Skip to content

Find Adam Some Good News

Adam wanted me to find him some good news yesterday and I'm thinking of billing him for my time because it took me an hour.

🙂

Here's the problem: If I were a welfarist, I'd have plenty of good news to report. A slight change in the slaughter technique of chickens, horses not being slaughtered here (but still being slaughtered elsewhere, and after excruciating transport), a designer ceasing the use of fur trim on his leather goods, a fast food chain introducing a vegetarian option that can be made vegan, an upswing in the number of some endangered species (that will become delisted and hunting will resume). These all could be seen as victories. They all could be seen as good news.

Can any of them be said to be steps toward the abolition of the use of any sentient nonhuman? At the very least we can say that it's impossible to tell in 2008. The answer will become clearer in a decade or two. Maybe. I can say, however, that more people are more aware of the myriad uses and abuses of animals than ever before in my lifetime, from my observation. And I can also say that more animals are being brought into this world only to be used and slaughtered than ever before (and that one's not just in my lifetime).

From my vantage point, I'm not overwhelmed with good news. I see a lot of excuses and rationalizations, and a lot of individuals claiming to care but admitting they're "weak" and therefore not able to stop eating animals like us vegan superheroes.

But I also see individuals around me making choices that represent a drastic departure from the way they were raised and the way our culture tells them to choose. I do see more people cutting back on animal products. But that's just people around me, and it's not a real indication of anything.

And, of course, I do see a light at the end of the tunnel for greyhounds, which brings me to the good news, which I found right here in the greyhound abuse capital of the US of A in "Officials say 'no' to poker at greyhound track" (in Pensacola). This is impressive because the economy is in such bad shape, and Florida's housing market has been hit particularly hard (along with California), that if I were a betting person I might have bet against the dogs and for Escambia County expanding gambling in the form of poker rooms at the dog track. Foreclosures, it turns out, have been caused by gambling though, and that was part of the reason for the vote against expansion. (Clearly, I should not gamble.)

There is no–no–mention of the dogs in the article. This was all about whether or not gambling is "moral."

And just so you know, a former security guard at the Pensacola Greyhound Track, Robert L. Rhodes, spent "his entire adult life" slaughtering greyhounds by shooting them, sometimes in the neck or mouth (he was aiming for the brain), for $10 each. He slaughtered up to 3,000 dogs in the last 10 years and dumped them in pits on his property.

If you were wondering what often happens to greyhounds, whether they are winners or not, now you know. Some get sold to laboratories for medical research (or donated and a tax deduction for the "property" donated is taken), some get adopted by nice people, some get adopted by horrible people, some get a lethal injection (which is perfectly legal to do to a healthy greyhound, by the way), and some get shot in the head, neck or mouth and dumped in a pit.

No poker rooms spells the end to racing in Pensacola–inevitably. And it spells even fewer dogs being bred to be used and slaughtered. Is that a huge victory? Stupendous news? It's a great step in the right direction, for sure.

It took some doing, but there's your good news. And if you've found any, Adam and I would love to hear about it!

13 Comments Post a comment
  1. Ha, thanks Mary.

    I think a longing for good news is one of the many baits that brings people to welfarism. People want to feel like they're making progress. They want to feel like things are getting better. Yet another reason why we're so unpopular.

    No, I'm afraid I don't have any good news. I suppose people like you and me will just have to make it happen.

    What does lift my spirits, however, is new or revived ways of promoting veganism. It may not seem easy to convince someone to entirely change their diet, but I think there are loads of people out there who are just waiting for someone to give them a little push, to say "yeah, you should go vegan" or "Actually it's really easy". I'm trying to find those people.

    We have a long way to go and abolitionism is a minority within a minority. However the solidarity of abolitionists doesn't compare to that of groups who reward "consciencious omnivore" campaigns. I'm not satisfied with the idiotic rationalizations of the use of animals, but I am satisfied to be unapologetically fighting for the most oppressed beings on the planet, including those dear greyhounds.

    As for the bill, I'll have to pay you in blog postings

    December 14, 2008
  2. Mary wrote: "Foreclosures, it turns out, have been caused by gambling though, and that was part of the reason for the vote against expansion."

    Uh, a different kind of gambling. I can show you my taxes so you can see just how different these gambling forms are in the eyes of the law.

    Mary wrote: "There is no–no–mention of the dogs in the article. This was all about whether or not gambling is 'moral.'"

    Which is why I wasn't so keen on your support of banning poker rooms. I can understand your reasoning for why you didn't support poker rooms at dog racetracks, but I think in the long haul, this kind of round-about route to animal rights won't really result in animal rights.

    For example, the only reason I can afford to blog and vlog about veganism and do outreach and such is because of my husband's poker income. AND quite a few high profile poker players are vegans, some of whom raise money for animal charities etc.

    Attacking poker, whatever your reason, is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

    I have good news: At least once a week someone sends me an email telling me that Vegan Soapbox or something else I do helped them go vegan or helped keep them vegan. I'm not saying that to brag. I'm saying that to say that vegan education works!

    December 14, 2008
  3. Mary Martin #

    Elaine,

    I'm simply referring to the quote in the article, about how the legislator's decision was largely based on calls from constituents, such as the woman who was foreclosed on due to her husband's gambling problem. I'm not making a distinction in types of gambling income. I don't even know what that means; I'm not interested in gambling either way. But the people in Escambia county are, and they have a moral issue with it and let their legislators know.

