Animal Person

Please Share "Silencing the Lambs"

Thanks, once again, to James LaVeck and Jenny Stein of Tribe of Heart for kindly and carefully bringing attention to what should be a stunningly-obvious moment of hypocrisy by groups that exist to advocate for and save animals.

I understand how someone who supports the Humane Society of the United States might think an event celebrating "humane" farms would be a good idea, as HSUS isn't an animal rights organization. What I fail to understand, however, is how advocates whose life's work revolves around justice for animals we use for food would ever--ever--sponsor or benefit from an event that puts those same animals on a plate.

On "The Road" and Humanity

Last night I watched 2009's "The Road" (based on the Cormac McCarthy novel, which I haven't read), a post-apocalyptic tale of a man and his son trying to survive. They're trying to get to the coast and then go south, where they think there might be more food and at least the winters won't be so brutal. Gangs of evil-doer survivors are marauding across the land, up to a particular kind of evil.

When the landscape is barren and there are few living creatures of any kind, people begin to lose their humanity. And that's when they start to do the unthinkable: eat other humans. What separates the good guys from the bad guys is that one point. And if you miss that point, the man and his son frequently speak of being the good guys, and when the boy needs to figure out if someone is good he asks: "Do you eat people?"

But the line that delineates good guys from bad guys goes deeper. Bad guys treat humans the way they'd treat animals. They hunt them down in "the wild." They corral them, lock them up, and take them out to kill, cook and eat them as needed. When one of the bad guys is killed the other bad guys will feast on his body. But no matter who dies or how, the good guys won't eat the corpse.

SHAC7 Trailer

SHAC 7 Trailer from Sparrow Media on Vimeo.

I credit Will Potter as the catalyst for shifting my focus away from critiques of other activists and activist groups (particularly his post, "While the Government Continues Attacks on Activists, Animal Rights Groups Protest Each Other" back in 2008). I'm not saying that criticism of PETA, or any other group, isn't warranted. And there certainly are some loud voices doing that criticizing. But when our First Amendment rights have been diminished as an activist group and we're being unfairly targeted and called "terrorists" and not afforded equal protection, it feels strange to protest against other vegans. Despite the fact that I don't necessarily disagree with some of the criticism, I simply can't get behind the endless vegan versus vegan debates when we are all the same to the government.

But that's me.

If you're in NYC on March 23, support "Muzzling A Movement" at my alma mater, New York University at 7pm (presented by the NYU Student Animal Legal Defense Fund).

On Indigenous People and Animals

 A couple of years ago I catalogued the dozens of excuses/rationalizations from well-meaning, compassionate people about why they eat animals, and all fell into one of six categories:

1. It's what god wanted (and other versions, such as: That's why they were put on the earth. . . . By god.)
2. God thinks vegetarians are evil, and we want to please god. Not to be confused with #1, this one comes directly from The Bible. Cain was a farmer, Abel was a herder. Cain was the bad guy, Abel was the good guy. Net message? Cain=farmer=evil murderer; Abel=slaughtered animals=victim/good son.
3. We are physiologically carnivores. First of all, very untrue factually. Second, if the people who believe this would eat all of their "meat" unseasoned and raw, after having killed the source animal with their bare hands and ripped open the carcass with nothing but said hands and some teeth, I'd feel like maybe their argument was at least sincere. In fact, I'd even permit them to not ever kill anyone, but rather to eat the kill of another that has been quietly decomposing for a day or two, as many carnivores do. And let's not forget they'd eat no grains and the only vegetables they'd eat would be the partially digested ones from the stomachs of carcasses. Now, who's a carnivore?
4. We can't get everything we need without eating animals. We simply cannot survive without killing them! It's us or them! Tell that to the American Dietary Association.
5. We're smarter and more evolved and have more to offer the planet, so we should be able to do as we please. This speciesist rationale, also known as because we can, should be replaced with because we have a conscience. Because we have a conscience and can choose nonviolence over destruction, domination and death, we should. Why choose violence if you don't have to?

