Animal Person

An Affront to the Idea of Family

I'm not one of those people who thinks family is composed of only humans or humans who are biologically related. That's one of the reasons adopting wasn't a stretch for me at all mentally.

The idea of family is currently being used by the dairy industry in a series of commercials with the tag line: "99% of dairy farms are family owned." You see midwestern folk in overalls with tired faces. There are children. Girls. They are proud to be dairy farmers.

Of course, you're supposed to hop onto the following train of thought: These are good people. Good Americans, just trying to keep their families together and eke out a living in these tough times. Buying dairy products supports them.

It doesn't matter to me, but let's for a moment examine the 99%. Ninety-nine percent of dairy farms are family owned. That doesn't mean that 99% of dairy products are from family farms, as the average number of cows on each family farm is just over 100. It's not necessarily the case that buying dairy likely supports one of the families that comprise the 99%.

What you're supposed to be buying into is the idea that if a family owns a farm it is somehow qualitatively different (and of course, better) than a farm that isn't family owned. Families, so the commercials go, don't engage in untoward aspects of animal husbandry that might hurt the cows. The cows are walking around green fields, similar to those in the criminally misleading California cows commercials. The cows' tails swing in the breeze. The family isn't wealthy and they're not sophisticated, but they're proud of what they do. And they certainly wouldn't hurt anybody; that's what those big factory farms do that aren't owned by families.

There's an assumption that a unit known as a family is better to deal with than, say, a person who is merely a member of a family and who wears a suit and drives a fancy car rather than a tractor. When it's put that way, doesn't it sound silly? Families are just as capable of horrendous policies toward animals as anyone else. Their goal is to make a profit from the breeding and slaughter of animals. Period. Just ask former cattle rancher Howard Lyman, who is now a vegan and animal rights activist.

My daughter has given me an extra layer of sensitivity regarding the treatment of female animals. As a woman, I always found it offensive that females are forcibly bred, have their children taken away from them and are milked within an inch of their lives. But now I think about all of that being done to my daughter and I must say the disgust I experience at the notion that a family farm is somehow a wholesome place is a bit overwhelming.

One of the most important things about Deb's blog, Invisible Voices, is that many of the fortunate animals who end up at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, where she volunteers, came from family farms.

Yes, factory farms are the stuff of nightmares for nonhuman animals. But so are family farms. I don't care about scale. If someone owns me, forcibly breeds me, takes my kids and ends my life, it's a living hell for me.

--Photo from publicenergy's Flickr photostream.

On Deep Vegan Outreach and Dr. Ray Greek

This week I asked "Is this 'War'?" over at Animal Rights and AntiOppression and I welcome comments (and will respond to the current ones shortly).

I also saw two items of particular interest to the mission of Animal Rights and AntiOppression as well as Animal Person on the Interwebs: An introduction to "Deep Vegan Outreach" and an open letter from Dr. Ray Greek.

1)    "Introducing 'Deep Vegan Outreach': The Time for Change is Now" begins with photos of vegan and King of the Cage World Champion, Mac Danzig. I never understood the appeal of beating others or watching such activity, but I cannot deny the level of fitness that must be involved in reaching Danzig's position in that world.

But as far as the article goes, I particularly like:

• "a radical new vision is needed to rescue the importance of the vegan message for global crisis and situate it in its full social and ecological context."
• The General Principles of Deep Vegan Outreach, including addressing "Economically-disadvantaged individuals and families, and racially and ethnically diverse populations" and the enormous implications of the increase in animal consumption among developing nations.
• Immediate Projects and Short-term Goals include a letter writing campaign to policy experts "to encourage them to emphasize veganism as crucial for avoiding runaway ecological crisis and renewing the earth and all its inhabitants."

Of course, the name brings Deep Ecology to mind, which is a plus in my mind.

What do you think about Deep Vegan Outreach?

2)    If you live in Los Angeles, you are probably more aware of the goings-on around the panel discussion that will involve Dr. Ray Greek and members of the Pro-Test community at UCLA. Here's "An Open Letter from Dr. Ray Greek on the Feb. 16 UCLA Panel Discussion," which raises a handful of interesting issues about panels, debates, the importance of airing both on the Internet, and the realities of setting up a panel or a debate with people who are on the opposite side of your issue.

I recommend reading the entire letter. You don't have to have any prior knowledge of the controversy or live in LA to appreciate Dr. Greek's thoughts.

On the Banning of Eating Cats and Dogs in China

I've been blogging here less partly because I've been blogging at Animal Rights & AntiOppression (check out my latest post "On Corporate Personhood and Animal Rights" and the better-than-the-post comments) but also because I've been feeling like a broken record and I don't want to bore anyone.

It seems like the answer to most questions/responses to most issues is one of these:

• Speciesism.
• It's just another excuse people have concocted because they like the taste of cow/pig/chicken/fish flesh.
• It's not difficult once you get the hang of it--it's just different at first.
• We can care about animals and people at the same time; they're not mutually exclusive.
• If you don't have to enslave, rape, dominate, or kill someone (or have someone else do it for you), why would you? Why choose enslavement, rape, domination and slaughter?
• Just because you did something for years doesn't mean it has some magical inherent value and you should continue to do it today and tomorrow.

Sometimes an article has a couple of the above, as in the case of "Chinese Legal Experts Call for a Ban on Eating Cats and Dogs."

