Animal Writings

Observations by an animal advocate at the Hegins Pigeon Shoot:

• When animal rescuers walked toward wounded birds, to carry them to safety and veterinary care, hunters ran to the dropped birds to get there first. Then they picked up the birds and wrung their necks right in front of the rescuers' faces, as an act of defiance and aggression--and cruelty.


• A shot pigeon, still alive, fell under bleachers that had been set up at the event. Animal rescuers crawled under the bleachers and tried to gently lift the bird so that it could receive veterinary treatment, or at least a peaceful death if its injuries were too far gone. The rowdy pro-hunting crowd stomped on the bleachers in an effort to make it impossible for the bird to be helped.


• The Klu Klux Klan recruited on site. They probably liked the pigeon shooters' violent nature, aggression toward peaceful protesters, obvious pleasure from inflicting harm on the innocent and powerless, and contorted excuses for engaging in cruel rituals.

In 2000, largely due to a ten year campaign by the Fund For Animals, the annual Hegins, Pennsylvania pigeon shoot was canceled permanently. It had become an embarrassment to the state of Pennsylvania, and legislators knew it. During its six-decade tenure, the pigeon shoot had the dubious honor of being the world's deadliest day for non-food birds.

---

Related Post:

The Aggression of Hunting

Because of all the rain we've had, the foliage on the Rose Of Sharon outside the kitchen is out of control. But the blooms are magnificent. The bees love it. Every year, at this time of year, they converge on the white, purple, blue, and pink flowers. They look like they're having a blast, all covered in nectar. I love watching these industrious fellows; they're so determined, even when drunk with pollen. What a great job — to be the world's pollinators.

The heat wave that that gripped much of the country has subsided. Bees are making flowers, cats are sleeping all stretched out, and fireflies dot the night. I hope everyone gets some time this weekend to sit outside, leave their worries behind, and enjoy the sweet sounds and smells of summer.

---

(My wife and I are taking a long-awaited getaway weekend...be back Monday...)

I found this on www.episcoveg.com, one of my favorite blogs on the Internet. EpiscoVeg thoughtfully, seamlessly, and powerfully weaves together Christianity, animal welfare, and environmental responsibility. If you are Christian but feel your church has abandoned principles of good stewardship of God's Creation, or if you are turned off by organized religion because it so often destroys rather than shows concern for the earth and its inhabitants, please visit EpiscoVeg; it may restore your faith in people of faith.

The July 13, 2005 post features a "Statement on the Environment" -- a declaration by a multi-denominational group of Christian theologians that we are duty-bound, as beings created in God's image, to treat His Creation with loving care.

This impassioned challenge to Christians gives me much hope, for two reasons: One, our obligation to animals and the environment must be embraced by the dominant religions of the world, or it will remain a marginal issue. Two, the most vulnerable among us — including the animals — will not know peace or justice so long as we persist in a juvenile, "me first" interpretation of God's message. We have somehow turned commandments laden with solemn responsibility into a blanket permission for consumption and destruction. The authors of the Statement on the Environment call upon us to see the error of our ways and rediscover the majesty in humble guardianship of God's divine Creation.

One of the easiest ways to reduce egg consumption is to buy Veganaise egg-free mayonnaise. Use it in potato salads, sandwiches, anywhere you would use regular mayonnaise. You can find Veganaise at Whole Foods, Wild Oats, and health food stores, and soon, I'll bet, mainstream stores like Safeway and Albertson's. It tastes just like mayonnaise, and since it doesn't contain eggs, you won't be contributing to this:

A pro-meat, pro-animal-exploitation web site chided author and animal rights activist Steven Best for having a "me first" attitude, because he speculated that if a building was on fire, he might rescue his dog before rescuing a stranger's child. He also said he would risk his life to save others and give his life to save the last members of an endangered species.

Call that what you want, but it's not "me first."

In an emergency, we always save the ones we love first. And let's be honest, most of us would assure that our own family was safe before rescuing strangers, even if they were at greater danger.

The criticism of Mr. Best is basically that he is saving hypothetical victims in the wrong order. In real life, I wonder how many neighbors don't even call 911 — or break away from the TV — when they see smoke coming from a house down the block.

It's a good bet that, unless you're a firefighter, you will never have to make choices about who to pull out of a burning building. Most "me first" behavior is far more gratuitous...

"Me first" is "I don't care that the animal suffers his whole life. I want my bacon."

"Me first" is "I don't care that the animal wants to live, and derives enjoyment from life. I want to kill him with my gun."

"Me first" is "I don't feel like switching to a non-cruelty brand of shampoo."

"Me first" is "So what if the Chesapeake Bay is being choked by 44 million tons^* of manure every year. I want chicken nuggets instead of veggie chicken nuggets that taste nearly identical."

The suffering that results from these selfish decisions is real, not hypothetical. Fortunately, we can greatly reduce that suffering by assessing the impact of our everyday behaviors and striving to adopt a more magnanimous, less greedy, less "me first" lifestyle.

---

Related Posts:

My Cow or Your Scenario

The Heart of a Chained Elephant. The selflessness of these mighty creatures humbles me.

---

Friends of animals and opponents of cruelty,

Here's an opportunity to materially, substantially help abused dogs, cats, and other companion animals, with very little effort. Some of you may have already seen this email alert from the Humane Society of the United States, about a pending piece of legislation that would enable USDA inspectors to see the ugliness of puppy mill operations up close. At any time, please click on the link in the "Take Action" paragraph, and urge your Senators and Representative to support PAWS, because it provides a basis for the USDA to prosecute puppy mills that engage in animal cruelty.


Do you see the similarities between puppy mills and factory farms? Puppy mills are just mini-factory farms. The animals are mere things. The owners have no empathy for their "property." They do the minimum possible to get the product to market. They fight animal welfare laws and evade inspections because they'd rather reap bigger profits than treat their animals well. They keep normally energetic, playful, social, and intelligent animals in cramped, filthy cages.

Puppy mills flood the market with mass-produced puppies and kittens. Shelter animals have to vie for attention with these pedigreed products of misery, and they die because of the increased competition. Too many homeless animals, too few homes.

PAWS won't eliminate puppy mills, but it may get rid of the worst of the worst, and force minor improvements in the rest. Please let your elected officials know that you support this welcome and long overdue enhancement to the Animal Welfare Act. You don't have to write a long letter. A two-sentence email or 30-second phone will do just fine.

The next step after passage of PAWS is to greatly increase the number of USDA inspectors, so that inspections are frequent enough to enforce the minimal requirements of the law.

Today in the St. Petersburg Times:

---

This slide show conveys the sad, brief journey of a dog going through the Atlanta Shelter system. One out of millions, throughout the country, every year.

---

Shelters are indispensable, but as Ms. Weaver pointed out, we will not solve the problem of companion animal overpopulation by increasing the number of shelters. The criticism directed at PETA for not building enough shelters is disingenuous nonsense led by PETA haters such as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF).

PETA has saved millions of companion animals' lives through its spay/neuter programs and promotion of pet adoption. The animals it has euthanized would have died by gunshot, gas chamber, or being out on the street — but not before giving birth to more animals that would have met the same fate. Meanwhile, CCF's clients kill 10,000 animals in an hour — not out of pity but for profit — after torturing them in concentration camp-like facilities their entire lives.

CCF is afraid of PETA because they expose factory farm horrors committed by CCF clients. CCF can't refute PETA's charges, and doesn't want the public to think about the horrid reality of how their food is made, so it's forced to distract customers and discredit whistelblowers. It cherry-picks and distorts facts to make their clients — primarily a collection of junk food, meat, booze, and cigarette manufacturers and sellers — look good, and their opposition look bad. I wouldn't believe anything coming from CCF; they always omit key facts that would significantly change the story. And I wouldn't trust any web site that uses CCF as a source.

---

One more letter to the editor:

---

To reiterate the message of the slide show, here's how to reduce the population and euthanasia rate of homeless animals:

• Spay and Neuter


• ID your pet


• Adopt a shelter animal for life!

---

Related Post:

Dear Miss Beazley

Not all is bleak. Check out these photos. And while you're there, please visit the rest of the Best Friends site, to see all the wonderful work they do for animals. The stories will make you cry and make you laugh, but at Best Friends Animal Sanctuary all of them have happy endings.

What's wrong with all the tabbies and ginger cats and black cats at the shelter? Do they not purr in the right manner? Do they lack affection? Do they not snuggle? Are they too ungraceful? The wrong color? The wrong model?

A high proportion of clones have suffered from a range of chronic health problems, and many clones are destroyed during development because of deformities. Are you willing to risk cats' well-being just to have the "perfect pet?"

What if Fluffy I was reserved and Fluffy II, the clone, is rambunctious? Or the other way around? What if Fluffy II does not measure up to her predecessor in some respect? Are you going to take her back? If a minor difference here and there is acceptable, then you don't need a clone.

We may admire a breed. We may fancy calicos or six-toed cats. But we love an individual. Every cat is unique. We lovingly stroke the cat who purrs in our lap, who seeks comfort from us when she's scared, who hops on the bed to cozy up to us each night, who playfully hides around the corner and attacks our shoelace as we walk by. It's not the color or pattern or genes that we love, it's our cat, the one who's part of our life, part of our family.