And my personal favorite:

6.  As long as you say a prayer for their souls and thank the beasts, you can eat them without bad karma, just like indigenous people. If you've seen Avatar, you know that this excuse has gotten a fresh boost from the people of Pandora, who, in their Gaia/Lovelock-ian splendor kill animals and teach the lead male, Jake Sully, how to properly do so. The lead female, while teaching Jake, is even excited when she shoots her bow and kills a . . . whatever he was. Of course, she teaches Jake the prayer that makes killing the animal all better. Not sure if the animal sees it that way.

If you're going to claim that it was good for Native Americans so it's good for us, please know that they had an ecological ethic that we simply don't share. They killed only what they would eat, used practically every part of the beast, killed him themselves, and didn't consider animals beneath them as we do. Saying a prayer and thanking the animal are parts of a larger spiritual context and a relationship with "Mother Earth" that most mainstream people in the developed world don't ordinarily live by. And yet they romanticize and even fetishize indigenous people's practices when it's to their advantage. The fact remains, however, that if you don't need to kill anyone to survive, no amount of storytelling and mythmaking (or myth borrowing/co-opting) around that slaughter excuses it.

Finally, as for saying a prayer for the soul of the animal you've just killed or are about to eat, I find that backward. When you eat the flesh of another, it's your own soul (if you believe in souls) you should be praying for. Ingesting suffering can't possibly be good for anyone's karma.

A disturbing trend I've seen among the used-to-be-called-New-Age, but now called "spiritual" people, is the co-opting of all things Native American (both North and South). They do their sweatlodges (I actually did one out of curiosity, and yes, it's really hot in there! And they make you smoke, which is something I am very much against and I'm sorry, but I don't believe that tobacco is healing my spirit). They have their dream catchers, their animal skin rugs and their drum circles. They burn their sage, they claim to have read all of Carlos Castaneda, and they couch their eating of animals in spiritual terms. They say they are taking the abundant gifts Mother Earth gives them and they are grateful for the sacred experience of  communing with her. The "sacrifice" of the animal will feed their souls. They speak of their part in the universal circle of . . . .

Are you annoyed yet? 

All of the talk of ritual and the flinging around of "sacred" and "spirit" doesn't change the cold, hard fact of killing someone, or having someone do it for you, and then eating that someone when it's not necessary--no matter who you are or what tradition you come from. But in my experience, humans will draw from anybody's history--or dig their heels deep into their own--in order to justify what they want to do: Eat animals because they enjoy the taste of them.

---Photo of dreamcatcher from Flickr user deimiannn

Check Out "Field Trip" and Chime In

Karol Orzechowskiof Animal Voices (who interviewed yours truly back in July!) created the following film for your viewing, um . . . for your viewing.

I don't want to comment right now except to say that there are no graphic images of suffering similar to those in, say, Earthlings. However, for me, the images are in a way just as powerful because they demonstrate that use is abuse.

But that's me.

Then there's the issue of the indoctrination of children. But I did say I wasn't going to comment now.

field trip from karol orzechowski on Vimeo.

The site for the film is here, and includes thought-provoking photos, as well.

Chime in with your thoughts about "Field Trip."

On Peaceable Kingdom, Part Deux

Last week I ventured a couple of hours north to see Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home at the Orlando Film Festival. The turnout was fantastic and the Q&A had to be cut short so the audience for the next film could be ushered in.

This version of the film is different, and lighter, than the one I saw earlier this year. But the message remains the same, and it's the only such message available in film to my knowledge (and please let me know of any others): there's simply no way to kindly, politely, "humanely" take someone's life when you don't need to.

Perhaps the best feature of the film is the various voices telling a similar story. The storytellers are (with two exceptions) people whose livelihoods came from using animals. And more important is that those storytellers include people who ran small, family operations that animal welfare advocates would not have a problem with.

The voices of Jim Vandersluis and Cheri Ezell-Vandersluis of Maple Farm Sanctuary were especially poignant, and the anguish in their faces--in their eyes--jumps off the screen as they explain how and when it hit them that the business of raising goats for milk requires surrendering the babies to be slaughtered.

All of the former animal farmers come to the same conclusion: that what they were doing wasn't right. And the sacrifices they were willing to make, and the changes they felt compelled to make in order to transition out of a life of using animals for their profit are awe-inspiring.