Let's deconstruct:

• Legal experts in China are proposing a ban on the eating of dogs and cats.
• Many people support this, particularly affluent types, who have become dog and cat people and now own them as "pets." This is what I hear: The wealthier people become, the more likely they are to want to own others for their pleasure.
• The reasoning is fascinating: "We are proposing that all dog and cat eating should be banned because it is causing many social problems." So the ban isn't being suggested because eating cats and dogs is wrong, but because it's creating conflict. No one will propose a ban on eating chickens because there's no conflict there.
• Here's an interesting combination of great sentiment and horrible sentiment that involves two responses from the above list: "Online critics said it was hypocritical to protect only dogs and cats, and that the government should focus on human welfare before protecting animals." Yes, it is hypocritical (speciesism), but who said that we either protect humans or animals? Where do people get that idea?
• Let's just say the ban was meaningful. Notice how the story ends: "The focus has now been narrowed to prevention of animal abuse, which is defined as inflicting unnecessary pain and brutality." So we went from a ban to a vague statement about the prevention of abuse that clearly doesn't consider slaughter abusive. And I'm sure it will be claimed that what is done to the dogs and cats is necessary and isn't brutal. Or if it's brutal it is necessary. I think we all know where this is going. It sounds like it might not even help cats and dogs in a meaningful way.

Now, I haven't heard from Chris, who lives in Beijing, regarding this issue. He often has insight into why something might be different in action than what I think in theory when it comes to China. But my initial reaction is that this is like Americans giving up "red meat." All they do thereafter is replace cows with chickens and pigs and fish.

What do you think?

On Atheism and Veganism, Part Deux

"On Atheism and Veganism" created what was for the most part a respectful, interesting discussion that brought up a couple of items I'd like to clarify or explore.

First off, I began the post with, "For me, atheism and veganism go hand-in-hand." I went on to explain why that is and my penultimate sentence was, "I see these counter-culture positions as parallel and based on the same evolution of thought and deconstruction of the stories of childhood."

I never stated a belief that atheism and veganism are actually connected in some way that many people are missing. Yet, for instance, the twittosphere was full of childish comments and ridicule in that direction. Again, I was making a personal observation about the evolution of my own thought process and asking if anyone else saw things similarly. And I thank everyone who read those words, treated them respectfully, and responded accordingly.

Next I'd like to acknowledge the Norm Phelps article Gingerlks (thanks!) linked to that you may have seen called "Why the Animals Need Religion." Phelps writes:

If the abolitionists had thrown up their hands in disgust at the level of support for slavery in  White churches and condemned religion, they would have sabotaged their own cause by alienating almost the entirety of the American public. If we throw up our hands in disgust at the level of support for animal abuse in America’s churches and synagogues, we will set back the animals’ cause by at least a generation and probably more. Like the old abolitionists, we must convert the churches, not write them off.

I don't disagree with that, but I also don't advocate for atheism when I advocate for veganism. If I'm speaking with an atheist I might use my personal thought process in my vegan advocacy, but if someone wants to believe there is a god, and that belief is helpful to them, and they're not hurting anyone because of that belief, I have no problem with that. When it comes to believers, I agree with Phelps that all religious traditions have some kind of basis for mercy or compassion or relieving suffering that we can use in our advocacy. They might not have a rights position, but we use what we have. I say I don't mind someone's belief in a god if "they're not hurting anyone," but in my mind they are and I explore that notion with them in my advocacy.

Finally, and this will be an entire post someday, there are the people, many of whom I am surrounded by, who subscribe to some kind of Eastern tradition, and probably who have a living guru whom they "follow," and who eat animals. These folks hold that their spirituality includes the recognition that all sentient beings are part of the same larger "consciousness" of the Universe, and that we humans are no better than any other animal.

Ask them what they had for breakfast.

Far more than any Judeo-Christian tradition, these individuals whose lives are governed by karma, choose to have someone create and kill animals for them to eat. And that is something I just don't understand. But in my vegan advocacy that's the perfect place to begin (or end).

In other words, I don't talk about veganism and atheism to anyone but atheists. Just like I talk about karma and veganism with people who have allowed the idea of karma to rule their lives. And I talk about doing unto others to people who like to believe they live by The Golden Rule.

We do need to reach religious people. It would be a tad disingenuous for me to advocate within the Judeo-Christian community as I've never been known to be part of it. But I can and do advocate for animals among "spiritual" types as well as atheists, as I know the language and the practices of those people better than I know that of traditional religious people.

Ninety-nine percent of us are not vegans, so heaven knows there are enough people who need to hear a story that is different from the one they are telling themselves. Most of those people believe in a god or call themselves "spiritual." I am not advocating for trying to change their minds about that, but for using what they believe as a link to why they should consider veganism.

Join Us at Animal Rights and AntiOppression!

Just a note to those of you who might now know that I've been posting over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression (http://www.challengeoppression.com) for a couple of weeks, so daily posting here doesn't mean I haven't posted. Today I wrote about John Perkins' new book called "Hoodwinked," and I welcome you to come over, check it out and say Hi!

There have been some fantastic, insightful and tear-jerking posts over at the new site, and great discussions have emerged. Chime in, and also any suggestions or comments about the site are appreciated!

Chris from Beijing is Finally Blogging!

Christopher Barden, an American vegan living in Beijing, and whom I mention frequently, has started his own blog/"Notes on Life"!

