Animal Writings

Plenty of times I've heard guys dismiss vegetarianism with some variation of "real men eat meat." Question: What's so masculine about paying a minimum-wage worker to slit the throat of a frightened, pitifully weak seven-week old chicken hanging by her feet in shackles? If you want to prove your toughness, join the Marines or take up martial arts. Torturing baby chickens is not manly.

"Nothing is so strong as gentleness; nothing so gentle as real strength."

From Meat Market, by Erik Marcus:


I had the pleasure of meeting the author last Sunday, and I promised him I would write a review of the book — but not until I read the whole thing. I'm going to flagrantly break that promise. I've read less than 50 pages of Meat Market, and if the rest of the book is even half this good — buy it! If you eat meat or dairy, this book will help you quit. Marcus' style is economical but powerful. When describing the nearly incomprehensible excesses of factory farms, he doesn't shout, exaggerate, or demonize; he simply tells it like it is — and it is shameful and horrific.

In the second half of the book, Marcus assesses the various animal protection movements and lays out a cohesive plan on how they can do better. Do I agree with every detail of his strategy? No, because animal advocates are not clones. Do I agree with most of it? Yes, because it's well thought-out, and backed with expert research and compelling examples. Two minutes into reading his recommendations, and already I'm considering my own course corrections.

As with Eternal Treblinka, I'm going to do a "blog tour" of Meat Market, presenting excerpts from the book as I read it, adding commentary, and inviting discussion. Of course, to get the most out of this project, you'll want to get your own copy of the book and read along. It's informative and provocative and hard to put down.

Tonight I heard the voice of God.

It was not thunderous or intimidating.

It was the sound of geese, flying South in formation, against a background of stars.

"It is a feeble compassion that pulls up short where self-interest begins."

A 2002 Texas Law, "The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act," or HB 433, was the brainchild of two groups: the American Legislative (ALEC) and The United States Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA). Note the euphamistic monikers that hide the real aims of these groups: 1) to increase their clients' profit, 2) to kill and shoot animals, 3) to limit the freedom of people who get in the way of goals #1 and #2. And "sportsmen?" That's an insult to people who play real sports.

ALEC is a well-connected collusion of corporations and influence peddlers that includes thousands of state legislators. USSA is a militant "animal wrongs" group that, among other things, hijacks the legal system to protect its assumed right to kill animals at will, and to squelch peaceful dissent.

The ominous legislation in HB 433 specifically targets animal rights and environmental groups. Under the bill, an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" is "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct, or deter any person from participating in any activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources." So, under the intentionally vague language of this law, if you and a friend leaflet on public property near a department store, to educate people on how animals are tortured for their fur, in hopes that they won't buy the products of cruelty — you're terrorists. Ditto if you march in a peaceful walk to save virgin forest from being logged. Welcome to the sequel of 1984.

HB 433's disguise as an anti-terrorism measure is see-through. But in the current political climate, anything with an anti-terrorism angle has a chance of passing. The bill, it almost goes without saying, is entirely unnecessary and redundant. There are already laws in place against destroying property or harassing or harming people; this bill singles out and limits the rights of animal and environmental activists. Why? These two groups, through their investigations and education campaigns, threaten animal and earth exploiters because they show the horror and ugliness of those pursuits to the public — and the public responds. The perpetrators and profiteers of cruelty are unable to adequately defend it, so they resort to manipulating the powerful machinery of the state to bury whistleblowers. Combine HB 433 with the Patriot Act, which allows the Government to subpoena information about citizens' daily activities, such as mailing a package or making travel arrangements, and you've got the United States of America gradually turning into the Disunited State of Siege.

Meanwhile, take a look at this video of an elephant trainer tormenting his innocent victims and encouraging others to do the same. Under the optimistically-named Animal Welfare Act, the USDA does not inspect this pure torture, much less shut it down. In the post-Orwellian language of animal abusers who want special state protection, the man violently beating the animal is not the terrorist, but the witness who publicly condemns it is. The former gets exclusion from animal cruelty laws, the latter is the victim of creeping fascism.