There's a voice and a face for everyone to connect with in Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home. My experiences are unlike that of any of the film's subjects. I grew up in suburbia and the closest I got to working on an animal farm was the inside of a car driving through rural Pennsylvania to get to Pittsburgh to visit an ex-boyfriend's daughter in 1992. But that doesn't matter because it's the betrayal that I identify with. I didn't have to do the slaughtering to know what it feels like to have participated in something for a good chunk of my life that wasn't right. I didn't slaughter animals like Harold Brown did, and I'm not saying we feel the same pain or that I am haunted in the way he appears to be, but I certainly have betrayed the animals, just like he has.

Director Jenny Stein and Producer James LaVeck weave many themes into Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home. There's betrayal, hypocrisy, speciesism, animals as commodities, animals as property, the myth of "humane" farming, the fictions our culture teaches us about animals, and of course, redemption. For all of us.

Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home Coming to Orlando

From the makers of Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home

Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home is finally here! After a successful world premiere screening at the Moondance Film Festival in Boulder CO, where our film won the "Spirit of Moondance" Best Feature Documentary award, we are going to the Orlando Film Festival in Orlando, Florida on Thursday, Nov. 5th.

As many of you know, this documentary is a story of transformation and healing that explores the awakening conscience of several people who grew up in traditional farming culture and who have now come to question the basic assumptions of their way of life. With strikingly honest interviews and rare footage demonstrating the emotional lives and intense family bonds of animals most often viewed as living commodities, PEACEABLE KINGDOM: THE JOURNEY HOME shatters stereotypical notions of farmers, farm life, and  perhaps most surprisingly, farm animals themselves.

Watch a video of premiere highlights and audience response here.  

We need your help to spread the word! Please consider joining us in building the excitement for this celebration of transformation, community, non- violence and compassion. Ask family members and friends who are unfamiliar with animal issues to join you in attending the festival events. You can send them our evite or our facebook event invitation, post it on your website, blog, social networking site (facebook, myspace, twitter, meetup, etc.), add it to your calendar of events, or just send an email or call your family, friends and colleagues. You can also post our flyers at local community bulletin boards (universities/colleges, coffee shops, grocery/health food stores, libraries, community centers, gyms, yoga studios, animal shelters, vet offices, pet supply stores, laundromats, etc.) and/or distribute our hand bills at local gathering places (university, farmers market, and wherever people stand in lines, such as concerts, movies, etc.) Handbills can also be placed (with permission) in stacks on counters at local coffee shops, restaurants, yoga studios, health food stores, etc.

The festival will be hosting:

'Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home' - FREE screening
Thursday, November 5 at 4:30 PM
Plaza Cinema Cafe (Theater:10), 155 S. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32801
More info. at: http://www.orlandofilmfest.com/

Filmmakers Jenny Stein and James LaVeck will be on hand for Q&A after the
screening, followed by a reception (location TBA).

Your presence at these events, as well as your helping get the word out and bringing some people who are new to compassion issues to them, will make a meaningful difference. Together, we can make something special happen in Orlando!

On "The Age of Stupid"

Did you ever wonder why people become subjects in a documentary when they know that they're going to look like fools?

Or maybe they don't know that, and that's why they participate.

Either way, there are many cringe-worthy moments in "The Age of Stupid," which is sort of "An Inconvenient Truth About Oil, with a Particular Focus on Air Travel."

I liked the way the film connects oil use to an oil company. It's about the people and the land. A young woman in Nigeria (can you say Shell Oil?) and a middle-aged man who lives in New Orleans and lost everything in Hurricane Katrina, and who works/worked for Shell Oil, and an entrepreneur in India who started a low-cost airline for the people of his country (and we see none other than a Shell Oil truck delivering its fuel). Different races/ethnicities, different income levels, but remarkably similar intentions: to help people. I do have to say that Shell has been an easy target for years and I hope that people don't focus on them (yet again) as the real enemy and look at themselves for their own complicity instead.