Chris is a bit of a geek, and I say that with great warmth and admiration, and he's always trying to figure things out technically and technologically. For instance, he is figuring out a way to "deliver advertisements for rescued animals seeking adopters and fosters." Earlier this year he'd send snapshots of various vegan sites that use Google's AdSense to the people who run the sites to illustrate their well-intentioned message was flanked by fur ads or other such undesirable.

These days, most people are onto that and many have chosen not to use AdSense. However, I have recently noticed that several vegans who write for Examiner.com have animal-exploitation based ads on the same page as their vegan education. That must be very frustrating, as it's not as if the vegans have made that decision.

I like that his left column includes "ads for good things," including the Vegan Advertising Agency: Creative Services for Sentient Beings (which he started and wrote about here) and upcoming events.

Visit Chris, and make sure to stop by "A Goose on an Evening Stroll in Beijing," which is adorable, and read the story of "Bob the Dog," whose story teaches an important lesson.

On Altruism and Compassion in Economic Systems

Next year's Mind and Life Conference is called "Altruism and Compassion in Economic Systems: A Dialogue Between Economics, Neuroscience and Contemplative Sciences." Here's a quote from the homepage of the conference's site, CompassionEconomics.org:

"The ongoing global financial crisis shows clearly just how vulnerable economic systems are to human behavior, particularly to corruption and greed. This strongly suggests that other qualities, such as empathy, pro-social motivation, altruism and compassion may play an essential role in our increasingly competitive global economic system.

But can we really imagine an economic system that delivers prosperity and welfare, or is competition an unavoidable consequence of the human race? How can we, as individuals, help form a society that is both productive and resolves actual societal and environmental problems? What have the sciences to contribute - if anything at all?"

As an atheist as well as one who once considered herself a quasi-Buddhist, but found Buddhism to be not the un-religion it is touted to be, I find Mind and Life to be helpful because their dialogue has largely been about something I know to be true, yet something that many atheists scoff at: the benefits of meditation.

I don't appreciate when meditation is lumped in with New Age and "spiritual" practices and rituals and retreats with a goal of "bliss" or "enlightenment" or "total consciousness" (whatever that is). What I do appreciate, and what Mind and Life does, is when meditation is discussed in relation to actual emotional, physical and mental benefits. This has nothing to do with god or transcending spiritually; it's about calming and clearing the mind and the emotions so that you're less crazy. There . . . I said it.

As for altruism and compassion in economic systems, I'd rather see a basis in social justice. But maybe that's just semantics for the folks at CompassionEconomics and maybe that's the direction they're going.

I look forward to hearing about the findings of the conference, and what, if any, solutions the group develops to what they believe are the ills of the global economy.

A Win-Lose Proposition for Farmers and Consumers

From the website of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture:

Washington, DC - The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) this week released a proposal to address the critical economic situation of American dairy, pork, and poultry producers, while simultaneously providing much-needed nutritional assistance to Americans facing hunger due to job loss and other economic hardships.

People whose careers involve creating, fattening, transporting and slaughtering sentient nonhumans whose parts and secretions will then be used as food are having some financial difficulties.

Along with the rest of the country.

To "help these industries survive this economic downturn and gain a solid footing for the future,"  NASDA is proposing a "bold solution: a plan to take extra inventories off the market to reduce supply, all while providing vital nutritious, protein-rich foods to those who are unable to afford them, which is in more demand now than ever before."

Translation? First let's deconstruct:

• The recession has caused a decrease in demand for animal products. I say stop right there, as Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman and Jonathan Safron Foer could be behind the decrease. We don't really know. We do know that a feature of a recession is that all sectors are affected in the same direction, and I don't see anyone proposing a bold solution for writers or editors.
• What if consumers have genuinely been paying attention and have realized that animal products aren't that healthy, are an environmental disaster (the way most are produced) and not sustainable and are a blatant, direct signs of the largest and longest injustice in human history? What if Meatless Mondays and all of the messages about decreasing consumption of animal products have made a difference and consumers have spoken? What if this has nothing to do with the recession or less than one might think (nothing's a tough sell)? Why the rescue plan? The market has spoken; this is supposed to be capitalism, not corporate socialism.

But all of that aside, the bold solution is: Americans who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would be the targeted consumers of the surplus (in addition to military food assistance programs in places like Afghanistan).

"By removing these excess products off the market, and placing them into food assistance programs, we will quickly stabilize the prices for these products, allowing the producers to break-even, or perhaps even make a profit on their farms.  Simultaneously, our fellow citizens struggling to put food on their table will find themselves with more opportunities for healthy, protein-rich meals.”

So people with lower incomes, who already have higher incidences of obesity and diabetes and already don't eat as well as people with higher incomes, will be the intended consumers of exactly the type of foods they don't need to be eating. And that's being done as a favor of sorts, a gift to them by the benevolent NASDA.

Perhaps just as ironic is the mission of the NASDA, which includes "protection of animal and plant health, stewardship of our environment, and promoting the vitality of our rural communities."

Why I'm Not Giving Up On Capitalism

Among friends I'm thought of as a bit of a conundrum because I haven't completely given up on capitalism. More important, I haven't given up on the idea that money can save the day sometimes.

Or pulling money.

For instance, I think shareholder activism isn't a terrible idea because you're giving them money in the first place. The goal is to manipulate by gaining enough shares/power/control to swing things your way. Would I buy Burger King to do that? No, because their entire business is based on using animals. But there are other scenarios, such as some that PCRM has suggested in the past, that do make sense; where the goal is to alter policy within a company regarding, say, research using animals when that's not required. Or putting money into researching alternatives.