The shelters are filled with cats of every personality type imaginable. Shy lap-cats and gregarious kittens. Stately, silly, quiet, talkative, demure, mischievous, tiny, and huge cats. Cats who want to be held, cats who want to play, cats who enjoy being combed, cats who are not so keen on it. Young cats, middle-aged cats, older cats. Every kind of cat is in the shelter.

All the shelter cats would like to be someone's cat. They're ready for an exciting game of chase and a catnip treat afterward. They're ready to fall asleep on the couch with you. They're ready to purr for you. The shelter volunteers to do the best they can, but the cats at the shelter are ready for a real home — your home.

Some of the shelter cats will be euthanized. There simply aren't enough good homes for them. (There probably aren't even enough mediocre homes). There are two solutions to this preventable and sad situation: spaying and neutering all cats, and adopting cats from the shelter. Right now, we need to implement both unless we want the problem to stretch out for decades.

The "perfect pet" is the one whose life you save by giving her a home. Clone your love.

Want to see something ugly? Of course you don't, but you should, so you can help its victims.

The dog is beautiful. The ugliness is in how she was treated. Notice her nametag: 173. She doesn't even have a name. She has a number. She was sold at a dog auction in Missouri in the middle of puppy mill country. The hole in the heartland.


From AWAwatchdog.com:


The show is run by "veterinarian" Jerome Schmidt, who defies the onsite USDA inspector. Examples of USDA violations to which he was privy and ignored:


Imagine bringing your dog, so thin her ribs and shoulder blades were protruding, to the animal hospital, and the vet saying "she's fine," and sending you home.

A "veterinarian." I must put that word in quotes. He is a disgrace to the profession. A veterinarian is supposed to help animals, above all refrain from harming them. This man deals in misery.

Schmidt riles up the crowd, which laughs derisively at the individual concerned with the animals' welfare. I submit that it is nervous laughter. These people want to conduct their cruelty in secret. They don't want the world to see their ugliness.

Here's the rest of the sordid affair. Be sure and read the sample letter. Watch the videos. Grimace. Channel your anger into helping animals and enlightening others.

The Breeders Threaten USDA Inspectors and Show Contempt for the Law.


Rows of dogs in wire cages, without floors, unable to comfortably stand up or lie down. When I see them they look starved for affection, and my heart goes out to them. I feel pity for them, and strangely, though on the surface I hate their "owners" and what they do to them, I feel pity for them, too. They do not know kindness.

When you buy animals from pet stores you contribute to this sickness and cruelty.

PetStoreCruelty.org has obtained copies of USDA inspection records that show the cruelty and inhumane conditions inflicted on animals by breeders who supply the Petland pet store chain with "inventory." Below is a partial list of violations. Except for comments in brackets by PetStoreCruelty.org, all text is verbatim from the USDA reports:

---

---

Automatic waterers, dark grungy cages, nothing soft on which to lie down. These highly social animals are in prison. Yet they're all innocent. What are their lives like? Do they ever have one good day? Anything to look forward to?

What kind of person bases a business on being mean to animals?

Note that the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) mandates only the bare minimum of care. It doesn't even consider things like walking the dogs or giving cats something to scratch on. To be issued an AWA violation, you really have to be neglectful and uncaring.

For more information on pet store and puppy mill cruelty, and concrete steps you can take to fight it, please see PetStoreCruelty.org.

Today on the way home I saw a bird standing in the middle of the road, on the white lines. As I approached, he didn't move; he just stood there, as if he was sick. At the last second he flew away, normally, and landed on the tall grass on the side of the road. Then I noticed the freshly killed bird on the road, between the two lanes. The bird I first saw, who wouldn't budge until his life was in danger, had been standing over a fallen comrade.

I pulled over into the gas station and watched him. When there was a break in the cars, he'd fly over to the dead bird, and just stand there, until forced to retreat to the grass. No one else seemed to notice.

Even beings smart enough to form complex relationships, work in groups, create music, navigate by the stars, and use tools may feel bewildered and lost when a friend suddenly dies.

---

Related Resources:

The Human Nature of Birds


Review of "The Human Nature of Birds" in Animal People


The Sparrow That Fell


"Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?"

From Making Kind Choices, by Ingrid Newkirk:


After this, there is a recipe for Black Forest Cake that looks mouth-watering but is way too long to repeat here, followed by sections on egg and dairy substitutes for baking, and finally information that is more relevant to my current lifestyle:


Whole Foods makes a very decent vegan walnut double chocolate cookie, which you can find in their "grab it with tongs and put it in a bag" section. Also, an astute reader reminded me that all Oreos, not just the mini ones, are now vegan. They dropped the whey (by the wheyside).

If you like pecan pie (who doesn't?) and bake, here's a great-looking recipe. First person to try it before me, please let me know how it is. Three ingredients in the recipe you may not have: barley malt syrup, arrowroot, and Tahini. Just a few of the many versatile foods that have always been there but you overlooked, and now can add to your repertoire as you transition to a more animal- and earth-friendly diet. You'll have no problem scanning the Internet for dishes that contain any of those items.

I would be remiss if I didn't let you know about Sticky Fingers Bakery in D.C. They have managed to make extremely tasty vegan renditions of things I thought couldn't be veganized, like cheesecake and cinnamon buns. There's nothing like getting sweets fresh from the bakery oven, but they also do mail order (go to the bottom of the home page).

Somewhere I have a recipe from a Hilton Hotel in Norfolk, VA, for a chocolate concoction made with silken tofu. It is one of the most delicious desserts I have ever had in my life, including all the years I ate dairy. I've got it somewhere around here. Maybe check back on this post in a couple of days... If you go to Norfolk, I would consider staying at this Hilton just for this dish. (Also be sure and get a tour of the Navy ships. Those are pretty amazing, too.)

In the latest issue of Newsweek, columnist George Will speaks out on behalf of factory-farmed animals. With this, animal rights is officially mainstream. Even though he never mentions animal rights except to criticize it. Will eloquently conveys the urgent plight of animals in factory farms--by far, the number one issue across the animal rights community. Some of Will's words could have come out of a PETA web site. But they're not coming from PETA; they're coming from one of the world's most widely-read conservative columnists. That's why this is huge. Will will sell PETA's most frequent and vociferous message to the anti-PETA crowd.

CEOs, Army officers, priests, and investment bankers who have never heard of Mercy for Animals or Compassion Over Killing, or any other lesser-known animal rights groups, will read George Will. And — this week, anyway — will receive the same essential message: the widespread abuse of non-human animals is severe, extensive, morally wrong, and preventable. Will can reach an audience of millions that reflexively tunes out animal rights groups, and jolt them out of their complacency, and get them to start feeling disgusted and ashamed of our how we treat sentient farm animals. The resulting enlightenment among this hitherto unreachable but potentially powerful demographic may have profound positive consequences for animal welfare laws and demand for non-animal meat and dairy alternatives.

If you're a conservative with any interest in improving the welfare of animals in food or fur factory farms (they're run essentially the same), you have to like Will's brutal honesty here:


A noted conservative directing readers to a disturbing, stark, incriminating web site that shows just how cruelly we treat factory farm animals? Be still my beating heart. Who knows where this could lead? The subtitle of FactoryFarming.com is "The Truth Hurts." But so does avoiding the truth. To thank George Will for drawing visitors to this site, who otherwise would never have considered it, I would invoke Henry David Thoreau, who said "It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak, and another to hear." Whatever truths George Will is hearing, they affected him profoundly enough to make him want to share them with the world.

"Animal Rights" is still a taboo phrase in most conservative circles, and Will distances himself from and even puts down the concept, at least overtly. He focuses instead on what we owe the animals we have domesticated. He challenges conservatives, who pride themselves on following moral values, to fulfill their moral obligation to animals — especially the genetically deformed, mass-produced, short-lived, savagely-killed, forever confined animals in factory farms that know nothing but suffering because of our callous disregard for their interests, and our reluctance to face up to the pain we cause. If people who recoil at the mere mention of animal rights are receptive to the concept of obligations to animals, that works for me. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin.

Moreover, by pointing out that we are morally compelled to consider the welfare of farm animals, Will, in so many words, espouses an anti-free market view: decently treating animals comes before profit.

Will's column doesn't call for veganism, and I wouldn't expect that from him. For one thing, if it appeared that he was aligning himself with PETA in any way or recommending animal rights, he'd probably lose his conservative readership right at the start. But we reach a vegan world in steps, and whether he knows it or not, his column is a massive step.

I hope that this "outing" of a widely-read conservative preaching the importance of animal welfare in our day-to-day decisions opens the door, makes it safe, for other conscientious conservative writers to follow suit, to spread the message to their followers and help transform last decade's fringe issue into a bipartisan ethic. Perhaps Charles Krauthammer, Colin Powell, or Newt Gingrich (who has praised vegetarian advocate Dr. Dean Ornish) will want to take up the challenge.

Mr. Will's inspiration for the column was Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully, former deputy director of speechwriting for President George W. Bush (Scully helped write the President's post-September 11th addresses). Scully was the catalyst for Will's column, he's the only animal advocacy author who is regularly interviewed and whose works regularly appear in conservative publications, and Dominion is (so far) the one book about farmed animal welfare that conservatives are allowed to publicly admit that they have read. This may make Scully the most important animal advocate of our time.