The true stories are all woven together by a convenient narrator from post-apocalyptic 2055, looking back on our generation, which is in the unique position of being able to save the planet. We know what is happening and we know what to do about it. And if we don't do what we need to do, well, you know what comes next.

Here's what irked me: I saw the pre-show, live from the green carpet in NYC, as well as 25 minutes of the post-show discussion with the filmmakers and several experts (but I didn't see the whole thing so I could have missed something) and, I think you know what's coming . . .

There was no meaningful discussion about our inefficient use of resources (grain and water) in the feeding of animals to kill to feed people. With regard to cruelty and suffering, it's clear from the film that the human animal has been profoundly negatively affected by climate change, but there is no attention given to nonhuman animals.

There is one horrifying scene where the young woman in Nigeria is cleaning several live fish (at first I thought they were dead, but then they started moving) with detergent, because they are too filthy to eat. And there is a family in rural England who charts their energy use and we see that food is the second highest use of energy for them (air travel takes up the most). But they dismiss food. And the wife says that one thing the family does is eat less meat and eggs (and they raise the animals on their land), but even that is glossed over. I think those are the only references to diet.

And in the pre and post show (that I saw), even in the interviews with the celebrities who are known vegetarians (I know, I know, they're not vegans . . .), when asked none of them says that one thing they do to combat climate change is to alter what/whom they eat.

Though I don't want to criticize the filmmakers for not making the film I thought they should have made, I do think that if you're going to tell people in 2009 what they can do to help save the planet, you're not doing your job if you neglect to tell them--in a meaningful way--about how their diet fits into the equation.

There was a focus on Copenhagen, particularly post show, as it is upon us. That angle made a larger political and activist message more prominent. But still . . .

Did anyone else see it? I do recommend it, particularly for the discussion about wind power (which always, as far as I know, comes down to aesthetics and I'm glad to see someone make that point in such an effective way). If you know anyone who doesn't understand the connection between our energy consumption (and consumption, in general) and what has become of the planet, "The Age of Stupid" might be a good place to start.

The Best in Vegan Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On "Food Inc."

(Sigh.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 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 "Home"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will You Check Out Food, Inc.?

Food, Inc. was at the Delray Beach Film Festival last weekend, about 30 miles south of me. But I wasn't. Nothing about its "Alliances" (or it's "Issues") screams vegan, or even whispers it, but I shall reserve judgment. If more people eat actual food as a result (i.e., less processed food and more fresh, organic fruits, veggies, grains and legumes), than I'm thrilled. If it steers (sorry about the pun) people toward animals raised in places other than factory farms, where they will still be killed, I'm not thrilled.

My guess is I'll get some of both.

If you've seen it at a festival, let us know how it was!

Finally, are you convinced that there's nothing in it for you and the message you live by? Will you not check it out?

On Mixing Bowl and Vegan Education

From today's Publisher's Weekly:

In January, Meredith Corporation quietly launched Mixing Bowl, a social networking site about cooking. Emphasizing user-generated content, the site invites home cooks to exchange recipes, share photos, participate in contests and post messages. The site is approaching 12,000 members, which Meredith v-p and general manager Jeff Myers said is “ahead of expectations.” Next month, Meredith will begin an aggressive marketing campaign for Mixing Bowl, start a companion print magazine—and start launching cookbook authors through the site.

Though there are plenty of sites by and for vegans, I like this idea because it provides a built-in opportunity to convert people to veganism because you are side-by-side with them, so to speak, on the same site. Vegans seek out vegan sites, but a nonvegan looking for a chocolate cake recipe probably won't seek out a vegan site. But a recipe using applesauce and flax rather than eggs and butter, with a fabulous photo, might catch his or her eye. Like most social networking sites, it appears that success at Mixing Bowl takes time and energy, and is somewhat of a popularity contest.

What I have tried not to do over the past couple of years, with varying degrees of success, is focus my efforts on vegans . . . because they're already vegans. Infiltration has always been what I'm best at in my nonblogging life. People are surprised when they find out I'm a vegan because it goes against whatever combination of stereotypes they've chosen to accept. And the same is certainly true of my husband.