And though there's a lot of ridicule among some activists about writing checks--and particularly to large organizations--check out this check to a large organization . . .

Madeleine Pickens (yes, that Pickens--T. Boone's wife) was largely responsible for Oklahoma State University canceling its planned anthrax experiments on baboons after she threatened to cancel the Pickens' $5 million donation to the university's vet school. (Here's a local news article about the situation.)

Thomas Paine's Corner has more on the story here.

I'm going to contact Madeleine Pickens to thank her, as well as Burns Hargis, the President of Oklahoma State University.

I guess part of my refusal to completely abandon capitalism is the related notion (byproduct? goal, even? at least in my eyes) that larger amounts of money can make a big difference. And just like the premise of The Girl Effect, she who has the money has the power to change things faster and in a more significant way and in more in her favor than when the person who does have the power and the money has a different idea of what's important.

Okay, now take your best shot. And try not to call me any nasty names.

The Irony of The Girl Effect

I saw this on Oprah yesterday. Yes, I watched Oprah. Yesterday was World AIDS Day and I anticipated her doing a thoughtful program, which I think she did.

Here's a video she showed, produced by the Nike Foundation:

The message is clear and necessary and indisputable. But the cow part? The irony of the cow part is that much of this Oprah show was about slavery. Human slavery, of course. Sex slavery. Oprah and journalists Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn (Kristof's wife and co-author with him of "Half the Sky"), along with a bevy of celebrities who contributed to short videos, described some of the atrocities committed against women and suggested what audience members can do.

I think the show was well done and informative and here's what struck me most. There was a brief discussion about why these horrifying crimes can go on, and in such great numbers, without the world doing something about them. Without a demand to their cessation.

And the answer was basically: If this were happening to men, the world would have put a stop to it.

The irony of the inclusion of the cow in The Girl Effect is that it swaps one form of slavery for another. It says, in no uncertain terms, that the way to prevent the enslavement of a girl is for her to enslave a cow (and then more cows) because that property will give her power.

Oprah's a huge Heifer International fan, and how people who are concerned with justice can give to that organization shocks me. It's particularly ironic for a black woman to support Heifer International.

To Kristof's credit, he immediately mentions a story included in "Half the Sky" about a woman who was given fertilizer for her potato crop, which flourished and was so lucrative that she became the center of power in her family because she had the money. It was because of her that her husband could get medical care when he fell ill.

The central message of the program was not about enslaving animals, of course. But each time Oprah or a guest mentioned a statistic, and the audience was appropriately surprised and disgusted by that statistic, a statistic about animals quickly popped into my mind. For example, Oprah (or Kristof) said:

"At the peak of the transatlantic slave trade, 80,000 slaves were transported from Africa to the new world. Today, more than 10 times as many women are being forced into brothels or other forms of slavery."

That's 800,000, and that's a crime of disgraceful proportion and it I'm not minimizing it. But tens of billions of nonhumans are created as slaves and also live unimaginably terrifying lives. And 99% of the population (as in, 1%, I believe, are vegans) doesn't care. And The Girl Effect is promoting that form of slavery.

The conclusion that seems inevitable regarding nonhuman slaves is the same one that explains why women are still living as slaves: they are not seen as valuable the way men are.

The impulse might be to say that we need to work on freeing women first, and then work on animals. But it's the same concept that underlies both situations: viewing others as commodities that you have a right to exploit. The only problem is that in the case of animals, most people don't see that yet. Our job, it seems to me, is to help them see it.

Injustice wears many masks, but behind them all is the same face: the belief that you have the right to use and profit from someone else's life.

Ways to Promote Alliance Politics

You'll get the irony of this fuzzy bit of culinary activism (vegan vanilla cake with strawberry filling and vegan cream cheese frosting) taken in my suburban home with the reminder of ahimsa in the background if you choose to read the remarkably tame and informative "13 Ways to Promote Alliance Politics and Total Liberation" by Steve Best. No ad-hominem attacks, just useful action steps, some of which you've probably been taking anyway.

I've been engaging in some of the steps (for lack of a better word) for about a year, beginning with reading the books and blogs of people I have come to deeply respect and for the most part agree with. I also disagree with them. And I can. I can figure out where I stand without the risk of being shunned, Amish style.

Though reading's the easiest thing to do it isn't to be minimized as it's necessary to provide context and connections (to some of us insulated, elite, white people. At least I don't hang out at "trendy cafes, upscale malls and uptown and suburban comfort zones"). The books and blogs mentioned in the post aren't for everyone in style or substance, and for me style can be an enormous hurdle. Meanwhile, I'm sure that writers whose style I have a problem with will say, "I don't have the time or the inclination to write the sort of dispassionate, tepid prose you prefer while tens of billions of sentient nonhumans are being enslaved and slaughtered for no good reason." And I understand that point.

So if you don't like someone's style, see if you can look beyond or beneath that for the meaning (though sometimes it is admittedly difficult to separate the presentation from the substance). 

And though reading is the easiest thing to do, not everyone has access to books. Chris from Beijing works to get books translated for the groups he works with, and I can say for certain that you'd never take your access to books for granted again if you heard what he has to go through to get books to China.

And they have limited Internet access, so that's another obstacle.