Here's another form of terrorism: Rodeo cowboys violently inflicting pain on helpless animals and happy about it. Little mean boys.

Here's more. Real men don't use instruments of torture to make a bull "perform." The hand-held device in the video delivers 5000 volts of electricity directly to captive animals. These weapons of mass cowardice are used in forced confessions. The animals have nothing to confess. What about their tormentors?

Here's more: Excruciating torture...How would you react if you were caught in a body gripping trap that stung you and sucked the life out of you? How about living for months in a space that didn't let you take three steps...and then having your neck broken by someone ten times bigger then you. What would you call that person? How about writhing in pain from being electrocuted by your captor, so he could de-skin you?

Here's more: Trapped

And another... These hens couldn't take it any more. They didn't die, they were slowly executed.

And finally, this cruelty...whipping and kicking a dying animal. Sickening violence against animals is pervasive and overwhelming. Industry's response is to further protect it. Is our legacy to do this forever?

It was only a concerted effort by a diverse coalition of outraged citizens and activist groups that finally killed HB 433. But like an insidious cancer, HB 433 derivatives sprang up in other states, and some passed. More are in the works at the state and federal level. The hostile takeover of our rights is well underway. The more desperate one is to prevent their evil from being shut down, the fewer bounds they place on stifling voices that expose their shameful activities.

It is often said that you can't legislate morality. ALEC and USSA, and enemies of animals are attempting to legislate immorality.

Don't shake your head. Get active. Any way that fits your style. Attending anti-circus rallies or peaceful protests against the bloody seal hunt, calling your representatives in Congress, taking a vegan cooking class, volunteering with a wildlife rescue group. (Don't be fooled by "conservation" groups whose main goal is to promote hunting and trapping.) Challenge the bogus "anti-terrorism laws." I'd love to see an animal-killing corporation claim, "this woman taking pictures of battery cages and rescuing injured hens is a terrorist threat."

The most effective action is to exercise your consumer power. Do not support cruelty. Please, even if you have NEVER thought about it before, consider making a transition toward veganism. Veganism is every day anti-cruelty. Your purchases, to the extent you can do it, go toward the most humane options. Veganism is living a humane lifestyle. If enough people do it, there will be no more fur farms where caged animals get their skulls crushed. There will be no more animal circuses where kidnapped baby elephants are terrorized to the point that they cry out in anguish. No more live chickens in shackles getting decapitated or de-winged. No more live hens in the same small cage as dead ones. Your one change in habits and purchases may not seem like much, but IT IS HUGE. Not only will you save thousands of animals through your direct behaviors, you will influence others. Just by your compassionate example. You can change the world. You can fight evil by being kind.

At the very, very heart of this matter, beyond and before the legislation and the rhetoric, is insecurity and fear on the part of the perpetrators. Overpowering those weaker than you, enslaving then, exploiting them, is a debilitating weakness. It is a compensation for being afraid and feeling small. I hate the sin. I detest it. I love the sinner. There but for the grace of God go I. Yes, we must save the animals from their tormentors. Let us not become be tormentors of another kind. Love your neighbor even if, for the protection of innocents, we must outlaw his hurtful, violent ways. We must love animals and treat them with compassion and understanding to create a peaceful, just world. But that is not enough. You must, in your heart of hearts, treat the animals' oppressors with the same compassion and understanding. Can we say with absolute confidence what drives them? Or that behind the bravado they are not in turmoil? You may want to vent your anger, as I did at the beginning of this post, and then take a deep breath like I did toward the end, and open your heart as wide as possible to deal with these sorrowful problems. We must let people see that our highest good is to be servants to, not slaveholders of Creation. That is the way to the Peaceable Kingdom. Everybody and every living being wants peace.

Over the next three months, here are some recurring themes on which I plan to focus:

• PETA's "Animal Liberation" exhibit -- why its concepts are critically important to the future of the world, why people hate it, and how PETA can improve it


• (Related) A "blog tour" of the book Eternal Treblinka, which shows the links between slavery, the Holocaust, and our treatment of livestock


• Controversial quotes by animal rights leaders -- are they really saying what their critics claim they are saying?