Will does get in one dig at PETA:


Fair criticism. Or is it? Every advocacy group sticks up for its constituency. Do historical building preservation societies have to regularly express their concern for the homeless lest people think they have none? Are groups that read to the blind required to point out their concern for victims of crime and cancer? Does the National Congress of American Indians, which is fighting the "Redskins" sports moniker because of its derogatory connotations, have to issue a statement saying it is saddened by football players and fans who succumb to heat stroke? When columnists and curators lamented the looting of Baghdad museum treasures after Saddam Hussein's fall, I don't recall George Will implying that these people did not care about human lives. By and large, people join the animal rights movement because they oppose injustice and identify with innocent victims of all species; they expand their "circle of compassion" to include animals, as Albert Einstein counseled. In my experience, animal rights advocates are far more likely than average to champion human rights and shun products made with exploitative labor practices. All of us — liberals, conservatives, animal rights advocates, human rights activists — are frustrated and troubled to no end by the violence in the Mideast. Don't play the divisive Karl Rove game with me. But someone has to speak up for the animals, and that's PETA's job. War is Hell on animals, too, especially when they're used as fodder. I know plenty of folks who are not advocating for humans or animals, who are blatantly ignorant about the Mideast conflict, and who seem mostly focused on shopping, parties, or sports. Perhaps Mr. Will should redirect his scorn toward them.

In fairness, Will's barb is not gratuitous, but is done in the context of telling fellow conservatives that "I hate PETA" is not a valid excuse for perpetuating animal cruelty.

But if the price of expanding public consciousness about our inexcusable, institutionalized mistreatment of animals is knocking PETA, I'll take it — gladly. If George Will and a hundred other conservative columnists want to make consumers aware of — and guilty over — the horrors of factory farms, and slam PETA each time they do so, I won't mind, and neither will PETA. And neither will the billions of animals who deserve to be freed from our cruel indifference.

---

Related Resource:

http://veganfreaks.org/72/animal-welfareWell-written blog post on the same subject.

In the U.S.:

Every 53 minutes, another one million farm animals are slaughtered.

The Humane Slaughter Act excludes chickens and turkeys. Ninety percent of animals slaughtered are chickens and turkeys.

The Humane Slaughter Act provides no criminal penalties for violations.

"USDA officials are also not physically positioned to observe [Humane Slaughter Act] violations, because food-safety inspection occurs in areas separate from those where animals are slaughtered." -- Dena Jones in Orion magazine

In 2003, "as many as sixteen hundred hogs died from overheating as they awaited slaughter at one Illinois plant. Only after several days of carnage did the USDA inspector in charge shut down the plant." -- Dena Jones in Orion magazine

"Right now you'd have a hard time finding a federal agency more completely dominated by the industry it was created to regulate." -- Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser describing the USDA in the New York Times

From a letter in the March 2005 issue of Gourmet magazine:


My reply (which was not published, although two similar ones were):

I am compelled to respond to R.E.'s misinformed diatribe against vegetarianism. Mr. E's first wild claim is that "it is impossible to deny that humans are naturally, physiologically omnivorous." Sure, as long as you don't count the American Dietetic Association's endorsement of a vegetarian diet, the long-running Framingham health study in which vegetarians shine, the Ornish vegetarian diet that unclogs arteries, or the several hundred medical studies linking meat consumption to heart disease and cancer.

Mr. E's assertion that vegetarianism is a "late-20th century aberration" is absurd. Vegetarianism dates back to the beginning of recorded history, and has been practiced by such notables as Pythagoras, Leonardo da Vinci, and Gandhi.

The "sketchily defined morality" that Mr. E fears is the basis of vegetarianism is better known as the Golden Rule.

Finally, Mr. E apparently thinks vegetarians are driven by a "juvenile need for attention." I can assure him that vegetarians would prefer that all attention be directed toward the plight of farm animals, most of whom live horrid lives in factory farms. Pigs stand in metal crates that don't even allow them room to turn around. Genetically altered chickens are made to grow so quickly that many die from heart attacks when only a few weeks old. Newborn calves that can barely walk are chained, dragged away from their mothers, and forced into tiny, barren stalls. I suspect that Mr. E, like so many meat eaters, is projecting his anger at vegetarians because they remind him that he is contributing to the animals' suffering. There is a better solution: adopting a more humane diet is the only way to peacefully resolve the battle between one's conscience and one's appetite.

---

Related Resources:

I advocate an animal-free diet based on kindness to animals and the earth, not nutrition. However, a frequent objection to a plant-based diet is that we need meat. While sometimes this is a sincere belief, it's also used as an excuse to avoid becoming vegetarian; if we must eat meat, then we can conveniently sidestep the difficult and potentially incriminating ethical question of whether we should eat meat. Two stubborn people can argue ad infinitum over whether humans need meat in their diet. I've found that my wife's and my good health is a more convincing rebuttal. The two articles below will not settle the argument, but they are informative and "food for thought."

Ray Audette's "NeanderThin" and other "Paleolithic" diets — John Robbins' cogent observations on the paleo diet fad, our sensory preference for consuming plants, and the utter unnaturalness of factory farms.

The Comparative Anatomy of Eating, by Milton R. Mills, M.D. Dr. Mills' examination of human physiology and how it compares to that of herbivores and carnivores is rather long and detailed; if you want a quick summary, I recommend jumping to the table at the end of the piece.

"Man the Hunter" Theory is Debunked in new Book. Fossil evidence suggests that early humans were more adept, perhaps by necessity, at being prey than predator.

The Bible practically has a "Thou shalt be vegan" commandment: God prescribes a vegan diet immediately after granting us dominion over His earth — as though to clarify that what He means by "dominion" is caring guardianship, not exploitation. But other passages in the Bible are more ambivalent. Which makes it challenging to use the Bible as a religious basis for veganism. Challenging but not impossible. I do believe that applying the principle of mercy, expressed throughout the Bible, on any fellow living being that can benefit from mercy, compels us to refrain from harming creatures that don't want to be harmed and from killing creatures that want to live.

Meat-eaters often point to the portions of Genesis in which God tells Noah, "Every moving thing that is alive I give to you; I give all to you as I gave the green plant," and "The fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all of the fish in the sea, into your hand they are given" as an unambiguous Biblical sanction for eating animals. I don't see it that way at all. Not even close.

When God speaks to Noah after the Flood, He has just finished delivering severe punishment to His children, who have converted the earth into an orgy of savagery and immorality. He is not in a good mood. He is not rewarding humanity for good behavior. He is not thinking, "Maybe my ideal vision of a world in which no creature is harmed has some flaws." He is disappointed in the species that was entrusted with the care of His Creation, but fell prey to its own greed and brutality, and turned beauty into ugliness.

He is the angry parent, giving a stern, "one more chance" lecture to his debauched and disobedient son. This, I believe, is the context in which God's post-Flood statements must be viewed.

---

"Dread." That's not Eden. That's disharmonious. Definitely not the original plan. This verse is a lamentation; a scolding, with no small measure of frustration.

God is saying, "Is this what you want? Fine, you got it. Go ahead with your violent ways. Your relationship with the rest of Creation will be estranged, contemptuous, adversarial."

God isn't going back on His Word, saying "I command you to eat flesh." He's describing, not prescribing. He's officially and regretfully confirming that humans have abandoned the principles of Eden.

Like a father calling his rebellious teen's bluff: "Fine; stay out all night. Don't call. In return, those closest to you will suffer. No more family dinners. No more going out as a family to restaurants and movies." Just to make sure the wayward son doesn't get too carried away — just to impose limits on the son's behavior — the father, like the Father, sets some inviolate rules. "You must drain all the blood first." "You can go anywhere you want as long as you take a polygraph test afterward and tell us what you did." Both restrictions are formidable, and convey the seriousness of the authority's disapproval with the situation.

Over and over, God tells Noah how important the animals are to Him; how they have an independent relationship with Him, and are highly valued — not because of utility value but because they are part of Creation. He's not-so-subtly hinting to Noah that humans' insatiable taste for flesh — and for killing (many meat-eaters refuse to try veggie chicken even though it is virtually indistingushable from cruelly-produced actual chicken) — is a remnant of the Fall, a disease that must be kept under control until cured.

God puts bounds on behaviors He clearly didn't want in the first place.

If the violence inherent in eating flesh ruins Creation, then abstinence from eating flesh — and, more importantly, exorcising the desire to eat flesh or harm animals, which leads to abstinence of eating flesh — is what makes Creation whole again.

But humans interpret God's words in the most selfish and irresponsible manner: "Oh, good, we don't have to be friends with the animals any more, or be fellow vegetarians. Now we can kill them — yeehaw!"

To this day we haven't gotten the message: "Live by violence and this is what you get." We reap what we sow. Our fall from grace darkly persists in slaughterhouses that are so full of suffering we can't bear to think about them. We can't stand that part of ourselves, but we won't give up superficial benefits, thus we perpetuate the same greed-induced violence that preceded the Flood.

Meanwhile, God waits... for his fallen children to replace pride and selfishness with humility and charity, to lift themselves back to the ideals showed to them at the Beginning of time and promised at the End: boundless fellowship, loving stewardship, and resounding harmony with God's magnificent Creation.

---

Ben Zion Bokser on Abraham Isaac Kook, former chief Rabbi of Israel: "The universal man, he [Rabbi Kook] believed, would abandon the eating of meat and return to a vegetarian diet, to which he had been confined before Adam's disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit. The permission to eat meat was a concession to man's moral weakness, but he would rise out of it when his spiritual development reached the level of true universality."

