Animal Person

On Timelines

The idea that each person has their own timeline for converting to veganism met with the following comment from All Means Justifiable:

"I have to say that writing "everyone has their own timeline" is a sentence I personally don't like to hear. Because even if it is true (in a way), its grounds are immoral."

I think this an important comment as it pits theory against practice, words against actions, and highlights the reality that humans can very well know something is wrong--or even not good for their own health--and do it anyway (and to remove the health debate with animal-eating, think smoking, or excess alcohol drinking, or some other action that's bad for you and you might proceed with nevertheless).

The fact that the concept of the timeline exists is simply an admission that human behavior is not necessarily aligned with what's in the head or in the heart. And as long as timelines do exist and we cannot guarantee that we can speed them up, the very least we can do is work to move them along. And I know that many people don't want to hear this, but moving others along, if done too harshly or abruptly, can backfire. Moving people along is more art than science, and for some people it's far more emotion-based than logic-based.

In my experience, knowing your audience and tailoring your approach (but not the substance of your message), is what converts people to veganism . . . when they're ready.

What are your thoughts?

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?

Alec's Story

I don't usually do this, but you have got to go to the blog of Nicole, who has a PhD in Sociology with an emphasis on animal studies, and who works in the Animal Law Program at the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The blog is called Alec's Story, and though I was originally going to write about "Conditional," and I probably will tomorrow, there's so much going on in the story of Alec and Nicole that anything I could write wouldn't be nearly as important as reading the blog first.

Have a great Saturday!

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?

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.

Gluten-Free Coconut Almond Cookies

By popular request, here's the recipe I tweaked from one on the back of a flour package. Veganized it, almonded it up a bit, and then made half the batter with dark chocolate chips and half with raw almond slivers.

1 cup sugar (hey, it's a holiday weekend)
1/2 cup Coconut Butter (or Earth Balance, I suppose)
1/3 cup Coconut Milk (as in milk from the carton, not the canned product. Used Regular Unsweetened. I suppose Vanilla Unsweetened Almond Milk would be just fine, too.)
2 tsp vanilla extract
1 tsp almond extract
3/4 cup White Rice Flour
1/3 cup Coconut Flour
2 Tbsp Potato Starch
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/4 cup raw, sliced almonds
1/4 cup dark chocolate chips

Preheat oven to 350. Cream together butter and sugar. Add vanilla and almond extracts and coconut milk. Separately, mix dry ingredients (except almonds and chips). Add dry to wet. Cut batter in half (or not) and mix almonds into one half and chocolate chips into the other (or not). Bake in lightly greased mini-muffin pan for 10-12 minutes according to the original recipe, but it took 15 minutes for my oven to produce perfection.

Enjoy!

On "The Botany of Desire"

This is coming very, very late, but part of why "Food Inc." wasn't impressive for me is because I'm not the target audience. I'd already read Pollan and Schlosser and seen "The Future of Food" and "King Corn." And though The Omnivore's Dilemma definitely promotes the eating of animals if those animals were "farmed" a certain way (and locally), there's so much helpful information in it about the food supply, in general, that it's tough to tell people not to read it.

Because The Botany of Desire doesn't address animals (Pollan discusses four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana and potatoes), there's no way for it to promote their consumption. I read this book over a year after The Omnivore's Dilemma, despite it having been published first, and I feel strongly about recommending it because of what it teaches about culture, greed, history, and . . . plants.

From John Chapman (Johny Appleseed) not eating animals or using horses in his travels (and the fact that apples originated in the forests of Kazakhstan) to the dotcom-like frenzy over the tulip in Holland to the evolution of cannabis to convincing me to never eat french fries at a restaurant (that's the only potato product I eat when I go out, and of course I inquire about what it is fried in), Pollan does a wonderful job of making the stories of the most ordinary plants sound like exotic adventures.

And of course, the entire book is a commentary on what happens when humans decide that a plant, for whatever reason, is desirable (or perhaps, as Pollan suggests, we have been set up by the plants to desire them).