• (Time permitting) Rebuttals to the fur industry's and animal rights opponents' claims that the treatment of fur-bearing animals is not as bad as portrayed in investigative videos.

In between all that, I will try to include some lighter fare and upbeat posts.

Around the end of the year, I plan to close down the blog. I have some major, time-consuming demands coming up — work-, family-, and animal-related — and something has to go.

It's also time to shake up my approach a bit, to keep things fresh. In a recent column, Washington Post writer Joel Achenbach compared his blog to a beast that has to be fed each day and that calls to him if he hasn't attended to its needs in a while. I hear him. I'm burning out on the blog. I still enjoy it, but I'm ready for a change.

I'll still be very involved in animal issues. I want to put the "active" back in my activism. Typing away at the PC is bad for the circulation. I'm looking forward to more volunteering at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, networking more in real life with other animal activists, helping with local progressive rabbit organizations that bridge the gap between the pet in our home and her cousins being tortured in labs and fur farms, and most of all participating in more street-level activities: leafletting, fauna-vision, screenings, and such. I enjoy shouting from the rooftop in the blogosphere, but I much prefer to talk with people one-on-one. Online technology is amazing and enabling, but you lose so much in context and nuance; compared to in-person conversations, it's easier to misinterpret what someone is saying and harder to gauge if the person you're talking to gets your meaning. Also, at the street level, you can look at the slogan on someone's t-shirt, and wander off on a tangent about ACC basketball or the New Jersey Turnpike, as a breather, before getting back into the serious topic at hand.

By the way...One of the projects coming up is adding on to our home. We may be having an aging parent move in with us. Plus, the infrastructure is falling apart. My wife and I have agonized over this decision for the last few years, for many reasons. One is that it will require cutting down a large maple tree that is home to birds, squirrels, and other wildlife. It pains us to have to do that. We've looked into moving it or building around it, and it's just not practical. Yes, the remodeled home will be much more energy-efficient, and we'll try to use recycled or at least ecology-friendly materials wherever possible. But I feel like the animals in my yard are my friends and I'm destroying their home. We've been trying to think of some way to minimize the impact on our backyard habitat. I've even considered a rooftop garden, although that is much easier said than done. If anyone can offer any ideas on how to make a home expansion somewhat "habitat-neutral," I'd be very appreciative.

I look forward to a strong finish.

“So much violence in the world seems beyond our control, but this is one cruelty we can stop by being informed consumers."


Please watch this video, hosted by Martha Stewart. If you wear fur, it will make you voluntarily stop. Note the looks in the eyes of these innocent, captive, caged and trapped animals as humans barbarically, mercilessly kill them.

What kind of monsters are we to take animals who only and desperately want to live and be free, and force them to end their lives in a violent torture? Fur is a bloodbath. It is inexcusable and uncivilized and should be banned. That will not happen immediately but you can boycott it and put it out of business.

See a booth at the farmers' market selling organic dairy products? Perhaps it is decorated with photos of cows grazing in green pastures. There's bound to be at least one picture of workers affectionately interacting with a cow, as though they were a loving family.

Before you buy anything, ask what happens to the male calves — the ones that are produced by the yearly impregnations of the dairy cows. Ask if they grow up with a mother, and how long they live. Ask what happens to the milk cows when their milk production drops. There are no pictures of these parts of the operation. You'll find out that organic doesn't mean "humane."

All tremble when there is a weapon, Everyone fears death;
Feeling for others as for oneself, One should neither kill nor cause to kill.

Occasionally, I hear this excuse - I can't call it a reason - for killing an animal, and possibly making it suffer: "In the 'grand scheme of things,' what happens to an individual animal does not matter."

It matters plenty:

— from the animal's perspective

— to God

— if we had a part in what happened to the animal

— if the "grand scheme" is cultivating kindness and compassion, or creating a peaceable kingdom.