---

Author Norm Phelps in The Dominion of Love points out that God at other times makes concessions to human stubbornness or moral failings. In I Samuel 8:4-22, God relents to demands for secular rulers, and in Matthew 19:8, Jesus "describes divorce as a divine concession to the hardness of the human heart."

Instead of "Killing two birds with one stone," how about "Saving two birds with one nest?"

This will be a continuing series.

Author John Robbins, in his Food Revolution website, shares A Very Moving Letter written to him about a family drama. The letter shows how strongly our irrational insecurities can take over. In this case, a new grandfather is beside himself when he finds out his grandson will be raised vegetarian. He even threatens to get the law involved. The fact that vegetarian children are as healthy or healthier than non-vegetarian children played no part in his reaction.

Why was the grandfather fuming mad? I say fear, when you get right down to it. Fear of the unknown, of having to question your long-held beliefs, of self-incrimination. But fear can give way to enlightement if you don't fight it...

Have you checked the batteries in your smoke alarms recently?

Don't be responsible for a fire that could kill your child and your dog.

Have at least one smoke detector on every floor of your home, including the basement. Change the batteries yearly. Replace the alarms every ten years. For added protection, buy one or more fire extinguishers and make sure everyone old enough to use it knows how to use it.

It takes five minutes or less to check the batteries on all the smoke alarms in your home. Maybe you could do that right now...

---

For more information:

Change Your Clock, Change Your Battery

Fire Safety Tips for Families

I had eaten tofu once a week for ten years and was still skeptical about this product the first time I tried it. Tofu is flexible but I thought trying to make it taste like scrambled eggs was pushing it too far. Wrong; this is a great breakfast. It's a complete meal. It has some spinach mixed in, to give it a "Florentine" touch; it has tomato slices, like a proper English breakfast (at least the one they feed tourists); and it has hash browns, for bulk. You can pop it in the microwave, or you can add some Gimme Lean sausage, toast, orange juice, and coffee, and have a hearty and filling breakfast ready in less than ten minutes.

I used to only find Tofu Scramble at Whole Foods and health food stores; more recently I've seen it at Safeway. Surprisingly good.

---

If you like down home food but not animal cruelty, and you cook, I recommend Vegan Vittles, by Joanne Stepaniak. Filled with cruelty-free versions of food you grew up with. It's amazing how good vegan Beef Stroganoff is. Plus it has stories about animal rescues from Farm Sanctuary — a reminder of some of the creatures you won't be harming when you make Ms. Stepaniak's wonderful recipes.

Last week we didn't have all the ingredients for "Buttermilk" Biscuits (p.59), so we tried "Phenomenal French Toast." Superb.

Here's the condensed version of the recipe:

2/3 cup non-dairy milk (we used Silk soy milk; regular, not light)
4 teaspoons whole wheat pastry flour
1 1/2 teaspoons nutritional yeast (we used Red Star brand -- just ask the store guy)
Pinch of salt
4 slices bread

1. Place all ingredients except bread in small mixing bowl, beat until smooth. Pour into wide, shallow bowl.


2. Dip bread slices into batter.


3. Coat your special-reserved French toast pan with a little canola oil.

You know the rest.

I could not get enough of this stuff. It's better than phenomenal — it's...fantabulicious.

---

The recipe for this is constantly in transition. Here's its current form. VERY TASTY.

1 1/4 cups Arrowhead Mills blue corn pancake mix
1 banana, smashed
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
1/2 cup water, plus a little more
1 teaspoon canola oil

Mix up everything. Cook. Serve. Eat. Yum. Makes six pancakes. Serve with a side of veggie bacon and some sliced strawberries.

[Hint: for fluffier pancakes, use water, not milk of any sort.]

Ainsley the calf had a hernia, which impeded his growth and imperiled his health. So the farmer decided to have him killed. But at the slaughterhouse, Ainsley was too small for the restrainer, which is supposed to immobilize the calf as he is stunned (although it doesn't always work).

So Ainsley came back to the farm. The farmer's wife apparently felt compassion for the little calf and didn't want him to die. She talked the farmer into releasing him to the animal sanctuary.

When Ainsley arrived at the sanctuary, the owners took care of his hernia, and after his recovery, he got to meet the other cows, who welcomed him warmly. All of them wanted to be his mother, including the guys. In fact there were even some scuffles over who got to groom him next. Nothing major.

Ainsley and the group have since settled into a nice routine. He has a couple of close cow friends who are by his side almost all the time, although most of the herd takes a turn at caretaking. He's a very spoiled calf now. He will have 25 years of peaceful living with his adopted family at the animal sanctuary.

Oh, I forget to tell you how old Ainsley was when he was sent to the slaughterhouse. He was two months old.

1. Refrain from killing living beings


2. Refrain from taking that which is not given freely


3. Refrain from sexual misconduct


4. Refrain from false speech


5. Refrain from the use of intoxicants

Number 5 I'm not sure about; I plan to have an intoxicant at the baseball game today. Number 3 I interpret as rape, adultery, and sex under duress as a supervisor might force on an underling as a requirement to get a promotion.

1. Generosity


2. Ethics


3. Renunciation


4. Wisdom


5. Effort


6. Patience


7. Truthfulness


8. Determination


9. Loving kindness


10. Equanimity

I think all of us can work on, and benefit from all those things.

From www.wegmanscruelty.blogspot.com/:


Yet another factory egg farm where the hens have a life sentence of misery, followed by an agonizing death at the slaughterhouse. Over 60,000 per shed. Wegmans’ denials and countercharges are outrageous and typical for corporate animal abusers.

"[Wegmans spokeswoman Jo] Natale added that company experts suspect that not all the footage is from the Wegmans farm." -- Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, July 2, 2005

"We have serious doubts as to whether all the footage and images in the video come from our farm. " -- Wegmans.com

From Compassionate Consumers:


Inherent in Wegmans’ denial is "those sorts of practices, shown in the video, don't happen here." But they do happen there, and they know it. Their attempts to lie about the filth and confinement in their facilities, and to accuse the people who shot the videos of framing Wegmans speaks volumes about their ethics and taints everything else they say about their egg farms.

And what a wimpy retort. According to Wegmans, which part of the footage is from their "farm," since the whole thing is incriminating?

Wegmans claims that the activists were "compromising the safety of our hens."

Are they talking about the ones with body parts stuck in the cage bars, the ones whose wings are covered in excrement, the ones that walk over decomposing corpses, or this poor creature who would have died in the manure pits had not CC activists rescued her?

Wegmans claims their operation, with wire mesh cages stacked three or four high, is not cruel.

You know how you feel after a long plane ride in a middle seat? You've been stuffed and confined for hours and can't wait to stretch your legs. Imagine if that plane ride never ended. At animal sanctuaries, or backyard chicken coops, every morning the birds can't wait to burst out of that door and start their day: exploring, moving, foraging. Even the lame and injured ones drag themselves outside. The ones that can't walk at all (possibly because they're bred to be so huge, or became deformed from living almost motionlessly in a wire-floor battery cage) squawk to be carried outside, where they clearly enjoy the warm sun and cool grass, and change of scenery. During periods of inclement weather or bitter cold, if they've been stuck inside for a few days, eventually they don't care. They'll brave the elements just to get out.

Birds in indoor cages never get out. They never see the sun, never feel the grass, never explore the ground with their beaks. They barely walk. They don't know what it's like to flap their wings. It's cruel. If you had a pet chicken and subjected her to conditions anything like Wegmans you'd be arrested.

To say it's not cruel is cruel.

Wegmans claims that the place gets fresh air. Activist Adam Durand, who visited the Wegmans egg farm, said, “From the second I walked in I couldn’t breathe. I could hardly stand to be in there for a few hours, much less a lifetime." Journalists and visitors in no way connected to animal rights groups or the animal industry consistently have the same reaction when they visit large-scale egg farms, or factory farms of any type. You would never do this to your pet dog, cat, or bird. Why would you pay someone else to do it to thousands of them? Not cruel? How stupid does Wegmans think you are?

"We have everything to lose and nothing to gain if the birds get sick or die," said Natale. -- Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

False. Standard egg industry practice is to accept, even force mortality in birds through crowding and starvation because overall the company's bottom line increases.

Natale says the company couldn't even produce enough eggs if its hens weren't healthy.

False. The hens are genetically bred to produce a high volume of eggs, and even this number is inflated due to the artificial lighting that stimulates the hens to produce more eggs. The hens are "spent" in less than two years and are slaughtered. Spent battery-caged hens look half-dead. Because they are. By minimizing the hens' space and the resources provided for their care, Wegmans and other industrial egg farms build death and disease into their business model as the cost of maximized output.

Through genetic and environmental manipulation, unhappy hens can also lay lots of eggs. In nature, hens carefully build a nest They have no idea what any of that is like at Wegmans. But give any of these hens the chance to have a real nest and they'll jump at the chance. Their delight is palpable. Letting the hens nest would be real animal welfare, not lip service.

Chickens dying is a normal part of any egg operation, says veterinarian Benjamin Lucio-Martinez, who visits the Wegmans egg farm 4-6 times a year. He praises the place, saying they "follow good practices."

One of their "good practices" is letting chickens become injured because their heads, feet or wings get snagged in the wire-frame "battery" cages. Some hens die by falling through the cages into the manure pit below, where they have no access to food or water. Is that "normal?"

