brockway hall

Our Conflicted Attitudes Toward the Death of Animals

2011-06-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

The following is a research paper I recently wrote for an ASU class called "Death and Dying in Cross-Cultural Perspective."

Most people agree that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain, suffering, or death on animals; and many people say that they love animals. In spite of this, we routinely cause harm to animals in ways that would objectively be described as abuse, for reasons that in almost all cases qualify as frivolous. We often fail to recognize the self-interests and intrinsic worth of animals as thinking, feeling, sentient beings, as we focus instead on how they can be most useful to us.

We may not always agree on exactly what constitutes the necessary use of animals, but surely in today’s society, it is not necessary to use animals for food, clothing, or the majority of the other things we utilize them for. In fact, regarding food, the American Dietetic Association clearly states in a position paper that: “Appropriately planned vegan, lacto-vegetarian, and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets satisfy nutrient needs of infants, children, and adolescents and promote normal growth” (Craig, Mangels). Furthermore, our consumption of animal products has been linked to increasingly serious E. coli outbreaks and elevated rates of various degenerative diseases, and is devastating to the environment.

Clearly our behavior is often inconsistent with our professed beliefs. Depending on the particular species of animal, our actions may reflect anything from resolute consistency to absolute contradiction. The basis for our belief that it is wrong to cause the unnecessary death of a human or other animal is the universally understood idea that death represents severe, and perhaps ultimate harm, to any perpetually aware or sentient individual. Yet while we regard some kinds of animals, such as the dogs and cats that many of us live with, as nonhuman persons whose lives and interests we value deeply and whose deaths we mourn, we accept with little or no thought the routine, and often large-scale killing of other kinds of animals—who exhibit no meaningful cognitive differences—for food, clothing, biomedical research, and other uses. While most of us do not regard animals as mere “things,” they are nevertheless considered property under the law and are frequently treated as resources or commodities with considerable latitude granted to their respective owners.

Animal rights theorist and Rutgers University law professor Gary L. Francione, calls this inconsistent situation “moral schizophrenia” (Francione, Introduction). His theory, which is based solely on animal sentience, calls for the abolition of animal exploitation, the promotion of veganism as the moral baseline of the animal rights movement, the rejection of measures that seek to regulate exploitation, and the clear rejection of violence, both generally and as a tactic to further social change (Francione, “Mission”).

In 2009, the estimated 59 billion land and sea animals killed in the United States for food represented the vast majority of our animal use (Mohr). It should be noted that this figure includes animals used for dairy and eggs, as they too are sent to the slaughterhouse, once they are no longer economically productive. This cannot by any reasonable definition be considered necessary. Rather, the pain, suffering, and death we impose on nonhumans is a combined result of cultural tradition, habit, convenience, and the pleasure and enjoyment we derive from eating animals, wearing them, and being entertained by them.

Our conflicted attitudes toward animal death and killing represent speciesism, which is a form of discrimination based on species membership. We tend to take more seriously the protection of species we consider companion animals, those animals that are more closely related to us such as nonhuman primates, and animals that we perceive as cute, such as dolphins, seals, and pandas. Often, intellectual capacity is also a factor that we apply when we insert animals into a moral hierarchy. However, none of these factors are relevant to one’s ability to experience pain, suffering, or the fear of death. The majority of us understand that when it comes to humans it is fundamentally wrong to deny basic rights to those who we deem less intelligent, less attractive, or more “different.” If we can acknowledge that the species of a sentient being is no more morally relevant than a person’s intelligence, skin color, age, or gender, than we must dismantle the moral hierarchy we have created for animals, and give their interests equal consideration. In other words, we must treat similar situations in similar ways.

The value assigned to the lives of animals of a given species can be very different depending on the cultural context. In a 2008 essay, sociologist Roger Yates compared how the killing of dolphins is viewed in Japan and many Western countries. In the West, a number of animal advocacy groups, reflecting—and perhaps to some extent influencing—public attitudes, fund campaigns against dolphin slaughter by the Japanese fishing industry. Western culture values dolphins, while many Japanese consider the animals to be pests, similar to how cattle farmers in the West see foxes. Referring to a conversation about this with a Japanese friend, Yates wrote: “However, one thing tends to unite the Japanese . . . and that is a generalized resentment to being told what to do by countries whose peoples are quite happy to chomp away on pigs, chickens and cows. To the Japanese, this is gross hypocrisy to be dismissed as such” (Yates).

Cultural differences regarding animals surfaced during the 2008 Olympic Summer Games in Beijing, China, when officially designated Olympic restaurants were ordered not to serve dog flesh during the month of August, as a public relations measure directed at foreign visitors. Again, we had a hypocritical situation. In this case, visitors from other countries and cultures may have frowned upon eating dogs, while not thinking twice about eating other sentient species, and the similar pain, suffering and death that resulted. There was no evidence to suggest that the ban would have done anything to reduce overall animal suffering and death, as diners who could not order dog flesh were free to substitute another species of animal on the menu.

“From a moral standpoint, eating dogs is no better or worse than eating cows, chickens, pigs, or fish. That seeing dogs listed on restaurant menus in Beijing may offend or upset foreign visitors, says more about Western speciesism than China’s comparative level of civilization and modernity,” wrote this author in a 2008 blog essay (Hopes).

The case of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is strikingly illustrative of our conflicted attitudes about animals. Vick was convicted in 2007 in federal court for running an interstate dog fighting operation in which dogs suffered terribly and often died as a consequence. Both the case itself and its heavy media coverage were steeped in hypocrisy and speciesism from the beginning.

The NFL player grew up in a subculture where dog fighting was accepted. What Vick did was clearly wrong, and this was by no means a justification for his actions. But it represented an explanation that was most often overlooked by the media, various animal advocacy groups that weighed in on the issue, and the general public. Of course in our larger culture, it is considered acceptable to eat animal products from animals that also suffer terribly and are killed. Morally, what Vick did was no different from what most of us do every day—exploiting animals for the trivial reasons of pleasure and entertainment. The only difference was that Vick used dogs.

Vick, who served 19 months in prison, was unfairly singled out by the NFL, which suspended him, his sponsors who abandoned him, animal groups who called for his punishment, and a legal system that does not imprison animal exploiters in general. But the NFL presides over an inherently violent sport, and accepts advertising from corporations whose operations revolve around the exploitation of animals. Hamburgers, ice cream, and other animal products are sold in the stadiums during the football games. One of Vick’s sponsors, Kraft Foods, is a leading marketer of animal-based foods. His deal with Nike was suspended. Nike is on record for egregious worker exploitation, and sells leather shoes. Finally, none of the big animal advocacy organizations used the case as an opportunity to educate the public about non-violence and veganism, by pointing out that all use of animals, not just dog fighting, represents animal abuse and violence.

Gary L. Francione wrote about this in a 2009 op-ed titled We’re All Michael Vick that appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer. “There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products,” he said. Concluding the piece, Francione asked: “How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue” (Francione)?

Focusing so narrowly on Vick and the comparatively rare practice of dog fighting, served to reinforce the idea of dogs as special and Vick as a monster, while doing nothing to bring attention to the comparatively much larger problem of the billions of animals tortured and killed for food. Some people claim that dogs are indeed special, but unlike a peer-reviewed finding based on empirical evidence, this represents an opinion analogous to someone who believes that membership in a particular racial group elevates a human being to a special status. It was admirable that Michael Vick went on to denounce dog fighting, but by not denouncing all animal exploitation and embracing veganism, existing speciesist thinking was fortified, and lessons were not learned.

It can be said that language shapes the channels within which our thinking flows. How we as individuals, and collectively as a culture, use language—more specifically the words that we choose—has a way of both influencing and reflecting how we think about animals. For example, it is exceedingly rare that we use the pronoun “it” when referring to a human, though we occasionally use the word when referring to a companion animal, and very frequently when referring to other nonhuman animals. “It” implies a thing, an object, commodity, resource, or property, while “he” or “she” suggests sentience, personhood, or an individual. We find it easier to enslave, impose pain or suffering upon, or terminate the life of an “it” as opposed to a “he” or “she.” Likewise, we find it more difficult to recognize the inherent moral value and self-interests of an “it.”

Producers, often in partnership with animal advocacy or environmental groups, have created various marketing terms and consumer labeling programs that attempt to steer our thinking or play on our existing biases. For example, “certified humane” animal products imply better and kinder conditions for animals raised for food, yet those animals are still subjected to intense confinement, painful procedures, and deliberately imposed death. “Dolphin-safe tuna” strengthens the speciesist idea that we should take seriously the protection of dolphins, but not tuna. The intended and actual effect of these measures is to make consumers feel less guilty about continuing to eat animal products.

“We only grow one crop of fish at a time on a farm, and we have crop rotation,” Nell Hales of Cooke Aquaculture proudly told the reporter in a 2009 “Green Week” piece on NBC Nightly News (Thompson). In the story, fish are commodities or “crops” like stalks of corn, not individuals; we are told that the dramatic plunge in the ocean’s fish population is a problem only because there are fewer fish for humans to kill and eat, and that aquaculture, rather than not eating fish, is the solution. Even though fish are more evolutionarily distant from us and may not be as easy to relate to as mammals, scientists have nevertheless concluded that they are sentient with the capacity to feel pain (Sneddon).

In conclusion, one could say that our conflicted attitudes about the death of animals, along with our exploitation of them, largely results from what we have believed and have done in the past for quite some time. We are born into and raised in a culture where nonhuman animals are property, where animal exploitation is the everyday norm, and is convenient and traditional. We are conditioned to not seeing the situation objectively, to not acknowledging that when we kill an animal we are committing an act of violence that destroys a personality. Until we reject our current paradigm, nonhumans will always be valued more for how useful they are to us as things, than for their intrinsic worth as sentient individuals.

Given proper attention by growing numbers of individuals to the core of the problem, which is speciesism and violence, and to the solution to the problem, which is veganism, there is every reason to believe that attitudes will change. Francione, who considers veganism to be a moral and political commitment to the abolition of animal exploitation, sees creative non-violent vegan education as the cure for our moral schizophrenia. “The animal rights position is the ultimate rejection of violence. It is the ultimate affirmation of peace” (Francione, “Mission”).

Works Cited

Craig, Winston J., and Mangels, Ann Reed. “Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109:7 (2009): 1266-82.

Francione, Gary L. Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University P, 2000. 1-30. Print.

---. “Mission Statement” Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach n.d. n. pag. Web. 8 June 2011.

---. “We’re all Michael Vick.” The Philadelphia Inquirer
14 Aug. 2009. n. pag. Web. 8 June 2011.

Hopes, Kenneth. “Beijing Restaurants Take Dogs off the Menu During the Olympic Games” Brockway Hall 5 Aug. 2008 n. pag. Web. 8 June 2011.

Mohr, Noam. “59 Billion Land and Sea Animals Killed for Food in the U.S. in 2009.” Free From Harm 15 Jan. 2011. n. pag. Web. 8 June 2011.

Sneddon, Lynne U. “The Evidence for Pain in Fish: the Use of Morphine as an Analgesic.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83.2 (2003) 153-62. ScienceDirect. Web 12 June 2011.

Thompson, Anne. “Teach a Man to Farm Fish.” NBC Nightly News KPNX, Phoenix. 20 April 2009. Television.

Yates, Roger. “Something Fishy About Campaigns about Dolphins and Whales?” On Human-Nonhuman Relations 31 Aug. 2008 n. pag. Web. 8 June 2011.

Gimme Shelter

2011-06-05T22:58:00.000-07:00

Playing for change had put together an amazing new version of this Rolling Stones song from the late 1960s. You can read more about this video from Jesus Diaz at Gizmodo.

Statement of Professional Philosophy

2011-05-13T10:17:00.000-07:00

I wrote this as part of an assignment in my recently completed Foundations of Exercise and Wellness class.

Heath education is so much more than providing data and teaching people a set of rules. I believe that attaining and maintaining optimal health and wellness requires a lifetime of work, learning, and discovery. It is a state that arises not from what we may pursue on a particular day, not from a particular product, a particular program, or a specific focus; but from the cumulative effect of how we go about our lives over many months, years, and decades. I firmly believe that people need to be shown a way to fully integrate healthy behavior patterns into their lives, so that they become habitual and indistinguishable from their normal ways of being. I feel that the best way to do this is to pursue creative ways of showing people how to appreciate the daily experience of physical activity in the form of play, to recognize as cardiologist and distance runner Dr. George Sheehan once said, “we are all athletes; the difference is that some of us are in training and some of us are not,” and to understand the essential roles of good nutrition and other healthy lifestyle practices in supporting that activity in both the near-term, and as one progresses through consecutive stages of life. Health then becomes a positive symptom of what one is pursuing, rather than a goal itself. These changes in mindset, if they are to be successfully attained and sustained, require gradual adjustment and will not happen overnight. I believe that patience and understanding are crucial qualities of the health educator. While I clearly understand the importance of individual responsibility, I also recognize that individuals are influenced, shaped, and constrained by the society around them. Therefore as a society we have a responsibility to do collectively what individuals themselves cannot do—regulate our food suppliers, design our communities, protect public health, educate, and deliver health care, in ways that make healthy behaviors viable, practical, and attractive for individuals and families regardless of income or where they live.

2010 Vegan Thanksgiving Dinner

2010-11-25T17:25:00.000-08:00

Roasted Vegetables: beets, yams, purple potatoes, parsnips, carrots, yellow onion, garlic, Brussels sprouts, mushrooms, olive oil, black pepper, and salt.

Macaroni and “Cheese”: whole-wheat macaroni, Daiya vegan cheddar style cheese alternative, soymilk, and salt.

Vegan Wine: Charles Shaw Cabernet Sauvignon

Fruit Smoothie: orange juice, soymilk, banana, frozen mango chunks, frozen blueberries, cranberry relish (cranberries cooked with water and unbleached sugar), and unsweetened cocoa powder.

This was my 33rd turkey-free Thanksgiving, but far more significantly, my fifth Thanksgiving as a vegan. My delicious Thanksgiving meal, like all my meals, was low in saturated fat; contained no lactose, casein, or cholesterol; and had plenty of fiber, antioxidants and other phytochemicals.

Being vegan means avoiding as much as possible, the exploitation of animals. It means taking a stand against violence. It’s healthier, far better for the environment, and by no means difficult to do.

Avatar

2010-06-05T09:49:00.000-07:00

Watching Avatar last night for the second time, I realized that it was one of the most fascinating movies I’ve ever seen, not merely for its cinematic splendor, but for its message. Avatar is about what we did to the Native Americans. It’s about the Vietnam War, our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the plight of the Palestinians. It’s about the enslavement, torture, and slaughter of billions of nonhuman animals. It’s about the harmful junk we put in our bodies, and how we are ravaging our environment. It’s about how we perceive and treat the poor, the undereducated, those who are different. It’s about otherization. It’s about what we do to those less powerful, and how ultimately, that violence comes around and destroys us all.

How Corporate Interests and Weak Leadership Result in Confusing and Timid Federal Programs

2010-04-28T12:04:00.000-07:00

This is a research paper I wrote for a college English class.

One thing most Americans will agree on is the need for an effective government that is accountable to its citizens. Before that can happen in our democracy, the citizenry must be informed. Increasingly we are seeing corporate interests influencing our elected politicians, both directly through intense lobbying and campaign contributions, and indirectly through the control of the media sources that Americans rely on for news and informed debate. When voters make decisions based on misinformation from major media outlets, when politicians capitalize on that misinformation rather than challenge it, and when those politicians spend considerable time with corporate lobbyists and accept their money, the system fails us. Even though some free market proponents may disagree, for our government to work properly, we must ensure that there exists adequate and sensible regulation, enforcement of antitrust laws, equitably applied taxes, and a robust firewall that prevents corporations from unduly influencing our news media and our politicians.

On corporate power, political activist Ralph Nader once wrote: “Competition, free enterprise, and an open market were never meant to be symbolic fig leaves for corporate socialism and monopolistic capitalism” (Green). However, simply admonishing the corporations will not change anything. Since corporations exist to make profits for their shareholders, it should be no surprise that they will do whatever they can get away with to achieve those ends. It is our government framework within which corporations exist as legal entities, that is flawed and must be changed.

We have seen the repercussions of this to varying degrees in such recent programs as the stimulus bill, “cash for clunkers,” and the health care bill. But first, let’s look briefly at a federal program that preceded those, and was in some respects foundational. As our government’s first major response to the economic downturn, the nature of its failures and successes would set a pattern.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly known as TARP, is a federal government program intended to assist financial institutions and stabilize the ailing financial sector in the wake of the dramatic drop in the stock market. It was quickly established by the previous administration, and continued under the current administration. Controversial from the start, and sold to the nation as an emergency measure with little time for thoughtful debate, TARP granted unprecedented authority to the Treasury Secretary. While the bulk of the program consisted of buying assets and equity from financial institutions, later uses of remaining funds included home foreclosure mitigation.

It turns out that our government will end up profiting from the program. A January, 2010 projection from the Congressional Budget Office projects a total net profit of $14 billion (Yang). That’s good news considering our current deficit, but the much touted purpose of the bailout—getting banks to resume lending money following the credit freeze—has not happened in any satisfactory way. Critics assert that many of the largest banks used the money for mergers and acquisitions, rather than to make loans (Patalon). Quite ironically, some of the largest institutions that were rescued because they were supposedly “too big to fail,” are now bigger than before. And while many of these big banks have paid back the money and returned to business as usual, and the stock market continues to recover; numerous small banks have gone under, communities across America remain depressed, wage growth stagnates, and high unemployment persists.

Two years after the collapse of Bear Stearns, lax regulatory oversight of the financial industry continues (Siskey). Congress and the administration have yet to institute substantive banking reform, reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act which for decades prevented banks from getting involved in risky investments and speculation, or to push enforcement of anti-trust laws; all crucial in preventing a repeat of the financial crisis.

Had our government officials, when formulating the program, taken more time to consider the larger picture, and less time accommodating the financial industry, perhaps more benefits would have flowed down to the overall economy instead of accumulating at the top.

Let us now examine in a more detailed way, some subsequent government programs, and how corporate interests influenced their design.

While the basic idea of the stimulus program was sound, it is evident more than one year later that the bill attempted to accomplish too much with too little money; suffering from too much compromise, too much corporate influence, too much reliance on popular political positions over thoughtfully applied empirical data, and an overall lack of bold and cohesive vision.
Known officially as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the bill was quickly signed into law in February, 2009 by the new President as a means to strengthen the economy and reduce unemployment during the worst economic downturn in the U.S. since the Great Depression.

At a time when consumers, businesses, and state and local governments were cutting back severely on their spending, the federal government urgently needed to step in and fill the vacuum. Supporters argued that by providing a source of funding for various “shovel-ready” public works projects that could be quickly initiated, significant numbers of unemployed workers would be put back to work. Those workers could then pay their bills and spend money in their communities (Reich).

However, what ultimately coalesced as the final bill was a wide ranging mix that included tax cuts, unemployment benefit extensions, increases to Pell grants, and numerous other measures (Lieber). While some of those things were clearly needed, as an unfortunate consequence, spending on infrastructure ended up being less than ten percent of the bill, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (Goldman). This was not nearly enough to bolster the construction sector that had been severely affected by the recession. Nor was it enough to make substantive progress improving our aging, unsafe, and increasingly obsolete infrastructure at a time when prices for concrete and steel were depressed and the number of idled construction workers was exceedingly high. Further reducing its impact is the slow pace at which the funds continue to be spent, as program administrators are cautious about maintaining accountability. One year into the program, less than one-third of the allocated funds had been released (Farley).

For the most part, economists agree that without the stimulus bill, the unemployment rate would be even higher than it stands today (Stolberg). But some—most ardently economist Paul Krugman and former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich—argue that with unemployment currently hovering around ten percent, additional stimulus is needed (Reich, Krugman).