Mixing Bowl seems like a great place to raise awareness that perfectly delicious, healthy meals and desserts, including kids' birthday cakes and wedding cakes, can be made without killing anyone. I know that the average person doesn't look at it this way, but is a birthday cake really worth killing someone for?

Fans of specific cookbooks can start groups, and of course, drive sales. Tell your favorite vegan cookbook authors!

Maple Farm Sanctuary Needs Your Help!

Late last night I received this message from Jenny Stein . . .

I'm concerned about Maple Farm Sanctuary, whose founders are two of the seven subjects in our new film, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to reach out through your blog to let people know that the sanctuary is in a financial tight spot right now. As you know, Cheri and Jim are in the early stages of setting up their sanctuary, after a long journey of conscience that began with them closing their dairy goat operation, then transitioning to a vegan way of life, and eventually, creating a loving, lifelong home for farmed animals in need. Amazingly, they are now staunch abolitionists (Cheri is one of the former farmers who contributed to the Humane Myth web site). They currently care for about 80 animals, almost half of whom are special needs cases who require extra time, attention and medical care. I'm including story below about Willie (below), just one of such animals they helped this year.

Maple Farm Sanctuary is a charitable 501(c)3 organization that Cheri and Jim have made tremendous sacrifices to found. They have basically been donating all their waking hours for several years now, and have also used much of their their life savings to buy food, bedding and medical care for the animals under their care. The sanctuary runs on a very modest budget of approximately $55,000 year. Right now is a particularly hard time for them, as the sanctuary is short on funds to keep its animals in food and bedding until the summer months, when their crop of hay generates some income.

When our film comes out, more people will become aware of the inspiring journey that led Cheri and Jim to doing what they do today. In the meantime, I hope other animal advocates will join me in supporting this sanctuary to help it succeed, as Cheri and Jim represent the journey we hope more farmers will make, away from exploiting and killing animals to cherishing and helping them live full and natural lives. It’s been a hard, steady climb for them to get to the point they are today, and in spite of enduring many hardships and setbacks, they have not given up, and are still actively working to improve their skills in running a nonprofit organization and sanctuary. The shift they have made in consciousness is profound, sincere, and something I hope we can all get behind.

....................................................................
Written by a volunteer at Maple Farm Sanctuary:

I first heard about Willie the Saturday before he was taken in. I was walking through the main barn with Cheri and she was telling me about Jitterbill when she mentioned a downed goat that had been living in poor conditions somewhere nearby. She said that she probably wouldn't be able take him in, but even after knowing Cheri for only several months I know her well enough to know that wouldn't be the case. Her heart is so big that you can see it from space - I knew that I'd meet the goat during my next visit to the farm.

The next weekend Cheri brought me into the goat barn to meet Willie, and I immediately felt a warmth in the room. It wasn't the space heater, though - it was coming from Willie. As I found more out about his living conditions and how he ended up in the condition he was, it broke my heart. I spent almost three hours in the barn with Willie that day, just sitting with him and comforting him while he was up in his sling, giving him the attention and care that he didn't receive at his last home. After sitting in one position for too long, I'd need to get up and move to another part of the room to get comfortable again, and every time I moved Willie would start trying to walk and would use his back legs to swing around in the harness so he could face where I was and nuzzle his head into my lap. It was clear that Willie wanted nothing more than human contact and affection. The attached picture is one that Pete took on that first day.

Over the next two weekends, I spent more time with Willie in the barn. It was as if when I was there that was my "job" to do on the farm - just be with Willie and give him the attention and love that he didn't get at his previous home. Cheri and Jim repeatedly thanked me for it, but I was the one who should have been thanking them for the experience and the opportunity to know such a gentle soul. Though Cheri and Jim were doing everything they possibly could for Willie, I had a sad feeling in my gut that was telling me that he wouldn't be in this world for much longer. When I left this past Sunday I knew I wouldn't see Willie again; as I left the barn I put my arm around him and gave him a hug as best I could while he was in his harness and told him that everything would be OK soon.