Note to bird owners: don't let this guy diagnose your pet.

"Lucio, who is not paid by Wegmans, answered the activists' other charges: Confined hens don't normally defecate on each other, he said, because conveyor belts capture the waste and the cages are staggered or have splatter shields to prevent it." --Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

CC investigators saw, with their own eyes, feces and urine dropping on birds, and birds covered in it. This is cruel. Chickens are normally very clean birds; they keep their feathers immaculate. Those of you with a pet bird know that they hate to have dirty feathers. Imagine if your bird had to live in such filth. Wegmans’ ridiculous denial is insulting to birds and people.


Lucio considers the Wegmans operation "among the best in the country."

If this is the best, then a) it's time to give up eggs, b) what are the worst like?

Wegmans touts their participation in the "Animal Care Certified" (ACC) program.

ACC was called misleading by the Better Business Bureau and Representative Jan Schakowsky is urging the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the program. Wegmans’ pro-ACC article on their web site has no pictures of ACC hens. Neither does the official ACC web site. That's because ACC Hens live in embarrassing confinement, crowdedness, and filth.

Those messy details aren't included in the logo, because the United Egg Producers (UEP) doesn't want people to know the horrid conditions of ACC hens. UEP spokesperson Mitch Head says "there's only so much you can put on a label." The problem isn't insufficient information but deception. When questioned, purchasers of ACC eggs had no idea that ACC hens were debeaked and lived in an area less than the size of a sheet of notebook paper. There's no "care" in ACC. ACC rips off hens and consumers.

This slightly modified ACC logo might be more a little more informative:
Mr. Head claims that activists' real reason for videotaping factory egg farms is to "use it for publicity purposes."

Activists go into these places because it's the only way to see how bad conditions are for the animals. They risk defamatory countercharges, retaliatory legal action, and even incarceration — because they are deeply offended by deliberate, institutionalized mistreatment of animals and, having divested themselves of complicity in this cruelty, now want the rest of the world to see how birds suffer in factory farms, so they will become upset enough to take action to put an end to it. If any animal activist group could talk a corporation that exploits animals into making major reforms that would significantly increase the animals' welfare, and do it in complete secrecy, with zero publicity, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Egg producers say that "without the proper protective clothing or hygiene procedures would bring in diseases potent enough to kill the whole flock, especially avian influenza."

Sixty thousand genetically identical birds living in extremely crowded conditions, covered in filth, and, due to being deprived of all natural activities, almost certainly living with constant stress and compromised immune systems — this is a breeding ground for disease outbreaks. The World Health Organization blamed Avian Flu on "intensive poultry production." And the egg lobby has the audacity to suggest that investigators could be the cause of Avian Flu.

Have they ever visited an animal sanctuary where birds are allowed to roam free, and have a spacious barn with straw and perches for roosting? There is a stream of visitors. Babies, children, teenagers, people with colds and coughs. Sometimes crowds, at fundraising events. Under supervision of a sanctuary volunteer, the visitors pet and hold the birds. And guess what, these chickens are healthy. Or at least as healthy as they can be, given the trauma in their past and congenital problems from corporate-financed inbreeding. Their feathers have luster, they enthusiastically forage and dust-bathe, they express a wide vocabulary of clucks. They look like chickens are supposed to look. They look like the hens on the sides of packages and delivery trucks that contain much different-looking hens inside. They act like hens are supposed to act. Their days are filled with variety, self-determination, and companionship. Their personalities blossom and they're delightful. They're not sick, lifeless, or panicky. It's a real tragedy that almost all hens in the U.S. are denied the chance to be hens, that they're instead forced to endure the confinement, filth, and deprivation of factory farms like Wegmans. But it's even more of a tragedy that the purveyors of such misery so blatantly lie about it.

Natale worries that the "emotional content" of the video of their egg operation will "overwhelm the science" of the operations.

No, the emotion — expressed as sympathy for living creatures — will overwhelm the cruelty. And potentially overwhelm profit.

Wegmans and other factory farm operations hide behind "science." Every cruelty imaginable has been defended in terms of science. It doesn't take a scientist to know that birds with legs and wings like to use them once in a while. It doesn't take a scientist to know that if you kept your pet chicken in a wire crate that had less area than a laptop computer her whole life, you'd be convicted of animal cruelty and that all your neighbors and friends would know without a doubt that you were cruel. Wegmans brags about such treatment.

Wegmans uses emotion, not science, to deceive you and perpetuate cruelty. Example: "Hens are also prevented from injuring other hens with their beaks (some of these birds don’t play nice)." Makes it sound like they are looking out for the hens. The hens "don't play nice' because up to nine of them are stuffed in one small cage. In a more accommodating facility, such as an animal sanctuary or even a backyard chicken operation, the hens have their beaks and play nice. They use them to establish a peaceful and smooth-running pecking order, but there's no violence. Hens also use their beaks to clean their feathers and forage for food, basic activities that they're denied when in battery cages. Debeaking a hen is like cutting off someone's thumbs.

Wegmans: You obviously have no respect for the birds. If you did, you wouldn't deprive them of space, comfort, exercise, and natural desires; you wouldn't make them suffer. But you must think people are pretty stupid, too, or you wouldn't feed them one obviously disprovable lie after another.

"After a thorough investigation by the authorities, we were not charged with animal abuse." -- wegmans.com

This demonstrates all that is wrong with animal cruelty laws and their "enforcement." Nearly every abuse that is illegal in a home is legal in a farm. Birds are not covered under the Animal welfare Act or Humane Slaughter Act. Egg farms grind up live chickens in a woodchipper, pour baby chicks into a dumpster, and intentionally starve hens to death with impunity. So much for the law. The "thorough" investigation must have missed the hens covered with excrement, or that fell out of the cages and were destined to die from lack of food and water. Maybe they missed the fact that the hens had no room and no solid floor, also. "Not cruel?" Tell it to her:


The law may be corrupt or ineffective, but your wallet isn't. If you want to help out these hens, don't buy their eggs. If you want to support more humane animal welfare practices (and more honesty), at the very least buy "cage-free" eggs. You're more likely to find these at places like Whole Foods and health food stores. I say "at the very least" because — today, anyway — you're simply not going to find eggs in grocery stores from hens that truly were free-range, that had space to roam, that were well-attended to. Also note that when you buy those "humane" eggs, it’s almost a certainty that all the male offspring of the breeder hens were killed the day they were born.

You may be thinking, "If I can't eat eggs, then what?" There are all sorts of options. See next week's posts. Two preview comments. One, your purchasing power more than anything else will shape the quality and diversity of egg replacements. Two, I'll be right up front with you. It's not too hard to give up eggs, but it requires some effort to give up egg products. Not because there's some physical constraint that makes it impossible to create good tasting egg-free biscuits and cakes, but because currently the market is so dependent on eggs. You'd be amazed at how fast consumer preference can make that change, though. The demand for egg-free products is already burgeoning, and food suppliers are taking notice. It's still early in the evolution, so you have to do a little trial and error with eggless products. Some are delicious, however, and I'm excited about what we'll see in the next few years. Remember as you're trying out vegan versions of foods that used to have eggs that you're sparing gentle creatures from terrible suffering.

"Some people are still going to want to eat meat... we do agree though that vegetarianism is a healthier diet."

In this article from the Organic Consumers Association, ex-slaughterhouse worker Virgil Butler, with over ten years of experience and multiple industry awards under his belt, counters the battery of lies that Tyson offered up in the wake of an incriminating video by a PETA undercover investigator that showed chickens being routinely tortured in Tyson's slaughterhouses.

For example --

• Tyson claims that the investigator should have not have allowed any chickens to be scalded alive. But that cruel practice has gone on with the full knowledge of management for years. On the video, a supervisor even admits that 40 live birds each hour can be lowered into the scalding tanks.
  
• Tyson's putting an untrained worker in a killing position all but ensured that birds would be improperly cut and boiled alive. Virgil notes that not even he or his experienced co-workers were able to wash blood off knives, keep the killing machine hosed down, keep the knife sharp, and make a proper cut on all the birds' throats.

I don't often use the "E" word, but when I consider that Tyson:

• Deliberately causes millions of animals to suffer each year


• Denies it


• Lies about it


• Made up lies about one whistleblower, to make it appear that he had a character flaw


• Blamed another whistleblower of committing the cruelties, or of doctoring the tape

At some point, I have to say that Tyson is not just immoral and corrupt but downright evil. There seems to be no limit to how far they will stoop, how much hurt they will cause, to continue their wanton killing and torturing of birds.

And for those of you still buying their product...Why are you still buying their product?

Non-vegetarians: at least buy chicken from Whole Foods or buy the Bell and Evans brand; they're a little better off. But don't fool yourself that these chickens are treated with tender loving care, or have much of a life. Right from their motherless start in the incubator, today's chickens grow to unnatural proportions that cause joint and internal organ problems during their artificially short, seven- or eight-week lives. And none are covered by the Humane Slaughter Act.

Here are two veggie chicken options that I would like you to put to the test.

• Boca Chicken Nuggets. You can find these just about everywhere. Microwave them, eat them with your favorite barbecue sauce. Tell me if they don't taste as good as "real" chicken nuggets. Mind you, they're also healthier...


• This recipe for fried veggie-chicken. You may need to be in an urban area or college town that sells Worthington or White Wave products. Try health food stores. You can also use chicken-style seitan as the base.