If the "grand scheme" is purely physical, then what happens to any of us, or all of us does not matter. Geology isn't sentimental.

(Note: the assertion is usually made in the passive voice, to shift the focus away from the human instigator who willfully destroys the animal, and to blur the distinction between an animal dying of old age or natural predation and an animal dying because a man felt like shooting it. "What happens to an animal" sounds better than "killing an animal.")

Then there's this comeback to the above, which is equal parts illogic and meanness: "To say that an animal's life matters is to make animals morally equal to humans, which they're not."

To cling to such obviously specious reasoning is desperate. It's the secular version of "God said I could." It's a convenient and tidy — though remarkably arbitrary and self-serving — rule that indemnifies all cruelty. It's like some shaky premises and invalid presumptions of equivalence were hobbled together in hope of supporting one's need to dominate, feel superior, and steal animals' lives.

I don't know where to start criticizing this delusion. There are too many choices.

To say that an animal's life matters is to say that the animal has some intrinsic worth, period. It doesn't have to be equal to a human's.

If humans have greater moral worth than animals, we should be able to recognize the animal's needs and strive to accommodate them. We should desire to avoid harming the animal. We should feel remorse when making an animal suffer unnecessarily. We should willingly sacrifice on behalf of animals who are dependent on our actions and goodwill. In many respects, non-humans show more compassion, humility, and sympathy than humans, which weakens our claim of moral superiority.

More bluntly: greater moral worth does not begin to defend sport hunting, factory farms, rodeos, or animal circuses. In fact to engage in such selfish brutalities is strong evidence against moral superiority.

Even more simply: the exploitative and destructive activities that are presumably justified by moral superiority are the sorts of things that a morally superior species would not do.

To even be thinking in terms of "how can I justify killing the animal, violating the animal's deepest interests, causing it fear and distress, possibly ruining the lives of its companions, getting what I want out of the animal even if it's a trinket or a tidbit" — that is the problem.

To say that an animal's life doesn't matter is callous. It says "I don't care." It means the animal has no intrinsic worth, that his interests can be ignored with impunity. It is a recipe for tyranny and a self-granted permission to practice oppression and cruelty.

Practice humility and the Golden Rule to all creatures who may benefit and you won't play these mind games. You'll no longer attempt in vain to fool your conscience. Don't worry so much about moral worth and using it hostily against other species, and then you'll have it.

To lie immobile for long periods of time is painful and debilitating. Various studies of pigs show that prolonged confinement and inactivity leads to muscle entropy, bone weakness, impaired coordination, and increased urinary tract infections. Then there's the psychological torture. Virtually everything that this complex, social, inquisitive animal wants to do is impossible in such intense confinement. Crated pigs resort to chewing the cage bars, chewing air, or rocking their heads back and forth - repetitively, to fend off the madness of not being able to anything. To turn a vibrant animal into an inanimate thing is sick and unforgivable. And looking away and saying "I don't want to know" is no excuse, when you are supporting the thing that is so terrible you can't stand to know about it.

---

Related links:

GardenBurger Riblets

LightLife Smart BBQ

---

You're looking for decent day care for your child. You visit one facility called Offspring Management Centers, or OMC. Their slogan is "Blending Science with Parental Values." The building is huge and cavernous. It's rather noisy. The children are in cages. There's no interaction between the staff and the children. In each cage is an automatic food dispenser. The floors of the cage are wire grating, so waste products can fall through. Once an hour, a bored-looking attendant visits each cage, quickly checks up on the child, and replaces any soiled diapers or dirty clothes. Twice a day, the resident doctor does a once-through, clipboard in hand.

You ask a manager, "What kind of a place are you running here? The kids are treated almost as a bother; there's absolutely no trace of caring or concern on the part of the staff."

The manager replies confidently, "We're science-based. Our technicians have carefully determined the requirements of the children. The children here get everything they need and are perfectly content. We're very proud of our record. We have an in-house physician. The mom-and-pop places don't have that, which tells us that they're really not committed to the children's well-being."