It's going to be sad going back to the farm without Willie there, but I know that everyone else will miss his calm presence and affection, too. I've had experiences getting to know a lot of different types of animals at the farm since I've been volunteering there, but this was the first time that I have felt so connected with a goat; I had no idea just how loving and peaceful these always-smiling animals could be. While my gift to Willie in his final days was the affection and time that I was able to give to him, I can truly say that his gift to me was the exact same in return.

I'll miss you, Willie - I think we all will. You are a kind and gentle soul and I am grateful for the time that we shared together.

______________

Please help Cheri and Jim and the animals. Their budget is so small--even $20 will help. Even $5. Their story is amazing and their journey took enormous courage, sacrifice and heart. The animals are lucky to have them, and we are lucky to have them.

-Mary (Animal Person)

Two New Peter Singer Interviews

First I have to again say that Peter Singer was influential in the veganization of Mary Martin: in my evolution from cat person to animal person during my college years.

For me and my delicate, cat-person sensibilities, college was a caustic, offensive world that compelled me to examine my relationship with animals wherever there was one, which turned out to be everywhere. And in case I forgot that tidbit of real life, or chose denial for a moment, there were plenty of belligerent, black boot-wearing, CBGB-going, no meat-eating, no drug-doing, Peter Singer-reading, pesky, activist types to remind me. 

Though I outwardly chided them for their distasteful techniques and relentless prodding, I credit them for the bulk of my transformation into an animal person. They thought it was their job to make everyone they came in contact with think about how their actions affected animals. They had perfected the art of raising awareness and educating potential animal people with learning tools including: pictures, trips to slaughterhouses (a.k.a., a one-way trip to vegetarianism), statistics, facts about how the animal industries abuse the earth, and of course, the names of famous people who are vegetarians (as a budding English major, I was particularly intrigued when they tossed out H.G. Wells, Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Voltaire, and my personal crush, William Blake). They had something for everyone’s hot button.

I read Animal Liberation, probably in 1986, after already ceasing my use of animals, and what I recall as my aha moment was speciesism. I hadn't heard the word before and it helped me make sense of our relationship with sentient nonhumans in a different way.

Regardless of Singer's utilitarianism or his thoughts on infanticide or bestiality, no one can deny his impact on budding vegans and animal rights activists.

Both Shari Rudavsky's "Interview with Peter Singer" and Jill Owens' interview (at Powell's) are in promotion of his new book The Life You Can Save and its companion site www.thelifeyoucansave.com (where we learn that Singer is now on Twitter). I don't disagree with his premise, but it does smack of a pet peeve of mine: judging the philanthropy of others. Each of us is moved to address a unique combination of causes and issues, and I don't know if you can say that the 27,000 children who die, each day, from preventable, poverty-related causes are more important than (fill-in-your-cause), in point of fact. They're more important to Singer, but perhaps finding a cure for bone cancer is more important to you. Or combatting female genital mutilation. Or genocide.

I do agree that many of us can do without much of what we have and do in order to put a larger percentage of our disposable income toward charitable causes (and Singer proposes a very modest percentage allocated to extreme poverty, so it's tough to argue with that part of it). I'll read the book this weekend and give you some highlights/save you some time.

I like the way he talks about what we choose to do also makes a statement about what we choose not to do in this clip:

On "Fat" and Veganism

A handful of people have commented about their weight, saying they are vegans--and not junk food vegans--and they are not thin.

I have mentioned my "skinny fat" friends who are thin, regardless of what they eat, and don't exercise and wouldn't be considered "fit." In clothing they simply look like trim, healthy people, which likely belies what's going on on the inside. And for those who do eat well, and do exercise, yet are overweight (and for the rest of us), there's "Fat: What No One is Telling You," a documentary referenced by Alternet's Maggie Mahar.

You can be an omnivore and be obese, and you can be a vegan and be obese. And you can exercise for hours a day, as one woman who is featured in the film does, and still be obese.

"Physicians know too little about what causes obesity in part because . . . 'blaming the victim has stood in the way of understanding.' Here, I am reminded of how, in the past, we blamed patients suffering from depression and other forms of mental illness. For centuries, this prejudice stood in the way of understanding that mood disorders are caused by a flaw in chemistry, not character.