---

(In future posts, I will show how other companies that torture animals have started using this latest ploy — nauseating in its immorality: if you can't deny your brutality, try blaming the investigator for it, no matter how implausible or even physically impossible such a thing would be. No matter if the cruelties have been documented for years. If people believe you, you've got a catch-all excuse for any animal abuse. I wonder just how stupid these corporate liars think we are...)

P.S. When you watch the video, please try to make it as far as the part that shows the chickens that have been mutilated by the killing machine that doesn't always kill, and realize that this is happening while you're watching. And that fate of these birds is in your hands.

Forgive me for this unplanned interlude. This evening my wife and I were invited to our friends' home for a wonderful vegan meal. They have two really great kids, Kevin and Stacy, and of course we enjoyed playing and being goofy with them. They also have five cats--some of whom are very resourceful about getting your attention--so there's never a dull moment.

Kevin and Stacy are both vegan, as are their parents. It is heartening to see this young couple instilling such humane values and deep respect for Creation in their children. Perhaps most importantly, they are setting a compassionate example for them; in every choice they make, they consider its effect on the earth and on all living creatures, human and non-human. I look at this family and see hope for the future.

After feasting on so many dishes I lost count, and stuffing ourselves with "Death By Chocolate" Brownies covered in "Ultra Creamy Fudge Frosting" (from the Vegan Vittles cookbook, which has delicious vegan versions of comfort foods), the discussion turned serious. Long and winding story short, our friends asked us if we would be the children's' godparents. Of course we accepted!

We were deeply touched by our friends' request, and are very pleased, honored, and excited to play this role in the children's' lives. I'll try to post their pictures on the blog some time, and probably brag about them.

As you watch this video (alternate version here), taken by a PETA undercover investigator, of a Tyson slaughterhouse killing and inflicting various suffering on chickens, please keep the following in mind...

Imagine how hard it is to take part in a process that you find despicable. To see birds, with what little strength they have after a life of no exercise and forced obesity, violently flapping their wings while hung upside down, in shackles, in a wasted effort to escape the death and torture they sense all around them. To hear birds peeping — they're still chicks, just a few weeks old — as they're scalded alive. Day in and day out. Not a trace of regret or care in any of your co-workers or supervisors. You're standing in the middle of a nightmare, but it's real, and it's nearly 200 nightmares every minute. The undercover investigators who bring the horror of the slaughterhouse to our computer screen are heroes. Because of them, we're in the slaughterhouse, seeing each cruelty being done. It's no longer an abstraction. The only thing missing are the smells and the blood soaked on your clothes.


The cruel, sloppy, haphazard, callous treatment of chickens in the latest Tyson video correlates closely with the Pilgrims' Pride video in West Virginia and the detailed accounts of Virgil Butler's 15 years of slaughterhouse work in Arkansas.

The direct reasons for the high degree of suffering by the birds are ultra-high line slaughterhouse line speeds, inadequate worker training, and malfunctioning equipment. Of these factors, the first is most important. As Virgil explains in multiple blog posts, he could not keep up with that pace after years of experience, and earning awards for his competence. (Line speeds are substantially slower in Europe.)

More significant than the direct reasons for so much cruelty is the indirect reason: greed. Everything in the Tyson business model is done for maximum profit. In the modern chicken industry, chickens are not live beings, with awareness and the capacity to know fear and suffer. They are "production units," and it is more profitable for Tyson to lose a certain number of these living, breathing "units" if the rest are processed at "breakneck" speed, and throughput is maximized. Nearly any efforts to increase the welfare of the animals — and the workers, mind you — would slow down production and cut into profits.

Ex-workers and inspectors at pig and cattle slaughterhouses report similar experiences. The fast slaughter line speeds and lax oversight leads to inevitable accidents, including conscious but bleeding animals getting their heads stuck in the machinery, and animals being scalded while alive and screaming. There is unrelenting pressure to keep the slaughterhouse line going, so that cruelty can be converted to money at the fastest possible rate.

Please remember that these are live birds you see passing by you on the video. Each one is an individual. Some shy, some outgoing. They have sensations similar to ours. They feel fear and react strongly to it. Their nerves shoot searing bolts of pain to their brains when their wings are pulled off. They would all escape if they could. Hanging upside down, all they can do is flap their wings. Some try in vain to hide. Their world has always been dark and crowded in a cavernous shed, but the past several hours have been horrific: deprived of food and water, thrown into a truck, grabbed by the legs and shackled. They are still peeping. Despite their grotesquely huge size — the result of intensive breeding and hormones — they are still chicks, only 7 weeks old.

About the workers. As documented in Fast Food Nation (FFN), slaughterhouse work is one of the worst jobs imaginable. It's always at or near the top of the nation's most dangerous jobs. When (not if) workers get injured, they are almost entirely at the mercy of the corporation. FFN has disturbing accounts of slaughterhouse employees receiving terrible, scarring, debilitating injuries who are forced to go back on the job the next day. The work environment is hellish: hot, sticky, covered in blood, and filled with the sounds of hurt, struggling, and dying animals. You stand in one place doing the same repetitive motion for hours. Carpal tunnel syndrome is common, as is arthritis. And what does being a killer all day do to your head?


If "all" you knew about Tyson was their single-minded obsession with profit at the expense of animal and human welfare, you might think they're a bunch of crooks. And rightly so. But that's only the half of it.

Tyson had the audacity to blame the investigator for their problems. For instance, a Tyson spokesman claimed that the investigator should have stopped the line when a chicken was about to be scalded. But they allow that to happen every day, In fact, on the video tape, a supervisor acknowledges that it's acceptable to scald 40 birds alive each hour. This has gone on for years, at Tyson's and other plants. As Virgil Butler and others have pointed out, there is NO WAY you could stop the line every time a chicken was about to be scalded, and keep your job.

This childish attempt to lay the blame for institutional failures on the whistleblower shows that Tyson will stop at nothing to avoid blame — or the truth. Nothing. They fabricated lies (subsequently circulated by the Center for Consumer Freedom) about Mr. Butler's military career, in a crude and thoughtless attempt to discredit him. They don't care if they destroy people.

The Tyson video is not — I repeat, not — an isolated incident or misrepresentation of the chicken slaughter process at Tyson. If it was, PETA would be sued for libel. It won't happen. Everything on the video goes on all the time. Tyson has a de facto policy of intentional violence toward animals and total disregard for anything except profit. And when I say "anything," I'm including common decency. I'd like to see every Tyson supervisor and executive take a lie detector test. And we can add in all the line workers, inspectors, and investigators, as well.

Even if you're totally a non-animal rights person, you should be angered by Tyson's underhanded tactics and evasion of accountability. This is Enron with animal torture.

To be continued...

For this Independence Day, I was going to write a fairly "safe" post, addressed to my retired military friends. That post will still appear, but a little down the road. Instead, I got to thinking about the strident spirit of our forefathers, how they defied conventional wisdom, and dared to speak their minds, because it was right, not because it was popular.

So this fourth of July, I want to speak my mind, not play it safe. I'm going to recommend looking at a new campaign from PETA called We Are All Animals. It shows common motivators for Western society's most heinous forms of oppression throughout our brief history, and how practices that are commonplace and staunchly defended by one generation can (thankfully) become taboo and universally despised two generations out. It ties together the slave trade, second-class treatment of women, destruction of Indian culture, and other crimes against fellow humans with our current crimes against nature: torturing animals by the billions each year in factory farms, circuses, rodeos, product testing labs, puppy mills, and a hundred other venues. The common thread is that the more powerful mistreat the less powerful in the worst ways because they're considered "inferior" or "expendable," or because those benefiting from the domination conjure up some manifest justification for enslaving that epoch's victims.

Note that it is not required that animals and people be identical, or that racism and sexism be identical, in order to recognize painfully obvious similarities in our various forms of institutionalized subjugation by cruelty.

The solution is almost always the same: more kindness, more respect, more self-control, less greed and selfishness, a willingness to release our grip. This progress in our moral development so far has never been the result of spontaneous enlightenment. It always comes after a struggle and fierce resistance to change.

It's not my aim to offend, but when you're telling people things they'd rather not know, and they have a sense that they are the cause of those unpleasant things, it's unavoidable. The same goes for the backlash. It's easier to criticize the messenger or deny wrongdoing than to admit substantial guilt. By and large, we'd rather have a nice day and stick to our comfortable routine, than be jolted into an uncomfortable zone where we have to question our everyday behaviors.

I realize that. I've been on the other side. I resisted. Most of the excuses I hear for eating and wearing animals, I used myself at one time. If not out loud, then to myself.

As it's tempting yet wrong to take the path of least resistance in order to not think about the animals that suffer on our behalf, so it is tempting but wrong as an animal advocate to take the path of least resistance in order to protect people from asking difficult questions of themselves.

I will post my entry about the benefits of veganism for ex-servicemen and women later. Right now, I'd like you to take a look at this online slide show. I know many of you won't like it. I predict that there will be an almost reflexive resistance. It's from PETA, the group meat-eaters love to hate, and it compares the suffering of animals to the suffering of humans. Based on past experience, I'm almost certain I will get some angry emails from outraged readers, telling me how immoral I am to compare humans and animals in that regard. But we have to make that comparison, just as Holocaust Survivor Isaac Bashevis Singer did. Just as African-American author Alice Walker did. Just as Christian theologian C.S. Lewis did. For centuries, men and women have noticed how much alike the animals and we are when it comes to our fear of suffering, our coping mechanisms when we're deprived or saddened, our almost supernatural bond with our offspring, and our capacity for pure joy.

