Animal Person

On My Ambivalence About Keeping Animals

Charles' collar and the small gate on the courtyard symbolize the same concept for me: He is trapped.

Sure, his life was worse at the home of the people who returned him to the adoption group. They left him kenneled for 12-14 hours during the day and ran with him for 30 minutes each night. He was put back in his kennel for the night.

And that was (arguably) better than being at the track, where he was kenneled for 22 hours a day, probably with a muzzle, and "turned out" a couple of times to relieve himself, usually while running.

But at my home, beautiful as it may be, and where he doesn't even have a kennel and has four beds of his own throughout the house (as does Violet), he still isn't in control of his life. He pees when I decide to walk him or let him out back. He eats when I decide to feed him, and when he goes for a walk or run, he must wear a collar and a leash. I must admit to the reality that I dominate him.

Imagine having a collar around your neck. Imagine someone walking you. Yanking--if you go in a direction undesirable for the person "in charge" of you. Pulling--if you sniff or nibble on some grass for more time than they want you to. Imagine someone is walking you and you see one of your kind across a village green. All you want to do is go to that person and say hi and acknowledge your shared situation, but you're tugged away as you look back and cry out to your brother.

Imagine wearing a collar all day and night.

On Harm in Veganism

Ah, a love affair has ended . . .

If you haven't dropped by Invisible Voices to read Earth Balance, palm oil, rainforests and RAN and its 27 comments (so far), I highly recommend it.

Many vegans, particularly the ones with a Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism bent, talk about the principle of Ahimsa, which is a practice of non-injury, nonviolence and/or harmlessness of living beings. What I appreciate most about Deb's post about Earth Balance (and also Roger's comment on yesterday's post that brings up a similar issue), is that the reality for vegans is that non-injury is impossible for all of us reading this right now and living in the developed world.

The questions are: What are your priorities? And where do you draw lines?

I had written Deb that given all of the problems with Earth Balance, the small farmer around the corner who has a cow or two and makes his own butter probably causes less harm than the manufacturers of Earth Balance. And though I certainly won't be buying butter made from cow's milk, it's pretty clear to me that Earth Balance isn't the answer, as convenient it is, and as perfect it is as a butter substitute.

Because I'm not a chef or baker, I can get around this issue. I can bake with vegetable or coconut oil, sautee with olive oil, and ditch desserts with frosting. Since when is dessert a dietary requirement, anyway?

This topic reminds us that there is a cost for the production of our delectable vegan products, and that cost often takes the form of the death, displacement and abuse of people and/or animals, as well as a level of injury of the earth that will take generations to heal.

And once we become aware of the costs of a product, regardless of the physical ingredients therein, can we really call it vegan (if it involves harm to sentient nonhumans)?

What are YOUR Thoughts on Rights for Great Apes?

As you probably know, "Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans."

Yes, the basis is their genetic similarity to us, and it should be enough that they are subjects of their own lives and are sentient.

But I want a ban on Greyhound racing. Sure, I ultimately want Greyhounds and all other sentient nonhumans to have the right to not be the used by humans. And I work toward that in my daily vegan outreach. Abolishing Greyhound racing, however, does eliminate a use of a sentient nonhuman and should also dramatically decrease the breeding of Greyhounds, as they currently have two uses: showing and racing. Eliminate one use, and the incentive to breed for that use is eliminated as well.

Now back to great apes. Under the Spanish law, "Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code." I think that's great. What I find fascinating is that people against rights for great apes call this a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, I'm sure many people who consider themselves abolitionists would also call this a dangerous precedent because the reason for the granting of the rights would be speciesist.

Back to Greyhound racing. If the ban is broadened to the tracks in Massachusetts (and it might be in November), that ban would largely be achieved because of the cruelty argument. Though there are definitely people dealing with this issue who think we have no right to race the dogs, there is a considerable suffering contingent. But as I have said: I don't care why the industry fails and the dogs are no longer raced--I just want to see an end to Greyhound racing.

Is that wrong of me?

If we are to see an end to the use of great apes in Spain, even though it's not for the reason we'd like to see, if indeed great apes will no longer be used, shouldn't we be pleased about that part of the outcome? After all, we don't know for certain whether it will be easier or more difficult to get rights for anyone else thereafter.

Will banning Greyhound racing make it more difficult or easier to ban horse racing? Will it have any impact on our efforts to ban other uses of sentient nonhumans? And if it might, do we not support a ban because we think it might make another ban in the future more difficult to achieve? Do we sacrifice the animals who are close to being free of us because we think others down the road might never be free of us?

What do you think?

On Clarity Regarding Nonviolent Direct Action

Well it looks like I've found my niche in the world of animal bloggers: annoying people by writing about things they don't want to think about.

Who knew that a piecemeal discussion of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? would cause so much ire? I feel the need to clarify a handful of issues that are sounding like they've gone through the telephone game I played as a child (where you tell a story to someone and they tell it to someone else, and four people later the story is very different from when it started).

• At no point have I advocated the use of violence against anyone. I don't even believe in the death penalty, as I think it's barbaric (and sends a ridiculously hypocritical message).
• There are groups working against animal exploitation that do NOT claim to be nonviolent. The ALF is not one of them. The ALF is a nonviolent group.
• My hope is that readers of Animal Person think about their own definition of nonviolence. Does it include property damage? Does it include sabotage? Does it include arson? And if it includes arson, what about the very real possibility that a sentient nonhuman or a human (like maybe a firefighter) is injured?
• The idea that if you really supported something you'd do it yourself doesn't make sense to me. I support lots of things I'm not going to do because I don't have the time, the skill or the inclination. I have supported candidates running for political office, which is something I have no interest in doing myself, but if someone represents my beliefs and is going to do a good job fighting the good fight, I'll give them money and maybe support them in other ways, as well. But I'm fairly certain there's no way I'm ever running for office.
• No one has ever said that nonviolent direct action is a substitute for vegan education. It's not one or the other. Vegan education is a given and the foundation, however many people feel it is not enough and they want to do more.
• No one has ever said that property damage is always necessary. Those who believe in nonviolent direct action see a range of tactics that put varying degrees or types of force on exploiters. They believe every situation is different and warrants its own strategic plan.
• If you think that property damage is unacceptable, as is breaking the law, what about open rescue? I have yet to hear from someone who disagrees with open rescue. What's going on there?
• Those against nonviolent direct action, such as breaking into a lab and rescuing some animals, often say that those animals are a drop in the bucket, and rescuing them doesn't help our cause. I understand that thinking. However, it's usually coming from people who are NOT utilitarians, and that seems like a very utilitarian notion to me. Aren't abolitionists doing what they do because of the utmost respect they have for individual sentient beings? Why is it that that respect doesn't come into play when breaking into a lab to rescue a couple of animals? Why is the individual suddenly not so important?