Conventional wisdom says that if you put too much food in your mouth and don't exercise enough, you'll wind up fat. Period. As is so often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Experts report that some people eat rich, fatty foods, never exercise and remain thin. Others exercise daily, diet religiously and are seriously overweight. Of course many overweight people who need to lose 20 or 25 pounds take it off and keep it off. But they are not obese -- they are not fighting a chronic condition.

Medical science has not yet sliced through the tangle of genetic, metabolic, social, psychological and environmental factors that cause obesity."

Some people are somehow wired to remain heavy, and though veganism can certainly boost health in many ways, it's not a guaranteed weight loss plan. And people who remain overweight after going vegan, or who gain weight, aren't necessarily "doing something wrong." Marketing veganism as a weight-loss plan is dicey because if we don't know why someone is obese to begin with, we cannot assume that removing animal products will be the factor that creates sudden and sustained weight loss.

If you don't want to kill anyone unless you have to, go vegan. If you want to lose weight, you most certainly can try veganism, but it doesn't come with a guarantee.

On Errol Morris and Animals

I've been watching Errol Morris documentaries (/nonfiction films). On my computer, either late at night or hours before the sun rises, in the past week I've seen: "Vernon, Florida," "Standard Operating Procedure," and "Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control."

All of the films have either an obvious theme about human and nonhuman animals or a less obvious one.

• "Vernon, Florida," which is known to be a film about nothing (and trust me, it comes close), includes interviews with older men in a rural area of Florida who appear to have nothing better to do than hunt and kill animals. And then there's the man who keeps an opossum and a turtle in a box on his lawn. No light. Just keeps them in a box. He briefly takes them out and we see what terrible shape they are in.

So disturbing.

• "Standard Operating Procedure" is about the scandalous treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and how the notorious photos of the prisoners and the soldiers came to be and how they came to be the undoing of some of the people involved. However, the final message is that this headline-making episode that ended military careers, destroyed lives and landed several soldiers in jail, was nothing--nothing--compared to what else was going on and for which no one was ever tried or imprisoned. While soldiers of low rank were basically scapegoated (though they by no means were innocent), the interrogators and the CIA and the generals responsible for the routine humiliation, torture and killing of "prisoners" were never even investigated.

As for animals, here's what struck me. When shown photos or asked to recall incidents when they humiliated and harmed prisoners, all of the soldiers in some way articulate the notion that "it was fun" and no harm was done and "it's not like we killed them," as if killing them is the only horrible thing they could have done. The soldiers laugh as the prisoners are in "stress positions," naked, with women's underwear over their heads. They pile them up in pyramids, naked of course. And they play nerf football around them as they're curled up, naked and terrified, on the cold prison floor.

I'm reminded of all of the footage of slaughterhouse workers laughing as they torture animals or use them as footballs or sit on them for fun or sodomize them.

If people so quickly, so easily humiliate and harm nonhuman animals in certain situations, I'm not so sure why I was so shocked that they'd do the same to human animals.

• The human cast of "Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control" consists of: a topiary gardener, a lion "tamer," a robot scientist, and a mole rat photographer. One theme that runs across their stories is control over the nonhuman and how that control often ends. Says Morris: "[I]t shows various incarnations of the Frankenstein myth: the need to create life and at the same time control it, with the codicil that something bad's going to happen; that this attempt at control will end in some kind of disaster, some kind of failure."

Morris is famous for having his interviewees speak to the camera without interruption. And it's amazing what people say when you don't interrupt them. I wouldn't say any of these films is easy to watch, but, perhaps with the exception of "Vernon, Florida," which most people would find innocuous but which nauseated me, I recommend watching them because they do actually inform.

On "Blinders" and Animal Rights (Really)

There are two upcoming screenings in New York of "Blinders," a documentary about the horse-drawn carriage industry:

BROOKLYN, NY
October 29, 6:00 p.m.
Brooklyn Law School
250 Joralemon St.
Free and open to the public - bring photo ID

NEW YORK, NY
November 7
New York Law
57 Worth Street
New York Law or NYU Student ID required

It will also air on The Documentary Channel tomorrow evening (October 27) at 10:30 pm, and in New York , also tomorrow evening, on Channel 25 (Time Warner Cable).