When you watch this slide show, please resist the urge to come to your own defense. Put yourself in the position of the animals. Thinking, feeling, breathing beings with strong desires, capable of physical and psychological pain, seeking contentment, terrified of being trapped, miserable when deprived of all comforts and needs. Then — and this the hard part — consider your role in all this. It's easy to oppose and condemn slavery, and our ruination of the Indians, and all the past injustices we inflicted on others. But when they were going on, they were by and large defended. It is exceedingly difficult to a) look at our everyday norms as an outsider or person in the future, b) incriminate one's self. Difficult but not impossible. Please make the leap: as we now see the obvious wrongness in what was once widespread and considered normal, look at the horrors of slaughterhouses and factory farms, and fur farms, and "entertainment" venues where we harm animals for fun, and consider the unnecessariness of it all. Many practices just keep on going year after year because of inertia; "that's the way it's always been." Our main reason for everything we do on Tuesday is that that's what we did on Monday. But this Tuesday, we can break out of our rut, our old pattern, and make progress toward that enlightened day, somewhere in the future, where we look back at our current vast system of animal exploitation with disgust and disbelief.

I imagine each person will look at this slide show differently. As I see it, it points out universal, but surmountable, driving forces behind exploitation.

• Commonalities between our oppression of humans and our oppression of animals:


• Our propensity to force weaker beings into submission


• Our excuses that don't change much with the victim: they're pests, it is the natural order for us to dominate, etc.


• The silent acceptance of the apathetic masses, especially when there is some benefit, real or perceived: increased productivity, access to land, retention of authority, perverse entertainment, etc.
• The depths of our violence: hanging, burning alive, beatings that don't stop no matter how much the victim is suffering or begs for mercy. In many cases it is hard to deny that the tormentors get sadistic satisfaction from having complete control over their victims.


• The instruments of torture that change little through the ages: hot branding irons, shackles, sharp prods, switches, steel-jaw traps, and more.


• Greed


• Abandonment of the Golden Rule for "Might Makes Right"

There will be those who focus on one thing and one thing only - the differences between humans and animals — and I submit that looking only at the differences and ignoring the similarities is done to avoid facing one's own complicity in evil. There are an infinite number of self-serving rationales one can devise for maintaining a system of slavery or cruel domination, whether the victims are blacks, Indians, women, Jews, or animals. But in the end, they are all excuses. The suffering we impose on animals is real, and just about all of it is preventable.

As you enjoy fireworks and cookouts this holiday, remember that millions of farm and fur animals will endure another day in a tiny cage, covered with filth and feces. You have the freedom to give freedom.

---

"Hundreds of people watch the antics of birds on their bird tables, feed them through the winter, and provide nest boxes in the spring, yet never give a thought to the domestic hens, turkeys, and ducks who, in the nightmarish conditions of battery farms, live lives so cramped that they cannot spread their wings or roost or do any of the things that make avian life in the wild so joyous. Thousands of people who say they 'love' animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs — and the journey to get there —before finally leaving their miserable world, only too often after a painful death."

"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight."

"I tremble for my species when I reflect that God is just."

According to surveys, nine out of ten Americans believe in God. I want to direct this post to that majority, but first -- to the one in ten who are non-believers: I respect your choice, and don't go away yet. You may get something out of this post, too, and I don't mean it in a proselytizing way.

I very much enjoyed the text of this service, entitled Memorial for the Animals, by Frank L. Hoffman, co-director of the Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Foundation, of which the inspirational and information-packed All-Creatures.com web site is a part.

I think atheists and agnostics who have a bond with animals may appreciate the sermon as well. In many instances, you could replace "God" with "nature" or "the world." I also think you'll like some of the anecdotes in the sermon, such as this one:


A delightful picture of Griz and the cat accompanies the story.

There is also a heartwarming photo of Hogan the dog caring for an orphaned fawn. It will brighten your day.

Reading the sermon, I was reminded of something the Reverend Andrew Linzey said:


I would only add that, once we view nature from a humble perspective, all its creatures are beautiful, and all sustain us, at least emotionally and spiritually, simply by existing and sharing the world with us.

---

Related post:

A Happy 4th for All Creatures

The Wizard of Oz has always captivated me. As a musician, I'm fascinated by the musical score, a mix of overtly pleasant major melodies and dark undercurrents of minor chords. Humorous one-liners ("I think he said 'oil can.' Oil can what?") are seamlessly blended into the drama. The personalities of the main characters, the feel of Oz and the Emerald City, the magic of poppies and crystal balls, the amazing lifelike rendition of an approaching twister (in 1939!), the sepia dustbowl hue of the Kansas farm, and of course the lesson that a happy home is more important than visiting the most exotic faraway places, all combine to form a classic that I imagine will delight audiences for centuries into the future.

It had been a few years since I had seen the movie, and tonight I watched it with an interest in how it portrayed animals and our connection to them. The Wizard of Oz, of course, is not an animal rights movie; far from it. Yet I was struck by the central theme that animals — and more specifically the importance of humanely treating animals — plays in the movie.

It is Mrs. Gulch's meanness toward Toto that sets off the whole sequence of events that leads to Dorothy's adventure. Dorothy's love for Toto and sense of justice for her pet inspires her to take enormous risks, to sacrifice on his behalf. Auntie Em comes to Toto's defense simply and eloquently, when she reminds Mrs. Gulch that Toto is "really very gentle, toward gentle people." That is what we see with animals of all species that are rescued from abusive situations and placed in a caring sanctuary or home.

In Dorothy's eyes, Mrs. Gulch's callousness and intention of cruelty to Toto transforms her into a wicked witch. Studies show that violent criminals often start by harming animals.

Throughout Dorothy's journey, her and Toto remain inseparable, physically and emotionally. There is never any doubt that where Toto goes, she will go. When the witch takes Toto from Dorothy, she is distraught. The thought that Toto might suffer strikes the greatest fear into Dorothy. When Toto escapes from the castle and subsequently leads Dorothy's team in a mission to rescue her, it is one of the dramatic high points of the movie.

Birds are referenced repeatedly in the movie. For instance, the Scarecrow will be "friends with the sparrow" when he gets a brain, and over the rainbow, "bluebirds fly." Whatever happened to all the bluebirds? Dorothy scolds the cowardly lion for chasing after Toto, telling him that it's wrong to "pick on creatures weaker than you."

There is one other scene that struck me as very revealing about our relationship with companion animals. When Toto jumps out of Mrs. Gulch's basket and runs from her, he has the same goal as Dorothy — to return home, to his family.

"If a rabbit tries to eat any plants in my garden, I'll take care of it," he said, meaning he would shoot the rabbit. Of course, he could build a fence around the garden. If he buried the fence 12 inches into the ground, his garden would be rabbit-proof. Rabbits like to dig, but not that far down. He could also plant a "decoy garden" of kale and mint for the rabbits.

But the problem is not that he failed to implement peaceful solutions. The problem is that he didn't care. He thought so little of the rabbits' lives that he would kill them for merely trying to eat. If a rabbit comes across a large garden full of greens, of course she will eat it. She can't help herself. She doesn't realize that the garden belongs to someone, or that it's "out of bounds." She doesn't realize she could get killed for following her natural instincts. She harbors no ill will for the gardener, and eats the plants for survival and pleasure, not out of spite.

The young man who planted the garden is not a subsistence farmer. He is a graduate student who planted a garden as a hobby, and as a way to get fresh vegetables. If the whole thing went up in smoke, the effect on his life would be negligible.

He could practically get rid of the first part of his sentence; the "if" clause. There are rabbits in the area, and they will be attracted to the garden. It's almost entrapment. It's almost as if he could barely conceal his desire to kill one of them.

And "take care of it..." That just adds a little touch of sadism and contempt for the rabbit's interests. I don't mean to read too much into one phrase, but when someone with ill intent says "yeah, I'll take care of him if he tries anything," it's an expression of derision and disrespect, mixed in with a little enthusiasm for doing the dirty deed.

Rabbits are amazing creatures. Though they are targets for nearly every predator, they manage to find joy in their lives. They are intelligent and curious. They have a certain dignity. They use their own fur to make nests for their offspring. On spring days, young rabbits may jump straight up into the air and do a twist, for the sheer delight of it. (Domesticated rabbits do the same thing when they're happy.) Although they sometimes fight with one another, they also form close companionships that last a lifetime. A bonded pair of rabbits may spend hours each day together, grooming one another, sleeping and eating together, even bringing food to each other. When you kill a rabbit, you may be killing another rabbit's best friend.

When the young man who expressed the intention to kill any rabbit "trespassers" was a child, he had a stuffed rabbit that he carried around. His mother read him stories about Peter Rabbit and Thumper the rabbit. (Rabbits thump to warn others of danger.) When he saw a rabbit outside, he pointed and said "bunny" and wanted to pet it. What happened? When did he turn mean?