You notice that some kids are crying, and no one is comforting them. You point that out to the manager.

"It is natural for children to cry," the manager says. "Please don't let your impressions be guided by sentiment. We have a very efficient ship and use state of the art science."

You're bothered that many kids have glum, listless expressions on their faces. You ask the manager if those kids are getting enough stimulation and interaction.

"Kids play very well by themselves. Just think, there's never any fighting. The kids really like that. Our safety record is impeccable, among the best in the country, We only want what's best for 'our' children, and we rely on the best science in the world to deliver consistent quality. We also have reduced our operating costs by using automation to the fullest extent. Our automatic meal dispensers ensure that each child receives the optimum nutrition at precise intervals. No mistakes or misunderstandings. Isn't that great? Lower cost to our customers; greater value to our shareholders."

You mention that the center has received its fair share of criticism, for being too impersonal and prison-like. The manager explains, "People don't understand the science behind day-care management. The idea of individual service for each child is naive and impractical. Using the latest technology and a streamlined business model, we're able to eliminate the inevitable human errors that were such a burden in old-style day care. I can assure you and every parent that the children's welfare is something we take very seriously at OMC. After all, we're parents, too."

In the dreary, crowded conditions of a factory farm warehouse, tens of thousands of animals exist — they don't really live. Their deepest instincts are denied. They yearn for just some small break from their constant confinement — until they give up. Each hen, each pig, each "broiler" chicken (don't you love how the animal's description is based not on what he does or wants but on how he will be cooked) is a whole animal, bones and hearts and minds and skins — yet his animation has been oppressed, his personality not given a chance, his natural behaviors stifled. The mass of animals in factory farms are forced to endure a hideous imitation of life. This is called science-based.

And if you dare criticize the operation, perhaps pointing out that the animals huddled in their unforgiving cages might benefit from a trace of human kindness...the overseers condescendingly chastise you, as though science — at least their greed-saturated, bastardized science — is the final authority on moral soundness.

Broadcasting this message from a rescuer:

I've just made seven round trips to heaven, and boy am I stuffed.

Let me explain, and sorry in advance because this will be indulgent...

On our wedding day, my wife and I had Chinese food. Every anniversary we celebrate by eating at an Asian restaurant. Recently, we've patronized vegan or almost-vegan Asian restaurants in the DC area, such as Sunflower and Vegetable Garden. But this year I wanted to do something different.

I remembered an article in the Washington Post a few months ago about some of the gourmet restaurants around town offering vegan meals if requested in advance. This sounded very appealing, but I wrestled with the idea. "Gourmet" usually means products of cruelty. Did I want to spend money at a place that served dishes which I find objectionable? After thinking it over, I decided to do it. My thinking was: a) I eat at pizza and pasta places that serve meat, b) I wanted to see how good vegan food could be, c) since this was going to be a splurge, I wanted to let at least one local establishment know that vegans will spend good money if the right choices are offered, d) we hadn't been to a fancy restaurant in ten years. It's entirely possible that I over-rationalized, with bias, because the idea sounded fun.

I recalled that one of the restaurants mentioned in the Post article was Cafe Atlantico. I went to their web site. They advertised foie gras on their home page. I could not get past that. I don't care if their chef can prepare the best vegan food in the world, they're not getting a dime of my money. Then I remembered that Vidalia Restaurant might have been mentioned. We had eaten there once before, in our pre-vegan days, and loved it.

So I called them, asked them if they did vegan gourmet meals on request. They said no problem. I told them we're not millionaires but we're looking to splurge. They said they'll create a five-course "tastings" meal. I reiterated vegan only, top to bottom, just to make sure. They said they might not be able to certify that the wine is vegan, so we may want to bring our own bottle and they'd uncork it and serve it. We had a bottle of Frey vegan wine we had bought not too long before, so we decided we'd bring that. A little tacky, but we didn't mind.