“When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt,” Reich wrote last fall in his blog (Reich). Comparing federal government deficit spending with household debt, is a false analogy, he contends. Reich calls the federal government “the spender of last resort,” and with no near-term prospect for increased demand from other sectors, sees more federal investments as critical to economic recovery (Reich).

Even before the stimulus bill was signed, Krugman was criticizing it for being far short of what was needed. He thinks the fact that unemployment is higher now than when the bill was signed, shows that the economy was weaker than had been thought. “The source of the recovery is hard to see,” he said early last year. He does not envision a significant upturn in business investing unless some breakthrough technology emerges; nor does he see U.S. manufacturing coming back in a big way. Spending more on public infrastructure, he believes, is a major way of reducing unemployment while preparing ourselves for the future (Earnshaw).

When asked about the consequences of increasing the national debt, Krugman explained: “Belgium has debt equal to 87 percent of its gross domestic product. That's 40 percent higher than ours, with no financial crisis. So we can probably run up another $6 trillion in debt” (Earnshaw).

The infrastructure investment that was the element of the program most heavily promoted by its supporters has come up short. More than a year later, in the face of a stubbornly persistent jobless “recovery,” a second, larger stimulus bill focused on both education spending and large transformative infrastructure projects, is vitally needed. The federal government should also seriously consider implementing a modern-day version of the depression-era Works Progress Administration. Directly hiring unemployed people to perform a variety of socially beneficial activities in their communities, from teaching to constructing basic infrastructure improvements, makes more sense than merely paying them extended unemployment benefits to look for nonexistent jobs. While these measures will no doubt increase the national debt in the short term, with a comprehensive approach that seeks to better prepare us for future economic performance, we’ll have a greater chance of returning people to working, spending, and paying taxes. Once the economy is strong, revenues will rise and the debt can be reduced.

The government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program was another well meaning measure aimed at stimulating the economy that could have been better designed, to focus more on domestic job creation by disallowing cars not made in America, to provide stronger environmental benefits, and to anticipate and plan for its popularity in order to avoid the resulting logistical problems for manufacturers and dealers, and the inconvenience and uncertainty experienced by consumers.

“Cash for Clunkers,” which began last summer, is known formally as the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) program. It offered vouchers worth up to $4,500 to consumers trading in older model cars and trucks for new, more efficient models. After very quickly running out of cash, it was extended by Congress for an additional few weeks (Leonard).

Though he voted for the bill, Representative Dennis Kucinich had reservations, and said about the program last June, “It is good that we try to create an incentive for people to buy fuel efficient cars. It is bad that the car vouchers will not be expressly for the purchase of cars made in America” (Kucinich). While some car and truck models made by American manufacturers are produced outside the U.S., and while some models made by foreign-based manufacturers are produced in U.S. plants, allowing eligibility only for American-made models would have better benefited American workers in the near term by providing more hours of employment, and in the long term by strengthening a major sector of our shrinking industrial-manufacturing base.

Environmentalists have criticized the measure for both its failure to include the dirtiest cars on the road, and its lax fuel efficiency requirements for new vehicles. Congress yielded to lobbyists for antique auto parts suppliers and classic car collectors, by excluding from trade-in eligibility millions of pre-1984 models that are disproportionately responsible for vehicle-source air pollution. Car collectors defended the age limits by claiming that the old cars are rarely driven, but experts at the California Air Resources Board pointed out that “an old 1965 model Chevrolet Malibu driven only 1,000 miles per year produces as much pollution as a new Malibu would in 400,000 miles” (Vartabedian).

At the conclusion of the program, it was clear that consumers had traded up to more fuel efficient vehicles. “One thing that was very encouraging,” said Sierra Club analyst Jesse Prentice-Dunn, “was that more than 84 percent traded in trucks and other gas guzzlers, and 59 percent purchased cars.” The organization was initially concerned that the fuel efficiency standards were weak and that the program encouraged a “throw-away” mentality (Blake).

Other environmental groups offered more strenuous criticism, though nobody was claiming that the program, considering its limited duration, could ever result in major improvements in our nation’s oil consumption or carbon emissions. In fact, one estimate concluded that the resulting cut in overall gasoline consumption was only 0.04% per year (Carey). Nevertheless, while the principle purpose of the program was to quickly stimulate the economy, there was no reason, given the opportunity, to not also focus on reducing reliance on foreign oil and cutting vehicle pollution, by using stronger mileage requirements to encourage more demand for the models that best met those goals.

The program was almost a victim of its own success, with very strong consumer demand from the start. The government had difficulty processing the reimbursements in a timely manner, dealerships and manufacturers were swamped, and the original funding ran out in just one week. Congress quickly appropriated more money to extend the program, and auto sales for July, 2009 spiked considerably (Leonard).

Such high demand for the program supports the idea that the available funds would have still been spent had stricter standards (American-made vehicles, higher fuel efficiency requirements) been included, though likely at a slower rate that would have avoided some of the chaos experienced by dealers, producers, and consumers.

Some of the program’s critics have characterized it as a complete failure, generally a waste of money, or as a costly way to achieve relatively miniscule environmental benefits (Anwyl). Granted, it may never be known if the program actually resulted in a net increase in auto sales, or merely shifted forward sales that would have occurred anyway a few months later. But at the very least, money was injected into the economy. In states like Michigan where unemployment was 15.2 percent last summer, auto plants were reopened and assembly workers were rehired to meet demand. After investing billions in Chrysler and General Motors, it made sense for the federal government to further their chances of recovery by encouraging consumers to purchase their products.

Much like the stimulus bill, “Cash for Clunkers” was a good idea that could have been better in its design and execution. The end result can be attributed to a combination of competing political interests, the ever-present influence of corporate lobbyists, and a sense of urgency amidst persistent high unemployment.

The health care bill recently signed into law is in many ways an unfortunate piece of legislation resulting from weak leadership from the White House, and members of Congress unwilling to challenge the corporate interests who help fund their election campaigns. Far from the fundamental reform that was promised by our President during his election campaign, its timid language serves to advance the existing private insurance model. With no public option, no allowance for importation of cheaper prescription drugs, no ability for Medicare to negotiate volume discounts on drugs, and a guarantee of 32 million new customers, passage of this bill is a clear victory for the for-profit health insurance firms, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies, whose stock prices not coincidentally rose decisively on the Monday following the Sunday vote in the House of Representatives (Brickates-Kennedy).

Yet, in spite of its many shortcomings—including the fact that this was not the kind of bill the nation truly needed to finally create a modern and efficient universal health care system—there were enough good elements contained therein, that when considered in the overall context of a contentious, yearlong legislative process, its passage was nevertheless worthwhile.

There are a number beneficial changes that will go into effect later this year, and others that will take up to several years to unfold. There are cost savings that will help our economy, numerous pilot programs to examine better and creative ways of keeping people healthy and delivering care, and new regulations on insurance companies to protect patients. On balance, these changes are modest at best; certainly not transformational. However, it’s a start upon which we can begin the process of building what should eventually be not just one of the world’s better comprehensive health care systems, but the best system, that every other nation can look to as the global standard.

Let us now briefly examine why those in Congress who voted for the health care bill did the right thing, what the law will do in the near and long term, and what improvements and further measures should be pursued in the future.

Had this bill been defeated, with nothing of substance on deck to take its place, there is no reason to think that our dysfunctional system would not have continued to impose rapidly rising costs on businesses, governments, and individuals until the system literally collapsed. Such continued cost increases would mean more Americans would find themselves uninsured or underinsured. The consequences of individuals not having access to quality primary care and preventive services, negatively impacts the overall society when patients seek costly treatment in emergency rooms, or burden the economy because chronic illness or disability reduces their ability to work.

“People think if we do nothing, we will have what we have now. In fact, what we will have is a substantial deterioration in what we have,” explained Karen Davis of the nonprofit health care research group, the Commonwealth Fund (Abelson).

Paul B. Ginsburg, the president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonprofit Washington research group, said of our unsustainable situation: “We have an affordability problem that is moving up through the middle class now” (Abelson).

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the health care bill will cut the deficit by $138 billion in its first decade, and by $1.2 trillion over the second decade, while broadening coverage to 95 percent of Americans. While these savings are estimates, they’re the least politicized source of figures available; and while not as significant as what could be achieved with a public option or a single-payer model, they are still substantial (O’Connor).

Among the many provisions beginning this year, young people up to age 26 can be covered by their parent’s policies. Insurers will no longer be allowed to impose lifetime coverage limits, exclude people because of preexisting conditions, or drop people because they get sick. In later years, a slight Medicare tax increase on individuals earning more than $200,000 annually will be imposed to help pay for the program. Most people will be required to obtain health insurance, while those who cannot afford it will receive subsidies. Preventive services will be covered at minimal or no cost to patients. Medicare will begin basing payments to doctors on the quality of care rather than the number of procedures performed (Smith).

Possibly the most promising part of the health care law are the many little-mentioned pilot programs. In his 2009 piece in The New Yorker magazine, Testing, Testing, reporter Atule Gawande describes a federal program begun in 1903 consisting of hundreds-of-thousands of small experimental farms where comparative-effectiveness research was conducted, and a vast nationwide network of Cooperative Extension Service offices staffed by “extension agents” who worked closely with farmers to help them increase the quality and volume of their crops. At the beginning, there was considerable resistance and cynicism on the part of farmers and the general public. The gains in efficiency came slowly, but were nevertheless dramatic. Decades later, a transformation had taken place. Today Americans devote a much smaller percentage of their incomes to putting food on the table, and the size of the agricultural sector is a mere fraction of what it once was. Gawande presents many parallels between agriculture and health care, then asks the logical question: “Could something like this happen with health care?” (Gawande).

Our current dysfunctional system is problematic not only for the millions of Americans that lack access to health care, but also for its effect on the overall economy. It would have been better if the new health care law removed the private insurance industry from the picture and replaced it with a single-payer system. Private for-profit insurers pursue profits by cutting people’s access to needed care. It is morally troubling to have a for-profit entity between patients and their doctors. No other nation permits such a situation (Manchester). Furthermore, from an economic standpoint, a single-payer system based on the current Medicare program expanded to Americans of all ages, would be cheaper than our existing system due to substantially lower overhead (Fiore).

Some critics claim that the health care law represents a government takeover, or socialized medicine. The facts do not support these assertions. On the contrary, the law simply puts in place needed, reasonable regulation to an existing fully privatized health care system, while beginning to address the problem of the corporate stranglehold over medicine. A government takeover would instead be a single-payer Medicare-for-all model similar to what exists in Canada and several other nations where both costs and outcomes are significantly better than in the United States. Socialized medicine would instead resemble the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, which has been a leader in the development of electronic medical records and evidence-based medicine and patient practices, and outperforms the private sector in quality according to a RAND Corporation study (Mechanic, RAND).

We need to build upon the health care law by continuing to look receptively at what other countries are doing, accelerating the start of the pilot programs, placing more emphasis on prevention, and realigning our farm subsidies so that they no longer serve to make unhealthy food less expensive.

We see in these programs, a pattern that includes a lack of focus and leadership, and timid and confusing goals. Misinformation and distortions abound as corporate interests and politicians frame these and other programs in ways that best serve them.

Increasingly, Americans have a negative view of the political process, and feel disconnected from their own government. This is not an inevitable situation. This is not a reason to be cynical about government. On the contrary, we can have better government on all levels, if we want it. It sounds simplistic, but ultimately change must start with each of us. In our system, the government is us. If Americans want their government to serve them well, we and those who we elect to public office must have high expectations of government. Conversely, if too many of us have low expectations of government, we'll get exactly what we expect.

In a nation that now consists of more than 300 million citizens, the large size of our government is a problem only to the extent that it’s answering to anything other than its people.

Historian and political activist Howard Zinn once said: “. . . ‘big government’ in itself is hardly the issue. That is here to stay. The only question is: Whom will it serve?” (Zinn).

Works Cited

Ableson, Reed. “The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care.” New York Times 26 Feb. 2010. n. pag. Web. 18 March 2010.

Anwyl, Jeremy. “More Cash for Clunkers?” Wall Street Journal 3 Aug. 2009: 9. ProQuest. Web. 9 March 2010.

Blake, Harriet. “Cash for Clunkers edges Americans onto Greener Roads.” greenrightnow.com/wtvd. WTVD 27 Aug. 2009. n. pag. Web. 9 March 2010.

Brickates-Kennedy, Val. “Drug Stocks Rise as Healthcare Bill Passes.” MarketWatch.com 22 March 2010. n. pag. Web. 15 March 2010.

Carey, John. “Cash for Clunkers: How Green Is It?” BusinessWeek 5 Aug. 2009. n. pag. Web. 10 March 2010.

Earnshaw, Aliza. “Krugman: Stimulus Needs to be Twice as Big.” Portland Business Journal 30 Jan. 2009. n. pag. Web. 7 March 2010.

Farley, Robert, and Jacobson, Louis. “A Stimulus Report Card.” Politifact.com. St. Petersburg Times, 17 Feb. 2010. n. pag. Web. 9 March 2010

Fiore, Kristina. “Public Plan Could Decrease Healthcare Overhead.” MedPage Today 17 July 2009. n. pag. Web. 15 March 2010.

Gawande, Atul. “Testing, Testing,” The New Yorker 14 Dec. 2009. EBSCOhost. n. pag. Web. 15 March 2010.

Goldman, David. “Engineers: U.S. Infrastructure a ‘D’.” CNNMoney.com. Cable News Network. 28 Jan. 2009. n. pag. Web. 7 March 2010.

Green, Mark. The Closed Enterprise System. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1972. ix. Print.

Krugman, Paul. “Too Little of a Good Thing.” New York Times 1 Nov. 2009. n. pag. Web. 9 March 2010.

Kucinich, Dennis. “Cash for Clunkers and Bunkers.” kucinich.house.gov/news 9 June 2009. n. pag. Web. 5 March 2010.

Leonard, Andrew. “Cash for Clunkers: The Successful Failure.” Salon.com 31 July 2009. n. pag. Web. 5 March 2010.

Lieber. Ron. “What’s in the Stimulus Bill for You.” New York Times 12 Feb. 2009. n. pag. Web. 5 March 2010.

Manchester, Ralph A. “Health Care Reform and the Health of Performing Artists in the U.S.” Medical Problems of Performing Artists 24.4 (2009): 155. Web. 2 April 2010.

Mechanic, David. The Truth about Health Care: Why Reform Is Not Working in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University P, 2006. 118. Print.

O’Connor, Patrick, and Budoff-Brown, Carrie. “CBO Releases Health Bill Estimates.” Politico 18 March 2010. n. pag. Web. 20 March 2010.

Patalon III, William. “Billions in U.S. Bank Rescue Funds are Fueling Buyouts Worldwide - Instead of Lending at Home.” Money Morning 5 Dec. 2008. n. pag. Web. 2 April 2010.

RAND Corporation. “How the VA Outpaces Other Systems in Delivering Patient Care.” Rand Health: Research Highlights 1 (2005). Web. 3 April 2010.

Reich, Robert. “The Truth About Jobs That No One Wants to Tell You.” Robert Reich’s Blog 1 Oct. 2009 n. pag. Web. 5 March 2010.

Siskey, Kyle, and Fournier, Elizabeth. “How the Bailouts Should Change Regulation” International Financial Law Review 27.11 (2008): 20-24. Business Source Premier. Web. 7 April 2010.

Smith, Donna. “Factbox - US Healthcare Bill Would Provide Immediate Benefits.” Reuters 19 March 2010. n. pag. Web. 23 March 2010.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Obama and Republicans Clash Over Stimulus Bill, One YearLater.” 18 Feb. 2010: 18. EBSCOhost. Web. 5 March 2010.

Vartabedian, Ralph, and Bansinger, Ken. “Why ‘clunkers’ Won’t Take Some of the Most Polluting Cars.” Los Angeles Times 13 Aug. 2009. n. pag. Web. 5 March 2010.

Yang, Jia Lynn. “How Uncle Sam Will Profit From TARP.” CNNMoney.com. Cable News Network. 27 Jan. 2010. n. pag. Web. 2 April 2010.

Zinn, Howard. “Big Government for Whom?” Progressive. 63.4 (2009): 14. EBSCOhost. Web. 2 April 2010.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

2009-12-23T13:24:00.000-08:00

In 1969 John Lennon and Yoko Ono leased billboards in eleven major cities around the world. One of those billboards wrapped around a building in New York’s Times Square. All of them read:

WAR IS OVER!

IF YOU WANT IT

Happy Christmas from John and Yoko

That message deployed forty years ago this month was part of a larger campaign that included posters, leaflets, newspaper advertisements, and radio spots; all intended to bring awareness to the fact that the Vietnam War could be ended and peace could prevail, if only individuals stopped waiting complacently for large corporate and government institutions or other forces to act, and simply decided that they wanted it.

Professor Gary Francione has proposed that we use this same message of self empowerment and individual responsibility to promote veganism. His idea centers on a virtual billboard, disseminated across the worldwide web, to all populated corners of our planet, in every written language, with the simple message:

THE WORLD IS VEGAN!
If you want it.

Such a campaign, in our modern interconnected global village, has the potential to reach far more people, in far more places, and far more quickly than John and Yoko’s antiwar campaign did.

Francione intends to use this virtual billboard to educate people about nonviolence, speciesism, animal exploitation, the personhood of animals, and very importantly, our ability as individuals to make the choices that will reduce demand for animal use and ultimately bring about a peaceful vegan world.

Francione’s website page for this campaign—complete with links to various HTML-based banners in multiple languages—is available here.

The Monetary Cost of Being Vegan

2009-12-02T11:50:00.000-08:00

At a party I attended recently, the subject of veganism was being discussed among a group of guests sitting outside on the patio. One of them mentioned that after becoming a vegan, she found that it was significantly more expensive. Specifically, she was referring to being a healthy vegan, eating mostly organically grown food and using various liquid and powdered nutritional supplement formulas. What I found most remarkable was that she was smoking a cigarette while expressing serious concern about being able to afford a healthy diet.

I don’t agree that a vegan diet is necessarily more expensive than a diet that includes animal products. My personal experience is that vegan diets are somewhat less costly than diets that include animal products. For instance, dry beans, lentils, and split peas, are significantly cheaper than cheese, or cuts of flesh from land or sea animals. Soymilk varies in price by brand and retail store, but is often comparable to the price of cow milk. However, reliance on highly processed and prepared foods, including meat analogs and ice cream alternatives—things I eat only occasionally—can quickly drive up the cost of a vegan diet. If you don’t know how to cook, learning to do so can save considerable money while improving the healthfulness of your meals.

Vegan nutritional supplements are generally more expensive than their non-vegan equivalents. But a vegan-formulated multivitamin with B-12 and perhaps a separate calcium and vitamin D-2 supplement would probably suffice for most people. In my opinion, most of the nutritional supplements on store shelves are a waste of money. Some claim to supply antioxidants, but a properly designed vegan diet with its abundance of plant foods, already provides significantly more of these beneficial compounds than a non-vegan diet. Some other supplements may feature ingredients for which there is no proven benefit. For example, even though humans didn’t evolve to eat grass, many consumers have been persuaded by clever marketing to drink wheat grass juice or take it as a supplement. It’s rich chlorophyll content is often touted, though marketers fail to inform consumers that the chemical crucial to photosynthesis in plants, plays no known role in human nutrition. Even if it did, we obtain ample amounts (at considerably less expense) from green leafy vegetables.

It’s true that eating healthfully is more costly than merely obtaining calories in their cheapest available forms. But this is true for both vegan and non-vegan diets. In the 2008 documentary film Food Inc., the topic of government food subsidies is examined. In the US, commodity crops such as corn and soybeans that are largely used for animal feed or to produce high-fructose-corn-syrup (HFCS), are heavily subsidized by the federal government. As a result, the price of meat, dairy, and eggs is kept lower than it would otherwise be. This is even the case now with some fish, since an increasing number are raised in aquaculture farms where they’re fed a diet of grain and seeds. Cheap HFCS goes into countless foods from prepared pasta sauce to soft drinks and cookies. A diet of corn chips and soda pop is an inexpensive way to meet one’s daily caloric requirements, but is terribly unhealthy. Steadily increasing health care costs are largely driven by an increase in obesity related diseases, fueled by the junk we’re eating. As part of a comprehensive approach to health care reform, food subsidies should be redirected towards fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption.

I’ve found that vegan personal care and household cleaning products are usually more expensive than non-vegan versions. But what I save on food mostly offsets the extra cost. My clothing expenses are roughly the same as before I was a vegan.

Individuals who are considering becoming vegans, need not worry that it’s less affordable. If anything, the specific health benefits from vegan diets, coupled with less damage to the environment, yield reduced long-term personal and societal costs. But the government needs to do its part by no longer subsidizing unhealthy food, and by requiring that the price of all goods and services reflect their true cost of damage to the environment and human health.

So go vegan today! Not only is it not difficult and won’t break your budget, it’s better for your health and better for the environment. Most importantly, it’s a personal commitment to building a better world based on peace, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence.

Finally, if you’re still smoking like that perplexing woman at the party, please quit. Smoking is a waste of money and harmful to your health and the health of those around you. Considering that it’s an addictive substance that kills and injures people as a result of its intended use, one could easily make the case that it’s not consistent with veganism.

Irrelevant Criterion

2009-11-02T09:16:00.000-08:00

How the Concept of Instinct Shapes Our Attitudes About Nonhumans

2009-10-29T20:01:00.000-07:00

Instinct is defined as patterns of behavior or specific skills in an animal exhibited in response to environmental stimuli, that are innate, largely unalterable, and not involving reason or conscious thinking. While the basic concept of instinct may have validity, its arbitrary application is clearly speciesist. Very few behavior patterns and virtually no skills exhibited by humans are attributed to instinct. In stark contrast, much of the behavior and skill sets exhibited by nonhumans are assumed to be instinctual. For example, nobody would think that there is no reasoning or thought process involved when humans build houses. We don’t consider this to be merely instinctual behavior. But dictionary definitions of “instinct” frequently cite examples of birds building nests. Nest building represents a relatively complex behavior. We don’t really know what’s going on inside the mind of a bird constructing a nest. While it’s possible that instinct is the initiating force behind her behavior, I highly doubt that there’s no active thinking or reasoning processes going on.

When we arbitrarily choose to explain complex animal behavior as instinct, only when nonhumans are involved, we are being speciesist. Attributing the behavior of nonhumans to instinct has the effect of minimizing their capabilities and accomplishments, reducing them to unthinking machines, denying their sentience and personhood, and justifying our own feelings of superiority and our continued exploitation of them.

To the extent that instinct is something that in fact exists, as opposed to a social construct that serves to advance an “us versus them” mindset, it should be impartially studied and rationally discussed. But it should never be used as a tool to justify oppression, discrimination, and violence towards other animals.

Why I Need Some New Vegan Message Tee Shirts that Simply Say “vegan”

2009-09-13T20:31:00.001-07:00

It’s crucial for the spread of veganism that vegans be visible, and that they bring attention to their veganism in appropriate ways that foster polite and informative discussions. Most importantly veganism should never be depicted as difficult or extreme, or as anything less than a moral and political commitment to non-violent living.

One way of being visible is to wear vegan message tee shirts. I have two such shirts and am planning to purchase a couple more in the near future. I liked both shirts very much when I ordered them a couple years ago, but since then as my thinking about animal rights and veganism has evolved, I’ve come to see them differently.

One of the shirts has the word “vegan,” followed by this dictionary definition of the term: ‘vê·gən\ (noun): a person who abstains from consuming or using animal-derived foods or products, including meat, dairy, eggs, fur, leather, wool, etc. While this definition is technically correct, I have a couple of problems with it.

First, it’s incomplete by failing to describe veganism as a moral and political commitment to non-violence. One thing that needs to be clearly understood is that non-violence is the basis of veganism.

Secondly, the word “abstains” may imply to many people that being a vegan requires substantial sacrifice or deprivation. But as a vegan, I don’t feel that I’m abstaining from anything. Sure there were some things I initially missed. But the food I eat and drink is still tasty, and the few changes I needed to make to my clothing, footwear and other products I use in no way reduced their quality. While I still frequently wear this shirt in public, I don’t like it as much as I used to.

The other shirt has the message “PROUD TO BE A VEGAN.” I no longer like this shirt and no longer wear it outside the house. Veganism represents the minimum standard required to fulfill our moral obligations to other sentient beings. It’s not something heroic or above and beyond what should be expected of the individual, any more so than not littering, not being a racist, or not being rude. These are all examples of basic standards of decency, or what we owe each other every day. They are not things to be proud of, nor are they things that warrant more attention paid to the individuals carrying them out than to the issue itself.

There’s one vegan message item of mine that I really do like. It’s a coffee mug that I used at my last office job that has the single word “vegan.” It’s a great conversation starter. Often short and simple messages work the best.

The Many Problems with Animal Welfare

2009-09-01T08:24:00.000-07:00

Animal advocates pursue two distinctly different approaches. Animal welfare (or welfarism) seeks to improve the treatment of animals through the regulation of institutional suppliers. Abolition, on the other hand, seeks to end the use of animals by reducing demand. This is achieved by educating people about veganism.

Traditionally, those who pursue the animal welfare approach seek only to improve animal treatment, and are not concerned with the fact that animals are being exploited, or that animals are considered to be mere property or commodities. In his 1996 book Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, law professor and animal rights theorist Gary L. Francione used the term “new welfarism” to describe the idea that the animal welfare approach can lead to abolition. New welfarism adherents claim that their approach is the most effective (and perhaps the only) way of achieving abolition.

Among other things, I’ll explain here why abolition cannot be achieved through the animal welfare approach, why animal welfare and abolition are fundamentally incompatible, and why I believe the idea—frequently put forward by new welfarists—that we should support all forms of animal advocacy, is wrong.

Animal Welfare Doesn’t Target the Property Status of Animals

Nonhuman animals are property, both legally and in terms of how most humans perceive them. Our cultural conditioning has imposed arbitrary boundaries along which we recognize or deny personhood to other species. Generally, companion animals such as dogs or cats benefit from this, while the vast majority of animal species, including most obviously the ones that we eat and wear, are its casualties. But even the nonhumans who we grant the status of personhood, are still considered property in the eyes of the law. Property rights—strongly valued by our economic and political traditions—severely limit animal welfare reforms to those measures that don’t impose significant and enduring costs to producers and ultimate consumers. It is for this reason that genuine welfare reform cannot take place while animals are still considered property. As property, animals will always be valued more for how useful they are to us as commodities, than for their intrinsic worth as sentient individuals.

Animal welfare, with its focus on how animals are treated, and its disregard of the idea that animals should not be exploited in the first place, does nothing to steer people away from viewing nonhumans as property. Further regulation of treatment ends up strengthening the property status of animals in the same way that Jim Crow laws in the southern US a half-century ago had the effect of legitimizing and strengthening existing racist attitudes. These laws mandated “separate but equal” public facilities such as drinking fountains, swimming pools, and schools, for black Americans. But in reality, those separate facilities were inferior. Regulating racism ends up strengthening racism, just like regulating speciesism ends up strengthening speciesism. The abolitionist approach would instead focus on eliminating the root of the problem, be it racism or speciesism.

Supply Versus Demand

Animal welfare focuses on supply rather than demand. As experience with the never ending “war on drugs” has shown, attacking sources of supply is ineffective at curtailing the use of illegal substances. It stands to reason that such an approach would be even more ineffective at reducing the use of products such as animal flesh, secretions, or skin, for which there are no legal consequences for sale or possession. Not until there are fundamental changes in attitudes on the part of a sizable number of individuals, will there be sufficient political will to impose major legislative bans or restrictions on suppliers. When a strong and sustained demand exists for something, someone will inevitably supply it. On the other hand, suppliers won’t produce things that are no longer in demand. Abolition, through thoughtful, non-violent, vegan education, directly reduces demand. Abolition recognizes that change begins with the individual.

Animal Welfare Makes People Feel More Comfortable About Exploiting Animals

Perhaps the most significant problem with animal welfare campaigns from a practical standpoint is that they make people feel more comfortable about continuing to exploit animals. Ballot measures such as last year’s Proposition 2 in California that set minimum space requirements for egg-laying chickens and a few other animals raised for food, were marketed as major steps forward for animals. The big animal protection organizations that sponsor these measures spend large sums of money to get them on the ballot and to ensure their passage; money that could have been better spent doing vegan education. In fact Proposition 2 affords relatively little benefits to animals. The measure is riddled with loopholes, and includes a very long lead-time during which producers can continue operations as usual. It’s very likely that producers would have eventually adopted the new standards anyway due to cost savings from improved long-term efficiencies. Generally, the standards imposed by these kinds of welfare reform measures are economically beneficial to producers once initial capital expenditures have been paid for. As long as animals remain property, any improvements to their treatment beyond what can be achieved at minimal or no cost to producers and consumers, is largely illusionary.

If you fail to educate people about why it’s wrong to enslave and kill or otherwise exploit animals (however well they may be treated in the process) for reasons that are not only unnecessary but downright trivial, while you simultaneously expose them to marketing hype for “certified improved” animal products from “happy” animals, it’s not likely that many of them will decide to reduce their use of animals, let alone become vegans. Also, it’s not far-fetched to assume that marketing for things like “free-range” eggs or organic milk may persuade some uninformed vegans to become ex-vegans, or that some vegetarians might be persuaded by pro family-farm propaganda to return to flesh consumption.

Animal Welfare Promotes Moral Inconsistency and Confusion

Animal welfare is morally problematic in a number ways. For one thing, the approach suggests that it’s morally acceptable to exploit animals as long as we treat them well. This is a very disturbing and confusing concept that elevates the importance of treatment, while trivializing the act of killing.

Some animal welfare adherents believe that we should focus on welfare instead of abolition because realistically animal exploitation will never be eliminated. Therefore we should push for more “humane” ways of exploiting them, they contend. But no rationally thinking person would agree that it would be acceptable to murder a human as long as the perpetrator treated him well beforehand. If you believe that murder is morally wrong, common sense and logic would have you spending your time and effort on reducing the incidence of murder, even if you believe that murder will never be completely eliminated from society, rather than focusing on persuading murderers to treat their victims better prior to killing them. If you believe that killing and eating animals is morally wrong, common sense and logic would have you spending your time and effort on persuading others to become vegans, even if you believe that animal exploitation will never be completely eradicated, rather than focusing on getting producers to torture animals in new, “better” ways that may or may not make any meaningful difference in levels of suffering. Simply put, regulating something that is fundamentally wrong to begin with, is a fundamentally wrong approach.

Another way that animal welfare is morally problematic is the frequent use by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) of sexist campaigns that portray women as objects. For multiple reasons, PETA’s objectification of a historically subjugated group (women) in its numerous “get naked” campaigns is a terrible way to bring attention to the objectification of another historically subjugated group (nonhumans). First, these kinds of campaigns imply that it’s okay to look at women as mere objects. Objectification robs those who it’s directed at of their essential personhood, making people feel more justified in exploiting them. It is part of the problem, and should never be part of the solution. Second, they do nothing to point out how all forms of oppression and exploitation are related. Third, they distract people’s attention away from the issue of animal protection. Finally, these campaigns along with other ridiculous PETA attention-grabbing antics and stunts make animal activists look like idiots while trivializing the serious issue of violence against animals.

The Problem of Single-Issue Campaigns

The big animal welfare groups are largely centered around single-issue campaigns that either focus on reforming the exploitive practices of a specific industry such as chicken egg or pig flesh production, or eliminating an exploitive industry such as dog racing or rodeos.

Because these campaigns are carefully selected to appeal to the largest number of potential donors, they often focus on the plight of animal species such as dolphins, dogs, or seals that we perceive as cute or adorable due to our cultural biases. By narrowly focusing on a particular species or a particular use, the idea is conveyed that harm to some kinds of animals (the “cute” ones) represents a greater wrong than harm to other kinds of animals (those that we find less attractive and/or perceive less commonality with). We all struggle with personal biases when relating to other people, but I think most of us understand that people who we perceive as less attractive and/or who have less in common with us are just as deserving of the right not to be subjected to unnecessary pain, suffering, and death, as people who we find to be more attractive and/or have more in common with. Particularly, as is most often the case, when such campaigns fail to place the situation in the context of the larger overall problem of animal exploitation, speciesism is reinforced.

Single-issue campaigns focus lots of resources on peripheral aspects of animal exploitation while failing to address the root of the problem, which is speciesism. They fail to explain why all forms of animal exploitation are wrong. They fail to focus on what is by far the largest aspect of animal exploitation: 56 billion animals (not including countless fish and other marine animals) killed worldwide every year for food. And they fail to call for veganism as the solution.

Welfare Supporters Frequently Call Abolitionists “Divisive” or “Elitist”

I’ve encountered many animal advocates who shy away from constructive debate of welfare verses abolition, mix up and confuse the terms “animal rights” and “animal welfare,” insist that we should support all types of animal advocacy efforts, and that we should remain united. People who disagree with these opinions are often called “divisive” and even “elitist.”

But just as liberals and conservatives have distinctly different views on many issues, so do welfarists and abolitionists. We see these issues very differently, believe in different things, and are headed in different directions. We cannot remain united because we have never been united in the first place.

With limited time and resources, it doesn’t make sense to support approaches to animal protection that don’t work, let alone those that are counterproductive. As Gary L. Francione has pointed out, “We have had animal welfare laws for 200 years now … [yet] we are now exploiting more animals in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.”

It also doesn’t make sense to avoid intellectual debate about philosophy and methodology. Sharing and debating ideas is crucial to identifying the most effective approach to the furthering of animal rights and other social justice issues.

Characterizing the abolitionist approach as “elitist” is merely an attempt to close off debate and summarily deny its standing as a valid animal rights approach. What can be more accurately characterized as elitist are the ideas frequently put forth by welfare groups that the public isn’t intelligent enough to understand veganism, that the concept of veganism as the moral baseline is extreme, and that stupid antics and sexual exploitation are necessary components of educational campaigns.

Conclusion

Animal welfare is a deeply flawed approach that leads people down a morally muddled and circuitous path. In contrast, the very simple and straightforward abolitionist approach deals directly with the root of the problem through vegan education. Those who understand abolition and veganism, see animal exploitation, speciesism, and other forms of discrimination as interconnected parts of the overall problem of violence in society. Veganism is not a set of rules or restrictions. Nor is it just a diet or lifestyle. It is a basic prerequisite for anyone who wishes to start caring seriously about animals, including humans. It is a moral and political commitment to non-violence. Furthermore, veganism is easy, both in its understandability and its day-to-day implementation.

Violence Against Animals Extends Beyond the Slaughterhouse

2009-08-01T09:52:00.000-07:00

In this short video recorded in a French slaughterhouse, two cows are standing in a chute, about to enter one at a time an area where they will be stunned and then killed. A worker using an electric prod directs the first cow through the entrance door, which quickly closes behind her. A moment later, when the second cow hears the cries of the first cow, she realizes that her life is in imminent danger.

What is exhibited next is behavior that’s no different than one would expect from a dog, cat, or human, facing a similar dire situation. She is obviously fearful as she makes frantic attempts to get away.

Closing our eyes to her behavior in order to justify our enjoyment of animal products is no different than ignoring the interests and self-worth of a dog, cat, or human for the purposes of our own selfish enjoyment. Using criteria such as physical appearance and species to justify harming a nonhuman is exactly like using race, gender, or any number of other irrelevant characteristics to justify harming another human.

Anyone who thinks that this violence begins and ends at the slaughterhouse should consider that the cows in this video and billions of other sentient animals would never be put in these kinds of situations if it were not for the demand for animal products from a great many individual consumers. The violence starts with each of us. We are directly responsible for it. Ending it can only happen when individuals understand and acknowledge their complicity, and commit themselves to no longer demanding products based on the exploitation of animals.

video platform
video management
video solutions
free video player

Misconceptions About Vegan Nutrition Are Common, Even Among Vegans

2009-07-27T22:44:00.000-07:00

The other evening I was introducing myself to some new people at a monthly dining event I host for a local vegan group. This particular night, 30 of us dined at a relatively new vegan restaurant called Loving Hut, part of an expanding global chain. Loving Hut has quickly become a favorite location for our group because the place is bright and clean, the food is very good, and of course everything on the menu is vegan.

One of the purposes of the group is to serve as a resource for people who are interested in veganism, but have not yet made the commitment. I think many vegans, including myself, can relate to how establishing a friendship with one or more vegans was instrumental in their decision to go vegan. Whether they simply served as a role model; or were helpful in offering advice about meal planning, grocery shopping, where to find non-leather shoes, the best books, pamphlets, and websites about the topic; having the support of vegan friends was easier than going it alone in a non-vegan world.

It continues to surprise me however, how much misinformation there is about vegan nutrition, even among vegans and vegetarians. When I initially spoke to one of the new group members at our dinner event, the topic of our conversation quickly turned to nutrition, specifically protein. She told me that as a vegan who didn’t consume much soy, she was convinced that she could not possibly be getting enough protein, even though she appeared healthy and suffered no deficiency symptoms. I asked her if she had ever analyzed her diet and actually added up the grams of protein in the different foods she was consuming in the course of a typical day. She responded that she had, and that she fell below the recommended 50 grams for a woman of her size. I then explained how a vegan eating a reasonably varied diet containing sufficient calories to maintain a healthy weight, would almost surely consume more than enough protein.

Thinking about this later on, I suspect she failed to factor in the protein content of some of the foods in her diet that many people don’t consider to be protein sources. Just about all whole foods except for most fruits, have significant amounts of protein, and all of these sources—small and large—contribute to the daily total.

Out of curiosity I added up the protein and calorie contents of some protein-containing vegan foods, and this is what I found:

In this example 63.4 grams of protein has been obtained from foods containing just 1,490 calories. This is less than a full day’s food intake for a woman of her size, yet she would have already consumed plenty of protein without eating much soy. Among the foods on my list, only the pumpkin pie contains soy (in the form of silken tofu).

Recommended daily intakes have a comfortable excess factored in to accommodate individual variations in protein requirements. Individuals engaging in intense strength or endurance exercise have somewhat higher protein needs that in almost all cases are easily met with the additional food consumed to meet their increased caloric requirements. The vast majority of people purchasing protein supplements are wasting their money.

I hope this was helpful in explaining away the most common myth about vegan nutrition. For further information, I recommend this excellent book I read a few years ago: Becoming Vegan—The Complete Guide to Adopting a Healthy Plant-Based Diet, by Brenda Davis, R.D. and Vesanto Melina, M.S., R.D.

Peace for Some But Not for Others

2009-07-15T11:14:00.000-07:00

Chef Ming Tsai likes to close his Simply Ming cooking show on PBS by raising his wine glass and saying “peace,” moments after serving up the remains of enslaved, tortured, and killed animals. While from an unfiltered viewpoint this makes no logical sense, few take notice of this gaping inconsistency as it occurs in the context of a culture where speciesism is deeply entrenched and the nonhumans on our plates are routinely regarded as mere “things” valued not for who they are, but for how they taste.

But in a speciesist society his closing is automatically understood by the vast majority of its members to apply to living beings other than the 53 billion animals needlessly killed for food each year. In other words, we recognize a false state of peace that comes with plenty of exceptions and conditions. A convenient version of peace that doesn’t significantly challenge our day-to-day behavior or what we accept as normal. Peace for some but not for others.

Just like people who say they love animals even though they eat them and wear them and see nothing wrong with putting them on display in zoos and aquariums or performing invasive experiments on them, Tsai is morally confused.

Few of us view ourselves as violent or exploitive individuals. But whether we directly commit acts of violence, or contribute to the demand for the products of violence, does not change the end result for the victims. You could, for example, pay someone to commit a murder, or you could commit the murder yourself. Either way, the victim ends up dead. However, paying someone else to do the job creates a detachment from the violence that in turn makes it easier to rationalize or to pretend that you still value peace and kindness.

Like the rest of us, Tsai grew up in a world where animal exploitation of all kinds was the norm; a world in which through cultural tradition and habit cats and dogs were loved and considered to be members of our families, while chickens, cows, fish, and pigs were decisively killed for their flesh or secretions which we were wrongly taught were an essential part of a “balanced” diet, and where the idea of bestowing peace on all sentient beings was almost never considered. Put another way, it was a world where the morally relevant characteristic of sentience was overshadowed by the morally irrelevant characteristic of species.

That world still exists today, but through small yet persistent efforts by countless individuals with the help of the global internet and its many evolving tools, things are changing at a significant pace that won’t be clearly evident until we look back decades from now. History demonstrates that social progress is inevitable, and with all of its frustrating setbacks and pauses takes place far more quickly than one would foresee.

Major change in societal attitudes and practices will come from grassroots networking, and connecting in clever and non-confrontational ways with people you know. Someday in a more evolved vegan world, people who say “peace,” along with those who hear it said, will understand and embrace the term’s true meaning.

Making Discrimination Against Gays More “Humane” and its Similarity to Animal Welfare Group’s “Humane” Farming and Slaughter Campaigns

2009-07-01T14:37:00.000-07:00

President Obama should be forthrightly pressuring Congress to repeal the US military’s discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" rule that requires the dismissal of service members who are openly gay. Instead, his Defense Secretary Robert Gates is examining ways to modify the policy so that it may be selectively enforced.

Gates said recently that he wants the flexibility, lacking in the rule as it’s currently written, to allow people who may have been outed against their will by a vengeful individual or a jilted lover, to continue to serve. The Secretary referred to such changes as making the policy “more humane.”

Clearly the policy is discriminatory. It applies only to gays, while straight service members are not subject to dismissal for revealing their sexual orientation. Working to “fix” the rule rather than doing away with it perpetuates and reinforces the second-class status of gay service members. Applying the policy more “fairly,” makes discrimination against gays in the military appear less objectionable at first glance. But the idea that the policy can be modified, reworded, or otherwise tinkered with to make it “more humane” is ridiculous.

By its very nature discrimination is not humane to begin with. In all of its many forms, it represents the devaluing of others simply because they are different. Consequently it’s a mistake to focus on trying to change what amounts to an inherently bad policy, rather than on efforts to get rid of it.

Strikingly similar is the promotion by big animal welfare groups such as PETA and the Humane Society of the United States of the crazy idea of "humane" exploitation of nonhuman animals. At best animal welfare regulation makes enslavement and killing slightly less horrific—analogous to laying plush carpeting in the hallway leading to the death chamber. But spotlighting small improvements to treatment diverts attention away from the real problem of continued enslavement, torture, and killing. As a result, conscientious consumers unexposed to abolitionist thinking, are easily sucked in by marketing campaigns for “humane” animal products, and only occasionally give consideration to the one and only solution: the nonviolent and nondiscriminatory choice of going vegan.

Both of these cases lead to the logical conclusion that modifying and regulating discrimination is no substitute for abolishing it.

Canceling and Delaying Needed Infrastructure Projects Prolongs the Economic Downturn

2009-06-29T16:22:00.000-07:00

Almost lost amidst a week of celebrity deaths and dismal economic news, was a decision made by Phoenix officials to delay a 5 km extension of the city’s light rail system for at least 16 months, citing a lack of funding due to plunging sales tax receipts. With design of the track, street improvements, a park-n-ride lot, and three stations complete, construction was set to start this month on the first addition to the well utilized transit system that opened last December.

Understandably, Phoenix can’t currently afford this particular extension, which ironically city and transit agency officials decided to fund exclusively with local sales taxes rather than with partial federal funding in order to speed up construction. The city is facing severe budget problems and has had to cut numerous programs and layoff staff. But in the longer-term big-picture view, Phoenix can’t afford not to accelerate the expansion of the system and reap benefits from skilled construction and maintenance jobs, increased transportation efficiency, and reductions in pollution and greenhouse gasses. This case is typical of countless others across the US in spite of the Obama administration’s much touted economic stimulus plan.

What’s needed to spur economic recovery isn’t a second stimulus package or simply waiting for signs of a turnaround while jobs continue to be lost; but a bold commitment to an exponentially larger sustained funding stream that will provide enduring employment repairing and upgrading aging infrastructure and constructing new public projects that will change the face of the nation—making it more energy efficient, more productive and competitive, and less polluting.

The federal deficit will balloon in the near term, but growing the economy by increasing employment and personal incomes will dramatically increase revenue down the road. Without substantial reductions in unemployment and a return to income growth that will in turn enable people to pay their bills, pay more in taxes, save for the future, and spend more freely, there will be no recovery or hope of paying down our collective debt.

More funding is needed for vocational training programs to help laid off workers from the financial, real estate, home building, and retail sectors transition to other industries. College needs to be made more affordable, and courses that are in high demand need to be made more available. Implementation of a national health care system—something other major counties have had for decades—is imperative.

While this year Japan is celebrating the 50-year anniversary of its bullet trains, and China announces plans to put 13,000 km of high-speed passenger rail routes into service by 2012, modern intercity passenger rail service in the US, outside of the northeast corridor, remains practically nonexistent. Air travel is substantially less energy efficient that rail. We need to get to work interconnecting all of our major cities with high-speed rail, and constructing or expanding light rail systems within those cities. Rather than allowing companies like GM to shrink and shed employees, we should instead require them to urgently retool their factories and rehire workers to produce state-of-the-art intercity trains, light rail vehicles, and hybrid buses for the domestic and global markets.

From National Parks and municipal recreation centers to worn out bridges and water treatment plants, there’s no shortage of vital facilities that need to be repaired, upgraded, replaced, or newly constructed. The federal government should step in with an emergency jobs program modeled after FDR’s great depression-era Works Progress Administration that will provide people with meaningful temporary employment and health care while the private sector ramps up under strong leadership from Washington.

Lofty goals resulted in the rise of our great cities, sending people to the moon, the construction of the Interstate Highway System, and other major achievements in the fields of science, medicine, and engineering. If we fall into the trap of thinking we now can’t afford to set our goals high enough, we will fail.

Toward a Broader and More Consistent View of Absurdity

2009-06-16T22:03:00.000-07:00

This phony news interview on theOnion.com about Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson being euthanized following a career-ending knee injury is humorous to most of us because of the sheer absurdity of the situation. Johnson’s existence is valued solely for her ability to generate income for her owners. She’s objectified, denied personhood and self-worth, and depicted as a mere commodity to be exploited for her athletic abilities. When she can no longer compete, she becomes a financial burden. There is no reason to keep her alive. By emphasizing that her killing was painless, (“… it was just a quick shot to the back of the head.”), her parents further the idea that it was justified. Then at the conclusion of the interview they announce the establishment of a foundation that glamorizes—and makes her fans feel better about—her violent killing.

Yet most people don’t find it absurd that we routinely exploit nonhuman animals in exactly this way, whether they are horses that are breed, used for profit and entertainment, and then discarded like a worn out appliance when they break a leg or no longer run fast enough; or one of the tens-of-billions of animals we continue to breed, torture, and kill for food every year in spite of the fact that doing so is not only unnecessary, but seriously detrimental to human health and the environment.

It’s time that we stop accepting the perpetration of oppression and violence against nonhumans and other groups simply because it’s commonplace, traditional, convenient, and serves our short-term interests. Vegan education seeks to steer people toward a broader and more consistent view of absurdity.

Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put To Sleep After Breaking Leg

Mancow: “It is way worse than I thought it would be.”

2009-05-26T10:25:00.001-07:00

Chicago-based conservative talk radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller had himself waterboarded to demonstrate that the controversial interrogation technique wasn’t torture. But once it began, it took him only a few seconds to change his mind.

No civilized society should impose torture, or its equivalent, on sentient beings. It’s an abuse of its role for a society to commit horrific acts that individuals cannot tolerate doing.

For more on this story, click here.

The Confusing Case of Michael Vick

2009-05-23T22:58:00.000-07:00

With his release earlier this week from federal prison, the animal abuse case involving former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has returned to the news. Vick was convicted in 2007 of running an interstate dog fighting operation.

From the beginning, this case and its media coverage has been steeped in hypocrisy.

Vick grew up in a subculture where dog fighting was accepted. While this is by no means justification for his actions, it’s an explanation. In the larger culture it’s considered acceptable to eat animals—to the tune of 53 billion land animals (plus an unknown number of marine animals) killed each year worldwide for their flesh and secretions.

What Vick did was clearly wrong, but morally no different from what most people do every day. Like the dogs that Vick trained to fight, animals raised for food suffer terribly so that people may be entertained. There is no more need for humans to eat animals than there is for humans to watch dogfights. Either way animals are needlessly exploited and harmed. What really matters is not how they are harmed, but that they are harmed.

The National Football League (NFL) quickly suspended Vick without pay following his conviction on the federal charges. His various corporate endorsement deals were either not renewed or were suspended, as additional ugly details about the situation surfaced throughout 2007. Clearly these corporations were trying to appear conscientious to their consumer bases. But the NFL accepts advertising from firms whose operations revolve around the exploitation of animals. Hot dogs, ice cream, and other animal products are sold in the stadiums during the football games. One of Vick’s sponsors was Kraft Foods, a huge marketer of animal-based foods. He also had a deal with Nike, until it was suspended amidst all the bad publicity. Nike sells shoes made with leather, and is on record for egregious worker exploitation.

In an earlier blog post I wrote about how our culture’s deeply entrenched speciesism has most of us valuing the lives of dogs far more than the lives of chickens, cows, or pigs. That’s why so many people who think nothing about routinely carving up “food animals,” are outraged with what Vick did.

We’re brainwashed into valuing dolphins over tuna, primates over rodents. To some extent this is understandable. Whether we’re selecting among different animal species or different subgroups within the human population, we tend to have an affinity bias in favor of particular categories of beings who we have personal relationships with (dogs, cats, and human family members), or who we perceive to be more similar to us (other primates verses rodents, people of the same ethnicity verses those of a different ethnicity). But the ability to suffer (sentience) transcends all these categories. That’s why discrimination is wrong.

It may not be possible, or even necessary to eliminate all of our biases. But we need to recognize and understand them, then direct our actions accordingly to eliminate avoidable harm.

If Vick wishes to redeem himself, he ought to start by going vegan and educating others why being a vegan is the best way each of us can help animals. Simply denouncing dog fighting and becoming a spokesperson for yet another single-issue animal welfare campaign that fails to shine light on the connection with the far more widespread problem of animals tortured and killed for food, will inevitably result in the fortification of existing speciesist thinking.

Obama takes a Break from Being “mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals” to Eat Lunch

2009-05-08T20:15:00.000-07:00

Probably because over the past year he was on his way out of office and his popularity had fallen so low; I never bothered to criticize what George W. Bush ate. But I expect much more from President Obama, whom I believe is highly intelligent, displays a fresh perspective, and critically examines issues before making decisions. He’s also a natural leader, highly regarded in the US and around the world. So the examples he sets are more likely to influence people.

“I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other,” Barack Obama said during his campaign for President. “And it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.”

I don’t think that President Obama is completely oblivious to the contradiction between his words and his actions. Rather, like many of us, I believe he remains in a convenient state of denial about the source of animal cruelty. This was exhibited earlier this week when he and Vice President Joe Biden stood in line and ordered ground cow flesh patties with secretions, for lunch at Ray’s Hell Burger in Arlington, Virginia—a quick motorcade ride across the Potomac River from the White House. Anyone who is seriously concerned about animal rights, the environment, healthy eating, or trans-species flu pandemics, should be troubled with their menu selections.

As long as such behavior remains socially acceptable, abolitionists must continue to work to educate society that the source of the “… cruelty that is perpetrated on animals,” is not gigantic hog farms, battery cages, the fast-food industry, or one type of slaughtering method verses another; but rather the choices that we make every day. Obama and others who are sufficiently informed and intelligent to make the connection, yet continue to eat animals, need to come to terms with their collective complicity and join those of us who are daily setting good examples for people in our respective spheres of influence of how to easily live in a way that embraces nonviolence and nondiscrimination, while promoting human health and a healthy sustainable environment. Abolition can be achieved through a growing cumulative sum of many individual choices driven by evolving attitudes about nonhumans—one vegan at a time.

Decades Later, Astronauts Still Trying to Feel Good About Nonhumans Forcibly Strapped into Capsules and Shot into Space

2009-05-03T08:15:00.000-07:00

When I transitioned to an abolitionist a couple years ago, my eyes were opened to the speciesism and associated contradictions that I now see at every turn. So when I recently came across the article Astronauts Pay Respects to “Space Chimps” on CNN.com, I felt compelled to come up with an alternate or translated title that made sense to me.

The news story is about two retired American astronauts—Scott Carpenter who orbited the Earth in 1962 as a member of NASA’s original Mercury Seven, and Bob Crippen who piloted the first Space Shuttle flight in 1981—who last week visited a nonprofit sanctuary in Florida that serves as the permanent home for rescued chimpanzees, including many who once served as research and test subjects for the space agency and the US Air Force.

In the early days of the space programs, nonhuman animals were used in projects to assess the impact of space flight on living bodies. Ground-based experiments eventually culminated in actual test flights into space. In 1957 a dog named Laika became the first animal to venture into outer space when the Soviet Union launched her as the sole occupant of Sputnik 2. Tragically she was also the first person to die in space. A malfunction in the spacecraft’s thermal control system is believed to have been the cause of her death from overheating a few hours into the flight.

It was only after a chimpanzee named Ham—one of several known as “space chimps”—returned successfully to Earth after a suborbital flight in a NASA Mercury capsule, that Alan Shepard Jr. became the first American human to venture into space in 1961, also in a Mercury capsule.

“We’re paying them back for their service.” Carpenter said as they utilized golf carts to tour—with reporters and camera crews—the sprawling 200-acre grounds where 150 chimpanzees reside on a series of islands.

"There were a lot of unknowns back in the '50s about how the human body would react to space and some real bad concerns that you might die," Crippen added. "And these guys opened that up to at least give people confidence that it was okay to go put Al Shepard and the guys up for the first time."

There are two problems with these remarks. First, while it’s very fortunate that this sanctuary is available for these previously caged chimpanzees that cannot survive in the wild, to live out the rest their lives, I would not characterize the situation as “paying them back for their service.” I think of service as something that is voluntary and meaningful on the part of the individuals involved. The space flight experiences of Ham and Carpenter could not be more different. Carpenter, Crippen, Shepard, and all other human astronauts and cosmonauts choose their destiny; while Ham, Laika, and the other nonhuman research and test subjects did not. I would instead describe the situation as paying restitution to individuals who had been wrongfully imprisoned and unjustly experimented upon over several decades.

Secondly, while acknowledging that nonhumans exhibit sufficient physical commonality with humans to “… give people confidence that it was okay to go put Al Shepard and the guys up for the first time," Crippen conveniently overlooks their cognitive commonality in order to morally justify launching them into space ahead of the willing astronauts, to investigate those “… real bad concerns that you might die.”

This is just one of innumerable examples of people rationalizing the exploitation, oppression, and devaluing of others based on some irrelevant characteristic. In the case of the “space chimps” half-a-century ago, that characteristic happened to be species. But essentially the same thing is occurring when we base our discrimination on race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or any number of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with self-awareness and the desire to avoid suffering and death.

How About “Animal Agriculture Flu?”

2009-04-29T20:43:00.000-07:00

As the outbreak of swine flu continues to infect growing numbers of humans across the globe, certain animal agriculture groups, fearing a drop in pork sales, are lobbying for a new name for the virus.

US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, whose department has the conflicting dual roles of promoting and regulating the industry, said Tuesday: “there are a lot of hardworking families whose livelihood depends on us conveying this message of safety...and we want to reinforce the fact that we’re doing everything we possibly can to make sure that our hog industry is sound and safe and to make sure that consumers in this country and around the world know that American products are safe.”

Vilsack and his department now calls swine flu “H1N1 flu virus.”

It’s a common practice to name flu viruses after the species they are first discovered in. In the case of today’s swine flu, it was first found in domesticated pigs. As of tonight both the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization continue to use the term “swine flu.”

The high level of attention to this virus is due to the belief by health officials that most people have no immunity to it, and the concern that it may behave like the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed an estimated 20 to 100 million people worldwide. We are overdue for a serious pandemic, they believe. Though some infectious disease experts claim the current swine flu resembles typical seasonal flu in its effects, and that its seriousness is being overstated.

Vilsack is correct in his assertion that consumers can’t contract swine flu from eating pig flesh, but he’s ignoring the larger picture. Continuing to consume animal products—as Vilsack would have us do—will only result in the perpetuation of the animal agriculture industry, which is where these kinds of viruses originate and incubate.

Rather than simply taking precautions like frequent hand washing, covering our coughs, and avoiding close contact with infected people to avoid contracting and transmitting the current swine flu, being truly proactive means reducing the likelihood of future pandemics by not eating animal products.

Fish are Crops?

2009-04-20T21:28:00.000-07:00

As you watch this report first shown on this evening’s NBC Nightly News, you learn that the dramatic plunge in the ocean’s fish population is only a problem because there are fewer fish for humans to kill and eat, that aquaculture (commercial fish farming)—done in an environmentally correct way—is the answer, and that fish are a crop!

“We only grow one crop of fish at a time on a farm, and we have crop rotation,” Nell Halse of Cooke Aquaculture proudly tells the reporter.

Drenched with speciesism and commodification, the report includes such phrases as “supply of fish,” “breeding,” and “grown domestically.” Clearly lacking is any mention of fish as individuals, or the very rational idea of no longer eating fish.

At Least the Weeds are Growing

2009-04-16T20:01:00.000-07:00

It could be quite a while before employment and personal income numbers begin to grow again here in the US. The official unemployment rate of 8.5 percent at the end of March is misleading. Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out in a recent post to his blog, that if you add in the people who have given up looking for work, the number is actually 9 percent. Throw in all the people who are working part-time because they can’t find full-time work, and the number jumps to 15.6 percent.

That’s bad enough. But when you also figure in all the cancelled pay raises, mandatory furloughs, pay and benefit reductions, huge losses in the value of homes and market-invested retirement accounts, widespread feelings of fear and uncertainty coupled with expectations by many economists that the unemployment rate will continue to rise through the end of the year, it becomes clear why even those who can afford to spend money on unnecessary things, are reluctant to do so.

At a time when additional economic stimulus including a temporary broad-based jobs program modeled after the depression-era Works Progress Administration seems urgently needed, the administration appears more preoccupied with getting banks to loan money to unwilling borrowers. How much worse will things be allowed to get?

The other day I grabbed my digital camera and took a walk through a new home development a block from my house, where just a few years ago stood rows of corn. Sometime last fall the builder cut and ran, leaving a bunch of partially finished homes and scores of empty lots. More recently the homeowner’s association seems to have imploded. Almost overnight graffiti appeared on some of the empty houses, and waist-high weeds threatened to swallow up sidewalks. Similar situations exist across the country and around the globe, as developers have simply run out of money.

One of my photos gave me a glimmer of optimism. I’m hoping my recently planted vegetable garden will eventually grow as prolifically as the weeds that are taking over parts of this stalled subdivision.

Making a Donation is More Convenient than Doing the Right Thing

2009-04-13T14:29:00.001-07:00

Last week the Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha, named their new 6-month-old family member Bo. Choosing not to follow through on their earlier stated desire to adopt a shelter dog, the Obama’s have instead set a bad example by choosing a pure breed puppy originally purchased from a breeder.

Their decision will likely result in a spike in demand for Portuguese water dogs and other pure breeds from commercial breeders, while millions of dogs sit in shelters facing an early death. As a consequence of their action, those who think of animals as property to be bought and sold, upgraded and custom-ordered, much like one would acquire a new automobile, are encouraged to continue to think that way.

Perhaps to deflect criticism, assuage their feelings of guilt, or support a worthy cause, the Obama’s made a large donation to a local animal shelter. But a donation, however generous, well intended, or socially beneficial, doesn’t take the place of doing the right thing.

So often these days we choose to donate money or pay a small fine in lieu of critically examining and then meaningfully improving our behavior. If you have the money to spare, it’s easier and more convenient to write a check or to go to a donation page on the web site of a major animal advocacy organization, an environmental group, or an animal shelter; than to personally take the reasonable efforts necessary to become a vegan, start recycling, or to search for a suitable shelter dog instead of doing business with a breeder.

I think almost everyone would agree that choosing to drive while intoxicated would be unacceptable, whether or not the driver made regular donations to Mother’s Against Drunk Driving. Or that donating a portion of your proceeds to a group that assists victims of violent crimes would not make it okay to engage in armed robbery. Most would also agree that giving people money does not make up for not bothering to treat them politely. Yet many of us overlook our own instances of taking the more convenient path.

There’s a clear difference between donating money to an organization simply because you believe it is engaged in a valuable mission, and donating money in an irrational attempt to compensate for morally wrong behavior.

Certainly there are many fine organizations worthy of donations. But we need to face reality and be honest with each other, and ourselves, by putting to rest the idea that we can pay our way out of bad decisions.

Cesar Chavez

2009-03-31T14:29:00.000-07:00

Today is the birthday of Cesar Chavez (1927 – 1993). The founder and president of the United Farm Workers of America was also a civil rights leader, an environmentalist, and an animal rights advocate.

Like Martin Luther King, Jr., Chavez was committed to the principles of non-violence. He believed that positive social change required the enduring sacrifice of many people peacefully and thoughtfully working together for a common cause. In addition to leading countless nonviolent demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts, Chavez fasted to bring attention to the working and living conditions of migrant farm workers, and other vital issues of social and environmental justice. He saw veganism as an essential element of a nonviolent life, and he urged others to respect animals by not eating them.

In 1992 the organization In Defense of Animals awarded Chavez its Lifetime Achievement Award for his outstanding contribution to human and animal rights. Chavez said in his acceptance speech: “We need in a special way to work twice as hard, to make all people understand that animals are fellow creatures, that we must protect them and love them as we love ourselves. And that the basis for peace is respecting all creatures. That’s the basis for peace.

“And we cannot hope to have peace until we respect everyone—respect ourselves and respect animals and all living things ...

“We cannot defend or be kind to animals until we stop exploiting them, exploiting them in the name of science, exploiting animals in the name of sport, exploiting animals in the name of fashion, and yes, exploiting animals in the name of food.”

What is particularly special about Cesar Chavez was his recognition that the exploitation of people, animals, and the environment are all forms of violence, and all interconnected. That is what he was trying to teach us.

White House Vegetable Garden

2009-03-28T12:14:00.000-07:00

Ground was broken last week on an organic vegetable garden on the south lawn of the White House. First Lady Michelle Obama led a group of students from a nearby elementary school as they created the 102-square-meter plot that will consist of raised beds planted with over fifty varieties of fruits and vegetables, including berries, tubers, legumes, greens, and herbs. One item that won’t be grown is beets. President Obama reportedly can’t stand them.

“I want to make sure our family as well as the staff and all the people that come to the White House and eat our food, get access to really fresh vegetables and fruits,” Obama told the fifth-grade students.

It will be the first such garden at the White House since Eleanor Roosevelt started a “victory garden” during World War II.

The Obama’s hope that the garden sets a positive example and encourages people to improve their food choices for the benefit of their own health and the health of the environment.

Vegetable gardening saves money, it puts people back in touch with the earth, and creates a healthier, more sustainable, more diverse, and more decentralized food supply.

Hopefully this garden will start a trend. At a time of increasing awareness of the environmental costs of transporting food long distances, and when people in the US and elsewhere are working fewer hours and taking home less money, growing some of your own food makes more sense than ever. News of the Obama garden and the desire to reduce my grocery bill, motivated me this week to plant some seeds in my own vegetable garden, which had sat dormant for several years. My garden is much smaller, but will include beets.

Ask Alain Robert to Promote Veganism

2009-03-21T21:32:00.001-07:00

For most of us, the soaring structures that dominate the central cores of the world’s largest cities are simply tall buildings. But for the French daredevil Alain Robert, those structures are urban climbing opportunities. More recently for Robert, they’re also opportunities to raise awareness about the dire problem of global warming.

Last month, the 46-year-old Robert free soloed (no rope or harness for fall protection) up the side of the 62-story Cheung Kong Center in the heart of Hong Kong. It was his latest in a series of skyscraper climbs for the cause.

There are many things that individuals can do to make a difference in the rate of planet-wide warming, or melting, as it may soon be more commonly referred to as predictions of rising sea levels and its consequences become increasingly focused and specific. Planting trees, driving less, maintaining a healthy weight, using less electricity, and not buying bottled water, are just a few examples.

But one of the most effective things one can do is to become a vegan. Human activity—including our widespread practice of eating animals—is the principle cause of global warming. The combined effects of the inherent inefficiencies of feeding grain and legumes to farm animals instead of directly to humans, the destruction of rainforests, and the huge quantities of methane emitted from waste lagoons and directly from the digestive tracts of billions of farm animals; result in animal agriculture being a larger contributor to global warming than all forms of transportation put together. Yet, so often this fact goes unmentioned or under-mentioned by the very people raising attention to this looming climate catastrophe. That must change.

Veganism and environmentalism are interconnected. Veganism protects the specific groups of nonhumans who would otherwise be enslaved and killed for food and other uses, while environmentalism protects all sentient life—human and nonhuman alike. Veganism represents one of the pillars of environmentalism, and environmentalism forms one of the pillars of veganism.

If Alain Robert were truly an environmentalist, he would be a vegan. Please contact Alain Robert and ask him to become a vegan, and to talk about veganism, and how it can slow the progression of global warming. Urge him also to add “GO VEGAN” to the bright banners he attaches to some of the buildings he so proficiently scales.

Additional link related to this post: onehundredmonths.org

Our Withering Rail Transportation System

2009-03-16T09:45:00.001-07:00

tracks
Originally uploaded by Kurt S.

I recently came across this blog: Images from in & around Brockport, consisting of scenic photographs of the western New York village and its surroundings. Brockport is a special place to me, for I attended college there at SUNY Brockport in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. I remember how well the campus was connected to the adjoining older neighborhoods, with a pedestrian-oriented Main Street just a short walk away along quiet tree-shaded streets lined with Victorian homes. I remember too, the long snowy winters; running along the old Erie Canal, which in an earlier time was a major east-west commerce route across the state; the fruit orchards just outside of town; and the railroad tracks that ran through the campus carrying Conrail freight trains past the dormitories and the college apartment complex I resided in over the years.

The post End of the line…, with the photograph of the overgrown rails to nowhere, brought on a feeling of sadness. I immediately checked Google Earth to confirm from a fuzzy aerial image where the tracks had been removed just east of Owens Road. My afternoon runs 27 years ago often took me down that road, past bustling factories that produced glass containers and small appliances. Today those factories are closed.

I quickly found a website about the railroad history of Rochester, New York, where I learned that the nineteen kilometer section of line from Brockport east to Rochester—part of what was known as the Falls Road Branch that until 1958 carried passenger trains through the village—had been abandoned in the mid-1990s. When I scrolled down the page I came across a timeline slideshow that illustrated the peak extent of the region’s rail network in 1894, and its steady decline ever since. While freight trains still pass through the college campus serving a cold storage facility and a few other businesses a couple kilometers to the east, their numbers are substantially diminished, for Brockport is no longer another stop along the way, but the end of the line.

The withering of the rail transportation network in this portion of western New York is typical of what has occurred throughout much of the United States, as a result of a powerful trucking and highway lobby, our long declining industrial/manufacturing sector, and shortsighted government policies that have encouraged both.

As we seek to rebuild our economy into something sustainable and equitable, it would be wise to invest in our rail transportation system. Compared with trucks, automobiles, and airplanes, rail is a much more energy efficient way of moving people and cargo. Rail networks spur more efficient land development patterns, rather than the spread out low-density sprawl driven by the rise of the automobile culture. Incentives should be put into place to encourage new factories manufacturing the products of “green” technologies, to be located along rail lines. Abandoned rail corridors should be carefully considered for reuse before being carved up and sold off to developers. And construction of a high-speed intercity passenger rail system will create skilled jobs, and result in a more balanced, efficient, and less polluting transportation system for many decades to come.

Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarianism Makes No Sense

2009-03-07T21:56:00.000-08:00

Vegetarians who don’t eat animal flesh, but do include eggs and dairy in their diets, are known as lacto-ovo-vegetarians. They represent the largest of the several categories of vegetarians, which also includes lacto-vegetarians who consume dairy but not eggs, ovo-vegetarians who consume eggs but not dairy, and vegans who consume no animal products and also avoid other uses of animals, such as for clothing, shoes, furnishings, etc.

I have sometimes seen vegans described as eating only foods from the Plantae (Plant) kingdom. However this is technically not true in accordance with the most widely accepted biological taxonomic system. Plants certainly represent the vast majority of what a typical vegan eats in terms of both volume and caloric value. But vegans also may eat mushrooms, yeasts, and various molds found in such foods as soy tempeh and miso; all of which are members of the Fungi kingdom. Microscopic organisms found in cultured soy and in most other foods that haven’t been recently cooked at high temperatures, are members of the Eubacteria kingdom.

From the perspective of the abolitionist vegan, one who recognizes animals as sentient beings and denies the moral legitimacy of animals as property, lacto-ovo-vegetarianism is no different morally than a diet that includes meat. Animals used for their milk and eggs are considered property in exactly the same context as animals used for their flesh. In both cases, the vast majority of these animals experience a lifetime of slavery followed by untimely death at the slaughterhouse. While the average lacto-ovo-vegetarian most likely eats a smaller overall quantity of animal products than the average meat eater, resulting in less net animal use and harm, the remaining animal use in the form of dairy and/or egg consumption is still wrong, and is still morally unjustifiable.

From the perspective of the vegetarian who accepts the use of animals short of killing them, eating dairy and/or eggs is flawed logic. In the modern system of production the dairy cows and egg laying birds are ultimately killed when their continued existence ceases to be profitable for the producer. Eating dairy and eggs directly supports that killing.

From the perspective of someone who adheres to the welfarist position—that it is acceptable to own and use animals as long as their treatment conforms to some set of minimum guidelines, lacto-ovo-vegetarianism may have made some sense in a long-gone era prior to the factory farm practices that have arisen in response to the huge global demand for dairy and eggs. It certainly doesn’t make sense now. Some of the worst cruelty takes place in the production of dairy and eggs. While labels such as “free-range”, “cage-free”, “organic” may in some cases represent slightly less cruelty; plenty of cruelty remains. So-called “humane farming” practices have more to do with marketing and making consumers feel more comfortable about continuing to eat animal products, than protecting the interests of animals.

From the perspective of an informed person who is concerned about the environment, a lacto-ovo-vegetarian’s contribution to water consumption/pollution and greenhouse gas emissions—while substantially less than the typical meat eater—remains significantly larger than it would be if they became a vegan.

Finally, from the perspective of an informed person motivated by health concerns, not eating meat due to it’s high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat, concentrated pesticide residues, and lack of dietary fiber and phytochemicals, makes a lot of sense; but so would also avoiding dairy and eggs for the very same reasons. Nutritionally there is little difference between meat, dairy, and eggs. They are all forms of animal tissue.

Conclusion: Differentiating between meat, dairy, and eggs appears in all of the above cases to be arbitrary. From multiple perspectives lacto-ovo-vegetarianism makes no sense, while veganism makes plenty of sense.

Multiple Acute Problems Must be Dealt with Simultaneously

2009-02-17T20:46:00.001-08:00

The news last week that global warming is far more serious than previously thought is reminiscent of headlines from just a couple years ago, and should put to rest any suggestions that measures to deal with climate change be rolled back or delayed so as not to impede economic recovery. Time has run out. Catastrophe is knocking at the door. No longer can we ignore the fact that a healthy economy is absolutely dependant on a healthy populace and a healthy ecosystem. It’s time to create a sustainable system with built-in incentives to serve people and protect the planet.

Simply returning our economy to where it was a few years ago will result in continued environmental devastation and resource depletion, more exploitation of human and nonhuman animals, more concentration of wealth, more insane consumerism, more excuses for waging wars, and another bubble followed by another more severe crash from which we may never recover.

We need to take a holistic approach. These problems are interconnected to such a degree that attempting to solve them separately won’t work.

Animal-based diets contribute substantially to global warming, water use, and water pollution. Effectively managing climate change must include changing how we eat. If ever there were such a thing as a meat-eating environmentalist, those days are gone. Those who couldn’t care less about the plight of nonhuman animals need only consider their own future, and what the future holds for their children, nieces, nephews, or grandchildren.

Not only are vegan diets healthier for the planet, they are healthier for the people who consume them. Rich in phytochemicals and fiber, vegan diets result in substantially lower incidents of major diseases and obesity. Curing the obesity epidemic will in turn reduce carbon emissions by decreasing energy use in the transportation sector.

At a time when so many people are losing their health insurance as they lose their jobs, it would not make sense to put health care reform on the back burner. This is the time for the US to pursue a comprehensive universal health care system that borrows the best features from other modern nations.

Diplomacy must remain a high priority. Either we wage war over dwindling resources and further wreck the environment in the process, or we come together as a global community and help each other solve these dire problems that threaten all of us regardless of nationality or religious affiliation.

In just a few short months the United States has very quickly become more socialistic (interestingly, largely due to Republicans), more like Europe and Canada, as the federal government steps up and assumes a larger role. This is not a result of the failure of capitalism, but of its fundamental limitations being tested to the point of economic meltdown. Those who still push unregulated greed and tax cuts for millionaires have been proven wrong, at tremendous cost to society.

Addressing all these problems at once will be extremely challenging, but we have no choice. The big stimulus bill that US President Obama signed today will do little by itself to help the economy. It is one element of many more to come. It’s clear that things will get worse in the near term. But the path we head down today, and with what degree of urgency, will determine just how bad things get before they get better.

I Remain in a State of Shock

2009-01-26T20:32:00.000-08:00

Just over a week since Barack Obama took over as President of the United States, I remain in a state of shock. I’ve known since early November—baring some unforeseen circumstance—that Obama would soon be our new President, but now that it’s happened I’m having trouble getting used to it. It’s hard to believe, that after eight excruciatingly long years we now have someone at the helm who is highly intelligent, highly articulate, curious about the world, someone who believes in government, respectful of science and rationality, dedicated to making the world a better place, and who is a true leader willing to ask the people of the United States and the people of the world to express their desires and concerns and to join him in his difficult mission.

I woke up on the 21st of January feeling safer than I had for some time. I feel safer because I believe the Obama administration will exercise better judgment when dealing with foreign adversaries and other potentially menacing situations, forging friendly relations, and maintaining the friendly alliances we currently have. I feel safer because I believe our new president is better equipped to deal with the formidable challenges of rebuilding our economy and slowing global warming while avoiding catastrophe. And I also feel safer (and prouder) knowing that I now live in a nation less racist than it used to be, that is capable of electing and inaugurating a president who is someone other than a white male. Barack Obama is both our first African-American president and our first biracial president.

The election and inauguration of Barack Obama has made me more optimistic about the future of our world. I believe more than ever that the progression of social and environmental justice is inevitable. Not only can change happen, it is happening. But we must not forget that it is always our role as citizens of this nation and of this world, to be informed, to evaluate, and to criticize. We need to speak up when we find fault with the policies and positions he pursues, what he says, what he eats, and where he’s leading us.

Gary Francione Lecture on Animal Rights

2009-01-22T13:06:00.000-08:00

Rutgers University law professor Gary L. Francione has emerged as the foremost figure in the cause of animal rights. He has written several books on the subject including his latest, Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation, and has created a website, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.

In May of 2008 he lectured before an audience near Rochester, New York. The title of the lecture was "Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare: Making the Case." Francione is a masterful lecturer, presenting his ideas very clearly, with detailed explanations, frequent use of examples and comparisons that most people can relate to, and occasional quick humor. More than anyone else, his views have shaped my current thinking on the interconnected issues of animal rights, veganism, social justice, and nonviolence.

The lecture, including a question and answer period at the end, runs for 1 hour and 38 minutes. I originally thought about posting these ten embedded videos one or two at a time, but ultimately decided against that because there are no logical or planned breaks between them. Some browsers may require that you refresh the web page after one video ends before the next video can be accessed and started. Alternatively, I’ve found that you can start the next video just before the previous one ends.

Additional links related to this lecture or post topic:

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary
Animal Rights Pamphlet download
Article about Gary Francione
Audio version of this lecture

Confronting Our Speciesist Cultural Conditioning and Our Resulting Moral Contradictions

2009-01-18T19:37:00.000-08:00

Last week an airliner full of passengers collided with a flock of birds and lost power to both engines shortly after departing a New York City airport. Minutes later the pilot skillfully glided the damaged aircraft to a safe emergency landing in the Hudson River off Manhattan, and reporters soon confirmed that there were “no fatalities.” President-elect Barack Obama eats animals but stands against torture and vows to close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. Former US Vice President Al Gore crusades against global warming, while continuing to eat animals. Oprah Winfrey is PETA’s 2008 Person of the Year, yet except for a 21-day trial vegan diet last year, she too eats animals.

Our cultural conditioning makes it easy to gloss over the deaths of the birds in the airplane accident, to ignore the fact that animals used for food routinely experience what for all practical purposes amounts to imprisonment and torture, to not recognize how the meat on our plates is a major contributor to global warming and water pollution, and to overlook the hypocrisy of an organization that claims to be campaigning for the basic rights of animals, endorsing someone who fails to take reasonable actions to respect those rights.

It is the continuing challenges of animal rights activists to shine light on these contradictions and to explain why they matter.

Metro Phoenix’s Light Rail System Opens

2009-01-01T07:16:00.000-08:00

Following more than four years of construction and several months of testing, the 32-kilometer (20 mile) initial light rail startup line serving Phoenix and two neighboring cities opened to the public this week. Large crowds turned out to see the stations and experience the sleek and smooth-running trains over the first five days when rides were free.

Until now, Phoenix was the largest US city without a commuter rail system. The sprawling desert metropolis is home to more than 4 million people, including 1.6 million in Phoenix. Typical of cities in the western US whose growth occurred mostly after World War II, much of the developed areas of Phoenix and its surroundings are low in density with separated shopping, living, and work areas; and streets far more favorable to automobiles than pedestrians.

The new line—called Metro—starts at a major shopping center in north Phoenix, then proceeds along a dedicated portion of the street to downtown where several stations serve the new urban campus of Arizona State University, major office buildings, the newly expanded convention center, the basketball arena, the baseball stadium, and museums. East of downtown, there’s a connection to a shuttle serving Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The line then snakes through downtown Tempe and Arizona State University’s huge main campus, before continuing toward its current eastern terminus in Mesa. Trains arrive and depart stations every ten minutes during the majority of the day.

This week’s grand opening is just the beginning, with 60 kilometers (37 miles) of line extensions and additions in various stages of planning. The potential for light rail transit to remake Phoenix over the coming decades into a more pedestrian friendly and environmentally sustainable 21st century city is already exhibited by new transit-oriented development constructed or planned along the line. Such development features elements such as higher density, mixed use, ground level retail stores that front on broad tree-shaded sidewalks, and easy walking access to quality transit. It’s conducive to small businesses, social interaction, and less (and more efficient) land use. It’s the antithesis of automobile-based urban sprawl that has brought us clogged freeways, air pollution, and obesity.

Critics of the light rail system claim that the Phoenix area is too spread out to make it a viable form of transportation, and that the system serves only a small portion of the vast region. However, the initial segment connecting the area’s more densely populated neighborhoods is an excellent start for a system designed for future expansion. There are connections to existing bus routes, and several park-and-ride lots that allow commuters to drive to and from the nearest station to their residences. A number of other western US cities with comparable densities and development patterns have experienced success with their light rail systems. Considering this along with the large initial public reception, it’s unlikely that Metro will be underutilized.

Metro’s light rail vehicles are state-of-the-art. Video cameras monitor the inside and outside of the cars. There are large tinted windows, high-capacity air conditioning systems to handle the summer heat in the desert, and automated audio and visual announcements for passenger comfort and convenience. While rail is an energy efficient mode of transportation to begin with, Metro’s cars have a regenerative braking system that converts much of the train’s forward momentum into electricity that’s fed back into the overhead wires.

One of the benefits of light rail is reduced traffic congestion. The cars have a maximum capacity of 212 people, and up to three cars can be connected together while remaining within the 91-meter length of the station platforms.

Most Phoenix-area commuters are used to driving alone to their workplaces—sealed up and isolated in their cars in a mode of transportation that’s wasteful and hyper-individualistic. In contrast, mass transit has a beneficial socializing effect in which people from different neighborhoods, backgrounds, occupations, and incomes are regularly brought together.

Soon after Barack Obama assumes the US Presidency later this month, he will submit a major infrastructure improvement and economic stimulus bill to Congress. Urban mass transit and intercity rail projects should constitute a major part of this legislation.

A restructured automobile industry would be ideally suited to build light rail vehicles, for which there are presently no US manufacturers. Kinkisharyo International produced Phoenix’s vehicles in Osaka, Japan, with final assembly and finishing work done in the US. There’s no reason why the US cannot someday be a global competitor in this area.

The transportation system in the US is unbalanced with excessive reliance on automobiles, trucks, and airplanes. This is an opportunity to bolster our shrinking industrial/manufacturing sector, and to put people to work in good-paying environmentally sustainable jobs that will result in more livable communities, and a nation that's more energy efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels.

No End to PETA’s Insanity

2008-12-18T07:31:00.000-08:00

I was listening to the latest Vegan Freak Radio podcast today when co-hosts Bob and Jenna began discussing an online article on Planetsave concerning PETA’s accelerated purchases of stock in meat and dairy serving restaurant chains like Domino’s, California Pizza Kitchen, and Sonic. Since 2003 PETA has been investing in meat companies, including chicken processor Tyson Foods, which interestingly is a target of one of PETA’s current campaigns. With stock prices now significantly depressed, the organization has been purchasing more of these stocks in recent weeks.

I had been a PETA member until a couple years ago when I began to more critically examine the organization’s tactics and positions. But until today, I had no idea that this was going on. For an animal advocacy group to be directly investing and potentially profiting from such egregious forms of animal exploitation is unbelievable. They might as well be purchasing chicken legs, cheeseburgers, milk shakes, and pepperoni pizzas from these morally bankrupt death-based corporations as well. The Vegan Freak hosts called PETA’s buying into these corporations: “stunningly stupid” and “not vegan.”

So I wondered, had PETA abandoned its own cruelty-free investing advice I recall seeing on it’s website a while ago? I proceeded to investigate and soon discovered a rather sizable discrepancy.

From PETA’s Caring Consumer.com web page:

“Cruelty-free investing” is investing in companies, mutual funds, bonds, and other investment vehicles that do not support, cause, or contribute to animal exploitation and suffering, including the destruction of natural habitats.

From PETA’s News Releases page (dated December 3, 2008):

Among the companies in which PETA has recently increased its stake are Pilgrim's Pride, the country's top chicken processor (which filed for bankruptcy earlier this week); Tyson Foods, the second-largest chicken processor; Sonic Corporation; O'Charley's Inc.; Domino's Pizza, Inc.; California Pizza Kitchen; and Ingles Markets.

Evidently PETA’s investment advice doesn’t apply to PETA itself, only to its members and the general public. PETA’s justification for these investments is that the group becomes eligible to speak and submit proposals at shareholder meetings, sometimes resulting in improved conditions for animals. But those animals are still going to be enslaved and killed, only now with the help of PETA and its supporters.

Violence and a Speciesist Insult

2008-12-16T08:02:00.000-08:00

The anger and frustration on behalf of reporter and shoe thrower Muntazer al-Zaidi, and a great many people in Iraq and the Middle East, is understandable and justified. But violence—whether in the form of an illegal invasion of Iraq, or throwing your shoes at someone—is a lousy way of solving problems. And when Zaidi called George Bush a “dog”, he denigrated dogs.

Shifting the Social Paradigm of Animal Exploitation

2008-12-09T15:17:00.001-08:00

Jeffrey Allen, an abolitionist vegan blogger in Canada, has submitted an idea in the category of Animal Rights to President-elect Barack Obama's Change.org website. Click on the "VOTE NOW" link in the widget to read it. I encourage you to consider voting for his idea.

Fur-Free Friday

2008-12-07T16:04:00.000-08:00

A local animal rights group has posted photographs on its website of an anti-fur demonstration outside a Neiman Marcus store on last month’s Black Friday—a day that PETA calls “Fur-Free Friday.” The photographs show motivated and well-meaning participants holding up signs admonishing the use of fur. Such protests take place every year in cities across the US on this first official day of the holiday shopping season. But noticeably absent at these events is any mention of leather, wool, or veganism. By focusing solely on fur, the campaigns imply by omission that leather is okay, wearing wool is not a problem, and that eating animals is an entirely different issue not worth addressing.

Campaigning for animal rights without mentioning veganism is like demonstrating for marriage equality without acknowledging the existence of gay and lesbian couples. When resources are limited one must understandably prioritize, but in a manner that is rational and most effective. It doesn’t make sense to focus on relatively minor uses of animals such as fur, or elephants in circuses, while many billions of animals are still being killed and carved up every year for food. Particularly when those minor issues are presented outside the larger context of morality-based veganism. Breaking up and diluting the vegan message fundamentally changes it, leaving both the general public and many animal advocates confused and missing the point.

We Need a New Economy

2008-12-07T07:48:00.000-08:00

I haven’t started my 2008 Christmas shopping yet, and I’m not sure I will. Having been under-employed for the past six months, I don’t have extra money lying around. And beyond purchasing basic essentials, I’m not in the mood anymore to do anything to help prop up our failing, unsustainable, and unjust economy that’s bad for people, bad for nonhuman animals, and bad for the planet.

I’m better off than some of my friends. At least I still have a part time job. Some of my unemployed friends are drinking too much. Others—who I’d never before considered prone to depression—are having “bad days” and are talking about “loosing it”. Most of my friends—other than those who are retired—are still fully employed. But the market-invested portions of their retirement savings have plunged in value. Pay raises and retirements are on hold, and there’s growing anxiety about what the future holds for them.

A friend asked me last week if I thought the economy would improve. I remarked that I thought it would improve eventually, but that things would get considerably worse before they got better. I don’t think he liked my answer.

Presently just about every economic indicator is trending downward. In spite of dropping energy prices, job losses are accelerating at an alarming rate. Bank robberies have increased dramatically over the last three weeks. I recently learned that it took 25 years, until 1954, for the stock market to recover from the 1929 crash. Another wave of home foreclosures is on the horizon, the large fitness club chain where I workout just filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time in as many years, and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in his blog the other day: “We are falling off a cliff.”

I have mixed feelings about loaning taxpayer money to the domestic automobile companies. First of all, I hate our wasteful car-culture where pedestrians are second-class citizens in cities paved over with freeways and giant parking lots. The automobile has resulted in excessive dependence on foreign oil, polluted air, decimation of our railroads, and the expansion of our waistlines. Secondly, I don’t want to reward decades of mismanagement that has resulted in inefficient, poor quality products.

It’s important however to preserve the industrial capacity the US automobile companies represent. If we are going to give them financial assistance, I would hope we pursue Michael Moore’s “we’re gonna own your ass” strategy of taking strong control of their destinies. New management must be brought in, and the companies should be forced to retool to produce quality fuel-efficient cars, light rail vehicles and high-speed intercity trains.

It’s becoming increasingly evident to me that our economy is in the process of collapsing. We shouldn’t make the mistake of applying splints and bandages to try to fix this mess. What we need now is a whole new economy—one that’s sustainable and yields prosperity for all; with fair trade instead of free trade, with a reconstituted industrial/manufacturing base, education and health care for everyone, with democratically governed cooperatives acting in the interests of peace and justice instead of greed-driven corporations.

This may sound overly idealistic. But this is both a historic opportunity and an absolute necessity. We have an incoming President, who unlike his predecessor, seems to truly understand the meaning of “hard work”, and appears to really care about the well being of this nation and the planet. I ask, if not now, then when? If not this, then what other choice do we have? Realistically we may end up with halfway measures leading to compromised goals. But I’m afraid we won’t even get that, if we don’t pursue radical changes at the onset.

Vegan Pumpkin Pie

2008-11-22T07:51:00.000-08:00

I’ve been making this pie for over ten years. The only changes I’ve made include precooking the crust for a few minutes before adding the filling, and substituting maple syrup for honey when I went vegan four years ago. Both changes improved the taste and overall quality. My experience is that anyone who likes pumpkin pie really likes this particular pie. A few people have been reluctant to try it when they learned it contained tofu. I can’t understand aversion to tofu, having eaten it all my life. I suggest instead telling people that it contains soy. Don’t forget to let people know that it’s vegan. Serving delicious vegan food is an excellent form of vegan education.

The recipe can be downloaded here as a PDF. I prepared a nutritional analysis of the pie—in the form of a nutrition facts label and an ingredient list— for a personal trainer nutrition class I took a couple years ago. You may download that here as a PDF.

CRUST INGREDIENTS:

1 cup + 2 tablespoons Unbleached Flour
1/2 teaspoon Salt
1/3 cup Canola Oil
2 to 3 tablespoons Cold Water

FILLING INGREDIENTS:

18 ounces Silken Tofu (1.5 boxes Mori-Nu Lite Firm)
15 ounce can Pumpkin
2/3 cup Maple Syrup
1 teaspoon Vanilla Extract
1 tablespoon Pumpkin Pie Spice

PREPARATION:

1. Mix flour and salt.
2. Add oil and mix.
3. Add cold water gradually and mix until uniform.
4. Shape dough into flattened round and place between
two sheets of 15” waxed paper.
5. Roll pastry 2” larger than inverted pie dish.
6. Remove top piece of waxed paper and place crust
into a 9” pie dish, then remove remaining waxed paper.
7. Pre-bake crust for 5 – 8 minutes, then remove from oven.
8. Blend tofu in a blender or food processor until smooth.
9. Add other filling ingredients and blend until uniform.
10. Pour filling into pie crust.
11. Bake in preheated 350º to 375º oven for one hour.
Filling will firm up fully when chilled.

70 Days and Counting

2008-11-11T05:53:00.000-08:00

Very soon after Barack Obama won the US presidential election last week, I was seeing countless news reports about John McCain’s “gracious” concession speech, George Bush’s warm congratulatory phone call, and his promises to keep the president-elect informed while facilitating a smooth and expedited transition.

“For the next 75 days, all of us must ensure that the next president and his team can hit the ground running,” Bush told his staff at a meeting on the White House lawn. “Ensuring that this transition is as smooth as possible is a priority for the rest of my presidency,” he added.

I too thought McCain’s speech was gracious. And I’m happy that Bush appears to be committed to an efficient transition of executive power. With all the problems this nation currently faces, an effective transition is imperative. But I’m certainly not jumping up and down with joy and enthusiasm.

John McCain’s campaign was one of the filthiest I can remember. It was filled with misrepresentations, outright lies, and ugly personal attacks repeated over and over again.

Working on behalf of a smooth transition is the least Bush can do, after spending eight years trashing our economy, the environment, and our reputation around the globe. Not to mention the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, torture, Guantanamo, Katrina, illegal wiretapping of American citizens, pandering to religious extremists, and butchering the English language every time he had a microphone in front of him. The list goes on.

When outgoing US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently announced that the administration’s attempt to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement wouldn’t be completed by the end of Bush’s term of office—not surprising considering that they waited seven years before getting underway—it became apparent that an exceptional transition was the only chance left of adding a positive element to an otherwise legacy of incompetence. But no matter how hard he tries over these final weeks, George Bush will be remembered not for his smooth handoff, but for the sheer mess he left us with.

Setback for Marriage Equality

2008-11-09T18:50:00.001-08:00

Since last week’s passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that bans same-gender marriage, thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in cities throughout the state. The largest protests, in Los Angeles and San Diego, have drawn over 10,000 people each. At the nonviolent rallies and marches, participants expressed anger and frustration over the ballot question that amends the state Constitution to effectively restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Rights granted by a state Supreme Court ruling last spring that found a law banning gay marriage to be in violation of the equal protection clause of the state’s Constitution, will be withdrawn. Approximately 18,000 same-gender couples that were married in California since last June could have their contracts voided.

Musician and gay-rights activist Melissa Etheridge has proposed that as second-class citizens without the same right to marry as other citizens, she and other gay and lesbian residents of California should not have to pay state taxes.

Proponents of Proposition 8 were largely religiously motivated. But state marriage laws have absolutely nothing to do with religion. They simply enable social partnership contracts between two people. There are no stipulations or requirements for religious affiliation, producing children, or participating in a particular kind of sex or even having sex at all. People who are religious, agnostic, atheist, spiritual, or whatever, get married every day for countless reasons that should matter only to them.

Proposition 8 represents blatant discrimination and bigotry. It’s an effort by those more powerful to demean those they perceive as beneath them. Like other forms of discrimination, homophobia represents an irrational fear on the part of those who are ignorant and insecure. No better examples of this are the many instances of individuals who most stridently espouse homophobia, tuning out to be self-hating homosexuals.

I’ve never completely understood why social conservatives haven’t instead been big proponents of gay marriage. After all, if you believe that the institution of marriage is desirable because it fosters long term monogamous relationships while discouraging promiscuity, wouldn’t that be desirable for gay couples as well?

In spite of last week’s ugly setbacks in California and in the states of Arizona and Florida where similar measures also passed, there’s reason for optimism. Voters younger than 30 mostly voted against the proposition, while most of those over 65 voted in favor. Members of younger generations are far more accepting of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships. It just isn’t that big a deal with most of them. And in California at least, the protests continue and the voices for social justice are being heard. There’s no turning back. More people are beginning to comprehend how homophobia is a form of discrimination, and how all forms of discrimination are destructive and connected.

Long Walk Home

2008-11-04T19:57:00.001-08:00

On January 20, 2009, intellect, leadership, competence and excellence, will be restored to the office of the President of the United States. Over the last eight years America has gone astray and become virtually unrecognizable. President Barack Obama will face formidable challenges as he leads us along a new path—one that will reconnect us with our core principles, and restore our trust, our confidence and our hope. Soon we will embark on a long walk home.

My New View of Single-Issue Campaigns

2008-10-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

As I observe the workings of the world and am exposed to new ideas and viewpoints, my understanding of animal exploitation continues to evolve, although at a slower pace than a year ago. Two recent developments have caused me to rethink my earlier support for single-issue campaigns that seek to abolish specific categories of animal use, such as the Greyhound Protection Act in Massachusetts. First, the ongoing meltdown of the economy, together with its underlying origins and the flawed strategy chosen by the US government to fix the problem; and second, an excellent piece written by Dan Cudahy, recently posted on his blog, Unpopular Vegan Essays.

Our current economic problems can be traced back to the early 1980s when US President Ronald Reagan pursued policies—later continued under subsequent administrations—that resulted in the decimation of the nation’s manufacturing base, a dramatic plunge in union membership for workers, increased dependence on foreign oil, skyrocketing higher-education and health care costs, shrinking middle-class incomes, and a widening gap between the richest and the poorest among us. In less than three decades, unwise trade, labor, energy, and foreign policies have transformed the US from the world’s largest creditor nation, into its largest debtor nation.

Rather than attempting to fix the resulting economic meltdown by a bottom-up approach focused on the root causes, the US government has chosen a top-down approach not unlike that which got us into this mess to begin with. Right now money is being hastily dumped into the hands of giant corporations. A sizable amount of that money is being used to facilitate mergers. More institutions that are “too big to fail”—and thus potential recipients of a future government bailout—are being formed. By doing little more than injecting money at the top, banning certain practices, and tinkering with interest rates, we are attempting to fix the symptoms, rather then addressing the underlying problems. In the process I fear we are setting ourselves up for continued failure.

Single-issue animal protection campaigns—whether welfare-oriented or those aimed at abolishing a category of use—resemble our current attempts to repair the economy by attending to symptoms rather than addressing root causes.

Dan Cudahy’s essay points out that while animal agriculture accounts for at least 97% of all animal exploitation—a direct result of the fact that very few people are vegans—the animal protection organizations focus most of their efforts on things other than vegan education. Largely through single-issue campaigns, they’re concentrating on welfare reform and other minor (in terms of the number of animals affected) animal uses, rather than attacking the principle problem of 53 billion animals killed annually for food. I won’t attempt to further explain his reasoning, because Cudahy has done that so well. Of particular interest to me is his description of “low-hanging fruit” as part of the “animal exploitation tree”. I enthusiastically encourage you to read his essay: Picking the Low-Hanging Fruit: What Is Wrong with Single Issue Campaigns.

Attacking the low-hanging fruit is a top-down, symptom-addressing approach that succeeds chiefly in maximizing donations to the groups that engage in it. We need to instead pursue a bottom-up, cause-addressing approach to achieve lasting results. It’s clear to me now, that campaigns like the one seeking to ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts are not the best use of our time and energy. While the goals may be admirable, the strategy is not. I don’t see how these kinds of campaigns will steer people towards abolition.

In contrast, vegan advocacy based programs generate more vegans; and for each new vegan convert, there will be one fewer person who will engage in the largest and most widespread form of animal exploitation. Veganism represents more than just a way of eating. A true vegan would not attend a greyhound race or a rodeo, wear fur or leather, or participate in other forms of avoidable animal exploitation. With limited time and resources, we need to focus more than ever on demand reduction through vegan/abolition education. Other approaches simply don’t work.

Petition to Change Human Beings’ Zoological Name

2008-10-27T21:45:00.000-07:00

While exploring the website of David Cantor’s Responsible Policies for Animals (RPA), I came across this petition. I liked it so much that I downloaded and printed the available PDF version, then framed it and hung it on a wall in my living room.

Petition To Change Human Beings' Zoological Name

WHEREAS "complex" describes human beings far more comprehensively than does "sapient" and so the Latin complexus describes human beings and differentiates our species from others more accurately than does sapiens;

Whereas human beings act based on names and descriptors, accurate or not, at least as much as on demonstrated reality;

Whereas calling themselves by the inaccurate name Homo sapiens promotes and perpetuates an attitude in human beings of their own exceptionalism & superiority;

Whereas Carolus Linnaeus acted non-scientifically when he invented the name Homo sapiens - deferring to a belief in human exceptionalism & superiority based on established religion, to avoid persecution due to the lack of legal protection for free speech & thought in his time;

Whereas calling themselves by the inaccurate name Homo sapiens and deeming themselves inherently superior to and more worthy of consideration than other beings is a factor in human behavior that unjustly and to humans' and all other beings' disadvantage destroys other beings and disrupts Earth's ecosystems & biosphere;

Whereas, as long as the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the scientific community generally sanctions use of Homo sapiens for human beings, those who strive to teach ecology and ethics and to reverse ecologically destructive behavior and its consequences will be in the untenable position of referring to the beings perpetuating such behavior as sapient;

Whereas recognizing hyper-complexity rather than sapience as their distinguishing trait, human beings will be more likely to establish a less-unjust and less-destructive relationship to other beings and the rest of nature than they have wrought to date;

Whereas the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accepted worldwide as the authority on species names and therefore is in a position to change human thought and behavior for the better by giving our species a more accurate name;

THEREFORE, Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc., located in Glenside, Pennsylvania, USA, with members and supporters throughout the human world, urges the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK, to change human beings' species name to Homo complexus and to announce this change to the scientific community and to the human world generally.

Respectfully submitted this 5th Day of August, 2008.

Signed:
David Cantor
Executive Director
Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc.

Glow-in-the-Dark Cat

2008-10-24T20:25:00.000-07:00

Mr. Green Genes, a cloned 6-month-old domestic cat, appeared for the first time on US national television this week. In the darkened studio on NBC’s Today show, parts of his ears, eyes, and nose produced a green fluorescence when bathed with ultraviolet light. His skin cells contain a protein responsible for the glow, which would be much more prominent if his entire body were shaved. When the lights were turned back on, he looked like an ordinary orange tabby.

The Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans—working together with the Louisiana State University Health Science Center—cloned Mr. Green Genes as part of a larger research effort aimed at using gene therapy to combat animal diseases, and ultimately, human diseases as well.

“We wanted to know for sure that we could insert this gene into a cell and have it multiply,” explained Betsy Dresser, senior vice president for the institute. “If nothing glows, we wouldn’t know if the gene was really inserted. So, because it glows, we know we inserted the gene and were successful with that technique.”

Dresser pointed out that there was no cruelty involved in producing the glow-in-the-dark feline—calling the process “totally harmless,” and adding that “He’s just a normal cat; he doesn’t know he’s glowing.”

She went on to elaborate about the benefits the research may lead to, such as making endangered animal species more resistant to certain diseases, and innovations in diabetes treatment in humans.

At the conclusion of the brief segment, as the Today reporter referred to Mr. Green Genes as “cute,” viewers were left with the one-sided idea that this type of research and experimentation is an acceptable and worthwhile endeavor with no downside. What should be remarkable, but isn’t, was the absence of any mention of ethical concerns.

As a culture, we have a very different perception of human and nonhuman animals. In most instances, those different perceptions and judgments are arbitrary. Such is the case with society’s passive acceptance of how Mr. Green Genes came into existence and is now being used, and its instantaneous embrace of utilitarian “ends-justify-the-means” mentality regarding the potential benefits of such experimentation. Now just imagine the outrage if Mr. Green Genes was not a cat, but a 6-month-old glow-in-the-dark human. Why such a different reaction? Speciesism.

My Obama Coffee Cup

2008-10-17T22:00:00.001-07:00

The other day I made a rare visit to nearby a 7-Eleven store here in the US to cast my “vote” for President by purchasing coffee in a blue Obama cup.

The promotion began on October 1 and will continue through Election Day, November 4. 7-Eleven keeps track of the number of blue Obama and red McCain cups sold, and regularly updates the results on its 7-ELECTION '08 website. At the site, you can move your mouse over a map of the US to see results in different states. The company has stores in the majority of the 50 states.

Customers who are undecided or indifferent can fill a regular 7-Eleven coffee cup.

For a number of reasons—including the fact that you are limited to the two major candidates: Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain (cups are not available for Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, or Ralph Nader)—the poll is not scientifically valid. Still, the results are interesting, and encouraging. As of today, Obama cups have been chosen 60% of the time. McCain leads in just two states, but not in his home state of Arizona.

The 7-Eleven coffee cup poll has very closely mirrored the results of the last two US presidential elections.

California’s Proposition 2

2008-10-10T13:46:00.000-07:00

In a few weeks, California voters will decide the fate of an animal “protection” measure known as Proposition 2, the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative statute.

The measure would take effect in 2015, and would set minimum space requirements for chickens, veal calves, and breeding pigs; allowing them to stand, turn around, and stretch their limbs. It would mostly affect the state’s egg-laying chickens—now housed in battery cages—since producers have already eliminated the use of crates and cages for newborn calves and pregnant sows.

Many people, including those who think of themselves as animal rights supporters, believe Proposition 2 is a reasonable measure worthy of their support. I probably would have felt the same way three years ago when I was collecting signatures needed to get a similar proposition on the ballot in Arizona.

One winter evening while gathering signatures at a large outdoor public event, someone remarked to the volunteer I was working with: “What’s the point? They’re going to be killed anyway.” We both thought that was an insensitive and illogical attitude. Yes, they are “going to be killed anyway,” but why not still try to make their lives a little better?

A year-and-a-half went by before I again gave what he said much thought. But when I did, it dawned on me that while he may have been coming from a different perspective, he had an excellent point. Why are ethically motivated vegans and major animal protection organizations wasting time and money on efforts to regulate exploitation, rather than putting those resources toward abolition? The problem is not the size of the cages. It’s not about cubic inches or efficiencies of production verses degrees of cruelty. This is about basic morality. We should not be breeding, enslaving, and killing these animals in the first place. It is unnecessary and unjustified. Any and all efforts by individuals and organizations that purport to be advocates for animal rights should be directly focused on reducing and ultimately ending this horrific behavior.

Not only does proposition 2 represent the wrong approach, it’s morally bankrupt. Proposition 2 reinforces the property status of nonhumans, adds legitimacy to their continued exploitation and oppression, while conferring little or no benefits to them. It sends the message to consumers that it’s okay to exploit animals, up to and including killing them, as long as it’s done “humanely.” But calling unnecessary killing “humane” does not make it so. We should not seek to regulate something that is fundamentally wrong to begin with. As a civilized society, we don't regulate rape or human slavery. We prohibit such behavior. The fact that there is currently insufficient political will to outlaw the raising and killing of animals for food doesn’t mean that Proposition 2 represents an acceptable interim alternative. Nor does it mean that it’s the only alternative.

Vegan/abolition education programs reduce demand for animal products by informing people of the negative ethical, environmental, and health consequences of flesh, dairy, and egg consumption. Veganism is the day-to-day implementation of non-violence. It’s peace and justice in action. Veganism is both the goal, and the path to that goal.

If the big animal advocacy organizations that are behind Proposition 2 would abandon these types of efforts and instead steer their dollars and talents to vegan education, perhaps we can begin to see some real results.

Getting More Bizarre by the Day

2008-10-10T11:32:00.001-07:00

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced the other day: “Economic activity is likely to be subdued during the remainder of this year and into next year.” Subdued? Really? Understandably he’s trying to temper fear and panic, but I can’t believe he chose such a mild adjective to characterize the meltdown we’re in.

Also this week we learn that the Bush administration threatened members of the US Congress with the imminent imposition of Martial law (within two weeks), if the $700 billion Wall Street bailout wasn’t passed! I don’t think this is how our system is supposed to work. Acute blackmail tends to upset the balance of powers.

Then last night at the close of his liberal talk radio show, Mike Malloy mentioned that he had seen television news coverage of the day’s opening and closing bell ringing at the New York Stock Exchange. He expressed bewilderment that on a day when the Dow Jones industrials tumbled 679 points to close at 8,579, nearly 40 percent lower than its record high of 14,164 achieved exactly one year ago, a group of people were standing on a balcony overlooking the trading floor, smiling and clapping as the bell clanged. They appeared oblivious.

I wonder too, who were those people and what in the world were they clapping and smiling about? Were they under the influence of psychoactive drugs? Am I missing something? What’s going on?

US Representative Dennis Kucinich on the Bailout

2008-09-30T13:20:00.000-07:00

We Must Act Now, or Else . . . !

2008-09-25T08:51:00.000-07:00

I heard on the news this morning that the McCain Campaign has said that we could slide into a Depression by Monday if $700 billion of taxpayer money isn’t forked over. This is in contrast to Senator McCain’s statement less than two weeks ago that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." While I don't dispute the idea that the economy is terrible (and I believe unsustainable the way it is currently structured), that it’s on a downward trend, and that we could end up in a depression at some point; suggesting that it could happen next Monday is a shameless scare tactic.

Now I don't want to alarm anyone or create panic, but if we don't stop animal exploitation within the next few days, there's a very real possibility that the planet may break apart by the end of next week. We must act now!

What's Going On?

2008-09-24T09:14:00.000-07:00

Does the failing economy, related bizarre developments over the past couple of weeks, and recent ominous and intimidating threats by Treasury Secretary Paulson to add close to one-trillion dollars to our collective national debt leave you feeling angry, frustrated, bewildered, fearful, or perhaps all of the above? Feel like screaming from the top of your lungs “What’s going on?”

If you still have health insurance you can talk to your doctor about Fukitol®; or you can kick back with a cold beer or two and listen to the song What’s Up, originally performed by the American rock band 4 Non Blondes in the early 1990s. Despite its title, which you won’t find in the lyrics, the song is best known for the phrase “What’s going on?”

I’m partial to this live version performed by Pink while on tour in 2006. The things she says at the very beginning of the video are in reference to the song Dear Mr. President, which she has just finished singing.

Some Emergencies Matter, While Others Don’t

2008-09-23T22:14:00.000-07:00

While it’s obvious to me that the US economy is troubled, I certainly don’t have enough understanding of its complexities to know if the proposed $700 billion government bailout of Wall Street firms with bad mortgage debt is necessary to prevent an economic meltdown. I don’t know if it would work, or if the likely downsides (depressed value of the dollar and inflation) would be as bad or worse than any benefits. I don’t know if it’s well intentioned, an attempt to pull off the largest act of thievery in the history of civilization, or some desperate effort to prop up our dysfunctional, unsustainable, buy-now-save-later economy a few more weeks until the November elections to boost Republican candidate John McCain.

It’s unlikely that any of us can thoughtfully assess this situation over just a few days, though that’s the timeframe Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and President George Bush arrogantly expect us to work within.

What is so troubling is the similarity between this “urgent crisis” and the way the Bush administration rushed us into the disastrous Iraq war—an action that didn’t quite unfold as it was supposed to. Now, like then, fear is being spread. Debate is being discouraged. Consequences are “imminent” and threats are “looming” if Congress doesn’t act “now” to avert an economic “mushroom cloud”, so we are told by the bailout promoters, many of who were responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place through their support for deregulation of the very institutions that are now failing.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the fact that tens-of-millions of Americans lacking access to adequate health care was considered an urgent crisis deserving of quick action? Shouldn’t the victims of hurricane Katrina who were left stranded on rooftops for days on end have received the same level of fervent attention? What about global warming? After all, without a survivable environment you can forget about having an economy. What about the 53 billion animals unnecessarily killed each year worldwide? Hardly anyone is suggesting that’s something we need to act swiftly on.

I guess some emergencies matter, while others don’t.

Vegan Hero Dennis Kucinich Addresses the 2008 Democratic National Convention

2008-08-31T19:13:00.000-07:00

There were several very good speeches at last week's convention in Denver. This rousing speech by Representative Dennis Kucinich—which got little coverage—is my favorite! It should put to rest the myth that one cannot derive enough energy from a vegan diet.

Regulation vs. Prohibition and the Greyhound Protection Act

2008-08-31T10:56:00.000-07:00

In general, I’m not excited to say the least about legislative measures to protect animals. Most of those measures seek to regulate existing practices—such as raising and killing chickens or pigs for food—and in doing so often have the undesirable effect of perpetuating or even promoting the activity. They do not address the underlying problem of the property status of animals. They consist of rules that are watered down, full of loopholes, and poorly enforced. When consumers believe that regulations result in animals being treated better, there is less incentive for them to stop eating meat, dairy, or eggs, or to cease using animals for clothing, or to discontinue their patronage of dog or horse races. Regulatory or animal welfare measures backed by major animal protection organizations, along with the availability of products such as “humanely” raised meat and “free-range” eggs, provide people with an easy way out; a convenient way to avoid confronting the underling moral issues of animal exploitation and the need to significantly change their own behavior.

However, a distinction should be made between legislative measures (including ballot propositions and initiatives) that merely regulate practices, and those that prohibit or abolish a category of animal use.

Recently one of my vegan/animal advocate friends brought to my attention an initiative on the November 2008 ballot in the US commonwealth of Massachusetts, known as the Greyhound Protection Act, that will ban dog racing. Rather than seeking to regulate how the dog racing industry operates with respect to its treatment of the animals—which conveys the message that the practice is acceptable if done with certain restrictions and minimum requirements—this measure will outright prohibit dog racing in Massachusetts after 2010.

My friend made the point in his posting to a local vegetarian society website message board, that this is something that both abolitionists and welfarists can get behind. I agree. While it doesn’t take the place of vegan/abolition education, this is an effort that can coexist alongside it. I have supported it through a donation to GREY2K USA, one of the sponsoring organizations. The other groups sponsoring this initiative are the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Rescue League of Boston, and the Humane Society of the United States.

If this measure passes, it remains to be seen to what degree it may raise awareness about our use of animals for food, which is by far where most of the cruelty and exploitation of nonhuman animals takes place. But at least it will end the barbaric practice of dog racing in Massachusetts and pave a path for similar bans in other states and jurisdictions.

Beijing Restaurants Take Dogs off the Menu During the Olympic Games

2008-08-05T07:06:00.000-07:00

The 112 officially designated Olympic restaurants have been ordered by the Beijing Catering Trade Association to not serve dog flesh during the month of August. Other restaurants in Beijing have been admonished to do the same, in an apparent public relations scheme directed at foreign tourists, athletes, and journalists, who will be visiting for the 2008 summer games.

The impact of this move on local residents will be minor if not insignificant, as the several-thousand-years-old cultural tradition of dog eating has declined in popularity in recent decades, more than replaced by an alarming increase in the consumption of animals more familiar to western diners, such as chickens, pigs, and cows.

Like South Korea, which banned dogs from menus during the 1988 Seoul Olympics, Chinese officials are trying to avoid negative publicity from Westerners who might consider dog eating to be barbaric and backwards, while they’re attempting to present a modern forward-looking face to the world. The measure is a reaction to Western speciesist thinking in which it’s considered acceptable to eat some types of animals (like pigs and turkeys), but downright horrific to eat other types (dogs). This attitude is based on our cultural tradition of viewing certain animal species as food, and others as cute and cuddly companions.

However, looking at the situation more objectively, dogs and pigs—along with humans—all share the capacity for emotion, and the desire to avoid pain, suffering, and death. They all have unique personalities and exhibit self-awareness and curiosity. In other words, other than the fact that some of them are not human, all of them essentially conform to the definition of “person.” From a moral standpoint, eating dogs is no better or worse than eating cows, chickens, pigs, or fish. That seeing dogs listed on restaurant menus in Beijing may offend or upset foreign visitors, says more about Western speciesism than China’s comparative level of civilization and modernity.

Even if this ban covered all of China, and was permanent rather than temporary, I would not support it. Anyone who considers themselves to be supportive of animal rights, who favors this or similar measures, ought to stop and reconsider. In much the same way that banning capital punishment for white people would fuel racism and strengthen the concept of white supremacy, this ban does little other than to reinforce speciesism and the concept of dogs as “special.” It has no practical effect, as restaurant patrons who might have ordered dog flesh will most likely substitute some other species of animal on the menu. Nor does it represent incremental progress, as there is no intention of making the ban permanent, expanding it to other parts of China, or broadening it to include other animal species, milk, eggs, and other uses of animals. In this instance like so many others that abolitionists are critical of, the idea that exploiting animals is wrong, is not lost; it’s not even addressed.

Barack Obama’s Speech in Berlin

2008-07-24T15:35:00.000-07:00

This impressive speech before an audience of over 200,000 people in Berlin indicates to me that in much of the world, Barack Obama is already viewed as a world leader.

Vegan/Abolition Education Pamphlet

2008-07-02T10:39:00.000-07:00

A new pamphlet on vegan/abolition education is available for download. Created by Gary L. Francione and his colleague and partner Anna Charlton, the tri-fold pamphlet addresses the moral inconsistencies involved in how we view different animals. It points out that while we all agree that the infliction of unnecessary suffering and death on animals is wrong; almost all of our uses of animals are for trivial reasons.

By far our largest use of animals is for food. Some startling statistics are provided, such as 53 billion animals (not included fish and other sea animals) killed worldwide each year for food consumption. Animal agriculture’s detrimental effects on the environment, and on human health are explained; along with the wasteful inefficiencies in terms of land use, water use, and the effects on the world food supply of feeding grain to animals instead of directly to humans.

The authors explain how the property status of animals greatly limits what can be achieved through legislative animal welfare measures or efforts to improve industry treatment standards. More “humane” treatment offers very little for animals, and actually encourages people to continue to consume animal products, while doing nothing to address the idea of ending animal exploitation.

The last portion of the pamphlet presents veganism as the solution. Veganism works to decrease animal suffering and death by directly reducing demand. It’s simple, nonviolent, and sets a positive example for people around you.

At the end is a link to Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, where more detailed information on the topics summarized in the pamphlet can be found.

The pamphlet, which can be downloaded here, may be printed double-sided, then folded. It’s a great low-cost tool for your own education, to give to friends and family members, or to distribute to the public. Hopefully those who read it will begin thinking about these issues.

August 13, 2008 Update: Subsequent to this posting, the creators of this pamphlet have made it available in additional languages. There are now versions written in German, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, and Polish, with more to come.

A Perceptible Shift in Direction

2008-06-25T20:28:00.000-07:00

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been encouraged by a noticeable increase on the internet of writing and discussions promoting abolition, criticizing the idea of “humane” use of animals, and focusing attention on confusing and contradictory language and positions used and held by some animal rights advocates and organizations.

For example, Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary (PPS) contends in Change in the Direction of Vegan Advocacy, that continuing to focus on eliminating meat consumption conveys the idea that avoiding consumption of milk and eggs is of secondary importance. PPS points out that the use of terms such as “meat is murder” and “meat is dead”, helps to perpetuate this. Last month on this blog I made a similar argument about the term “meat sucks” in Morally Confusing T-Shirt. But PPS asserts that using the term “happy meat” also has the effect of prioritizing the avoidance of animal flesh over the avoidance of animal secretions. Now that this has been brought to my attention, and I’ve given it some thought, I agree. I will avoid further use of the term. Incidentally, some promoters of welfarism also dislike the term “happy meat”, but for different reasons.

Why is it important to avoid emphasizing the avoidance of meat over dairy and eggs? Based on how the animals are raised, there is very likely more suffering involved in the production of a glass of milk or an egg, than a serving of beef. Yet not coincidentally, most people—including those who are primarily ethically motivated—will stop eating beef and other “red meats” before eliminating the consumption of any other animal products. Milk and eggs are typically the last animal foods that are eliminated, assuming a person ever gets to that point. One can logically conclude that focusing more attention on meat than on eggs and dairy, promotes lacto-ovo vegetarianism to a greater degree than veganism.

Secondly, animals bred and raised for their milk and eggs, ultimately end up in the slaughterhouses just like the animals bred and raised for their meat. Together they are exploited for the same trivial, backward, and morally indefensible reasons.

On last weekend’s Go Vegan Radio podcast, host Bob Linden talked about chef Wolfgang Puck, who has embraced “humane” animal ingredients, and elicited praise from some animal advocates as he serves up increasingly popular “humane” veal in his restaurants, and contemplates better living conditions for the lobsters on his animal-based menus. Linden criticized the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) for portraying Puck as a hero, saying, “it’s confusing the matter” and sending “mixed messages.” He expressed admiration for some of the other things that HSUS does, but suggested that the organization reconsider its favorable representation of Puck, and asked the obvious question: “Shouldn’t the vegan heroes, when it comes to cooking, be vegan chefs?”

There’s an excellent new abolitionist website called HumaneMyth.org that debunks the “humane” and “compassionate” use of animals. Sponsored by award-winning filmmakers James LaVeck and Jenny Stein, known for the documentary Peaceable Kingdom, the site is fairly comprehensive and easy to navigate. I particularly like the glossary and the section about taking action.

Finally, Vegan Freak Radio with Bob and Jenna Torres, has recently posted an engaging two-part interview with Gary L. Francione, a law professor at Rutgers University, who in my opinion is this planet’s leading voice for animal rights. Francione has written extensively on the topic, including his recently released book, Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation, which he discusses in the Vegan Freak interview. His writing is unrivaled in its clarity and logic. And his quick humor makes his speeches and interviews particularly enjoyable as he discusses these otherwise serious topics of oppression and violence.

Barack Obama for President

2008-06-16T16:02:00.000-07:00

It’s not just Barack Obama’s positions on the issues, his intellect, his youth, his calming persona, or his eloquent and inspiring speeches that draw me and countless others to him. There’s something else that’s hard to put a finger on. He seems to have a rare special quality to lead, unify, and instill hope, trust, and positive energy. As President, this quality would greatly enhance his effectiveness at home in the US, and with heads of state around the globe.

An Obama presidency would represent a sea change from the last seven years of fear, lies, cynicism, and idiocy. He’s our best choice for ending the occupation of Iraq, restoring diplomacy and our reputation abroad, avoiding further unnecessary wars and military conflicts, returning integrity to the Justice Department and to our regulatory agencies, reestablishing the balance of power among the three branches of our federal government, dusting off the Bill of Rights and the rest of the US Constitution, restoring fiscal responsibility, instituting a long overdue universal health care system, restructuring our economy in the face of global warming and increasingly costly oil, reducing economic disparity, reining in our out-of-control corporations, and protecting the environment.

Obama represents the liberal-progressive, left side of the political spectrum. Historically it’s been the political left that has done the most to advance social progress and to fight injustice and oppression.

It’s crucial that we elect a leader who possesses the forward-looking vision and intellect necessary to bring diverse parties to the table to deal with the critical planet-wide issues that threaten our very survival.

If you’re eligible to vote this November, but remain undecided or are leaning towards John McCain, I suggest that you ask yourself the following questions: Why do scores of countries from Great Britain to Costa Rica, spend significantly less per capita on health care than the United States does, while covering all of their citizens, and achieving better results? Why are we still so reliant on fossil fuels, importing more than 65% of the oil that we use, and draining our nation’s wealth in the process as we balloon our trade deficit? Why after all these years are we still fighting and dying in Iraq? Who is more likely to deliver the changes that we desperately need? Barack Obama, or another conservative Republican?

I’ve heard people say—sometimes proudly—that they’re not into politics, and that they don’t believe in voting. But this isn’t just a hobby or a spectator sport. Whether or not we take an interest, support particular candidates and issues, and cast our votes; what our elected officials do and don’t do, profoundly affects all of us, and future generations as well.

Alain Robert Climbs New York Skyscraper to Raise Attention to Global Warming

2008-06-11T15:55:00.001-07:00

Last week on U.N. World Environment Day, French rock climber Alain Robert (a.k.a. “Spiderman”) free-soloed up the face of New York City’s year-old 52-story New York Times building to raise attention to global warming; something he calls, “one of the main problems for out time.”

Near the 9th floor he stopped to deploy a fluorescent green banner with the message, “Global warming kills more people than 9/11 every week.”

Robert, 46, climbed without a safety harness or rope, using only climbing shoes and chalk for his hands. Due to the horizontal lattice structure attached to the building’s exterior, this climb was easier and less risky than most of his more than 80 previous skyscraper accents.

Once at the top, Robert turned to wave with both arms to the cheering crowd below, before being handcuffed and taken into custody by waiting police officers.

Global warming is occurring at a rapid pace, threatening human and other animal populations that may not be able to adapt to changes in their ecosystems.

"There can be no question that the increase in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity,” said Susan Soloman, co-chair of the IPCC working group that produced the U.N. Climate Change Report. Burning carbon-based fuels is the principle cause of global warming, according to the report, which also cites animal agriculture as a major contributor.

Excellent Examples of Vegan/Abolition Education

2008-06-06T07:03:00.000-07:00

Two vegan advertisements produced by Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary appeared side-by-side in yesterday’s print edition of the Los Angeles Times. One of the ads (“Can You Tell The Difference?”) is about “free-range” eggs vs. battery cage eggs. The other ad (“Milk comes from a grieving mother”) explains the heartbreaking life of dairy cows. Together they filled half of one page of the newspaper, which has a weekday circulation of nearly 908,000. Both advertisements are honest, straightforward, and uncompromising. Both are excellent examples of vegan/abolition education.

Hopefully Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary will be able to place these ads in more publications. That will depend on financial donations.

Brockway Hall Business Card

2008-06-03T21:00:00.000-07:00

Is Eating Animals a Personal Choice?

2008-06-03T19:49:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, I thought of the decision to eat animals, or to be a vegan, as personal choices. People generally think of their personal choices as “their own business”, having consequences that don’t affect other people in any significant way. Since my veganism was a “personal choice”, I was less likely than I am today to make my veganism known, and to express and debate my reasoning behind it. I was somewhat less confident, less righteous, and definitely not a “militant” vegan.

About a year ago while searching the internet, I discovered a series of YouTube videos titled Roast the Vegan that unfortunately are no longer available. The host articulately and creatively presented various arguments for veganism. Most of those arguments were familiar to me and mirrored my views. But one point caught my attention because it hadn’t occurred to me before. She asserted that eating meat is not a personal choice. Then she explained that the collective result of a few billion people making that choice is the killing of many more billions of animals every year. I noticed that a few times during the videos she referred to a nonhuman animal as “someone.”

Suddenly I realized that I had overlooked something remarkably obvious. Living all my life in a culture where speciesism is so deeply and extensively rooted, and where the institutions of animal exploitation are largely taken for granted, even as an ethically motivated vegan, I had failed to recognize that eating animals is as far from a “personal choice” as there could possibly be. It’s a choice that profoundly affects the lives of sentient others. It’s a choice that results in systematic enslavement, suffering, mutilation, rape, and violent death, for no better reasons than entertaining our taste buds. Understanding this, my thinking about animal rights and veganism would begin to evolve.

While I believed that in an ideal world everyone would follow a vegan diet and lifestyle, until that point I hadn’t made the jump to thinking that abolition could ever happen. I never gave it much thought. Instead I was resigned to the idea that there would always be a substantial portion of the human population that would choose to eat animal products, even though I considered such a practice to be barbaric and archaic. In retrospect, that kind of thinking made it easy for me to buy into welfarism, which is the pursuit of more “humane” methods of exploitation.

Continuing my knowledge quest, I soon understood that the animal rights cause was about fighting oppression and discrimination; and that all forms of oppression, discrimination, and exploitation were similar and connected. I now felt an obligation to do more—specifically, to educate others about the consequences of our everyday choices.

It’s now fully apparent to me that whether you prefer your bird eggs scrambled, sunny-side-up, folded into an omelet, or boiled in the shell; is a personal choice. How thoroughly cooked you like your pig muscle tissue and how you like it seasoned, and whether you decide to have chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream for desert; are personal choices as well. But deciding in the first place to consume the eggs, the meat, and the dairy, is clearly not a personal choice.

Custom Printed Hat

2008-05-26T19:30:00.000-07:00

I had this hat custom printed front and back, to inform people of my veganism. Unfortunately the text was not as large as I had wanted.

Welfarism for Abolition is like Screwing for Virginity

2008-05-26T19:02:00.000-07:00

Before I explain why I believe this is true, I want to talk about the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Much confusion exists because the term “animal rights” has been used extensively by groups that do not adhere to animal rights philosophy. Sociologist Roger Yates has written an excellent blog post: All This Fuss Over a Name, which details this issue.

Those who adhere to the animal rights position, believe that a sentient being, human or nonhuman, should be afforded the basic right not to be the property of another sentient being. That being the case, rightists believe that animal exploitation is unjustified, and must be abolished. Rightists recognize that speciesism is wrong, that species is not a valid reason to deny the basic right not to be property.

Those who adhere to the animal welfare or welfarist position believe that animal exploitation should be regulated to make it more “humane”. This approach almost always involves working closely with animal exploiters. Since welfarism takes place within the context of animal ownership, it’s limited in its effectiveness by a legal system that robustly protects property rights and the economic interests of property owners.

Animal rights focuses on animal use, while welfarism focuses on animal treatment.

People who adhere to the animal rights position are vegans who pursue abolition (abolitionist vegans). Some people who claim to support animal rights, are really supporting something else. This is similar to people who eat fish and call themselves vegetarians, or people who call themselves vegans even though they consume foods that contain eggs. Generally, these people are not being deceitful, but rather, they are misinformed or confused.

Welfarism doesn’t challenge the property status of animals. If anything, increased regulation of animal exploitation tends to give it more legitimacy. And the promotion of “happy meat” and other “humane” and “eco-friendly” animal products, together with their associated branding and labeling, has the effect of furthering the commodification of animals.

Welfarism makes animal exploitation easier and more comfortable for the exploiter. For example, the way “happy meat” is marketed—as being “better” for the animals—tends to make people feel better about eating meat. So instead of eating no meat or less meat, some people will embrace “happy meat” and become “conscientious omnivores.” But that marketing is misleading at best. The animals are still tortured and killed. Torturing someone less is preferable to torturing someone more, but it’s still wrong.

Most people already understand that it’s wrong to subject sentient beings to unnecessary pain and suffering. Vegan/abolition education focuses instead on changing people’s thinking about the legitimacy of our use of animals. And it challenges the false assumption that many of our uses of animals are necessary.

If we assume that resources are limited, then the more of those resources that are directed to welfarist campaigns, the less that remain available for vegan/abolition education and outreach. Vegan/abolition based campaigns reduce demand for the products of animal exploitation by convincing some people to become vegans, and others to at least start down the path to veganism.

There’s no evidence that welfarism works either to reduce overall suffering or to foster abolition. If welfarism results in some animals being tortured slightly less, but also results in a larger total number of animals being tortured relative to what would be the case if the resources had instead been used for abolition, it’s probable that the end result is a net increase in suffering.

Can an individual or an organization pursue abolition and welfarism simultaneously? I don’t see how that’s possible in any sensible way. Abolition and welfarism are based on different philosophies that contradict, rather than complement each other. At best the individual or organization would be presenting a confusing and conflicting message to their respective audiences. Sort of like: “screwing for virginity”.

Chipotle's "Food With Integrity" Philosophy Lacks Integrity

2008-05-21T22:21:00.000-07:00

I find it particularly unethical when a corporation purports to be something that it’s not, especially regarding concern for animals, the environment, workers, etc. Such is the case with Chipotle Mexican Grill, a chain of “fast-casual” restaurants across the United States.

A substantial portion of Chipotle’s website is devoted to its “Food With Integrity” philosophy, which is described as food that is “better tasting, coming from better sources, better for the environment, better for the animals, and better for the farmers who raise the animals and grow the produce.” Other sections of the site boast of “naturally raised” artisanal and organic meats free of added hormones; tout “sustainable practices”, “family-farmed”, “seasonal”; and describe working with dairy suppliers to eliminate synthetic growth hormones in their sour cream.

In the section titled “Steve’s Vision” founder and CEO Steve Ells recounts opening his first Chipotle in Denver in 1993, and how at the time he had no idea that the number of restaurants would eventually grow to several hundred. He expresses his love for cooking and the challenge it represents. He mentions that he continually strives to improve things.

Then he describes how he learned about factory farms by reading an issue of a newsletter written by food writer Ed Behr that focused on Niman Ranch, and an Iowa hog farmer named Paul Willis who “raised pigs the old-fashioned way.” He delves into the cruel practices of factory farming and contrasts them with what he calls “old school animal husbandry naturally raised”, which his company has embraced to “help create a more sustainable food chain that emphasizes the welfare of people, animals, and the land.”

Ells says that “Learning about this dark side of modern agriculture made me want to find out how we could do things differently.” But incredibly, he doesn’t seem to consider the killing of animals to be part of that “dark side”.

The company now buys most of its meat from several small niche-market suppliers, who avoid the use of antibiotics, and provide their animals with more space, better bedding, and vegetarian feed.

While it doesn’t surprise me, I think it’s horrific that Chipotle suggests to people on its website, in its advertising, and on its in-store menu boards, that they are doing something conscientious, or morally superior, by eating cows, pigs, and chickens that have been enslaved in a somewhat nicer way before being sent off to their deaths.

Chipotle commodifies these animals by referring to their flesh as “artisanal” or “organic”, as if it were talking about loaves of bread or bottles of wine. By framing the exploitation in the contexts of “naturally raised” and “Food With Integrity”, Chipotle rakes in profits as it attracts customers who are perfectly willing to spend more money to eat “humanely raised” animals without guilt.

The company claims that “Food With Integrity” isn’t a marketing slogan, but that’s precisely what it is. Because if Chipotle was really concerned about the welfare of animals (or the health of the environment), they wouldn’t have them on the menu.

This is an example of how the promotion of “happy meat” at best perpetuates animal exploitation, and at worst, increases it. Not only does Chipotle offer the public absolutely nothing in the way of incentives to stop eating animals, it provides insincere reasons for them to continue to consume them as usual.

Ells wraps up by writing: “we know that at the end of the day, we can't judge our own integrity. That's for our customers to decide.” Well here’s one customer who’s decided that Chipotle’s “Food With Integrity” philosophy, lacks integrity.

Pink - Dear Mr. President

2008-05-21T22:19:00.000-07:00

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary

2008-05-18T06:56:00.000-07:00

Since 1997 Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary has taken in rescued farm animals and provided a permanent home for them at its 105 acre location on the US state of Colorado’s eastern plains.

Two things were strongly evident to me as I finished reading all of the posts on the Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary blog: Joanna Lucus’s ability to readily recognize the complex personhood of nonhuman animals, and this organization’s firm and unwavering commitment to abolitionist principles.

My favorite post is the most recent one, dated May 2, 2008, and titled Letter From A Vegan World. In this powerful piece, Lucus describes in detail the physical and emotional suffering that animals raised under “humane farming practices”, endure at different stages of their lives. These are cold realities that most consumers of animals are only vaguely aware of. Lucus criticizes the welfarist mentality that pushes “humane” meat, dairy, and eggs, and seeks reformed exploitation; justified by the idea that social change in the form of a vegan world, won’t emerge anytime soon, if ever. She writes that such thinking represents “a fear of action, a failure of will, a self-defeating attitude and, ultimately, a self-fulfilling prophesy”. I could not agree more. Her words offer me hope.

I’ve been looking around for some progressive animal protection organizations to donate to. I’ve decided that Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary will be one of them.

The Myth of "Humane" Dairy, Eggs, and Meat

2008-05-14T12:35:00.001-07:00

Years ago there seemed to be more awareness among animal rights activists that cage-free or free-range eggs represented only marginally less cruelty than battery-cage versions, and efforts were made to point this out to each other and to the consuming public. Free-range eggs, while preferable, still involved atrocious conditions for the laying hens and the human workers, and still polluted the environment, as the economics of mass production made these things inevitable. They were clearly not an ethical or humane alternative, people were told.

Things have changed. Major animal protection groups like PETA have embraced the Orwellian ideology of “humane” animal products with misleading campaigns and labeling schemes that have the effect of encouraging people to feel noble about continuing to eat animals, while portraying the sellers of these “improved” products as socially responsible corporate citizens, worthy of awards and positive press, for torturing animals slightly less or in different, “better” ways. Rather than working to reduce demand by challenging the underlying roots of animal exploitation, resources are diverted to welfarist programs that perpetuate it. Instead of focusing in an honest, straightforward way to convince people to adopt an easily followed vegan diet and lifestyle, veganism is presented as just another choice amidst a morally compromised menu that includes “humane farming” ballot propositions,“happy meat”, organic milk, and free-range eggs. To the delight of the dead-animal marketers, consumers are being sold the myth of “humane” dairy, eggs, and meat. This should be no surprise in a capitalist marketplace where products and services are routinely advertised as things more and better than they actually are.

Would it be acceptable or remotely rational to promote “humane war”, “compassionate racism” or eco-friendly, drive less and kill locally serial killing? It would not be acceptable, nor would it make any sense. I would not consider a group that supported such things to be a human rights organization, any more than I consider PETA to be an animal rights organization. In 2008 we should no longer be waging wars, and otherwise hating, torturing, and killing human and nonhuman others. It’s time to stop rationalizing, compromising, and believing that societal attitudes can never change. It’s time to be civilized.

Anthropomorphism, or Things We Have in Common?

2008-05-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

People who think like I do about animals are sometimes accused of anthropomorphism, the attribution of human characteristics to nonhumans. But many if not most of these human characteristics are really animal characteristics. Emotions, memory, personality, intelligence, and the ability to communicate are not unique to humans, and increasingly research is showing that the cognitive differences between humans and nonhumans are less than previously thought. In other words, we are not as “special” as our speciesist culture has led us to believe. This special status that is often used to justify our use of nonhumans, is an illusion that persists in part through the misuse of words such as anthropomorphism. It is this illusion that shapes our thinking and props up the institutions of animal exploitation.

People who live with companion animals recognize that the canine or feline members of their household have unique personalities and rich emotional lives. They think of these animals as nonhuman persons. But the animals whose flesh and secretions end up on the kitchen table, and the animals whose skin and hair cover furniture and hang in closets, are cognitively just like cats and dogs. There is no difference.

The bad news is that we have a huge moral inconsistency going on here. The good news is that it’s relatively simple and easy to fix.

Morally Confusing T-Shirt

2008-05-08T11:01:00.000-07:00

The Chicago Diner, a vegetarian restaurant in Chicago, is my favorite. The menu is predominantly vegan, but unfortunately a few dishes contain cheese. The food is delicious. The dining room occupies most of the first floor of an old victorian house. When the weather is nice, you can dine on the tree shaded patio which you access by walking through the kitchen.

I went to their web site a couple days ago to purchase a gift certificate. That’s when I noticed their new “MEAT SUCKS” t-shirts for sale. Immediately I recognized that the stylized text printed on these shirts conveyed a morally confusing message. “MEAT SUCKS” implies by omission that dairy and eggs don’t suck, that these other animal products that most of us eat are morally more acceptable, and that removing them from our diets, or removing them from the restaurant’s menu, is somehow not as important.

But the reality is that animals used for their milk and eggs are enslaved, tortured, and ultimately killed, just like the animals whose flesh is eaten. Milk and egg production on the scale required to meet global market demand, is seriously detrimental to the environment. From a health standpoint, there is little difference between meat, dairy, and eggs, the consumption of which has been linked to a host of degenerative diseases.

Yes indeed, meat sucks! But so does dairy, eggs, and all other forms of animal exploitation.

A Brief Introduction to Abolitionist Veganism

2008-05-08T09:19:00.000-07:00

Abolitionist veganism is an animal rights approach based on the principle that all sentient beings deserve to be granted the right not to be classified as property.

Abolishing the property status of nonhuman animals will permit the dismantling of the institutions of animal exploitation that currently exist within the property status framework.

Abolitionism contends that exploitation of sentient beings is wrong regardless of species, in the same way that it is wrong to use race, age, gender, or sexual orientation to afford basic rights to some humans and not other humans.

The abolitionist approach seeks to clearly and directly reduce and ultimately eliminate animal exploitation through non-violent educational efforts designed to change cultural attitudes about the legitimacy of the use of nonhuman animals. This is a fundamentally different approach than animal welfare, which seeks to regulate existing forms of exploitation.

Animal welfare has been around for a long time, and has not worked. It does nothing to change society’s attitudes about exploitation and move us along the path to abolition. Regulating exploitation has the effect of reinforcing the property status paradigm.

Abolitionists value moral consistency. We reject animal protection campaigns that utilize sexism or other forms of discrimination, as well as those that are in other ways contradictory, morally confusing, or embrace “ends justifies the means” mentality. We contend that animal rights cannot be separated from other issues of social justice and oppression. These issues are interrelated and connected.

We recognize veganism as the moral baseline. Living the vegan lifestyle is a necessary component of affirming one’s commitment to abolition and animal rights. Being a vegan means at minimum not eating animals (meat, fish), not eating animal secretions (milk, eggs), not wearing animals (fur, leather, wool), and educating others around you by setting a good example, understanding the issues of animal rights, and pursuing honest, logical, non-confrontational engagement.