And speaking of obstacles, some of the people I work with who live mere miles away but it seems like galaxies when it comes to services don't have a reading level beyond sixth grade, if that. And it's not because they didn't go to school; they were moved through the system and allowed to get much of the way if not all the way through high school despite their relative inability to read. They would be interested in the content of the books, for sure, but they have learned how to talk around the notion of books and don't easily ask for help. Leaflets and books aren't the ways to get to this particular population, at least not unless you begin with adult literacy (which is an area I think I'm about to get into so I'll let you know how that goes).

Furthermore, when you read, I recommend not using your disagreement with someone about, say, the definition of violence, stop you from going out into your community and building alliances. I have been building friendships with anarchists and other activists for about a year and I have yet to have a discussion about violence. Though I have expanded my contacts, most of my conversations are still in their infancy. Most people were like me in that they had "their" issue and saw addressing "my" issue as taking time away from theirs. Getting through that initial resistance takes a bit of time and energy and it can't be skipped or rushed because it's the foundation. I also find that to be the case within the community of nonvegan, pro-animal activists, such as greyhound advocates. They don't see veganism as related to their fight against dog racing, at first (or second . . . ).

If you get to #12 of Best's list, which includes: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and respond "I won't be doing any crime, thanks, and I don't support anyone who does" that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the other action steps, except maybe #11, which is to support political prisoners.

Finally, I appreciate this (the penultimate paragraph):

The alliances needed for a politics of the 21st century – the most crucial century in the history of humanity — will not be easy to form. It  is difficult to build a single-issue movement, to organize a local  group, and even to have a relationship with another person, let alone to build the complex alliances necessary to avert social and ecological catastrophe.

Don't let this become a discussion about what violence is or isn't (because it's not). It's about a broader and deeper vision of how we are going to succeed--if we are going to succeed.

On Radical Abolitionism and Guilt

Frequently, when I read Steve Best, I feel guilty.

"He's talking about me," I say to myself. Though I'm not a Francione-style abolitionist, and much of what Best writes isn't directed at me, plenty of what he writes is.

And I don't mean me personally (though I probably should).

The latest example of a Best article that makes me feel guilty is "Manifesto for Radical Abolitionism: Total Liberation By Any Means Necessary." Why the guilt? Because I don't take enough of a stand. I am not a fundamentalist pacifist. I do not believe that our war can be won by vegan education alone and that some day, the oppressors of humans, nonhuman animals and the planet are going to see the error of their ways and transition to a nonviolent, non-exploiting way of life. And I don't think that converting one person at a time to veganism via my spectacular baking or my blogging is going to make up for the people of China and India rapidly increasing their consumption of animals. And I don't think my Daiya pizzas, even if I could make a lot of them and distribute them about my comfy suburban town along with leaflets, are going to do anything to alter the power architecture of American society. This is not to say that I'm going to stop what I do; I'm just realistic about how far it will go to address the actual cause of the rampant exploitation and massive slaughter I want to eliminate.

As Best writes, "Psychological and ethical change is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of the large-scale social transformations needed for creating viable democratic and ecological cultures." He refers to Paulo Freire, a favorite of mine who, Best writes, "insisted-education can only be part of a much broader and multi-pronged movement of resistance, struggle, and change. Thus, like all prior revolutions, human and nonhuman animals will not win liberation because oppressors suddenly see the light, but rather because enough people become enlightened and learn how to rock the structures of power, to shake them until new social arrangements emerge."

I know how many feel about Best, and about Francione, and both of those discussions get very old for me, very quickly, which is why I decided to avoid them months ago. And both discussions often degenerate into all kinds of name-calling and ignoring of the issues. But when it comes to the ideas of alliance politics, total liberation, and expanding the idea of what might be necessary to even come close to our goal as vegans, how do you feel about Best's Radical Abolitionism? Are there parts of it that resonate for you?

And please, if you hate him, or Francione, or me, please keep that to yourself and stick to the question.

Kofa Mountain Lion Update

Though I wrote about the mountain lions of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge a couple of times, it was never with the breadth and depth that Deb Durant of Invisible Voices has. She posted an important update that those of you who participated in the commenting period (regarding the killing of the Kofa lions) may know something about. Deb and I have both relied on Retired Wildlife Biologist Ron Kearns as our expert, and he has a lot to say about the situation, including a recommendation for those interested in commenting on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA): No Action Alternative A (which Ron adds in the comments section of the post). Though many of us commented in the original scoping period that killing the lions isn't acceptable at all, Ron suggests we "[s]imply stipulate—in [our] own words—that if the Service refuses to consider public comment- based Alternatives that prevent all GPS-collaring that could lead to lion killings, that [we]—without much choice except through possible litigation—support Alternative A: No Action Alternative."

This is a surreal situation in my opinion because, as Ron writes, "all 3 Alternatives in the DEA allow for the killing of Kofa lions, just at different rates and at different geographic locations."

I'm always fascinated by the procedure for determining what the public wants and then what actually occurs as a result.

Check it out!

On the Land Grant University Meat Problem

Just like property status isn't something I write about often and I would never have thought of, the same is true for the relationship between land-grant-universities and why some of us eat what/whom we eat. Today's message and call to action is from David Cantor of Responsible Policies for Animals (thanks, Mike!).
 

Responsible Policies for Animals Members & Friends!

Here is Responsible Policies for Animals' letter in the September-October 2009 Utne Reader -- responding to an article about questionable business-school teachings:

As business schools teach harmful financial practices, our land-grant universities' college of agriculture teach harmful food practices, driving chronic disease, soaring medical and insurance costs, global warming, food and water waste, and inhumane treatment of animals "Animal science" sounds erudite, but it's really meat, dairy, fish, egg, and animal-feed technology -- not knowledge  of animals, which is zoology.  Given the abundant literature on conflict of interest in the academy, and given that knowledge is routinely used to promote special interests and popular interests over the public interest, maybe we should monitor our educational institutions at least as much as governmental ones.