On "Wild Justice"

 "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals," By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, is the most recent (for me) book that debunks myths about the differences between human and nonhuman animals. And those mythical differences, of course, have historically been used to legitimize our use and treatment of our nonhuman cousins. This particular group fits in with other Bekoff books as well as those by Jonathan Balcombe and Jeffrey Masson (see here for more on some of them from April of 2008).

Bekoff and Pierce (a philosopher) are the perfect combination to write this book because whenever you're presenting the similarities of nonhuman animals to human animals, a philosophical conundrum is created for humans, who like to think that we are worlds different, and above nonhumans. But as the frequently-invoked Darwin would say, those differences are of degree, not kind.

Just to be clear, this book deals with the nonhuman animals who are most like us: social vertebrates, and specifically social mammals (and there are a handful of references to cetaceans who behave similarly). "Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to social living" (45), and the hypothesis of Bekoff and Pierce is that "greater social complexity is linked with more complex and nuanced moral behaviors" (53). Also, Bekoff and Pierce present a descriptive view, not a normative view of morality. There are no judgments. They amassed an enormous amount of data, and then "allowed the data to do the talking" (151).

I'll get to what the data said in a moment, but first a few more clarifications.

• The authors make a distinction between narrative ethology and "'animal stories' that proliferate on the Web . . . . Narrative from seasoned ethologists provides interpretation informed by their knowledge about a particular species and its behavior, and their attention to context and individual peculiarities" (37).
• Bekoff and Pierce "advocate a species-relative view of morality. Each species in which moral behavior has evolved has its unique behavioral repertoire. The same basic behavioral capacities will be present--empathy, altruism, cooperation, and perhaps a sense of fairness--but will manifest as different social norms and different behaviors. . . . Despite some shared evolutionary history, wolf morality is different from human morality and also from elephant morality and chimpanzee morality" (19).
• "The scientific investigation of morality, in humans and nonhumans alike, is in its infancy" (39).
• Regarding accusations of anthropomorphism (which arise frequently and did in Bekoff's previous book, as well) and also evolutionary continuity, which provides for symmetry in comparisons, the authors write: "It isn't that we set out looking for humanlike traits in animals and hope to find some. Rather, we set out to understand what animals are like, and use the language and concepts that come closest to describing what we see" (41).

What did Bekoff and Pierce find?

They found a "suite of behaviors" including cooperation, empathy and justice, and various intelligences that make those behaviors possible. Each behavior comprises a "cluster" of behaviors that may or may not be considered moral, and also aren't necessarily defined as you would imagine. And therein is the necessity to pay close attention to the language in the book, although that is useful only to a degree as "not all ethologists and biologists agree that cooperation among animals is really cooperation . . . . [T]hey may be acting independently and simultaneously, without any cognitive decision to work together" (64). Furthermore, "We need to be careful about language and remember that [for example] altruism has a specific meaning within biology and isn't synonymous with morality" (82).

The authors discuss the three clusters of behavior (cooperation, empathy and justice) and the kinds and degrees of intelligences necessary for them to be present, with justice being the least certain of the three. But whether of not there is wide agreement on the existence of wild justice within social mammal communities (there isn't), we do find that the cognitive, social and emotional lives of these animals are far more developed and rich than most people are willing (or educated enough to) admit.

And therein lies one question the authors pose: Now that we are delving into the lives of animals in this way and are finding that they are not beings who are completly driven by instinct, never thinking about the future or past, and incapable of acting in a way that is good for others, particularly if there is a cost to themselves, aren't we obligated to seriously "[reconsider] the uses to which we put animals in research, education, and for clothes and food, among other things" (137)?

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 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 Compassionate Carnivores and Betrayal

Stephanie's post about "The Compassionate Hypocrite" on Saturday reminded me of what Catherine Friend and other "compassionate carnivores" are doing in addition to twisting the definition of compassionate beyond recognition. Their claim is that what has become the customary way to take sentient nonhumans from babyhood to untimely death is not humane. It's cruel. There's no "compassion" in the process. It's impersonal and hideously ugly and the animals suffer greatly.