Finally, there's an awful lot of Truth being flung around. Just as an example (i.e., not to pick on anyone), the most recent comment, by Scott, includes:

Alex,

The only thing that will bring us closer to abolition is education. . . . Every incident of property damage and sabotage takes us further from the goal of abolition.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing because I don't know that's true. How does anyone know that's true? (And by the way, Scott does include language such as "I believe" and "I think" in his comment.)

I'm not the go-to-theorist person. I'm not the bearer of The Truth. I don't claim to have all the answers. It's more like have all the questions. As I've written before, I don't want to tell anyone what to think. I just want them to think.
 

On Speciesm, the ALF and the Media

I approached the essays in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? with an open mind and discovered that I couldn't disagree with the notion that being against nonviolent direct action (that includes property damage and sabotage) is speciesist. As Kevin Jonas writes in "Bricks and Bullhorns":

"Activists debate the 'appropriateness' of certain tactics, and many fear losing the moral high ground in seeking to intimidate the opposition.

Such criticism of direct action and controversial ventures like SHAC is a speciesist insult to those animals who depend on humans to advocate on their behalf. If those opposed to direct action are really honest with themselves, they will have to admit that they do not believe the goal of animal liberation justifies the tactics they claim to oppose but would support  in other contexts. Most people do support property destruction, violence, and murder for certain causes. If people in Liberia were being rendered for food, it would be a safe bet that most would support a war to end such an atrocity. If critics of the ALF and SHAC honestly faced the internalized prejudices that they harbor, and imagined that it was white, middle-class kindergartners from Kansas being pumped full of bleach or anally electrocuted, most would be ready to take up arms themselves. . . .

Those who may ethically support the ALF and the use of controversial means, but see it as a strategic mistake because of the negative impact on public opinion, have only themselves to blame. It is the failure of movement organizations and speakers to reframe the debate away from the tactic to the more substantive issues of animal exploitation. It is a tragic mistake and a setback for the animal rights movement to let the media determine our tactical agenda because of a fear of negative coverage" (270).

When one claims to be against speciesism, but would use certain tactics in the service of humans but not nonhumans, I have no choice but to say that's a profound contradiction (a.k.a., hypocrisy). I would, however welcome any explanation that says otherwise.

As for allowing a fear of negative coverage to determine tactical agenda, I see both sides of that, and agree with Karen Dawn (and I don't agree with her a lot of the time) in "From the Front Line to the Front Page"  (also in TOFF) that if the ALF had "a real battle plan" (228) with regard to the media, the messages that reach the public might be of a different, sympathetic sort. I think if you're going to do something that could very well come off looking negative, part of your plan (by necessity) should be components that address that. I think the negative coverage aspect can be neutralized and transformed. I also think the coverage could be framed as pro-animal and pro-justice rather than anti-human. Now, if you don't agree with anything the ALF does it doesn't matter, but to make your decision based on coverage that can be changed, that's a different story.

Then again, those involved with the ALF would have to do all the work. If we don't know what they're doing or when, our hands are tied. And if they don't communicate that their attitude toward the media has changed and that there will be a quasi public relations component built into their activities, those who don't support them because of negative coverage will continue to not support them.

On the Horse Slaughter Predicament

I had a tough time with the horse slaughter ban, as it's not as if it's going to stop anyone from using horses, and it could make their plight even worse because they would simply be transported to Canada and Mexico and killed there. In fact, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, horse slaughter businesses in Canada have grown by 75% since laws were passed in 2006 making it illegal to kill horses for food.

A central point in this particular discussion is regarding the difficulty of "humanely slaughtering" horses. I've seen some of the footage from plants in Canada, and it's horrifying. Of course, Temple Grandin is on the scene with recommendations.

This issue is a popular one down here in polo country, and "horse people" are emotional about it and all of the ones I know are vehemently anti-slaughter. They don't want them transported anywhere to be killed. However, they transport them all the time (in a much, much better fashion), and buy and sell them all the time as their needs and wants dictate, and it all seems a bit hypocritical to me. They don't want them killed: fine. But they also don't want to care for them for the rest of their lives. So what exactly do they want to happen to them?

Last week, a horse rescue group down here bought horses who were going to slaughter and brought them to a huge, gorgeous farm. This particular group is, from what I know, well-funded and able to care for the horses if they cannot adopt them all out (although there were well-over 100 of them, so I'm a bit skeptical). And the week prior, 160 horses were rescued from a sanctuary, whose owner abandoned them because she could no longer afford to care for them. They had to be rescued from their rescuer!

So what's the answer to the horse situation? I suppose:

• More sanctuaries.
• Educating people who use horses about the bigger picture, as in, you are taking responsibility for this life--are you in a position to do that?
• Campaign to ban the various uses of horses.
• Educate the public, who sporadically use horses for entertainment or sport, that they are complicit. If they don't like what ultimately happens to horses, they shouldn't participate in horse-using industries. It sounds obvious to you, but humans have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize.

Speciesism is a significant part of the horse issue, as few people are campaigning for an end to the slaughter of cows and chickens. Being against horse slaughter is akin to being against the use of primates in labs. We should help people understand that the difference between horses and cows is in our minds. We have decided that one is more worthy of respect or life than the other.

This is not to say I'm for horse slaughter, as I'm not for the slaughter of anyone. The one thing we can do to help horses is the one thing we can do to help all animals. Convince people not to use them, so fewer and fewer of them are bred and fewer and fewer of them are killed or abandoned or forced to live their lives in the service of humans.

On Eating Less Meat vs. Eating Fewer Animals

I've got myself a Gray Matter in Mark Bittman's "Putting Meat Back in its Place." Similar to "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler" from January, his modus operandi is: there are many reasons to decrease your consumption of animal products (actually, he says "eat less meat"), and though he mentions that some might abstain for ethical reasons ("or even irrational" ones, and I have no idea what that means), he doesn't ever take a stand.

I think everyone should eat fewer animals. Preferably none. Being the linguist that I am, however, I don't interpret "eating fewer animals" the same way I interpret "eat less meat."

Let's deconstruct:

Meat, though it might produce a visual, won't produce the same visual as animal, as animal is the whole sentient human, face and all, and meat does not ordinarily have whole or face as features, which makes it easier to deny from whence it came. Practically speaking, however, when you eat less meat, fewer pounds of animals must be involved (in total), right?

Bittman does provide some useful tips in his list of ways to "ease your path to eating less meat."