Utne has a circulation of about 100,000 -- a senior editor I spoke to assures me it is not exaggerated as with some publications.

If you might wish to thank Utne for helping inform about the land-grant-university (LGU) meat problem and ask them to do more on it, send a brief note to editor@utne.com or Editors, Utne Reader, 12 North 12th Street, Suite 400, Minneapolis, MN 55403 -- or ring them up at 612-338-5040 (editors actually answer the phone, but don't take advantage!).

 A key reason RPA's 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign to get our universities out of the meat industry "exemplifies animal rights advocacy" -- as scholar & author Joan Dunayer put it her important book Speciesism -- is that people cannot understand basic autonomy rights applied to nonhuman animals without a critical perceptual shift, and it is universities' responsibility to provide the knowledge that makes basic change possible.  Instead, our LGUs teach the false ancient beliefs that maintain meat -- including dairy, fish, eggs, and feed crops -- as an institution.  

Our most insidious institution -- as my talk in Miami in 10 days (August 29th) will explain!  I look forward to meeting RPA's Florida members who are able to attend!  

If you know anyone in Miami and vicinity who might enjoy an eye-opening evening among eye-opening evenings, let me know and I'll e-mail or mail you a flier to give them -- or will send it straight to them if you give me the information.

Meanwhile, donate when you can, get friends to become Responsible Policies for Animals members --and thank you for your support!  

Best wishes,
 
David Cantor
Founder & Director
Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc.
P.O. Box 891
Glenside, PA 19038
215-886-RPA1
RPA4all@aol.com
www.RPAforAll.org
www.ExpertsOfConscience.org
www.EatForSports.org

On Food for the Soul

The New York Times' Nicholas D. Kristof frustrates me. His passion and compassion for humans is immense, but he appears to have some kind of mental block with nonhuman animals. He comes so close to grasping the concept of justice based on sentience, but his thinking is all muddled by tradition and culture. The result is that on one level he knows that hurting sentient nonhumans isn't right, but if it's done in a certain respectful way (oxymoron, anyone?) it's not so bad.

I suppose speciesism/human exceptionalism is at the heart of the matter. He just doesn't believe that other beings lives might have a purpose all their own that is entirely unrelated to humans. He romanticizes his childhood usage of animals as if that was the right way to do it, and he longs for those days. He is mere steps away from wondering whether there is a right way to use another, but those steps are a chasm for him.

In "Food for the Soul," Kristof once again yearns for the farm of his childhood which, for him, had "soul." What that means is that it wasn't a factory-farm operation. The animals were still bred and raised for slaughter, but evidently in some kind of soulful way we don't really hear about. Essentially, industrialized farming=soulless, small family farm=soulful. I wish Kristof would remove his soul-colored glasses and take a gander at The Humane Myth or read about animals who are rescued from small family farms, many of whom end up at places like Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, Maple Farm Animal Sanctuary, Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary.

Kristof writes of the "decent and varied lives" that small farms provide animals with. I'm not sure how that equals soul. Food for my soul involves nutrient-rich plants and grains and legumes that provide me with just about everything I need to be in fantastic health (let's not have the B12 discussion). Food for my soul does not involve grilled greyhound any more than it involves grilled chicken. It doesn't involve taking the life of someone who'd much rather not have her life taken. It doesn't involve forcing any sentient being to do anything or go anywhere or eat anything . . . or die . . . on my schedule and for my palate.

I don't know how any person's soul can be considered fed at the expense of another sentient being.

You can comment, along with the people who thought Kristof's sentiments were "beautiful," here. I'm on my way.

On Google, HSUS and Fur

Many bloggers who are pro-animal rights have either not used Google's AdSense or stopped because they discovered that, for instance, their anti-fur post was surrounded by ads for fur. We all know that the ads are generated by computer based on the content. It's not as if the people at Google intentionally set out to make us look foolish or ambivalent about our message or . . . pro creating-animals-to-skin-them-for-their-fur.

That may be true, but not taking a stand by not removing the ads from their inventory (as they have done with other categories) is effectively taking a stand against the animals and for the exploiters.

(I used to support the Animal Rights Zone until I discovered that my posts were often surrounded by fur ads. I wrote to the site's creator, who was initially shocked, but who has yet to respond to my queries thereafter.)

If you haven't seen the latest discussion about the perils of using AdSense, check out HSUS' Michael Markarian's Blog on Huffington Post is Advertising Fur, and its comments, which include a defense by HSUS. The comments also include a suggestion that HuffPo (and presumably HSUS) develop an ethics policy that governs what may show up on their blogs if Google isn't willing to filter out fur ads.

Here's the letter from Chris of Furisevil to HSUS:

Dear HSUS,

Like the raccoon dogs just a few miles from me, in cages awaiting to be killed, I cannot afford to wait for HSUS to do something.

Nothing personal, but I have to blog about this.

http://furisevil.org/?p=1137

If Markarian cares about the fur animals of China, he could easily demand that HP stop selling fur on his blog.

He could ask Wayne to  say something to the Huffington Post.

The animals in Hebei Province need HSUS to be smarter than this.

The horrors of fur farming in China will never end until we in America stop advertising and buying it.

