking the animal in a basin of ice water.)" For Engber, who dispassionately describes procedures most of the time, the "advances" in the medical care of humans are all well worth what he and other vivisectionists do to dogs and other sentient nonhumans. He writes, "The dog remained a vital tool in biomedical research for more than 300 years and was the vehicle for a remarkable run of medical breakthroughs."
• Part III: Pepper Goes to Washington. The tiresome Hitler was a well-known vegetarian comment is included in this segment, but I found it irksome long before that. This morning, during the Facebook discussion, Engber writes (and the first sentence is reason alone to chime in):

  Bring on the PETA hotties! Actually, I didn't quit neuroscience as a result of the experiences described, but I did quit working with animals. By the end of my time as researcher, I was performing behavioral experiments on humans. But that's neither here nor there -- I'm very supportive of animal research in principle. The point of my series was to introduce some of the difficult questions that don't often get asked within science, precisely because of what Alina has so aptly described as the "climate of fear" that pervades the lab. It's one that's brought on, no doubt, by the acts of vandalism and intimidation of radical animal-rights groups, but I think it also serves to insulate the research community from any responsibility it might otherwise have to increase transparency and public engagement with the work. I'm sure we could do a much better job of ensuring the humane treatment of our laboratory animals--but at this point it's very difficult even to start the discussion.

When Slate wrote me saying I might find this series interesting, what they don't know is that we who are invested in not torturing any sentient beings don't ask the same questions Engber is asking. "How long should one animal be used in the lab before it is euthanized?" isn't really on our list of questions (he asks that in the FB discussion).

I think he also doesn't know that not all of us think that chasing down Class B dealers is as important as working to shut down animal experimentation and create more alternatives. He's right with his implication that stopping the seizing of pets and strays simply created a more efficient, effective means of commodifying and torturing dogs and cats. But there is a significant contingent who is not as enamored with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act as he is. It "guarantees humane treatment?" Maybe on paper.

• Part IV: Brown Dogs and Red Herrings. This one addresses the decreasing number of dogs and cats being experimented on and, without mentioning it, discusses speciesism and our affection for dogs--pet dogs particularly (and especially purebreds)--which leads to our revulsion with the idea of snatching, vivisecting and killing them. Of course, "That's not to say dogs didn't have their niche in biomedicine. Medical schools, in particular, made ample use of them for education and research in surgery and cardiology." And thanks to the efforts of groups such as PCRM, that ample use isn't so ample anymore.

Engber mentions that in 1972, the USDA put into place "a special exemption for rats, mice, and birds, allowing scientists to treat them however they saw fit—in cages of any size, in experiments with any degree of pain and suffering. That exemption remains in force, despite Schwindaman's later attempts to overturn it. To this day, 95 percent of the animals used in research labs receive no federal protection whatsoever under the Animal Welfare Act." He differentiates those animals from what he calls "the cute animals" which is important and one of the few passages that I appreciated in this series. The fact that we care about--and fight for--animals based on how cute we have deemed them to be is disgraceful.

If Engber does a good job with anything, it's with pointing out the flaws in the strategies of pro-animal activists and in the outcomes of their campaigns. He concludes this segment with:

Meanwhile, rats and mice are subject to some of the most extreme and invasive experiments in biomedicine. By the early 1980s, we were spiking mouse DNA with cancer-causing genes; a few years later, we started to "knock out" specific lines of genetic code. (Scientists mapped out the entire mouse genome in 2002 and the rat genome in 2004.) We regularly subject rodents to pain, starvation, solitary confinement, and grotesque disfigurement. Whatever misery they endure is multiplied across the hundreds of millions of rats and mice used in labs every year.

The animal-welfare groups have failed in their most ambitious efforts to protect laboratory rodents. "We did and do strongly support the inclusion of rats and mice," says Cathy Liss, current president of the Animal Welfare Institute. "But the question is how can we properly address that? At this juncture, it's premature to go forward and rally support." With rodents off the table, though, it's not clear what's left for the activists to do.