• The first tip is "Forget the protein thing," wherein he provides helpful information about grams of protein per calorie (with non-animal sources coming out on top). But his advice is to be omnivorous despite the fact that he just said that "per calorie, many plants have more protein than meat." My initial response was: If protein, the much-touted reason to eat animals, isn't even a valid reason, why eat them at all?
• "Buy less meat" is sort of a weirdly-obvious tip, but I'd like to see it as "Buy fewer foods made from animals," as it reminds you of what you're doing.
• I find it strange that he insists, "We're not discussing vegetarianism, remember?" and if you click on the link provided you end up at the "Health Guide," which tells you that protein may be lacking in a vegetarian's diet, and mentions the 1980s belief that food combining is necessary to get complete proteins. Great--advice that's both dated and inaccurate, and makes it look difficult to be healthy and not eat animals. Not to mention the fact that vegetarianism includes eggs and products made from milk, and I don't see how vegetarians could ever lack protein.
• There's some cooking advice for beans and grains that's fine, though Earth Balance can easily replace butter. Then again, Bittman doesn't address eggs or products made from cow's milk at all; he focuses on flesh.
• Above all, Bittman, like Pollan, doesn't want anyone to feel like they're missing anything. And I suppose that's why he never takes a moral stand. To have a personal ethic and to live by it usually involves a change in one's lifestyle more substantial than moving the animal flesh from the center of the plate (his tip #3).
• Probably the most revealing of Bittman's beliefs is: "Once in a while, forget the rules and pledges, and eat like a real American; obviously you can’t do this every time, but it’s an option." (This is, I suppose, akin to Singer and Mason's Paris Exemption.) This tells me that if you don't have an ethic that underlies your behavior, you have no reason to stick with the behavior. You can "eat like a real American," which I interpret as an insult as it means you'll probably be gorging on food that isn't good for you or the planet, and obviously makes no attempt to respect sentient nonhumans.

My biggest problem with Bittman and Pollan is their unwillingness to take a stand for animals. Of course, that would take them out of the mainstream, and their audience would decrease accordingly because the fact is, as we've all been saying for quite some time: Americans simply want to eat animals, and will concoct all manner of excuses and tips and paths that make sure they can continue to do so. And they're not about to allow a little discussion about ethics to get in their way.

It's our job to call things or processes or animals what they are, and to persuade people to at least entertain the question of whether it's morally justifiable to kill someone when you don't need to. It's a culture shift, it's a language shift, it's a dietary shift, it's a consumer shift, it's the shift of several interconnected paradigms. And it won't happen unless we are committed to making it happen.

On the Two Prongs of Welfare Reform Consideration

First, I am disconcerted to report that my Barnes & Noble sold out of The Compassionate Carnivore in 24 hours.

No, thanks, you don't need to special order one for me.
Oh, they'll be more in next week? I'll come back then.

Borders is on my way to a meeting today so I'll check there. I won't have time to read all of it and I just might have to purchase it if it's compelling and contains sentiments, research or quotes I can't resist sharing.

I realize I may not have been as clear as I'd like regarding my thought process around the question of whether welfare reforms lead to abolition. The two prongs I look at are:

1.    Is the reform really a reform? Are the sentient nonhumans being used for food, clothing or research in fact significantly better off than pre-reform? This is where the Peaceful Prairie campaign comes in. We were led to believe that the notion of cage free necessarily meant a significant improvement in the well being of the hens. And in some cases, while the hens are alive (as humane slaughter is an oxymoron), they do indeed have lives that are substantially better than battery hens. However, you must consider the boys who are "disposed of" or "discarded" by way of maceration or gassing. You can't not consider that. And the same is true for milk. How can you not consider the calves who are taken from their mothers, and who will shortly be served as veal? I don't care how much grass the cow is permitted to eat under the California sun. If she is artificially inseminated and her babies are taken from her, I have a very, very difficult time being satisfied with the grazing-in-the-grass-under-the-sun part.

Then there are welfare reforms that I'm not sure why are called welfare reforms. Exhibit A: "The Agriculture Department on Tuesday proposed banning from the food supply all cows that are too sick or injured to walk, a long-sought victory for advocates of animal welfare."

I'm not sure why that's a welfare reform. Ceasing the endless cycle of forceful insemination followed by pregnancy after pregnancy, only to have your babies removed from you and slaughtered, and the physical toll all of that abuse involves, is what makes a downer cow. Eliminate all that (including the calf removal part), and perhaps there is indeed an improvement in welfare. But removing them from the food supply (and killing them anyway)? That sounds more like human welfare reform, as it's a food supply issue. How does that make a difference to the cows? Why should I put my time and money behind that campaign?

2.   How is the welfare reform an incremental step toward not using animals at all? I've read debates about the banning of the steel jaw leghold trap and whether it is/would be a demonstration of incremental abolition. I don't think it is. Banning fur is a step toward abolition as it ends the use of the animal. Banning the trap is like moving to controlled-atmosphere killing in my mind. Do you agree? I'd also say the same thing about the banning of veal crates. Tell me there's no more legal veal, and that "humanely-raised veal" isn't now the third most popular item at Wolfgang Puck's Spago, and perhaps I'd be inclined to believe that the absence of crates leads to not using the animal.

Because I'm always interested in financially (and otherwise) supporting organizations that campaign for initiatives that I believe in, I welcome any suggestions about campaigns or groups that I might be missing (and yes, I know all about Sea Shepherd and I'd like to hear your thoughts about them).

Finally, I like the idea of the Boston Vegan Association and perhaps that's the way we all need to go: veganizing our cities and towns and educating our communities. Perhaps if we had a coordinated, nationwide effort to veganize our own backyards, other benefits would result, such as vegans running for office, more vegan businesses, more options in restaurants, and changes in local policies that would actually end the use of animals (can you say Greyhound racing?).

Or not.

What do you think?

On Nonviolence, Terrorists and Will Potter

If you haven't seen Will Potter's talk at the University of Washington Law School, it's a must see if only for one passage at the end:

Regardless of how you feel about these tactics--I think there's a time and a place to debate if property destruction is violence, or if nonviolent civil disobedience is appropriate anymore, or if arson gives the movement a bad name. All of these debates should be happening, and they've been happening, I know, for a very long time. But I want to argue that at this point a lot of it is completely irrelevant because the government is not making these distinctions between: Well here are the extremists, and here are the reasonable animal rights activists. . . .

It's all part of the same pile to them, and they're infiltrating all of it, they're throwing their resources into all of it, they're making no delineations whatsoever because it's all part of the same ideology. And just like the Red Scare, it's not the individual people that are a threat, it's the ideology that's seen as a threat. So if we fall into this trap of naming names and pledging oaths to certain tactics, if you stand up and shout from the rooftops, We're nonviolent and we condemn all these people and we condemn anyone that does anything different than what we're doing, it just fuels, and paves the road to go down the same path that happened in the 40s and 50s and many other times in US history.