Rabbits are the essence of innocence and gentleness. Though their role as prey is not an enviable one, they are an essential part of the ecosystem. They have been here for millions of years. Their lives have meaning and worth. They don't ask for much. They have a will to live and enjoy their relatively short time on Earth. To nibble on fresh greens provides them with a simple pleasure. Why can't we appreciate their simple lives, and be happy for their happiness? It all comes down to empathy. If I was granted the proverbial three wishes by a genie, one of them would be for more empathy, from everyone, for all creatures.

People can change for the better as well as the worse. His roommate, also an avid gardener, has no desire to harm any rabbits. He looks upon them more benignly; he respects their needs. The roommates' girlfriend is vegan. She is upset that someone would be so willing to kill an animal on such an arbitrary pretext. Neither of them are what you would call "activists." Both are soft-spoken and easy-going. Perhaps their presence will influence the young man. Perhaps the subject will come up, and the young man will realize the depths of his friends' dismay. Perhaps he'll tire of the idea, or realize that he can withstand sharing a part of his bounty with the rabbits. Maybe he'll gaze out the back window and see a rabbit feeding her young ones some fresh greens from the garden, and decide that's not such a bad thing.

I go to Subway regularly because it's one of the few lunch places within walking distance from my office. It's crowded at lunchtime, so I have to wait in line. I've been observing the people in the line, and especially at the counter, as they shuffle sideways toward the cash register, and I can't help but notice the obvious. To put it bluntly, our butts have gotten big. Less than one out of three persons is anywhere in the neighborhood of slim. On average, at least one person at the counter is diabetes-level large. I mean, you worry about them, how hard their heart and joints must have to work.

Although Subway has some low-fat, moderate-calorie selections, lately they've been pushing the pastrami sandwich. The chicken-bacon ranch sandwich (don't forget the cheese) is also a favorite. I don't think this is what Jared had in mind.

There's nothing special about this particular Subway. You would see the same thing at a movie theater or car dealership. Fast-Food Nation is fat. There's no getting around it.

You see this trend in kids, too, which is depressing.

Granted, for some people, their obesity is not a simple lack of self-control. They may have a metabolism problem or other physical disorder. In other cases, compulsive eating may be a reaction to emotional distress. I have mercy for these folks. But for the grace of God, there go I. Still others have unhealthy eating habits that were ingrained into them by family, friends, and the media. These folks deserve a gentle but firm push toward a healthier lifestyle.

However, to the extent that we bring on our own preventable diseases through gluttony or sloth, we hurt other people. The health-conscious pay for the sins of the "I'd rather be fat and eat a 72-ounce steak or Big Bubba Burger" eaters. (And the sins of Wendy's Corporation, I suppose.) Productivity decreases. Health care costs go up, and the patients who are sick through no fault of their own have to compete for medical resources with folks who need the heart surgeon to rescue them from decades of bad (if not selfish) choices.

Furthermore, people who stuff themselves with meat and dairy contribute to massive fossil fuel use and fresh water contamination. (The meat and dairy industries require huge amounts of oil-based fertilizer to grow the grain fed to livestock, which mostly live in highly concentrated feeding operations that dump ungodly amounts of waste into the water.)

Eating our way to disease has other ramifications, too. Most proponents of animal experiments claim that they are a "necessary evil," a last resort. Even if you believe — which I don't — that animal-modeled research is necessary to cure disease, is it fair that we force animals to suffer their whole lives in a quest to cure conditions that we largely bring on ourselves? Don't we owe it to our fellow sentients to do what we can to prevent giving ourselves disease in the first place? Of course, we can't entirely eliminate disease through diet and exercise, but across the board, mainstream medical organizations estimate that at least half of our most deadly afflictions are products of lifestyle.

Many animal experimentation proponents say that the animals' suffering is worth it if even one person can be helped. But when given the opportunity to "cure" perhaps half the population from the most deadly diseases, on our own, without the use of animals, we pass. It seems that we don't really want to be well if we have to work at it. We'd rather put all the burden on animals. To what extent are we killing millions of animals out of convenience?

Some people are right up front about their lack of commitment to take care of themselves. "I'd rather eat whatever I want and die young." I feel bad for people who live recklessly like that for a while but come to regret their choices later in life. But to what degree should we make animals suffer — in very dubious research that is plagued with extrapolation and artifact errors, I might add — in an effort to bail out adult humans who decide, all things considered, to live fat and die young? Even if you believe that animals should suffer on our behalf regardless of our degree of irresponsibility, shouldn't we at least reverse government subsidies so that green vegetables, not cheese and pork, are subsidized? And I hope some, if not all, on the pro-animal experiment side share my contempt for corporations that spend billions pushing unhealthy food, and lots of it — in schools and kid's shows, not just in prime-time. And doing everything possible to make us ignore the consequences of the diet they push.

Let me diverge a little. The latest issue of Newsweek had a feature section on "Your Health in the 21st Century." As usual, it was an uncritical mouthpiece for the biomedical establishment, particularly its animal-modeled research contingent. Essentially no counterpoint or challenges to the party line, despite a steady stream of embarrassing (and sometimes deadly) failures, wild exaggerations, and outright lies from the animal lab. One of the articles was about xenotransplantation: putting pig organs in humans. Even ardent animal research enthusiasts should be troubled by this. Animals with the intelligence and emotions of a human toddler are deprived of all semblance of a life and killed for their organs, so they can be used as replacements for human organs that break or wear out. It's a reckless endangerment of human health. Putting live animal organs (unlike "killed" heart valves) in a human body is an open invitation for rogue viruses or prions to mutate, jump the species barrier, and form a new disease. It could spread across the world and be ten times worse than the AIDS epidemic before the pathogen is identified. Then it could be decades before a cure is found. Other approaches to fixing the organ donor shortage hold more promise and far less risk. Stepping up clinical and lab research of anti-rejection drugs. Getting two transplants out of one liver. Changing the organ donor program from opt-in to opt-out, which has been successful overseas. And so forth. But I'll tell you the ABSOLUTE cheapest way to erase the donor organ shortage. Quit killing and eating so many pigs — and other animals — in the first place. I don't mean just switching from spare ribs to Gardenburger Riblets, or from pork barbecue to Lightlife Smart BBQ — even though both products are GREAT. Switch to a well-balanced vegetarian diet. Load up with veggies, fruit, whole grains, and meat substitutes. Wow, what a difference this could make. You're no longer sentencing animals to a lifetime of suffering. You're no longer financing the tearing down of virgin forests for livestock grazing and feedlot grain. You're no longer unnecessarily draining society of scarce medical resources. You're pumping your body full of disease-fighting, not disease-causing foods. (A huge study recently published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, of nearly 500,000 men and women, shows a significant correlation between processed meat intake and risk of colorectal and pancreatic cancers. Hundreds if not thousands of previous studies draw the same general conclusion: to be healthier, eat less meat and more veggies and whole grains. So go all the way and eliminate complicity in deliberate animal cruelty as a wonderful side benefit.)

And -- next time you're at Subway, order the Veggie Delight. I get it on "Hearty Italian" bread, with all the veggies (hot peppers optional). Put on some mustard and oil and vinegar. It's really tasty, and inexpensive. You can add in some baked Lays without much guilt. There you go — enjoy!

Now that I've made myself hungry again... In lots of upcoming posts, I'll have all kinds of vegetarian sandwich ideas; real easy stuff you can make in minutes. Tasty and nutritious, too — of course! Sometimes people ask, "what do vegans eat?" Truth be told, much more variety than in my meat-eating days. People get in a rut; they eat the same six to ten meals over and over. Going veg forced me to look at food choices I had passed over in the grocery aisles before. It's really amazing. Plus, practically every day there are new veggie options. Some stink, some are great, most are okay. The overall quality improves as it becomes more mainstream. We'll look at those, too. So, stay tuned...

---

Related Article:

Do We Really Love Our Children

(Specific citations for studies and quotes provided on request.)

The University of Wisconsin poured Guinness beer into the stomachs of dogs with artificially clogged arteries, ostensibly to show that beer unclogs them. This experiment, like so many animal experiments, is stupefyingly unscientific and wasteful.

• Dogs are notoriously poor models for human heart disease. The process by which humans' arteries become clogged is complex and species-specific. Medical history is filled with heart-related drugs and procedures that fail in dogs and work great in humans or vice versa. Even when a treatment works in both species, the per-weight dosages as well as positive and negative side-effects can vary dramatically. Humans' and dogs' heart disease profiles are VASTLY different. Coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke are the number one and three killers of humans, respectively. Stroke is rare in dogs and CAD is virtually non-existent. Humans unlike dogs must watch their cholesterol intake.


• There is extensive evidence from human studies that alcohol (and tea) in moderation is good for the heart.


• If you want to determine the effects of beer on human arteries, I can guarantee you would have no problem finding volunteers. The line would stretch for blocks. We already have a huge and diverse epidemiological base of beer drinkers — and people with every variation of naturally-occuring arterial blockage. Population studies plus clinical research can look at the only species that drinks beer and the only species for which CAD is common. Furthermore, human studies can discern differences between gender and ethnic groups, sometimes isolating a particular gene that can affect response or recommended dosage.

I suspect that this exercise was a relatively cheap way for Guinness to sell more Guinness. Crudely experiment on some dogs, which don't drink beer or get heart disease like humans, and tout the study as evidence of why you should drink more beer.

http://hermes.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/BEER.HTM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3266819.stm

In another study, dogs were used to see if smoking interfered with erections.

---

Related post:

Animal Experimentation's Dubious Role In Heart Surgery