• Part V: Me and My Monkey. This is where we get to see who Daniel Engber really is. He talks about "My research monkey," Clayton, and what he did to Clayton, and writes as if Clayton didn't mind at all. He was leashed, but didn't need to be, he recognized Engber and didn't want to kill him (until eight years later, which is very interesting), and he makes it sound like Clayton was having a good old time with his "2-inch titanium rod screwed into the top of his skull." He makes Clayton sound bored with his life of torment: "I remember the day he crossed his legs on the shelf of the chair and started strumming his fingernails against the wall."

Engber writes of experimenting on cats and on the "furtive language" vivisectionists use to decrease the emotional impact of what they do. "The word starving was replaced by fasting, bleeding by hemorrhaging, poison by toxicant; full-body photographs of lab animals were removed, and the pronoun it was subbed in for any use of he or she to describe them. Authors who referred to their animals by given names were instructed to use a string of letters and numbers instead."

Engber returned recently to the "monkey room" where Clayton was kept when Engber used him for research years ago and to his surprise, Clayton was still there.

If Clayton remembered me, it wasn't with fondness: He rose to all fours as I approached and grunted at me with his lips parted—an aggressive, open-mouth threat. There was little evidence of the adolescent who had cowered in the back of his cage eight years ago. As an adult, Clayton lingered near the bars, scowling. (I discovered later that he'd been separated from his old cage-mate Duper for fighting.)

I'd love to say that this was Engber's epiphany, and that he fought for Clayton's removal to a sanctuary and is now a powerful voice against the vivisection of sentient nonhumans. But that's now what happened.

Here's where we reach the point of the series:

Clayton was born in a breeding center; he grew up in metal boxes and spent his adolescence with a hole in his head and a coil around his eye. In 10 or 15 years of life, he suffered through multiple surgeries and infections and endless hours of restraint in a plastic chair. And for what? Pepper's death, at least, contributed to the development of the cardiac pacemaker—a revolutionary medical device that would prolong millions of lives. Every hour of Clayton's existence has been spent, and will continue to be spent, in the service of basic science.

"Yep, he's still going strong," my former mentor said when I returned from the monkey room. We stood outside a recording chamber, where another animal now sat in front of the monitor. Some people might not like the idea of a monkey working so long, he continued; they say it's better to use each lab animal for one experiment only or a series of related ones … but all the experiments in a given lab are at least somewhat related. "You could easily argue," he added, that the resources necessary to buy and train a new monkey would be a net minus for animal welfare. Why should we euthanize Clayton and start over? Isn't it better for science, and more humane, to use just one animal?

First of all, whether someone was born in a breeding center, under a porch or in my living room doesn't make them more or less entitled to a life free of enslavement, torture and slaughter. It does not make them more or less a "tool."

As an aside, each time I read the word "mentor," I got chills. To view someone who spends their life starving, piercing, mutilating, terrifying and killing others as a mentor is shocking. At least Engber was shocked to see Clayton. But not shocked enough.

Next, to say that the monkey is "working" is absurd and incorrect. Last I checked, work is something you consent to. You decide to do it, usually in exchange for some kind of payment you have agreed to. If not, you are volunteering. Neither of these words apply to Clayton or any other animal in a laboratory.

Finally, what Engber doesn't entertain is the notion that no animal--not one--needs to be in a laboratory and above all not one should be in a laboratory. He writes as if what he used to do--and what he defends--is morally justifiable on its face, and it's just the details that might be questionable. But the entire industry is questionable. The entire idea isn't justifiable.

Just because men did something that ended up helping people doesn't mean they should have or it was worth it. Engber is fond of listing all of the advances that came out of the vivisection of nonhumans, and my only question is: What if all of those researchers used retarded babies in their experiments? Or babies who weren't retarded? Or mute babies? Or they used blind babies for experimental blindness treatments? And what if there were plenty of cures and vaccines that came from all of that? Would you advocate for continuing to do such research just because it yielded results? Wouldn't you at some point say: That's not right--we need to stop that immediately and put our money and energy into finding alternative ways of performing medical research.

For me, and others who respect the lives of sentient nonhumans, experimenting on those nonhumans isn't right. We need to stop it immediately and put our money and energy into finding alternative ways of performing medical research.

See Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine for more on alternatives, and chime in on the Facebook discussion or e-mail Daniel Engber with your thoughts. If you want to tweet about it, use the hashtag #whpep.