    I'm not judging your husband's choice of career. But I'm certainly not going to support poker rooms at tracks because they are responsible for propping up an industry and causing more greyhound suffering and death. If I played poker for a living I'd say the same thing.

    If tracks go out of business because of a lack of poker rooms, I'm happy. I just want them out of business. People will lose jobs, yes. And people who play poker will go elsewhere to do it.

    It's interesting you should scoff at the "round-about route," as months ago you said that animals don't care what we think they just care about what we do, meaning if we go vegan for health reasons, great. If fewer animals suffer because people stop eating animals for environmental reasons, great. Well, if the greyhound industry dies because voters won't prop it up, great.

    December 14, 2008
  4. You wrote: "It's interesting you should scoff at the "round-about route," as months ago you said that animals don't care what we think they just care about what we do, meaning if we go vegan for health reasons, great. If fewer animals suffer because people stop eating animals for environmental reasons, great. Well, if the greyhound industry dies because voters won't prop it up, great."

    I DO contradict myself sometimes. That's because a) people change and b) the world isn't so simple. Your (and others') complaint of hypocrisy is completely meaningless to me. Take your 'moral consistency' and shove it because it doesn't exist.

    I'm not vegan in order to be consistent. I'm vegan because it's the right thing to do – for me, in the here and now. It's contextual and it could change. Lock me in a prison with only omni options and I might go back to vegetarianism. I doubt my will to live is weaker than my ethics.

    But most importantly, my statement about 'I don't care why people go vegan' was about ethics and personal choices, not legislation. I said I don't care if people go vegan to save the planet or if they do it to save animals, the result to animals is the same. I stand by that statement. But here you're talking about restricting poker, which is a VERY different discussion. You're saying it's OK to ban, stigmatize, and drive poker underground because that's what better for the greyhounds. They are VERY different discussions.

    I think when it comes to legislation, abolitionists especially, but all animal advocates, ought to be extremely clear and precise: this is about animals, nothing else.

    December 15, 2008
  5. PS – Regarding foreclosures, I thought you meant this gambling: credit default swaps. Sorry for any confusion.

    December 15, 2008
  6. Mary Martin #

    Elaine said: "You're saying it's OK to ban, stigmatize, and drive poker underground because that's what better for the greyhounds."

    However, nowhere did Mary say that. Once again, and for the last time, I am for not adding poker rooms to greyhound tracks to prop them up.

    If you play in a poker room at a greyhound track, you are supporting the greyhound industry. End of story. Would your husband play poker at a greyhound track?

    As for the "Shove it" comment . . . Lovely.

    December 15, 2008
  7. Mike Grieco #

    And the GOOD NEWS IS: Many of us DO try to reduce are harm to others in this world (which includes our choice of words/language).

    I believe this is good news;;;; http://vegpage.com/index.php?view=article&catid=29:main-news&id=1081:interview-with-david-cantor-of-rpa&option=com_content&Itemid=72

    Many thanks for all the GOOD you all do…

    Peace And Health–To All Life…

    December 15, 2008
  8. "Would your husband play poker at a greyhound track?"
    NO, I'm sure he wouldn't.
    That is, unless he had reason to believe supporting the poker rooms gave the owners incentive to ditch the dog racing and focus on nonviolent gaming.

    But the only reason the poker rooms were banned was because of social outrage against poker, not against dog racing. THAT is a problem. It's a problem for AR and it's a problem for poker.

    December 16, 2008
  9. The social outrage didn't come from me, Elaine, it came from the people of Escambia County. Further, I don't think it's a problem for animal rights at all. For poker, sure, and it's clear why you would have a problem with that.

    December 16, 2008
  10. "Take your 'moral consistency' and shove it…"

    Oh, come on! Really?

    When I read your demonization of Mary's support of closing a poker room as an attack on your husband's poker playing, I thought I was on The Center for Consumer Freedom's site or something.

    Mary isn't attacking you for changing your mind, she's pointing out how your own theory goes to support the idea that what is done is what is most important and not the intention or the "feeling" of doing it. Would you deny this? Should we really put the animal's rights aside for concern of the poker player's ability to meet somewhere?

    December 16, 2008
  11. mary martin #

    Just to be super clear, this isn't about closing a poker room. There is no poker room–no poker players are being driven underground or being banned because they were never there to begin with. What this does is prevents poker rooms from being allowed, as their income will prop up the dog tracks. As long as the poker rooms do well (and they would likely do well–for the track), the dogs would be forced to race. That's how this works.

    And though I've never taken a moral stand against gambling, the reality is that the only reason dog tracks and horse tracks are in business at all is because people bet on them. So in these two instances, gambling is directly related to the suffering of animals. I'm guessing this is where Elaine's "nonviolent gaming" phrase comes from, which I'd never heard of because I'm not in that world.

    December 17, 2008
  12. Nice blog. Greyhound racing is an increasingly popular sport in Victoria and other areas of Australia, and there are many opportunities for people to become actively involved as well as just turning up to watch the races.
    Thank you.

    January 5, 2009
  13. earlebenezer greyhound betting,
    I'm not sure if that's a joke or if you simply haven't read this blog. Greyhound racing, on principle, in Victoria, Pensacola, or anywhere else, is to those of us who respect the dogs and wish them the freedom and lives they deserve, an entirely unethical endeavor.
    Good day.

    January 5, 2009

Leave a comment to Adam Kochanowicz Cancel reply

You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS