Animal Writings

I was inspired by www.episocveg.com's passionate but polite pleas to churches, imploring them to stop their practice of holding lobster and crab boils for fundraising. It seems like such an obvious contradiction: an institution that preaches mercy kills animals in a most merciless way.

Then asks for money. It's the modern-day equivalent of animal sacrifice. Church-sanctioned animal abuse masquerading as piety. The prophet Amos warns us that God detests such misery in His name. Jesus railed against priests that committed similar transgressions at the Temple. They interposed themselves between the parishioners and God; their toll was an animal's life and a handsome fee. They crucified the whistleblower who exposed their hypocrisy.

Today, churches across the country hold animal hunts, wild game feed-ins, and meat-centered feasts right and left, usually with solicitations attached, apparently with no thought to how they may be flagrantly violating the most basic principles in the Bible: love, kindness, humility, charity. Maybe three thousand years ago, even 50 years ago, it was necessary to kill animals for food and clothing in rich countries like the U.S. Now, it's all gluttony; selfish pleasure. The implicit message to the congregation: "Forget about God caring for the sparrow, forget about Jesus recognizing the strength in a hen's motherly love for her chicks. Let's kill them because we can, and derive pleasure from doing so."

New Life Ministries (NLM) recommends pig roasts as a preferred way to celebrate holidays (http://www.newlifeministries-nlm.org/ideas/pigroast.htm). My question is, how can you preach "new life" when death is the prescribed main course? Below is my letter to NLM.


I shared my letter with a friend of mine, a deeply committed Christian who's not vegetarian (yet) but who is concerned with our callous treatment of animals and the environment. She wondered, is it possible to reach a middle ground, where farm animals are treated much better but still eaten? Excellent question, with no one right answer. Here's my email reply; it's a little roughhewn, not polished up to blog post quality.


I guess my main point is, let's aim high. Let's not presume any limits on what we can achieve. Our goal should be to be best friends to the animals, not friendly exploiters. The amazing thing is, that goal is deceptively easy to achieve. We just have to get over some collective inertia and hangups. At the same time, let's be grateful for any small steps. That's how movements work. Every first-time buyer of veggie sausages, every student who opts out of dissection, every shopper who peruses the anti-fur handout from the protester on the corner, every cook who can no longer put lobsters into boiling water is joining in the inexorable march toward liberation for all God's creatures, and a world that is too fabulous for us to even conceive of right now. "Becoming is more important than being," and with your help we can become a more just, compassionate, harmonious, benevolent, and peaceful society.

A happy, prosperous new year to you, your friends, your family, your animals, the whole world.

P.S. A little birdie wanted me to tell you about this link...

McDonalds may soon require their chicken suppliers to switch to a more humane slaughtering method called "controlled-atmosphere killing" (CAK). CAK uses a mixture of gases that renders the birds unconscious before they die. This would be a thousand times better than current practices, in which terrified chickens are grabbed, hung upside down, shackled, paralyzed, knifed, and dunked in scalding hot water. Frequently, the birds are fully conscious for the last two steps. In short, McDonald's is considering mandating a change from torture to the kindest available euthanasia. They deserve enormous credit.

So does PETA. As McDonalds stockholders, they introduced a shareholder resolution requesting that the company transition to CAK pursuant to a feasibility study. In 1999, PETA was one of the driving forces in getting McDonalds to give egg-laying hens more room and to stop de-beaking chickens.

In contrast to McDonalds, most other restaurant chains, notably KFC, employ a whole rash of animal cruelties, and seem much more intent on covering them up than phasing them out.

Some animal rights advocates are skeptical of animal welfare improvement measures. They're afraid the public will settle for conditions that are just barely better than awful, and then give the matter no further thought. There is also concern that once the worst industry abuses against animals are curbed, it will be harder to galvanize public opinion. Today, the horror of factory farms (for both meat and fur) is so shocking that all you have to do is show someone a picture of a "spent" battery-caged hen, a mink forced to live away from water in a wire box, or a chained veal calf stuck in a tiny pen, and you elicit immediate sympathy. What happens when these pictures are no longer representative of farm conditions?

I wouldn't worry about that for an instant. If we can improve the lives of these long-suffering animals even slightly, let's do it. Then we can figure out how to improve them another five percent, and so on. Fear that the public will grow complacent is no excuse to stand in the way of incremental progress. The public is already pretty complacent. I think there's an excellent chance that as we strip away factory farm cruelties, it will start a bandwagon effect. Each animal welfare measure creates a media buzz and reminds us that animals have feelings and inalienable desires. Once people realize that hens literally jump at the chance to be free of a cage, they may think about the hens' other needs. "Do hens crave room? Daily walking? Variety? Maybe they're more complicated than we thought. Why is company X still caging their hens — that's archaic and inhumane."

All the while, vegetarian and vegan offerings expand and become more mainstream.

I don't think we — and, more importantly, the animals — have much to lose if progressive corporations steal some of the animal rights thunder by pushing for increased animal welfare on their own and trumpeting their accomplishments. What's not to like about corporate press releases that brag about real reforms in their treatment of animals? We owe it to the billions of prisoners currently stuck in gulag-style factory farms to not get in the way of any easing of their suffering, even if McDonalds gets the credit.

McDonalds is still behind the curve on veggie burgers. Personally, I think they should stop using any chicken at all in their McNuggets and switch to soy, but not tell anyone. Customers would never know the difference. But the chickens would.

In case any readers have an animal sanctuary and are trying to think of names for pigs, my wife and thought of some. We weren't planning on doing that tonight, but that's what we ended up doing. We had about a hundred names and narrowed it down to these:

Edna
Ethel
Gwendolyn
Hortense
Marjorie
Melody
Pearl
Rosie
Sunny
Suzette
Vicky

Amos
Avery
Bob
Clarence
Elvis
Everett
Floyd
Jim
Junior
Pedro
Rusty
Sonny
Spencer
Steven

Some of the names may also work for guinea pigs.

In three sentences, Elizabeth Costello, the title character of the latest book by Nobel-prize author J.M. Coetzee, reveals the commonality of the modern world's most horrific institutionalized cruelties.

Law enforcement agencies and psychologists generally agree that cruelty to animals is a stepping stone to similar crimes against humans. The mechanisms are essentially the same. The tormenter sees his victim as an object with no claim to life. The victim's interests become completely subordinate to the whims of the assailant — and anyone who knowingly benefits from the atrocities.

---

It may be easy for animal advocates to occasionally forget about human suffering.

It's not due to insensitivity; compassion for animals is an extension of compassion for humans. Animal and child protection societies were started by the same people, and today the average animal shelter volunteer is likely to be involved with human rights campaigns, food banks, and mentoring programs.

But compared to animals, there is an enormous network of organizations, laws, and publicity for humans in need. Fortune 500 corporations orchestrate huge national fund drives; celebrities and senators attend $1000-a-plate dinners; sports heroes lead walkathons — all to raise money for charities that help humans exclusively. Every heinous cruelty that's legal to inflict on animals is a felony — sometimes punishable by death — if done to a human. It may seem at times as though every conceivable misfortune that may befall a human has a dozen non-profit groups and substantial government funds at the ready, while the animals suffer in silence, outside the realm of public concern.

Animal rights supporters may become jaded about the way animals gratuitously suffer in the name of human charity. Factory farm chickens, prone to heart disease and lameness from their genetically altered bodies, are confined, debeaked, deprived of nearly all natural instincts, manhandled in the slaughterhouse, and brutally killed, so that their body parts can be served at a Little League fundraiser. Little League is great, I'm a big supporter; but is it necessary to put animals through extended pain and agony just to have organized sports competition? Why not a vegan fundraising event?

Nevertheless, humans don't have a free ride; they suffer, too. Despite the layers of protection and vast resources available for all sorts of human victims, billions worldwide fall through the cracks. They deserve a helping hand just like the animals.

I was going to write about Easter Seals and a D.C. Childrens Hospital program that pays medical bills for low-income patients. Then disaster struck in Asia. Hundreds of thousands of families are in immediate crisis and have lost everything. Tomorrow we implore our fellow humans to stop putting animals through 10 billion Hells; that drumbeat won't stop. Tonight we extend our thoughts, and if possible, a financial donation, to a stricken region of the world that has just lost mothers, fathers, children, animals of many species — the devastation is indiscriminate and tragic. Godspeed to the fallen, prayers to the living.

---

(From the Associated Press) The following aid agencies are accepting contributions for assistance that they or their affiliates will provide for those affected by the earthquake and tidal waves in Asia.

Action Against Hunger
247 West 37th Street, Suite 1201
New York, NY 10018
212-967-7800
http://www.aah-usa.org

American Jewish World Service
45 West 36th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10018
800-889-7146
http://www.ajws.org

ADRA International
9-11 Fund
12501 Old Columbus Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
800-424-2372
http://www.adra.org

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC Crisis Fund)
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA
215-241-7000
http://www.afsc.org

American Red Cross
International Response Fund
PO Box 37243
Washington, DC 20013
800-HELP NOW
http://www.redcross.org

Catholic Relief Services
PO Box 17090
Baltimore, MD 21203-7090
800-736-3467
http://www.catholicrelief.org

Direct Relief International
27 South La Patera Lane
Santa Barbara, CA 93117
805-964-4767
http://www.directrelief.org

Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres
PO Box 2247
New York, NY 10116-2247
888-392-0392
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org

International Medical Corps
11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 506
Los Angeles, CA 90064
800-481-4462
http://www.imcworldwide.org

International Orthodox Christian Charities
Middle East Crisis Response
PO Box 630225
Baltimore, MD 21263-0225
877-803-4622

http://www.iocc.org
Mercy Corps
PO Box 2669
Portland, OR 97208
800-852-2100

http://www.mercycorps.org
Operation USA
8320 Melrose Avenue, Ste. 200
Los Angeles, CA 90069
800-678-7255
http://www.opusa.org

Save the Children
Asia Earthquake/Tidal Wave Relief Fund
54 Wilton Road
Westport, CT 06880
800-728-3843
www.savethechildren.org

Cockfighting is a bloodsport in which penned roosters are pumped with drugs and hormones, "trained" through punishment and deprivation to be mean, outfitted with small knives, and put into an arena where onlookers goad them into killing one another. Cockfighting is a flagrant and violent form of self-gratification based on others' suffering. The roosters' natural instincts are usurped and perverted by humans who get off on seeing blood and pain. Cockfighting promotes and capitalizes on the most violent human traits.

The birds' suffering is enormous, constant, and nearly impossible to imagine, but I feel sorry for the humans watching the spectacle as well. Are their lives so empty that they derive joy from seeing the forced misery of innocent creatures? Do they not have the conviction to walk away from imposed torture and notify the authorities, pray to God for forgiveness, or ask themselves why they abet such blatant meanness?

Cockfighting is essentially child abuse on a different species. The birds are helpless and have no means of escape from their tormentors. They are forced to "take it," which provides a sadistic pleasure to the sick individuals who control and manipulate their victims. Unlike child abuse, the pain and perversion foisted upon the abused is a spectator sport. Some politicians defend it. Local law enforcement often looks the other way. Sometimes they are bribed. Sometimes they participate.

The Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center (ESSEC)is the only rescue operation (so far) that rehabilitates rescued cockfighting roosters. They gradually ease the roosters' aggression. Slowly but surely they enable the roosters to form peaceful relationships with other birds and with humans. The animals that were caged, abused, drugged, outfitted with blades, and forced to fight finally experience some normalcy and peace.

Before ESSEC's successful program, it was generally considered impossible to "mainstream" a former cockfighting rooster. How do the folks there do it? Love, patience, and kindness. The holy trinity. Works every time.

Why not ham? The suffering of the animals is deplorable and preventable. You hold the keys. Do they suffer or not? Your choice. It's Christmastime. The animals want some peace, some normalcy. They don't want to be stuck in cages, isolated from their friends and family (same species and different species). They want fresh air, freedom, life. They want happiness just like us and you can give it to them. Or prevent them from having it. Your choice.

For more information on the suffering of pigs in modern-day farms, check out the next post. Them come back to this one to start on the road of a more compassionate lifestyle. You can do it. You should do it.

For banquets and feasts, check out these sites:

http://www.vegsource.com/christmas.htm

http://members.tripod.com/vegholiday/dinner.html

http://vegkitchen.com/thanksgiving.html

http://www.veganfamily.co.uk/yule.html

This is just a start. Use Google creatively to find tons of recipes that suit your taste. There are something like a thousand good vegetarian cookbooks out there also. Most vegetarian recipes can be easily converted to vegan, and, my friends, that's your target. Egg-laying hens are treated even worse than pigs, difficult as that is to do. From dairy farms we get veal and a dozen other cruelties. If you go vegan, you make it easier for the next person. And so on. The market has to respond. It already has. The last few years have seen an explosion in vegan alternatives.

For everyday meals, Lightlife and other companies sell bacon and ham made from soy and grains. They taste very much like the orginal, and are healthier. I feed veggie ham and bacon to non-vegetarian friends all the time. They like it and eventually ask, "this is good; where can I buy it?" You can find these products in most grocery stores, in the refrigerated sections.

From "Why Vegan," by Jack Norris, co-founder of Vegan Outreach:


Read the whole article...

Many times I've heard people defend animal exploitation on grounds that animals were "put here for our use;" that we can do anything to them as long as we derive a benefit.

What a cold, cruel world that would be.

Would a merciful God produce such a mean-spirited design?

More than anything else, animals do not want to suffer. They will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid it. They will expend every last ounce of energy trying to free themselves from a trap that has crushed their paw and left them immobile. Factory farm pigs bite the steel bars of their cage a thousand times in hopes of escaping its imprisonment. In sadistic lab tests, rats tread water until their legs can no longer move, to stave off drowning. Turkeys flee at top speed, flap their wings wildly, and kick with urgency to prevent being grabbed and mechanically raped on the breeding platform. Chickens upside down on the slaughter line hide their faces behind their wings — what other options do they have? — in a pathetic attempt to avoid the unavoidable, and the unthinkable: chickens hung improperly are dismembered alive.

Is it morally permissible to force animals to suffer needlessly, when it is powerfully clear that their most fundamental desire is to avoid suffering? If the answer is "yes," then the Devil is running the world, not God.

If we are obligated to avoid harming animals unless necessary, then we cannot use them for food, clothing, entertainment, or research, in a land of plenty with easily accessible, often superior, alternatives. Theoretically, we could use animals for each of these purposes if we could refrain from causing them physical and emotional pain. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a dead animal's skin for clothing. The moral wrongness is killing the animal if we do not require its skin. A far worse transgression is causing the animal to experience agony before its death. This is what occurs on all fur farms and with all animal traps. It occurs by the billions in factory farms. We can only get a glimpse of the suffering in research labs, since the experiments are purposely done outside the realm of public scrutiny, but what we see through undercover films is ghastly: animals that have just had major surgery, dumped and forgotten on a steel floor; mice getting screws pushed inside their heads while fully conscious and sensible to pain; rabbits as subjects in the notoriously cruel and innacurate Draize test: their arms and legs stuck in metal immobilizers while drain cleaner soaks into their eyes.

As moral agents created in the image of a loving God, we have a duty to show mercy and goodwill toward His Creation. Animals are the elements of Creation that truly feel the effects of our behavior; they respond positively to kindness and suffer from brutality. If our survival does not depend on inflicting pain and suffering upon them, then to do so is to dishonor God.

Even the Ten Commandments includes compassion for animals:


In an age when domesticated animals were necessary for food and clothing, we were commanded to give them a day off once week. This passage shows that animals have interests, and it implies that animals will suffer if those interests are violated. It does not require much extrapolation to conclude that we have an obligation to animals in general: to refrain from inflicting pain and suffering upon them unless absolutely necessary.

Without this obligation, we could roll back all animal cruelty laws. We could stuff our dog in a tiny cage; never walk him, play with him, or let him get any exercise; drag him along the ground by a chain until his fur was scraped off, then kill him with a sharp metal object. Is this the world we want? Is this right? No? 10 billion farm animals are treated worse each year.

To all African-American readers: it was not long ago that church leaders, statesmen, and society pillars claimed blacks were put here to do the white man's work. They pointed to passages in Leviticus and other parts of the Bible to justify their view that God permitted the African slave trade. They came up with scientific arguments to "prove" that Africans were inferior to whites.

We know, of course, that such abhorrent views are the very antipathy of what a loving God desires. Using the Bible to rationalize the torture of others so that you can derive benefits from their misery is blasphemous. That is what many of us are doing today when we justify our fur coat by claiming that "animals were put here for use." In specific circumstances, mostly in the past, we may have had permission to use animals if we followed strict guidelines — when we had no alternative. Today, the confinement, chaining, beating, starving, and slaughtering of billions of animals each year is done gratuitously. For financial profit, out of habit, for pleasure. Not out of need.

Just as with slavery, our selfishness and pride twists the word of God into sanctioning cruelty and blinds us to God's overriding message: to be merciful; to see, to the best of our ability, that "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." God's will is spelled out by the prophet Isaiah:


God's ideal vision is a world free of suffering, free of malice, free of harm. In a perfect world, we show compassion; we do not intentionally cause pain or suffering. We cannot be perfect, but can strive to be good. We can help God move closer to his ideal vision by treating animals better, by letting them live instead of torturing and killing them to satisfy our selfish desires.

The animals are not here to serve humans. They have their own worth, their own goodness, their own relationship with God, their own souls ("Nefesh Chaya" in the original Hebrew).

It may be more accurate, and more pious, to consider that we are put here for the animals, rather than vice versa. Any interpretation of "dominion" must be based on God's dominion for us, which is based on love. Our dominion for the animals then, must follow suit. We are to take care of them as our Heavenly Father takes care of us. To rob them of their freedom, their movement, their joy, and ultimately their life, so that we can eat their flesh and show off their skin is hateful, not loving.

Reverend Andrew Linzey says to his fellow Christians:


In the end, we do not really derive any benefits when we demand that other living creatures suffer unnecessarily. We cheapen the world and frustrate God's vision. We adulterate Creation and degrade ourselves. True peace of mind comes from letting others know peace. True happiness results from sharing it.

There is no use pretending that our fortunes are unbound from that of the animals. We rise and fall together. "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." The animals that die in the vast internment camps and killing fields we have set up for them are surely the "least of these," for they have no rights, no protections, no voice. Their lives are devoid of comfort or kindness; absent one speck of goodwill from human hearts or gentleness from human hands. Their suffering is invisible, silent, and denied. They die motherless, hungry, sick, and mad — killed by every method you can imagine and many that you cannot. Our handiwork. Our pride. Our tortured implementation of "dominion." We may present their cooked flesh on a silver platter and admire ourselves in the mirror with their skins draped around our neck. But we lost our souls and our compassion.

The best "use" of animals is to love them as God loves them and us, to protect them as God protects them and us, to let them experience the wonder of their own lives, as God has enabled them to do, to appreciate with humility and awe the beauty and breadth of Creation. Author Norm Phelps reminds us that we can love God by loving His Creation. Magnificently, when we do that, Creation loves us back.

Even total non-cooks can't go wrong with this one. Go to the grocery store and buy the Old El Paso taco dinner in a box, the one that has taco shells, salsa, and spice mix. Buy about a pound of Gimme Lean hamburger-style fake meat, or your favorite meat substitute. Get some lettuce, cherry tomatoes, and vegan cheese stuff. This is one instance where even so-so fake cheese works, because you have such a blend of flavors. Save the salsa that comes in the box for next week's Doritos. Get something nice. Go crazy and try some mango salsa, or corn and black bean salsa, or tomatillo-chipotle salsa. (Getting hungry here.)

Cook the "meat" in some olive oil over medium heat. Canola oil is a distant second, but I really recommend the olive oil. Add the seasoning as instructed. This step takes maybe seven to nine minutes. Meanwhile, put your toaster oven on its lowest "bake" setting and put the taco shells in there. Keep an eye on them to make sure they don't burn. Tear up the lettuce, shred the un-cheese, and cut the cherry tomatoes in half.

Figure on 10 napkins per person. Tacos are sloppy but good.

Invite over your carnivorous friends. It's up to you if you want to let them in on the secret. There's no way they're going to detect that you're not using hamburger.

If you're a meat-eater yourself, God forbid, and have, up to now, been afraid to jump into the land of vegetarianism, now is a good time to break out of your shell and feast on some vegetarian tacos. (Sorry about the metaphor clash.) Wash it down with a Corona, and put on a little Tito Puente. Dance with your dog and cat, and your sweetie. Have a little fiesta.

I could have given my fur-wearing co-worker all sorts of literature, videos, and web sites that point out the plight of cage-raised in foxes in chilling detail. I could have explained the horrible lives and barbaric deaths of the animals. Why, instead, did I apologize for bringing it up?

There were basically two reasons, each of which Virgil articulated very eloquently in his comment two posts ago.

First, I improperly invaded her zone of privacy. The public square, the street corner (where legal), and the media are acceptable venues for bringing up controversial subjects and challenging people's lifestyles. You may be able to discreetly inquire whether a close friend's coat has real or fake fur. You have some latitude with family members. But unless you are already discussing the subject, and the context is appropriate, you should not confront colleagues with questions about the origins of their coat, no more than they should ask you out of the blue if you recycle, or whether you are "saved." We are all entitled to some privacy during our normal work day, and it's rude to encroach on it when not uninvited.

Secondly, putting someone on the defensive is not likely to make him or her receptive to your message. People do not like to be accosted, even mildly or subtly. You can't change someone's mind, much less their heart, if they're not listening. If you force the subject on people, especially if they're a captive audience, they may dig in their heels rather than pay attention to what you're saying.

Deservedly or not (mostly not, if you ask me), animal rights advocates don't have a great reputation. We're frequently seen by the general public as pushy, dogmatic, callous toward humans, and clique-ish. For better or worse, we have to go out of our way to combat that stereotype. People are already skeptical. Don't give them justification for their skepticism.

The industries that wantonly mistreat animals want nothing more than for animal advocates to be despised and not trusted. They spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to portray criticizers of their extreme brutality as "extreme" and unfriendly — the enemy. Don't give them any ammunition. (One company, U.S. Surgical, which bankrolled the pro-vivisection lobbying organization Americans for Medical Progress, went so far as to hire a professional provocateur to goad an animal rights activist into bombing the company's headquarters. This shows that animal exploiters desperately want to discredit their detractors, and may willingly endanger human lives to do so.)

Do let people know the horrible truth about fur, factory farms, research labs, circuses, rodeos, and other forms of animal exploitation. Write letters to the editor, complain to store managers, hand out leaflets in peaceful protests, affix stickers to your car, guitar case, or backpack. Don't let people forget about the billions of animals suffering in man-made Hells. But do it lawfully, respectfully, politely. You don't have to hit people over the head for the message to sink in. Think of how you would want to be approached if you were doing something morally wrong. It does the animals no good if your well-crafted argument falls on deaf ears. Keep in mind that the friend or co-worker with the fur trim may have bought the coat several years ago, and is planning on buying no more fur in the future, but cannot presently afford a new coat. They will appreciate your friendship when that time comes, and the animals will be rewarded with a new fur-free consumer. Your resolute but gentle whisper may plant the seed for enlightenment, whereas your angry finger-pointing will likely only breed resentment, and make it more difficult for every animal advocate who comes after you.

There is an old fable about the wind and the sun. They decided to have a contest to see who could make the man walking along the sidewalk take off his coat. The wind said, "Let me go first." He huffed and howled, but the man only pulled his coat tighter. The wind blew mighty gusts, and the man held on with all his strength. The sun said, "Let me try." He warmed the air and brightened the sky. The birds came out, and the man willingly took off his coat. Let us try to be more like the sun, less like the wind.

A hundred million animals were sacrificed to feed the fur industry this year. They were caged, confined, trapped, snared, gassed, suffocated, electrocuted, and skinned. Most were deprived of exercise, family, and normal food and habitat. Most of the cage-raised animals suffered from physical and mental disorders. The trapped animals bit the traps so many times, they lost their teeth. While waiting for the trapper to return, they died of starvation, dehydration, hypothermia, and predation. Some were so desperate to escape, or to feed their young, that they chewed through their own leg, leaving one paw behind as they hobbled off on the other three — only to die of gangrene a few days later.

Another hundred million animals will be sacrificed next year; more if the fur industry's intense marketing can expand the market.

The products of torture and misery were on display at holiday parties that I attended. Women checked in their full-length mink coats, and paraded their rabbit vests in hotel lobbies.

As reported in my previous post, I ran into a woman at work who was wearing fur trim, probably fox, on her sleeves and collar, and, to my own surprise, I asked her whether the fur was real. After she said, without hesitation, "yes, it's real," I wasn't sure what to do next.

I apologized. I told her I was sorry for asking her about the origin of the materials in her coat, that it was rude. I told her that I have a pet rabbit, and am sensitive to the inhumane treatment of animals in caged fur facilities, but that it was wrong to take it out on her, especially since she may very well have bought the coat in all innocence, or received it as a gift. I promised I would not bring it up again. She accepted my apology without reservation, and as far as I can tell there are no ill feelings.

Why did I choose this approach? I'll explain in tomorrow's post. It's the busiest shopping weekend of the year, and there's an anti-fur protest at 1 pm in Washington, D.C. It takes place in front of the Hecht Company department store, on 12th and G Streets, downtown. This is the third protest this month at that location. The response has been very positive so far, and the police officers have been very respectful and cooperative. (So have the protesters, I should add.)

If you're anywhere in the DC area, please join us. The animals have no one else to speak on their behalf. Most people are ignorant of the misery that goes into every piece of fur trim. Once they find out the degree to which foxes, rabbits, minks, and other animals suffer in the name of "fashion," they turn anti-fur almost instantly. It's extremely important to educate the public; all they see are a barrage of ads showing perfect-skin, perfect-hair models in fur, surrounded by words like "fun" and "luxurious." "Torture" and "unbearable" would be more suitable.

Some people are going to wear fur defiantly, no matter what effect it has on animals. But the rest quickly become shocked and incensed at fur production once they learn the true horror behind it, and this conversion is gratifying to see. Each time a person shakes their head in disbelief while reading about how fur is made, another animal is saved. Hope to see you downtown today.

It turned cold in Washington, D.C. this past week, and the furs came out.

As I was walking into the office a few days ago, I passed a woman with whom I work. She's in a different department than me, so mostly we just pass each other in the halls. We both said "good morning." I noticed the fur trim on the collar and sleeves of her coat. For some reason, I blurted out, "is that fake fur -- or real?"

I write a lot about the pain and suffering of animals that are raised or trapped for their fur. But I've never asked a casual aquaintance, out of the blue, if the fur on their coat is real. Not my style.

"Yes," she said, unabashedly, "it's real." I grimaced for a second, and we went our separate ways. Her fur probably came from foxes. I saw images — of the deadened eyes of animals confined in tiny cages, deprived of everything that gives their life meanning. Of aimals too weak to scream as they're electrocuted.

At my desk, I wondered what, if anything, I should do. Should I subtlely let her know about web sites that convey the misery of fur in chilling videos? Should I hand her a pamphlet? Let it go?

In my next post, I'll tell you how I resolved this. But first, I'd like to hear what you have to say. What would you do? Was I wrong or right to make mention of my colleague's fur coat? Have you ever been a situation like this — on either side?

Sydney J. Butler, executive director of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), recently wrote a letter in the Washington Post, defending the AZA's reluctance to let two Detroit Zoo elephants retire to an elephant sanctuary. Winky and Wanda, the two elephants, were in poor health, and zoo director Ron Kagan pleaded with the AZA to let them live the remainder of their years in a spacious, accommodating sanctuary, away from the zoo crowds. The AZA denied this request and insisted that the elephants be transferred to another zoo, similar to the one that caused their current problems. The organization did an about-face after several months of bad press and who knows how many letters from irate animal lovers.

Mr. Butler's main points in his letter were:

• The AZA puts animal welfare first.


• Animal rights supporters (who opposed the AZA and ultimately prevailed) are extremists.


• The public loves zoos.


• The AZA always bases its decisions on, among other things, compassion.

The complete text of the letter is here.

My reply:

Dear Mr. Butler,

Actually, most people do believe that animals should have rights. Animal cruelty laws are essentially animal rights laws: humans are prohibited from inflicting undue harm on animals, since it causes them to suffer. Only an extremely small minority wants to roll back these laws. In six states, zoos are completely exempt from them.

The AZA allows coercive handling techniques on elephants, including hitting them with rods. I wonder what percent of zoo-goers agree with this approach, or even know about it? The Columbus Zoo, where the AZA wanted to send Winky and Wanda, reportedly uses such techniques.

When you ask people if they support animal rights, they may say "no." Yet they agree with most of the animal rights groups' positions. When you ask people if it's wrong to cut off a hen's beak, stuff her in a wire cage, and force her to live in a space less than the size of a sheet of notebook paper, they overwhelmingly agree with PETA's position. 300 million hens suffer this fate every year in the U.S. The United Egg Producers calls this "Animal Care Certified."

The public strongly supports the Humane Slaughter Act and the Animal Welfare Act. What they don't know is that most animals are not covered by either of the laws, due to lobbying from the industries that kill the animals. Hence, chickens can have their throats slit while fully conscious, be thrown into a woodchipper, be suffocated in a plastic bag, or be starved to death — legally. That's extreme.

The vast majority of elephant experts not affiliated with zoos agree that it's practically impossible to provide an adequate habitat for elephants in a zoo setting. There is also consensus among this distinguished group that zoo breeding and conservation programs have been virtually worthless, likely doing more harm than good. Most elephants in zoos are kidnapped from their families and put into small areas that are a fraction of their normal habitat size. Elephants desire to move freely and live in herds. In zoos, they can do neither.

Winky and Wanda suffered severe foot problems from lack of exercise and long periods of standing on hard surfaces. They were confined indoors for much of the year, and would have suffered the same fate at the Columbus Zoo, the destination that the "compassionate" AZA insisted upon for months. Kudos to Ron Kagan, director of the Detroit Zoo, who realized that the humane choice was to send the pair to a sanctuary, where they would, for the first time in decades, be able to live like normal elephants. The AZA vigorously opposed this move. However, in the face of mounting public pressure and convincing arguments from a broad swath of animal advocates — not just animal rights activists — they relented.

Perhaps the AZA finally "got it." But I doubt it. We're talking about an organization that officially sanctions cruelty by allowing elephants to live in an area that's smaller than a decent-sized apartment. More likely, AZA members realized they were creating a public relations debacle, cut their losses, and, borrowing language from the animal rights movement, tried to recast themselves as heroes for the animals.

Elephants in zoos are a relic from a time that predates all animal cruelty laws. It is clear that living in a zoo is a form of punishment for elephants. The public is finding this out, and increasingly determining that the price elephants pay for their revenue-generating power in zoos — compromised welfare, constant confinement, and nearly half their lifespan — is unacceptably steep. The AZA is fooling themselves if they believe otherwise. The writing's on the wall. Over the next ten years, the AZA has three choices: 1) drastically redesign zoos (unlikely, because of cost), 2) voluntarily implement a program to get elephants out of zoos and into sanctuaries, or 3) be forced to, by a public that becomes infuriated with a self-described animal welfare group that protects its reputation more vigorously than the elephants' interests.

McDonald's has had bad luck this year with CEOs. In April, CEO Jim Catulpo died of a heart attack at age 60. His replacement, Charlie Bell, 44, stepped down in November because he has cancer.

I commend the animal rights press on their restraint. With maybe a couple of exceptions at the margins, they refrained from taking cheap shots at the ailing executives. Yes, there are a thousand studies linking meat consumption with heart disease and cancer. Yes, the juxtapositon of the golden arches and the pearly gates is so obvious, no one had to explicitly point it out. But it's right to respect the men, their families, their friends and co-workers. We don't know for certain if their diet caused their illnesses. Even vegans get sick. But if Mr. Catulpo and Mr. Bell got their respective diseases in part by eating the products they sold, there is no joy in saying "I told you so." I don't know these men, but I'll assume they were, and are, decent human beings, and they deserve respect.

What if a well-known vegan were to get cancer prematurely or die relatively young from a heart attack? Would the various Atkins newsletters reserve judgment? Would meat and dairy industry journals bite their tongues? Last year, when a vegan baby died, all the anti-animal rights groups, and most of the mainstream press, blamed it on veganism. Never mind that vegan babies as a whole are as healthy or healthier than their non-vegan counterparts. (I'm going to profile a particularly precocious one soon.) Never mind that the parents fed their baby a diet that was so weird, deficient, and off the wall, the poor little guy never had a chance. Never mind that non-vegan babies die all the time, for a myriad of reasons. The pro-meat and pro-animal exploitation crowd saw a chance to bash animal rights.

These groups fear animal rights advocates. Why? Because they un-hide the slaughterhouse. They expose ugly truths about the business of raising and killing animals for profit — and that could drive away customers. Since it's impossible to defend unnecessary animal suffering on a massive scale, about the only tactic available to the profiteers of such activities is to go on the offensive, in hope of diverting attention away from the anguished cries of the animals and onto the whistleblowers. "Vegan Baby Dies" is a perfect opportunity, even if the headline is blatantly misleading. Actually, the unfortunate event is such a rarity, the fact that so many anti-animal groups jumped on it practically proves the opposite of the point they intended to make.

McDonald's said in recent press statements that Mr. Bell has managed to maintain his sense of humor despite his setbacks, and that they wish him the best. It's good that the company has expressed sympathy for Mr. Bell, and I'm sure everyone there will be pulling for him.

I wonder how much McDonald's cares about the people consuming their food, becoming the most obsese population in the history of the country, and getting heart disease, stroke, diabetes, prostate cancer, and breast cancer in frighteningly high numbers? It wasn't until McDonald's was embarrassed by the movie"SuperSize Me" that they stopped instructing employees to induce customers to "upgrade" to super-size.

Sometimes, at a bar, if a customer's had one too many, the bartender, out of concern for the guy, refuses to give him another drink. "You've had enough, pal." The bar forfeits a little revenue out of regard for a patron's welfare. I wonder if McDonald's has ever turned down an out-of-shape, 300-pound man ordering two bacon cheeseburgers and a large fries? I doubt it. Yes, he might be killing himself with each order, but his money counts toward the next quarter's profits.

Some McDonald's franchises are in hospital lobbies. Talk about synergy.

We can be pretty sure that McDonalds doesn't offer sympathy-laden press conferences or good wishes when one of their genetically-mishapen chickens falls down — permanently — because its heart cannot pump enough blood for its huge body. No one even bothers to pick it up. The chicken dies where it fell. To McDonald's, the chicken's death is a business expense. McDonald's, like KFC, Popeye's, Chick-Fil-A, and all the rest, uses chickens that are designed to suffer from heart ailments, lameness, and chronic pain during their 45-day lives. The high rates of early mortality in the birds is intentional; part of the business model. Even with all the dead animals on the floor of the hangar-sized chicken sheds, McDonald's comes out ahead financially, because the birds that survive are meatier.

Sick and dying animals suffer just like CEOs, except they get no headlines, receive no medical care, and have no family. God gave them intrinsic value; McDonald's took it away.

Perhaps one day, McDonald's will realize that the animals they breed and kill could also use some time off, a helping hand, a dose of goodwill. McDonald's could sell veggie burgers, fake chicken nuggets, and GardenBurger Riblets, and it would take about three months for people to adjust. These products are so much cheaper to produce, it would only be a matter of time before profit margins reached record levels. "Billions sold, none killed." McDonald's is such a juggernaut in the fast food world, the standards would take a quantum leap forward almost instantaneously. Burger King and Wendy's would have to respond. It would be the beginning of the end of animal cruelty. Something to think about as the chickens, pigs, and cows are loaded into crowded trucks, faces pressed against the cages, bound for the slaughterhouse.

"I speak of faith in McDonald's as if it were a religion. And without meaning any offense to the Holy Trinity, the Koran, or the Torah, that's exactly the way I think of it. I've often said that I believe in God, family, and McDonald's — and in the office, that order is reversed."

-- Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald's

1. Is it all right to indulge in anything that feels good or tastes good?


2. It's not so much the meat as the flavorings that taste good. If you don't believe me, open up a can of cat food; plenty of meat in there.
   
   Now, if you apply those same flavorings to the appropriate soy or grain product, you end up with humane food options that taste as good as that which they replace. Plus you enjoy the sweet satisfaction of knowing that you did not contribute to the suffering and death of innocent creatures.

Every 10 minutes, somewhere in the world, a vegetarian is asked this question. It's analogous to worrying about the fate of Lockheed-Martin if all the wars abruptly end. No one knows for sure, but that's not an excuse for continuing wars.

I'll restrict the answer to the U.S. for now. We'd save such a bundle of money from shutting down slaughterhouses, ending continuous breeding of livestock, eliminating the massive pollution from the aforementioned two activities, and no longer maintaining fleets to transport live animals and dead animal parts, that we'd be able to pay for every farmer in the country to tend to the animals until they died off from attrition. The poor top-heavy turkeys would die off in two years. The genetically deformed chickens over ten years. The cattle over 25 years, and so forth. Many animals would die prematurely from their rotten treatment to date.

The subsidies might not have to be as huge as one might think. People still will eat. Every company that produces alternatives to meat will have "help wanted" signs. Plus, with a country full of vegans, I presume we'd have plenty of volunteer help.

Of course, it's an academic question, since it's not going to happen. It's hard enough increasing the vegan portion of the population by one percent. But if I had the power to turn every American into a vegan by snapping my fingers, I'd do it in a heartbeat. First thing I'd do after that is open the doors to the God-awful battery cages, and tear the locks off the gestation crates and veal pens.

Click here to watch the commercial in QuickTime.

Click here to watch the commercial in WindowsMedia.

As you enjoy feasts, family, presents, and prayers during the Festival of Lights, which celebrates the Jews' deliverance from oppression, please remember the billions of animals that suffer in factory farms and slaughterhouses; they are today's slaves. Your food choices determine whether they remain enslaved, or are allowed to live naturally, as God intended.

In the developed world, we have an abundance of healthy, delicious vegetarian food at our fingertips, all year round. There is no need to be like Antiochus, and force the powerless to serve the selfish whims of the powerful. There is nothing good or holy about unnecessary killing to satisfy hedonistic pleasures. Animals suffer, just like us, when they're confined, when their young are stolen from them, when they're forced to endure painful procedures, and when they're prevented from engaging in natural behaviors.

Practice Tsa'ar Ba'alei Chayim, compassion for the animals. Let them share in the miracle. Honor your freedom by giving the animals theirs.

Happy and peaceful Hanukkah.

---

Additional Resources:

www.vegsource.com/hanukkah.htm — Vegetarian recipes for Hanukkah

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/rabbinicveg.html — Rabbinic Teachings on Vegetarianism

www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/ — Undercover video of a Kosher slaughterhouse (contains links to videos that may not be suitable for children)

www.all-creatures.org/articles/jv-environ.html Environmental and Vegetarian Lessons from the Shabbat Morning Services

I don't like every PETA ad campaign. Some seem so guaranteed to turn off people, they should have never been given a budget. Others are great. This one hits the mark. It's disarming. Please give it a view:


For more information on celebrating religious holidays compassionately, please visit one of my favorite web sites, www.episcoveg.com. Somehow, this site manages to speak in a gentle whisper, yet knock you on the ground with its impact. Peruse it for a while; you'll see what I mean.

Marv Levy is well-known to football fans for his turning the Buffalo Bills from laughingstock to champions. Prior to becoming the winningnest coach in Bills history, Levy had success as special teams coach for the Philadelphia Eagles, Los Angeles Rams, and Washington Redksins. He earned a reputation for fostering leadership skills and motivation in his players. He knows about competition and fairness.

Here's what he has to say about hunting:

It violates fair play and sportsmanship on three counts:

1. Only the hunter is a volunteer in the competition.


2. The hunter has a long range weapon against which the victim has no defense.


3. Only the animal's life is at stake.

Levy concludes, "I don't consider hunting a sport. I consider it murder."

Note that the suffering inflicted on animals during hunting would result in animal cruelty violations and possible mandatory psychiatric evaluation if done to a cat or a dog.

Newsweek had a story a few weeks ago on the reappearance of fur in stores, quoting fashion reporters who claimed fur was "fun," and asking, "Where are the protesters?"

The protesters are in Washington, DC, tomorrow, December 4, in front of The Hecht Company department store, at 1201 G Street, NW (right across from the Metro Center station). The protest is from 1pm to 3pm.

Unlike the stores mentioned in the previous post, which have stopped selling fur, or never sold it in the first place, Hecht's is marketing, promoting, and selling fur with abandon. It has established itself as the cruelest store in Washington.

If you want to help save animals from horrific and absolutely senseless cruelty, come down to this event. You can hand out leaflets, carry a poster (there will be extras), or just meet other people who are sick and tired of stores making money from animals' suffering. If you're not yet anti-fur, but want to learn more, come watch videos that will change your life.

In many respects, protesting is not fun. It's rather tedious and lonely work. Even with a large turnout, it's essentially a lone pursuit. Crowds are intimidating, but a single person is not; thus protesters are more effective (and cover more ground) when they fan out.

You also may encounter hecklers. Do not let them get to you. It's not personal. People often get angry when confronted with uncomfortable truths.

Yes, protesting has downsides, but the upsides are invigorating. You are taking the message right to the consumer. You are influencing shoppers' purchasing decisions. Voting with one's dollars may be more powerful than voting at the ballot box.

Based on my limited protesting experience, you get much more positive encouragement than negative remarks from passers-by. It's great when complete strangers give you a thumbs-up, or yell, "way to go" from their car. There's also a feeling of camaraderie, and an empowering knowledge that you are out there helping animals. You are reducing suffering, and you know it feels right. It's grueling but exhilarating.

Tomorrow's protest is notable in that there is no one organization behind it. It is the result of a number of groups and individuals are angry at the fur industry's wicked lies and murderous ways, and who want to do something about it. There will be representatives from well-known organizations, such as the Fund For Animals, and the Humane Society of the United States. But most of the participants are independent, like me. It's a real grassroots effort.

What to we hope to convey to shoppers? That rabbit fur trim is the product of suffering. It comes from rabbits that never hop, that are confined to tiny, uncomfortable cages that prevent them from doing almost all normal rabbit behavior. We want to let consumers know that foxes in boxes go insane before getting their skin pulled off. We want the man and woman in the street to know that mink slippers came from animals that cravedd water but were denied it, and that were forced to live in uncomfortable isolation before being electrocuted to death.

We want to suck all the glamour out of fur — because there really is none. The retailers selling fur don't want the public to know how fur is produced. We will show them with videos and handouts. The fur industry will tell any lie, no matter how outrageous, in order to increase sales of their bloody product. We will counter those lies with the bitter truth. Will we make consumers guilty about wearing fur? I hope so. Just by showing them the suffering that they caused. There's no need to get personal, or to put down anyone. The image of the dead rabbits, foxes, and beavers will do the trick. The video of the coyote struggling violently to escape a crushing steel-jawed trap lingers in one's mind. Guilt and sympathy can be effective catalysts for changing to a more compassionate lifestyle.

If you're in the DC area but can't make it tomorrow, there will be subsequent protests on December 11 and December 19. I plan to make it to all three, and I hope to see some of you down there. Together, we'll make a difference for the animals.

While crusing down the mall, consider these clothing stores:

• Victoria's Secret — no fur


• Zara — no fur


• United Colors of Benneton — no fur


• Coldwater Creek — no fur


• Forever 21 — no fur


• J. Jill — no fur (although enough faux fur to give me the creeps)


• Eddie Bauer — no fur


• Patagonia — no fur, and strong environmental ethic
  
  
  Added 12/5/04:


• Gap — no fur


• Old Navy — no fur


• American Eagle Outfitters — no fur
  
  
  Added 12/12/04:


• Banana Republic — no fur -- I think (will confirm)

And what's wrong with fur? Everything. The animals that have their fur ripped off their bodies in the name of fashion live and die horribly. Here's a primer: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/fur_farms.asp. Plus it's absolutely unnecessary.

None of the stores just mentioned are perfect. They all sell leather, which, as it turns out, is also totally unncessary--the alternatives are great. Some sell shearling, or sheepskin. There's a lot of cruelty in that. Please don't think it's from well-tended sheep that are gently sheared. Far from it (grisly details in a subsequent post).

These are all mainstream stores that you're likely to encounter when shopping. They're better then average. But think of them as stepping stones. Next week, I'll introduce you to some stores that are really cruelty-free; selling clothes that harm animals as little as possible — or not at all.