"Educate, Investigate, Liberate"

You may know Jose Valle of the International Organization for the Abolition of Animal Slavery, AnimalEquality. He recently wrote me:

We are an abolitionist group and our approach is "Educate, Investigate & Liberate". We are currently doing an investigation on pig farms in Spain, including intensive and extensive/free-range farms (tho extensive ones are scarce since intensive ones are the majority in the industry). Nothing like this has ever done here and we are showing the first images of Spanish farms -we have previously done an investigation on Spanish slaughterhouses www.mataderos.info), so we want to get media & society attention about it and give them a vegan message.

People here tend to think that this kind of things only happen in other countries or that is something from the past, and showing them images of the same farms they are buying their flesh from, has a bigger impact than using images from USA or other places (the closer to their plates the better since it's harder then for them to avoid the responsability). The idea is not to focus on conditions -though they are unavoidably visible- but on exploitation itself. We don't advocate "happy meat" but veganism.

You can see some of the images from the investigation at:

http://flickr.com/gp/igualdadanimal/5Ky7p8

Let me warn you before you see them that they are very graphic and explicit.

(The images aren't yet made public and can only be seen through that specific link)

We already have many static images but we need to film some more farms on video and recover some of the best footage from a broken hard drive. So, I thought you could be interested in helping us to raise the funds. We have calculated that we need about 3.600 euros to finish the investigation and face its costs.

We have asked openly for donations already but few people are willing to help.

Thanks a lot.

There's a donate button on the homepage of AnimalEquality right at the bottom of the "Pig Farms" panel. Showing people what goes on at "free-range" farms, for me, has always been a powerful part of my vegan advocacy efforts because that's always the fall-back position of the person I'm speaking with. (As far as I'm concerned, Peaceable Kingdom can't be released soon enough.) I wholeheartedly support the mission of AnimalEquality/IgualdadAnimal.

And for those who wonder about their thoughts on PeTA, read this.

On Why I Pick on The Left . . . and Cookies

Sometimes I get comments that make me realize I wasn't clear about a fundamental point, or I assume everyone remembers other posts or has even been to Animal Person before. That hit me with a comment by Hoofenhoffer regarding "Steve Best on The Left's Ignorance of Cognitive Ethology."

Hoffenhoffer writes: "For starters, I don't really get his gripe with 'Leftists' in particular. Why are Leftists to shoulder the blame for the exploitation of animals simply because of their tardiness in arriving on the animal rights scene? Too many people are pointing fingers at the wrong folks these days."

I have the same gripe Best has with Leftists, hence my affection for this piece. And though I don't think they should "shoulder the blame," I do think that because their ethos has always been one of championing the downtrodden, the exploited and the voiceless, and pointing out how the system is set up to most benefit those few who are in power, animals would be a natural fit as a major cause for them. But they apparently don't think animals are important enough to stand up for, as they're not part of the platform of the average Leftist.

And I think they should be.

I think that it's odd, for instance, that someone so ensconced in human rights does not notice the parallel when she grabs her grilled chicken caesar salad for lunch. It smacks of compartmentalizing, or perhaps just plain denial. And Leftists are supposed to be the people who do notice where, how and why various kinds of oppression and exploitation cross paths. They're supposed to be the people who have figured out that the entire system is rigged against the weak and less wealthy. And those unable to speak for themselves.

I also liked Best's article because, though we all may have read Bekoff (and I'll write about Wild Justice soon!) and de Waal, I don't think the average person has. So while Hoofenhoffer may have found that part yawn-inducing, I think that because the writing isn't over-the-top, and because it quickly reminds us of (and dispenses with) arguments of human exceptionalism, it's a great piece for someone who is not Hoffenhoffer. For instance, I'm circulating it to some friends who are Leftists who give me the same tired reasons (excuses) for continuing to use animals.

As for cookies, well, I am at the end of week one of gluten-reduced week, and my two favorite parts were, of course, desserts. Brownie bites by Babycakes (but with date sugar and agave nectar instead of granulated sugar) . . .

And here are "Gluten-Be-Gone" Chocolate Chip cookies from Dreena Burton's "Eat, Drink & Be Vegan."

Have a great day!