As for animal rights (really), check out this feature and interview with David Cantor of Responsible Policies for Animals (RPA), which includes:

Cantor eventually became disillusioned with PETA and many organizations like Humane Society of the U.S., Fund for Animals, Friends of Animals, World Wildlife Fund, etc. He insists these organizations are wrongly labeled as “animal rights” organizations when they are actually “animal welfare” organizations. The average person would probably not recognize or care about this difference, but Cantor felt the difference was (and is) of monumental importance, so much so that in 2002 he started his own animal rights organization called Responsible Policies for Animals (RPA), Inc., which currently has about 140 members. The number is relatively small, but [Cantor] is quick to point out that the abolitionist movement of the first half of the 19th century was extremely small and was considered too radical by almost everyone in the north and south.

According to Cantor, almost all of the hundreds, maybe even thousands, of organizations working on behalf of animals are basically applying band-aids to a cancer that has to be completely ripped out. “Newspapers are always calling people ‘animal rights’ advocates when they are in fact ‘animal welfare’ advocates,” he said. “The animal rights movement is more than just about compassion. It’s about justice. As long as animals are viewed as property, there will be extreme cruelty. It is inevitable.

“Animal welfare people think if they make life expensive and difficult for puppy mill owners, for example, they will go out of business, but industries get exemptions, and laws are not enforced. As long as animals are viewed by the law as property, there will be no end to abuse. The efforts to fight cruelty are like going after twigs and branches instead of the roots. Rights are powerful; that’s why the Second Amendment has been used by gun owners to stop all rational attempts to control guns.

According to Cantor (who has no pets), despite the proliferation of what he calls animal welfare organizations in the past generation, a basic rights movement for nonhuman animals is just as lacking today as it was when the animal rights movement was declared about 30 or more years ago. “Lowering the bar by calling all kinds of things ‘animal rights’ that are not really animal rights only dooms today’s billions of animals and billions more yet to live to the double standard that only true animal rights can end …

“So much is said about animal rights — as if they already existed in the real world outside of our beliefs, plans and aspirations — that it is easy to confuse ‘saving’ animals, giving animals good homes, eating plants only, purchasing only ‘cruelty-free’ household and personal-care products, and doing other good things for animals with actually advancing their rights. So I see the primary task of the animal rights movement as educating as to what animal rights is (and is not) and moving people to help advance animal rights or to get out of the way and stop impeding animal rights and supporting human supremacy.”

If you're new to the land-grant university issue (I was before I was introduced to RPA last year), visit the "10,000 Years is Enough" page, and when you need information for your unfortunate encounters with hunters, the "This Land is Their Land" is very helpful. There are printable brochures, as well.

I think about the ramifications of not having "pets" for me. Way more time and money to be used elsewhere comes to mind! But as long as we've created the cat and dog overpopulation problem, and the greyhound racing industry, I feel obligated to help. Now, I don't think that in any way is a manifestation of a belief in animal rights--quite the contrary. But still, it feels right to me to provide a safe, loving, fun home for cats and dogs--particularly those with special needs or who are less adoptable. (I was looking for a special needs dog when I found Violet, and I adopted Emily because she was an adult and didn't have the most appealing, adorable, kitty-like personality.)

I do like that Cantor essentially says that being vegan doesn't actually advance the rights of animals. (And I'm assuming he doesn't include animal rights outreach in being vegan. Most of the vegans I know in my area don't engage anyone or talk about anything but the health and environmental benefits of veganism, so I think it's fair to say that education about animal rights is not necessarily part of veganism.)

As for Friends of Animals, I'm not sure what the issue is . . .

Finally, the statement on violence is unclear about property damage, if you're interested. It states:

"Responsible Policies for Animals opposes acts of violence, the use of threats, obscenity, or degrading or insulting language, and any other behavior that does physical harm to any human being or diminishes any human being’s dignity or humanity in the name of, or in association with, the animal rights movement."

I see some wiggle room in there, but it might be unintentional.

I'm just happy that animal rights is getting some press for what it actually is. That's so rare these days . . .