No argument here.

However, the solution they have created, which harkens back to before industrialized agriculture, is simply to still raise animals for their flesh and secretions, and for profit, but to do it the old-fashioned way. No factory farms, no large-scale operations where animals are crammed together under a roof, never to see the light of day. No hormones, no "feed" that is unnatural for them and/or genetically modified.

I'd say no argument here if this were some kind of sanctuary situation, and the animals were in need of a loving home for the rest of their lives. But the entire purpose, which cannot be glossed over with any amount of creepy love letters, is that Friend and her ilk are being kind to the animals because they believe animals who are less stressed are tastier, and because, just like the CAFO owners, they will profit from their efforts (and perhaps more, as they charge a premium).

Yes, I do think it's better to have lived a comfortable life and then be slaughtered than to have been tortured the entire time and then be slaughtered.

But looking at it that way is allowing Friend and others to distract you from a far more important issue: none of this is necessary or justified. No one needs to eat sentient beings, so it's not as if these "farmers" are providing a valuable service to humanity. And regardless of how you treat someone when they're live and regardless of how you kill them, if you don't need to kill them and you're doing so merely to please your palate, how do you justify what you're doing? You can't (at least not in a meaningful way).

Getting people to move their focus from the final chapter of the story of the animals--and I don't mean how they died, but that they died--allows you to appear to be the good guy. It allows you to swoop in with an alternative to the disgraceful human behavior that is factory farming and provide a kindler, gentler way to partake of the flesh of others. And if those whom you're addressing are willing to drink the KoolAid you're serving, plenty of profit awaits.

But the real good guy is the one who, like Cheri and Jim and Howard and Harold says (and this is my paraphrasing of everyone): Yes, I have profited from the lives and deaths of sentient nonhumans. And now I regret that because I realize there is simply no way to raise an animal with the intent to kill that animal and call it anything but betrayal. I wouldn't do it to a dog, and I shouldn't do it to a chicken/sheep/cow/pig. It's just not right.

Betrayal, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. A treacherous giving up to an enemy. (Here, that enemy being Death.)

2. A violation of trust or confidence, an abandonment of something committed to one's charge.

Interesting definitions of betray include:

2. a. To be or prove false to (a trust or him who trusts one); to be disloyal to; to disappoint the hopes or expectations of.

4. a. To lead astray or into error, as a false guide; to mislead, seduce, deceive (the trustful).

There is no question about the motive here: seduce the sheep into believing you care so that they are easier to deal with and easier to lead to slaughter. At least CAFO owners don't use that kind of deceit--of their customers, the animals and themselves.

On The International and Father's Day

Someone on Twitter said The International was the best film he'd seen in years. I think it was in theaters here for all of a week, which is a good sign, as the better a film is, the shorter its tenure at the local multiplex in South Florida. But you only find out how long it's in the theater when it leaves, and by then it's too late to see it. Interesting quandary if you're playing the I'll-find-it-somewhere-next-week game.

Was it a great film, in my opinion? Not fantastic, but good. But what kept my interest was the topic, and how true it is (badly phrased--weapons sales aren't so much about controlling the war but controlling the debt). And there are loads of goofs that confused me and made me stop and rewind to determine if my eyes were wrong. Then there were the predictable twists.

And some of the dialogue was of on-the-nose variety that all screenwriting books tell you to avoid like the plague. But the dialogue I liked was of the Greek chorus-variety or even the "Confucius say . . .". My favorite lines were:

• I'm more comfortable tense.
• What you need to remember is that there's what people want to hear, what people want to believe, everything else, and then there's the truth. . . . The truth means responsibility . . . . That's why everyone dreads it.
• The difference between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense.
• Character is easily kept than recovered.
• Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.

Thanks to my dad, on Father's Day, with whom we studied film as he studied film at Columbia when we were tots, for teaching me what to look for when I see, and listen for when I hear. And also for teaching me that just because a film or an idea isn't popular, doesn't mean it isn't great.

Happy Father's Day!

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?