I by no means think anyone should stop thinking critically about nonviolence (and how they define it) and whether or not it has been, will be or can be successful when it comes to the liberation of sentient nonhumans. (And I will continue drawing from Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? this week.) However, I know that many people are fearful of admitting their support of tactics such as property damage. But when the government doesn't make a distinction between your peaceful vegan life that includes boycotting and signing petitions, and that of an activist who breaks into a fur farm to liberate animals or one who participates in a home demonstration at the residence of a CEO of a research lab, spending time and energy condemning those who use different tactics might not matter in the end if we're all targets simply because we don't want to kill anyone unless we have to, and we don't want to use the lives, talents, secretions or body parts of others for our own gain.

PS: Today will not be as free as I had originally planned, so The Delusional Carnivore will have to wait until tomorrow. I know, I know, you're gravely disappointed. As am I.

Do Welfare Reforms Lead to Abolition?

Earlier this week, Scott left the following comment on Cyrano Interviews Steve Best:

I'm wondering if you could discuss the means by which you resolved the question of whether welfarist reforms can lead to abolition. This is a current "Gray Matter" for me, one which I go back and forth on. I hear alot of people say it can, and alot of others say it can't, but rarely do I hear a convincing argument for either. I think your "path" to resolving the issue may be helpful to others.

Here's my thought process, flawed as it may or may not be:

• When I began blogging daily at Animal Person, I was still a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I didn't agree with all of their tactics and hijinks, however I thought we were on the same page in general. I thought that we (PeTa and I) wanted to someday abolish the use of sentient nonhumans by humans, and because that goal was so far off, in the interim, working to relieve suffering was a worthy goal.
• I don't think I believed welfare reforms would lead to abolition, as that doesn't make sense because that would be saying: the more you regulate a use of an animal, the more likely that the use will go away. The reality appears to be that the more you regulate a use of an animal, the more likely it is that the people who objected to the suffering of the animal are going to be appeased and thereby either not complain as much, or even advocate the use of the animal because of the reduction in suffering.
• This is why the suffering argument can be a problem for activists. If you don't support the minuscule alleged relief of suffering (and maybe it's more significant than that, and maybe there's no actual relief at all), you look like you're saying you're opposed to relieving suffering. Obviously, no one is opposed to relieving suffering.
• If your argument is that abuse and exploitation are inherent in use, there's nothing anyone can say, short of we'll stop a particular use of a particular sentient nonhuman, that actually addresses how you are framing the situation.
• Back to what leads to what. My advice is to look at history: Has there ever been a use of a sentient nonhuman that has been abolished as a result of welfare reforms? I don't believe there has been.
• Look at history also for welfare progress. After 200 years of welfare reform (and I recommend Dianne Beers' For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States, in which you'll see that the abolition versus welfare debate is as old as the movement), we are exploiting and slaughtering animals in worse ways, and in greater numbers, than ever.
• Look at the most recent spate of books and articles about the profoundly hypocritical idea of the compassionate carnivore, many of which were written by former vegans or vegetarians. These people abandoned their beliefs (which, granted, must not have been too deeply rooted) and now endorse the consumption of animals because they have been convinced that it is possible to treat an animal humanely while entirely controlling her life and death. Actually, they probably never think of it that way. Instead, they think it is possible to treat animals better, so that they have better lives than their factory-farmed brothers and sisters, and we can kill them in a way that causes them less torment, fright and pain. In other words, welfare reforms have actually caused these people to go back to eating animals. That's the story their words tell you.
• It was Gary Francione who made me realize the importance of the property status of sentient nonhumans. Welfare reforms do nothing to address the one problem that is the cause of our horrifying use and abuse of animals. Check out his blog post for this month, which addresses recent reforms that have been touted as "victories," and all of the reasons why they're nothing to celebrate.
• It can be said that the legal system has so far been used only to further entrench the property status of animals, meanwhile corporations, which are considered persons when sentient beings are not, actually have more rights than living, breathing nonhumans. (As Noam Chomsky says, "The legal system was reshaped to accommodate for the needs of private power.") In fact, corporations have more rights than you.
• Though capitalism is still a Gray Matter for me, I must concede that animal use certainly fits perfectly into a system designed to profit from whatever "resources" one can make, find or use. Capitalism practically (and many say the causality is far less tenuous than that) leads to exploitation of anyone who can be oppressed. (I say human greed, lust for power and lack of creativity, not to mention lack of compassion, lead to that, but that's me.)

I never said my thought process was linear.

What I would like to know is: What is the argument for welfare reforms leading to abolition? Where's the evidence? Do people think welfare will lead to abolition, or are do they just feel that they have to do something, and so they resort to any kind of victory (i.e., welfare reform)? I understand the latter position, as I once agreed with it. But after what I've seen in just one year, with the increase in "humane" animal products and the books, farms and butcher shops that have former vegetarians behind them, I have all of the evidence I need that welfare reforms do one thing for certain (as the level of suffering reduced is debatable or the reduction is easily debunked): They make people feel more comfortable about using sentient nonhumans.

I hope some of that helps.

On Direct Action and the FBI

Because not everyone follows the comments, I wanted to reprint a passage from yesterday where I quoted pattrice jones' "Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist Imperatives and the ALF" in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

"Direct action includes only activist tactics that, like boycotts and sabotage, are intended to have an immediate impact on a problem or its causes. In contrast, indirect action aims for future change through more circuitous routes, such as education, legislation, and symbolic demonstrations of opinion. . . . Ideally, direct action will illustrate or illuminate the problem at the same time as it interferes with its causes or effects. The very best direct action contributes to a long-term strategy for future change even as it offers tangible results in the here and now. . . . People who have integrated segregated lunch counters, put their bodies int he paths of troop transport trains, distributed illegal clean needles or birth control devices, boycotted chocolate or Coca-Cola, staged rent strikes, or built 'tent cities' for the homeless have all taken direct action against one or another form of oppression. Direct action for animals is similarly diverse" (137-8).

In addition,the ALF considers its actions to be nonviolent (they don't consider property damage to be violence), and because it's not as if I'm a spokesperson, I recommend exploring the site yourself and deciding where you stand based on what they say. Note that in the guidelines is: "TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human." I also recommend an examination of the history of direct action (and also violence) in social justice movements. You'll find that it isn't necessarily true that violence begets violence.

With all of that said, I still feel uncomfortable with violence, and I do realize that might make me sound like a hypocrite (hi Joseph!) and a speciesist as I always come back to this: If we were talking about humans being bred and slaughtered by the billions (and remember it was military might that defeated the Nazis), would we be writing letters, circulating petitions and using education as our first line of defense? The question's been asked many, many times (as I'm sure you all know), and I still don't feel satisfied with an answer that doesn't make me sound like a speciesist.

I'd be thrilled if someone could provide me with an answer that helped them feel better about this particular issue.

And finally, when Colleen sent me "Moles Wanted," about the FBI soliciting informants for vegan potlucks and such, I thought, "Oh, this is what Will Potter wrote about a couple of weeks ago." And it was, except it was a different story about the topic.