So, why not take the fight to the American media and demand that liberals at Huffington Post, NYT and LA Times stop selling fur.

Better yet, HSUS could start a campaign targeting at Google's DOG AND CAT SKIN Trade.

(All the evidence you need is on http://furisevil.org -- there is no investigation required. 99% of those photos are from Google's own paying clients. They're not hiding anything.)

Google is selling dog and cat skin -- HSUS has known about this for almost six months now and done nothing.

I don't see why Huffington Post is any different from the fur farmer skinning an animal alive.

They're both making money off this act of violence.

And, if perchance, Markarian or the HSUS gets paid anything from the HP for blogging there, then HSUS is now in the fur trade too!

Chris

The HSUS, no matter what you think of it, has power. Fur should be low-hanging fruit (but that's another topic for another day), and particularly dog and cat fur. I'm not easily stunned by the behavior of humans, particularly when they are motivated by economic concerns, but I'm stunned by the reluctance of powerful people backed by a lot of money to advocate for . . . what they're supposed to be advocating for.

Check out today's challenge to HSUS at: http://furisevil.org/?p=1140

We Interrupt Regularly Scheduled . . .

We interrupt regularly scheduled deconstructing, editorializing, commenting and ranting to bring you a letter from John Perkins:

Dear Friends

Speaking of Democracy, Honduras, and President Obama. . .

In writing my new book Hoodwinked (Random House, Nov 2009 publication date), I recently visited Central America. Everyone I talked with there was convinced that the military coup that had overthrown the democratically-elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, had been engineered by two US companies, with CIA support. And that the US and its new president were not standing up for democracy.

Earlier in the year Chiquita Brands International Inc. (formerly United Fruit) and Dole Food Co had severely criticized Zelaya for advocating an increase of 60% in Honduras’s minimum wage, claiming that the policy would cut into corporate profits. They were joined by a coalition of textile manufacturers and exporters, companies that rely on cheap labor to work in their sweatshops.

Memories are short in the US, but not in Central America. I kept hearing people who claimed that it was a matter of record that Chiquita (United Fruit) and the CIA had toppled Guatemala’s democratically-elected president Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 and that International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT), Henry Kissinger, and the CIA had  brought down Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973. These people were certain that Haiti’s president Jean-Bertrand Aristide had been ousted by the CIA in 2004 because he proposed a minimum wage increase, like Zelaya’s.

I was told by a Panamanian bank vice president, “Every multinational knows that if Honduras raises its hourly rate, the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean will have to follow. Haiti and Honduras have always set the bottom line for minimum wages. The big companies are determined to stop what they call a ‘leftist revolt’ in this hemisphere. In throwing out Zelaya they are sending frightening messages to all the other presidents who are trying to raise the living standards of their people.”

It did not take much imagination to envision the turmoil sweeping through every Latin American capital. There had been a collective sign of relief at Barack Obama’s election in the U.S., a sense of hope that the empire in the North would finally exhibit compassion toward its southern neighbors, that the unfair trade agreements, privatizations, draconian IMF Structural Adjustment Programs, and threats of military intervention would slow down and perhaps even fade away. Now, that optimism was turning sour.

The cozy relationship between Honduras’s military coup leaders and the corporatocracy were confirmed a couple of days after my arrival in Panama. England’s The Guardian ran an article announcing that “two of the Honduran coup government's top advisers have close ties to the US secretary of state. One is Lanny Davis, an influential lobbyist who was a personal lawyer for President Bill Clinton and also campaigned for Hillary. . . The other hired gun for the coup government that has deep Clinton ties is (lobbyist) Bennett Ratcliff.” (1)

DemocracyNow! broke the news that Chiquita was represented by a powerful Washington law firm, Covington & Burling LLP, and its consultant, McLarty Associates (2). President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder had been a Covington partner and a defender of Chiquita when the company was accused of hiring “assassination squads” in Colombia (Chiquita was found guilty, admitting that it had paid organizations listed by the US government as terrorist groups “for protection” and agreeing in 2004 to a $25 million fine). (3)  George W. Bush’s UN Ambassador, John Bolton, a former Covington lawyer, had fiercely opposed Latin American leaders who fought for their peoples’ rights to larger shares of the profits derived from their resources; after leaving the government in 2006, Bolton became involved with the Project for the New American Century, the Council for National Policy, and a number of other programs that promote corporate hegemony in Honduras and elsewhere.  McLarty Vice Chairman John Negroponte was U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985, former Deputy Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, and U.S. Representative to the United Nations; he played a major role in the U.S.-backed Contra’s secret war against Nicaragua’s Sandinista  government and has consistently opposed the policies of the  democratically-elected pro-reform Latin American presidents. (4) These three men symbolize the insidious power of the corporatocracy, its bipartisan composition, and the fact that the Obama Administration has been sucked in.

The Los Angeles Times went to the heart of this matter when it concluded:

What happened in Honduras is a classic Latin American coup in another sense: Gen. Romeo Vasquez, who led it, is an alumnus of the United States' School of the Americas (renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). The school is best known for producing Latin American officers who have committed major human rights abuses, including military coups. (5)

All of this leads us once again to the inevitable conclusion: you and I must change the system. The president – whether Democrat or Republican – needs us to speak out.

Chiquita, Dole and all your representatives need to hear from you. Zelaya must be reinstated.