Here's the set-up: FBI tracks down a college sophomore (whom we'll call Carroll) who had spray-painted the interior of a campus elevator and then turned himself in to the police.

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered.

“I’ll pass,” said Carroll.

Check out the article (and note the part about how those who infiltrate might be responsible for inciting violence), and of course Will Potter's and his commentary.

On Pluralism, Lies and Mink

A dozen people who apparently think I'm a member of the ALF want to know why I'm writing about this controversial topic and were fearful of commenting publicly. That terrified me but demonstrated the effect the US government has had on our freedom. This, the free world, has become a place where people are afraid to have a discussion about a controversial (un)organization that they don't even support!

Here's why I'm writing, and the idea for today came from Bea's most recent comment: the importance of pluralism. I've yet to read an interview or a chapter regarding direct action where the activist says that property damage--or boycotting, for that matter--is the only answer. Every situation is different and requires a different strategy--that's pluralism. As Steve Best often says (and I'm paraphrasing): We shouldn't be wedded to one dogma or another. Instead, we should look for what works in different situations. There is no universal rule to cover all situations.

I'm merely interested in thinking critically about an easy target (the ALF). I've had all the same preconceptions as everyone else, but the more research I did, the more I discovered I was wrong about a lot of them. One particular fact that many people aren't aware of, is that many campaigns by the ALF in the UK were successful and put breeders and other exploiters permanently out of business (think of the Greyhound track Ronnie Lee mentioned). It's not true that exploiters will always replace animals and recover from "attacks." There is often enormous economic impact that forces them out of business.

Another fact that we all should have no problem believing, is that when direct action campaigns are reported on in the media, the result is often a pack of lies. One lie I've seen on blogs (including my own) in comments and posts (and I by no means think the author of the post or comment is aware that what they write is not true), pertains to the mink liberation effort in 1997 in Ontario. The common comment is that the activists "liberated" the mink only to have them all die overnight, by starvation, getting hit by cars and freezing to death, and because they were raised in captivity they didn't stand a chance when liberated (specifically, they contracted stress-induced pneumonia as a result of being liberated).

In Gary Yourofsky's essay "Abolition, Liberation, Freedom: Coming to a Fur Farm Near You" in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Mr. Yourofsky, who was part of the mink liberation effort, writes:

Let's look at the facts. (1) Mink are clothed in natural fur coats that make it impossible for them to freeze to death; also note that the Ontario raid took place not in the dead of winter, but in April. (2) It takes several weeks for a mink to starve to death. It cannot happen overnight. . . . . (3) Mink do not spontaneously contract pneumonia or stress when they are not in cages. Being kept in a cage for your entire life causes stress and neurosis. Freedom is the cure for cage-induced stress and neurosis. (4) There are no cars on rural roads at three in the morning, except for those of fur farmers and police who are trying to recapture the liberated mink. . . . According to the fur industry, 400 mink instantly died after my Easter Sunday raid. Yet, on my request, the lawyers asked them to provide proof . . . . [W]hen I was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison, the furriers brought in photographs of two dead mink who had allegedly died the night of the raid.

That fur farm has since gone out of business.

I don't know Mr. Yourofsky (who says he always prefers nonviolent activism), and I do know how controversial he is (read more of his thoughts here). But that shouldn't take away from the reality that we often don't have the facts of a situation, as any reader of Will Potter knows. All I'm asking is that if you are going to be for or against something, especially if you're going to make your case as passionately as many animal rights activists do, it behooves you to refrain from quick judgments--even those based on instinct--and think critically about what you are being told and what you read.

My life isn't set up to include breaking the law and going to prison for it. Not because I have the utmost respect for the law, but because I have made choices that don't allow for certain kinds of direct action. In addition, I have heard and read about activists who advocate for physical harm of exploiters, and though we might be waging a war, in my mind it shouldn't include harming anyone (and remember not one person has been injured or killed so far, but there is some amount of talk of that nature and that makes me very uncomfortable).

My hope is only for activists to be open to at least learning about the variety of actions they can take--or support--to put a dent in the machine that brutally massacres billions of sentient nonhumans each year for no good reason.

Ronnie Lee on the ALF

Because the ALF discussion has a tad of momentum, I thought this was a good time to hear from Ronnie Lee, one of the founders of the ALF. His interview with Claudette Vaughan at Abolitionist-Online might be helpful when you're thinking about where you stand. Mr. Lee presents a brief history and I believe he answers many questions that come up over and over again in relation to the ALF, direct action in general, and violence. You might be surprised by what he says. (My commentary, as always, is italicized.)

Here are some of the passages that struck me:

• I think a wide range of different activities need to come together to actually defeat animal abuse and a hell of a lot of it will come through the use of education, because if you look at the greatest area of animal abuse it’s the rearing and slaughter of animals for food. The best way to combat that is to educate people to become vegan and that doesn’t involve direct action at all. I’m not going to criticize anyone who wants to put a brick through a butchers shop window. I’ve done that many times myself, but a more fundamental way is to educate people. An educational effort won’t change everybody, but it can make a difference with many, many people.
• I don’t think anything useful will come out of the major political parties, so the Greens are probably the best bet in terms of making things better for animals and obtaining social justice for people too. We now have a political party in England called “The Party for Animals” but they are only single-issue, so, in my opinion, it's better to support the Greens. I'm no longer an anarchist, like I was in my younger days. I've come to the conclusion that, as with all other animals, there's a very strong pull within most humans to follow leaders. Rather than try to fight this reality, we need to take account of it in our battle for animal liberation. Sadly, those who advocate anarchism allow the bad guy to lead, because they say that not even the good guys should be leaders. Advocates of animal liberation need to seize political power, if we really want to have things our way.
• To achieve animal liberation we need to change the way people behave and there are two ways of doing that - education and coercion. Educate those we can educate into behaving properly towards animals and force the others to do so, through legislation etc. Most people will never lift a finger to oppose animal persecution. We have to accept that. They are too busy watching soap operas or Big Brother. However, this public apathy could be advantageous once we seize power, as it would mean that most people would not resist legislation passed by a pro animal liberation government. We need to get active in the political process, in my view through the Green party, with a view to one day forming a government that will pass stringent animal protection legislation. If you succeed in educating people but, at the end of the day, there’s no-one for those people to vote for, half the potential benefit of educating those people is lost. (I was surprised by this one!)
• If I see a picture of a person torturing an animal I don’t think, “Oh my God, that poor animal”. I think “That bloody bastard. I want to stop them”. That’s probably the difference between what makes a campaigner and what makes a rescuer. We just want the animals to be left alone.
  
  It’s about changing people's attitudes and it’s about changing the way that people behave. People only ever change their behaviour for 2 reasons. One reason is because they want to and the other reason is because they are too frightened not to. We have to educate people, so that they want to change, but we also have to make it so they have got to, or else. I know that sounds very stark, but that is the actual reality of what we are up against. We live in the middle of a holocaust for animals. If you begin to think in terms of 1% of what happens to animals, your mind would just explode. You know it’s happening but you can’t go into it because you’d just be destroyed by it but what I think we have to do is concentrate on how to stop it, develop good strategies for stopping it and try to think in terms of what works and not waste time on things that don’t really work. Each area of animal abuse has its weakest link, where we need to exert pressure in order to bring it to an end.
• [L]ast year a local branch of greyhound protection group Greyhound Action were running a campaign to close the dog track at Glastonbury Stadium. This consisted of demos, leafleting, street stalls etc. Then bang, bang, bang, the ALF carried out three damage attacks on the stadium and the guy in charge there decided to close the track. To their credit, Greyhound Action didn't condemn the ALF, like other similar "peaceful" organisations have done in the past, but accepted that there was "no doubt that the ALF actions contributed significantly" to the closure of the dog track and even went so far as to say that they were "quite sure such activists would be regarded as heroes" by greyhounds persecuted by the dog racing industry. (Violet Rays and Charles Hobson Booger, III are delighted by the track closure, as am I.)
• Obviously I’m happy with how effective the ALF has been, but, if I were back again now at the beginning, I would do things differently. In terms of my input into the ALF there are three things I would do differently today. (Teaser--you have to go to the article to find out what they are, and you might be astonished to find out what they are.)
• The discussion about PeTA at the end of the interview is particularly useful for anyone new to PeTA, as if you don't like the organization now, you probably would have when it started. For me, it is nearly unrecognizable now.
• [W]hat many of the large organisations tend to do is constantly start new campaigns while ending those that have been running for a certain amount of time, even if those original campaigns haven’t achieved their objectives. This is because the main aim isn’t to win campaigns, but to get money. It’s a huge problem, which involves many of the larger national organisations, even some of the better, more radical ones.
• Finally, though, I would like to state quite firmly that this is a war we are definitely winning. I don't know about that one. Maybe you'll agree with his rationale, which is UK-specific. I certainly don't feel like we're winning here in the US.

What do you agree with/disagree with? Does the interview bolster your beliefs or does it make you think differently about anything?

On Why I Can't Let Go of Capitalism

One of my two current Gray Matters is capitalism. I have a difficult time seeing it (rather than greed or unethical behavior) as the core problem. Like any system, it's only as good as the people involved, which I guess is the problem.

I don't think profit is bad, I don't think money is bad, and I don't think everyone should have equal amounts of everything. Equal opportunity would be optimal, though we all know we don't have that.

Why can't we simply (and by that I don't mean it would be simple) replace the businesses that are founded on principles of exploitation with businesses that aren't? Why can't we create new ways to deal with all of the problems we have caused, and then profit from those technologies or products? I'm not talking about greenwashing; I'm talking about a legitimate alternative. What's wrong with the idea of vegan businesses that are in business to make money? Is a system based on the production of commodities to be sold for a profit necessarily bad? Is it the system that has to be replaced? Can't we instead work to transform the ethics involved? (I realize that hasn't worked in most corporations with accounting practices and executive pay, but it has had some success.)

Do you think that:

A)    Capitalism is the problem?

B)    The way we do capitalism is the problem (subsidies, etc...)?

C)    People are the problem?

D)    All of the above?

And finally: If sentient nonhumans were not relegated to the status of property, would capitalism still be the problem in your mind?

Cyrano Interviews Steve Best

When I started blogging two years ago, I was thought that campaigning for welfare reforms at least accomplished something, as my goal of a society that doesn't use animals wasn't going to see the light of day. I held a fundraiser for HSUS' Legal Fund, I gave thousands to PeTA (despite not agreeing with their sexist tactics), and I was under the impression that the more we regulated animal use and the more "humane" it became, the closer we'd get to abolition.

I didn't use those phrases exactly, but the sentiments are the same. Am I embarrassed? Not really, as learning can be a messy process, and personal evolution is just that--it doesn't happen overnight. My arc was: vegetarian to vegan (welfarist) to (vegan) abolitionist to liberationist. The more deeply and broadly I thought, the more open I kept my mind, and the more rigorously I questioned my own beliefs, the more my personal ethic evolved.

Of course, I haven't figured it all out yet. I call issues I'm ambivalent about Gray Matters, and they've included:

• Whether welfare reforms will lead to abolition (no--resolved).
• Whether there is such a thing as humane farming (no--resolved).
• Whether I will give to organizations that have programs I want to support, but also programs I don't want to support (no--resolved).
• Whether vegetarianism and veganism have much to do with each other (not morally, but in practice, when most people are transitioning, yes--resolved).
• Whether God gave us animals to use (just kidding).
• Whether capitalism and liberation of animals can co-exist (yes and no--unresolved).
• Whether violence includes property damage, sabotage and intimidation (yes and no--unresolved).

Today's post will refer to an interview on Cyrano's Journal Online (Thomas Paine's Corner) with Dr. Steve Best. Some of it is similar to Best and Anthony J. Nocella II's Introduction to TERRORISTS OR FREEDOM FIGHTERS? and it will address the two unresolved issues. Here are some passages that were helpful to me:

• [T]he peaceniks regurgitate the repressive and speciesist discourse of the corporate-state complex and demonize the tough tactics all-too often needed to liberate an animal as “terrorist” or “violence.” But no sooner do they bray these platitudes of betrayal do they sink in the quicksand of hypocrisy and inconsistency. For any schoolchild knows that sometimes sabotage and even “violence” are necessary to stop evil.
• Whereas corporate society, the state, and mass media brand the liberationists as terrorists, the ALF has important similarities with some of the great freedom fighters of the past two centuries, and is akin to contemporary peace and justice movements in its quest to end bloodshed and violence toward life and to win justice for other species. . . . The ALF believes that there is a higher law than that created by and for the corporate-state complex, a moral law that transcends the corrupt and biased statues of the US political system. When the law is wrong, the right thing to do is to break it. This is often how moral progress is made in history, from the defiance of American slavery and Hitler’s anti-Semitism to sit-ins at “whites only” lunch counters in Alabama.
• I came out in favor of the ALF because after careful study of their history, arguments, and results, I concluded that their actions are effective, necessary, and just. Governments, animal exploitation industries, and most mass media characterize the ALF as violent terrorists, but I see them as freedom fighters and counter-terrorists. The ALF is a new justice movement defending innocent beings under attack and fighting the real terrorists who torture and kill animals without justification.
  