 FOOTNOTES

(1) “Who's in charge of US foreign policy? The coup in Honduras has exposed divisions between Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton” by Mark Weisbrot

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/16/honduras-coup-obama-clinton (July 23, 2009)

(2) http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/from_arbenz_to_zelaya_chiquita_in (July 23, 2009)

(3) “Chiquita admits to paying Colombia terrorists: Banana company agrees to $25 million fine for paying AUC for protection” MSNBC March 15, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17615143/ (July 24, 2009)

(4) Fore more information:  http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/07/eric-holder-and-chaquita-covington.html (July 23, 2009)

(5) “The high-powered hidden support for Honduras' coup: The country's rightful president was ousted by a military leadership that takes many of its cues from Washington insiders.” by Mark Weisbrot, Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-weisbrot23-2009jul23,0,7566740.story (July 23, 2009)

On Letting Your Emotions Rule the Day

Bea directed me to the Animal Welfare Special Report at TheHill.com, in which Rep. David Scott (D-Ga), who is the chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture draws a line in the sand regarding the animals we use and how we use them.

Once you know what his title is, there is little to be surprised about regarding his rhetoric, but it's still interesting to see how he spins his topic, and particularly how authoritative he tries to sound when it's clear that his agenda either doesn't allow for him to educate himself or doesn't allow for him to admit that his agenda trumps the facts.

Let's deconstruct:

• Paragraph #1: Americans don't know where their food comes from and what it takes to produce it. True.
• Paragraph #2: Ditto.
• Paragraph #3: Food safety scares have caused us to look more closely at our food supply. True. But the end of the paragraph is where it gets interesting. "However, many of our concerns about modern food production stem from purely emotional concerns, in which we try to overlay our social mores onto sectors where they traditionally haven’t been applied. A prime example of this is our concern for the welfare of animals in agriculture."

Translation? We "traditionally" have applied our social mores in some places and not others, and we should go back to "tradition," which I bet has something to do with continuing to care about our dogs while continuing to feign care for "farm animals," as they're value is as food only.

• Let the games begin . . . Paragraph #4 starts with: "Undeniably, neither I nor anyone I know advocates or even tolerates the inhumane treatment of farm animals." The veracity of this statement hinges on Scott's definition of "inhumane," and that definition must be very, very restricted, and clearly unrelated to the realities of our modern factory farm system. But his real agenda comes out later in the graph:

"However it is imperative that we allow the most up-to-date scientific data on animal agriculture practices to drive the policy decisions we make, and extract emotion from the equation as much as possible. We have a tendency as a society to anthropomorphize our animals, especially our pets. We give them human names and provide them with the same amenities we enjoy as humans. None of this is objectionable; our pets provide us with a tremendous amount of love, companionship and joy and deserve the best care we can give them. However, a problem with this view arises when we consider animals in agriculture."

The "problem with this view" that arises is that it is entirely logical to broaden one's circle of compassion beyond "pets" and to other sentient nonhumans, and Scott doesn't like that logic because it conflicts with his profit motive and his palate.

• Paragraph #5 begins: "Unfortunately when combined with our love for companion animals our lack of knowledge about agriculture leads us to view farm animals the same as we do our pets. We think about what type of living conditions we want for our pets (often the same as those we want for ourselves), and try to apply that to every animal when in reality this may not be the best course of action."

It is not "our lack of knowledge about agriculture" that "leads us to view farm animals the same as we do our pets," it's the reality that in every way that is important, farm animals are in fact exactly the same as our pets. We have simply decided that certain animals are pets (and we have domesticated them) and certain animals are food. "Lack of knowledge about agriculture" might be irrelevant, but it's also untrue, as most vegans I know know far more than non-vegans about animal agriculture, and it's that knowledge that makes them want to be vegans.

Scott then attempts the often-read, nature-is-cruel argument, which is supposed to lead to the conclusion that animals on "farms" are better off than those in the wild. The only problem with that is that's not what's going on. It isn't true that animals on farms would be in the wild otherwise. They are created to be on the farms; they wouldn't exist otherwise.

• In paragraph #6 Scott separates himself from farmers, who are businessmen and care about profit margin and "view animals in a utilitarian light and define their wellness based on productivity." At this point of course I'm waiting to hear how he views "farm" animals differently.
• We don't really get an answer for that one, but we do get to the real question, which Scott alludes to in graph #3: "So how do we bridge the gap between maximizing profit at the expense of an animal’s expression of its natural tendencies and treating livestock as we would the family cat?" The problem, then, is the question Scott is asking and the assumptions he is making. I don't think anyone is campaigning for "farm" animals to become pets, as many of us don't even think the family cat should be the family cat. Scott's assumption is that we profit from certain animals. But he need not make that assumption; it's a choice.
• Finally, Scott writes that "we have the responsibility to set aside emotion as much as possible and make rational, science-based decisions on policy in an effort to balance the concerns of all involved."

What's all this about emotion, anyway? All we do as vegans is take a reality--the reality of the sentience of cats, dogs, horses, chickens, sheep, cows, etc... and "make rational, science-based" and logic-based decisions "in an effort to balance the [genuine, life or death] concerns of all involved" (surely Scott cannot claim to be doing that).

Methinks it is Scott who is letting his emotions get the best of him. He is letting his attachment to eating animals and his attachment to his constituents profiting from their slaughter cloud his decision making. If he were truly making decisions based on science, he would know that the cow whose parts he eats is just as sentient as family cat, and that arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand for who is free from torture isn't "rational" or "science-based."

Check out "The Bill"

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?