  Breaking and entering locked buildings, smashing fur store windows, torching delivery trucks — it all sounds nothing short of vandalism or even terrorism. But I believe ALF actions are defensible because (1) what happens to animals is wrong, and (2) legal channels to stop it are blocked by speciesism and corrupt governments that support the property rights of industries over the moral rights of animals.
• I wish that legal methods of animal liberation were adequate to free animals from their oppressors, but unfortunately they are not. Governments are grotesquely corrupt and speciesist and serve their corporate masters. Animals are too important a resource and commodity for corporations to voluntarily free them, and so animal liberation requires militant tactics such as raids to rescue animals and property destruction to weaken, cripple, or eliminate oppressors.
• Unlike some brave warriors fighting Nazis, however, the ALF has never used physical violence against any animal exploiter. And like all contemporary movements fighting for peace, justice, and human rights, the ALF intends to help secure all these values for the most defenseless victims of all, the animals who are utterly dependent upon us for their liberation.
• People often say that animals are “the new slaves.” No, they were the first slaves. They’re the first beings human oppressors used to confine, torture, cage, chain down, auction, and sell for labor and profit. The domination of animals paved the way for the domination of humans. The sexual subjugation of women was modeled after the domestication of animals, such that men began to control women’s reproductive capacity, to enforce repressive sexual norms, and to rape them as they forced breeding in their animals. Slavery emerged in the same region of the Middle East that spawned agriculture, and, in fact, developed as an extension of animal domestication practices.
• A several paragraph critique of Gary Francione, including: While Francione tries to define himself as the “radical abolitionist” antithetical to the “new welfarist” capitulations and betrayals of a corporate suit such as Wayne Pacelle, in fact, he is Pacelle’s doppelganger in their shared vilification of the ALF and SHAC, and some of the most effective tactics ever developed in the history of this movement.
• In extreme crimes, in the face of extreme evil and violence, moderate positions don’t cut it, and one is forced to take extreme measures to stop extreme wrongs. The western environment and animal advocacy movements have advanced their causes for over three decades now, but we are nonetheless losing ground in the battle to preserve species, ecosystems, and wilderness.
• I define terrorism as any intentional act of violence toward an innocent sentient being in order to advance an ideological, political, and economic agenda. It is a strange kind of terrorist who has never injured a single person, who is compassionate toward the suffering of others, and who risks his or her own freedom to save another from harm, violence, and death. It is not the ALF who are violent terrorists, but rather the UK and US governments and war machines, global corporations raping and pillaging the world, vivisectors in their blood-stained coats, and all facets of the animal exploitation industry. They are terrorists on the grounds that they intentionally harm and kill innocent living beings for ideological, political, and economic goals.
• If violence is the intentional infliction of bodily harm against another person, then how can one “hurt,” “abuse,” or “injure” a nonsentient thing that does not feel pain or have awareness of any sort? How can one be “violent” toward a van or be a “terrorist” toward brick and mortar? How does one harm or terrorize a laboratory or fur farm with spray paint or a firebomb?

The comments comprise several distracting personal issues among readers, but there are some that do relate to the actual interview.

I'm interested to hear what you agree with and disagree with.

On THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS

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

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

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

And now, to the favorites:

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

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

On Petitions and Grizzly Bear "Actors"

The proposed budget cut in the State of Florida that would have involved a dramatic reduction in funds for foster youth and emancipated foster youth has been rejected, in part (from what my contacts tell me) due to the overwhelming response from Floridians, like me, who signed a petition and called legislators to register their discontent. Over 2,500 people signed the petition! my contact enthusiastically reported.

Wow. 2,500.

That doesn't seem like a lot to me, considering the millions of people since I became an "animal rights activist" in 1986, who signed petitions to stop the seal slaughter. And who continue to sign.

I have had numerous petition experiences with positive outcomes when the issue had to do with humans, and particularly if it was an election year. I signed a petition a couple of years ago to ban gestation crates (yes, that was me, thinking the elimination of gestation crates would lead to veganism, mea culpa, mea culpa), and I know that similar welfare reforms that are a win-win-win (allegedly) have succeeded.

However, I have yet to see a petition produce any change that I would campaign for. (And I welcome suggestions, as it's not as if I have a list in front of me so I could be missing something.) It makes sense that no abolitionist measure would come from a petition, as the economic reasons underlying the use of animals will always prevail, for now. And then there's the reality that legislators are supported by the animal-exploitation industrial complex.

The fact that it only takes a couple of seconds to sign a petition isn't a plus, in my mind. Everyone knows it's a no-risk venture, it takes virtually no time, there's no commitment attached to it, and no money. It does make a statement when delivered, I'm sure, particularly if it has hundreds of thousands of names on it (or even thousands, as with the Florida budget petition). But how strong can that statement be when it took so little to create it (especially if it was created on the Internet)?

When I first started working with nonprofits and raised the meager $3,000 it would take to go, with two other teachers, to Haiti to deliver medical and school supplies in 1991 (can you say coup d'etat? And debacle?), I was given a bit of advice I'll never forget. I was collecting clothing to bring to the children and amassed so much I had to ask the people in the community to stop sending me clothing and give it to a certain local church that served homeless children. A nun at the church wasn't surprised by all of the clothing. She said (after she expressed her gratitude): "That's what you get in middle class neighborhoods. They give you clothing--and anything else they don't want--and they sign petitions. That's what they think supporting a cause is. Just don't ask them to do anything that would actually cost them something."

A nun said this. Ouch.

This is probably me being cynical again, but I have the old-school notion in my mind that when you believe in something and you want to change the way things are, there must be sacrifice. I don't find in this lifetime that you get something for nothing. And I find it difficult to believe that massive social change of the variety I'd like to see is going to come from signing petitions.

But I could be wrong.

I already know what some of you think because you e-mailed me and made me want to write this post, and I thank you. I suspect a lot of people will disagree with what I've written.

But I could be wrong.

Finally, I was going to post about "Hollywood Grizzly Bear Kills Trainer," but I have little to say other than: What did you expect?

On Cameras in Slaughterhouses

I'm categorizing this post under Gray Matters, among other things, because I'm ambivalent. As many of you know by now, as a result of the investigation at the Hallmark slaughterhouse, Congress is calling for video cameras to be installed at slaughterhouses.

This is from Erik Marcus:

Such an action wouldn't stop all slaughterhouse abuse but it's a vital
step in the right direction.  On Friday I recorded an eighteen minute
podcast about this:

http://www.vegan.com/2008/04/18/bonus-podcast-glass-walls-and-video/

And, as a result, one of my listeners started a petition on the Care2
site, calling for Congress to pass legislation mandating the
installation of video cameras inside all United States
slaughterhouses.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/video-cameras-in-slaughterhouses

Won't you take two minutes to visit the above web page and to sign
this petition . . .

Elaine wrote a post for the Daily Kos about this issue here.

My question for you all is: Are you going to sign the petition, and if so, why? If not, why not? What does it mean for you to sign the petition?

My opinion is that this is no way related to animal rights and will not lead to animal rights. It just might lead to some people going vegetarian or vegan because it will provide slaughterhouses with those glass Linda and Paul McCartney spoke of. Maybe it won't, as we don't know if all (any?) of the footage will be for public consumption.

One thing I'm fairly sure it will lead to--and this is just logic talking--is that slaughterhouse workers will be on their best behavior for the cameras, while they mutilate, torture and slaughter sentient beings in perfectly legal ways. And what I see in our future is slaughterhouses using the footage to demonstrate that the animals are not suffering unduly (of course, that's a ridiculous statement, but you know you're going to hear about how they're being treated humanely).

Perhaps the footage might lead to the alteration of some practices. Perhaps not. Remember, the cameras aren't so you can see how horrible it is in the slaughterhouse--they're for oversight. They're supposed to catch the person who thinks it's funny to sit on a turkey or throw chickens against a wall for fun or sexually molest a pig. They're supposed to make sure that business goes as it should in a slaughterhouse.

And if no problems are found, a slaughterhouse might use that fact in their marketing. You won't even have to pay more for happy meat, then, because you can get less-abused met from Tyson (or wherever).

What I would like to see if I'm going to spend my time and energy on a campaign, and I know I've written this many times, is evidence that it will help my cause. My cause is the liberation of animals, and not only don't I think cameras in slaughterhouses will lead to it, but I think the entire idea might backfire, making even slaughterhouse meat into happy meat.

I'd be thrilled to be persuaded otherwise. Perhaps I'm just being cynical. But this act by Congress could turn out to be a boon for animal slaughter companies, depending on who is allowed access to the footage, and what exactly would constitute inappropriate or cruel action. I don't want to hear that business is going the way it should in a slaughterhouse. I want to hear that we're not going to be slaughtering animals.

Intention is a powerful notion, and the intention here is to catch things that shouldn't be happening, not things that are customary for the industry. That doesn't help my cause.

On A Real-Life Difficulty of Being Vegan

I used to complain--a lot--to my husband about living in South Florida. I felt a kinship with almost no one, I was a freak to all, and the closest vegan restaurant is 70 miles away. I wanted to move back to New York, or perhaps to San Francisco or even Chicago (where he's from). Maybe even Asheville. All I know is I wanted to feel like my community had a clue and was doing something other than holding events for $500/ticket where $200 goes to the cause, filet mignon is served, few people eat it (because they might gain weight), and it is promptly tossed into the garbage.

Interestingly, now that my husband has got a clue of his own and has stopped eating animals (and even replaced his shoes with NOHARMs), he is feeling a bit of longing. He'd like to be able to walk into a restaurant (he dines with clients a lot, and eats out for at least one meal each day) and order something other than a plate of carbs of some sort--that he actually finds tasty. Going out on weekends isn't interesting to him at all anymore, as there are a few places we go to all the time because they're the only ones with good vegan dishes, and he doesn't have a high tolerance for food repetition.

I, on the other hand, can eat the same thing every day and not have any problem with that.

Though one could most certainly have worse problems, this is an extrovert who grew up white and privileged and never feeling like he didn't want to go to a restaurant. And now he doesn't dread it, but he doesn't enjoy it or look forward to the experience as he's anticipating bad food that he might have to send back (we recently discovered that at the places where we would order pasta with a marinara sauce the pasta, it is made on the premises--with eggs. So we can't even eat pasta when we go out. Or we find out that the vegetarian lettuce wraps, made with wild mushrooms and not a hint of any animals around, are sauteed in some kind of oyster sauce--and they're the non-meat option!).

When people say that veganism is easy, I can't help but think: It's easy for you. Try having to go out to lunch and/or dinner with clients every day in a snooty town that has not one vegan restaurant (oh, and neither one of us enjoys Indian food). Whether or not it's easy to be a vegan largely depends on where you live and how you've set up your life. If we lived in Manhattan I wouldn't be writing this.

Being vegan is easy for me because I have near-total control over my environment. I buy and prepare the food I want to eat, I'm rarely at the mercy of anyone else's restaurant choice, and when I am I might eat before I go and have a fabulous glass of wine and call it a day (or night).

But not everyone has the luxury of living the way I do, and I think we have to acknowledge that and say there are myriad factors involved in whether going or being vegan is easy (like, is your partner or parent/s vegan; where do you live; what is your work situation like; is your community friendly to the idea).

On Meat-Eaters and Terrified Wildlife

In "The Explorer's Club: Endangering Animals One Dinner At A Time," Diana Odasso explains:

Amidst admirable hours spent reflecting a precarious future and surrounded by accomplished explorers, researchers, and conservationists from the world over, I was therefore shocked to encounter a circus mentality akin to a turn of the century Coney Island freak show: the annual presentation of 'endangered' species. Accompanied by dessert and the cymbal-clanging lame jokes of the organization's honorary president, handlers brought out several terrified animals: a large snapping turtle whose mouth was stretched wide in fear, a monitor lizard, and a mid-sized alligator from the Florida Everglades. . . . And though I eat meat, wear leather, visit zoos, and do not throw tofu pies at Anna Wintour, something in me stirred at the sight of those terrified wild animals.

Here's my question: Do we have any business being angry or annoyed with people who eat meat yet are disgusted by certain uses of animals? In yesterday's comments, Nathan wrote:

I think there are serious problems with anything that associates vegetarianism with veganism, ties them together, or suggests in anyway that vegetarianism is desirable or positive.

Part of me says, "Yes! What's with vegetarians thinking they're doing something so great?" The other part says, "Isn't there something positive about ceasing the eating of flesh? Shouldn't they get a modicum of credit? And the meat-eating, skin-wearing people at the Waldorf who were disturbed by the parade of terrified wildlife--isn't it a good sign that there's actually at least one form of animal exploitation that upsets them?" Of course, that's one minuscule sign if it is one, and if it's accompanied by no change in behavior it could very well be simply a pang of guilt for their complicity in the institutions of animal usage.

And regarding friends and family who eat no animal products except pizza--and that was me by the way: Do we ridicule them for their participation in the exploitation and suffering of animals and give them no credit whatsoever? I realize that the pizza thing really is the height of denial and/or hypocrisy, as you can't get it without killing calves (because of the rennet), therefore pizza and veal are actually sort of cousins. But most people simply don't know that.

I find that most vegans are tougher on vegetarians than omnivores, and the logic is that vegetarians think they're doing so much good, and at least omnivores don't claim to be. And I get that. But is that fair? Is that kind? Does it help move them toward veganism? Is there such a thing as behaving somewhat, but not completely ethically when it comes to animals? Isn't it true that no one is completely vegan if they're living in the developed world in a house, driving a car, etc.? Can vegetarianism be on the spectrum of respect toward nonhuman animals, with omnivores being on the way left, and the impossible perfect vegan on the way right? Do you think of this issues in terms of a spectrum, or is there only omnivore and vegan, with vegetarian being more of a pseudo category, like pescetarian?