Ok, here goes. The first course was not even called the first course, it was called "amuse bouche." It was stuffed squash blossom with curried quinoa and raisins. Delicious! Off to a great start.

The real first course: heirloom tomato salad with lime-olive oil sorbet (two separate things). The tomatoes exploded with flavor. They were surreal. I've grown tomatoes in the back yard a lot. Never before have they tasted this good. We asked what the secret was. Heirloom. Original tomatoes. Ugly but maximum flavor. Not bred for looks. It was like I was tasting tomatoes for the first time and everything else was an imposter. Suddenly I was fascinated by heirloom. Did all fruits and vegetables used to taste this good before we developed mass-produced varieties that were uniform in texture but second-rate in flavor?

Lime-olive oil sorbet, garnished with arugula. How can that even work? It was superb.

Second course: heirloom beets and lentils. Stupendous.

I think it was during the interlude between the second and third course that my wife and I compared this gourmet feast with our usual routine: boil some water for spaghetti, or pop something in the microwave, or make a sandwich — in between doing chores, and recovering from the workday. It was funny thinking that it wasn't out of the question that our very next dinner could be a bowl of Cheerios.

Third course: braised vidalia onion with lobster mushroom in vinaigrette. I've never savored an onion like this before. It was almost not G-rated. You always have onions mixed in with something, but here it took center stage. Its pungency and sweetness intertwined in luxurious decadence. I'll never look at an onion in quite same way.

The lobster mushroom was scary. It tasted like lobster.

Fourth course: red wine-poached pear risotto with cipollini onions and fried sage.

When was the last time you had fried sage? We thought at first it was for decoration. Then my wife, emboldened by the wine, broke off a chunk (it was crisp) and tried it. Whoa! Highlight! The whole combination was dazzling. We went a little crazy with the sage.

It was just after the fourth course that our server said she herself was vegan, and liked to cook all sorts of vegan dishes. Unexpected bonus! A stunning development! I could have said something witty to tie it all together. Instead I blurted out, "So you must have seen SuperSize Me." She had, and we talked about the sumptuous detox meal in the movie that Keith Spurlock's vegan chef girlfriend prepared to transition Mr. Spurlock out of his 30-day McDonalds death spiral.

Fifth course: Watermelon "granata" with banana-lime salsa. This was the funnest dish. It was like a watermelon Icee on top of a banana liqueur.

"How was it?" our server asked. We were swooning by this point but had run out of adjectives. "Fun," we said.

We thought we were done. But the chef threw in a sixth course. Baked apple stuffed with apple, raisins, and walnuts. Plus — green apple sorbet with cider reduction. We'd had baked apples before but not like this. We just couldn't believe how much succulent flavor was in this little gem. It was like magic. "What was the secret?" we asked, again. Slow roasting and organic produce. The sorbet was a perfect closer. It was decorated with crispy apple rings that were stuck together in the shape of the Olympic logo sort of. All night we were never too sure which fork to use. A couple of times we made a mid-course correction, deciding that we really were supposed to use a spoon. For the apple rings we used our fingers. There was no one left in the restaurant by this time. We had been there almost three hours.

Then the check came. For a moment, I just considered offering the restaurant my car, and calling it even. But actually, the bill was not that bad. A whole lot more than we usually spend for dinner, but not ridiculous.

Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but I think this was the best meal I ever had.

I got to thinking on the way home, when we finally all go vegan, there absolutely, positively, undoubtedly will be no shortage of variety, good food, and options. No worries, no chance at all that we'll feel the least bit deprived. During one of the many conversations we had with our server after her revelation, we talked about how when we became vegetarian and then vegan, at first we were thinking "what can't I have?" Then it switched to "what can I have?" and we discovered a plethora of foods we had previously overlooked. The number of combinations of vegan ingredients is practically infinite and the meals you can make are amazing. A vegan nation that offers the most varied, abundant, and flavorful — and humane! — diet ever in the history of the world is a snap. All it takes is the desire to get out of our present meat-obsessed rut.

I have to mention one other part of the meal that made it memorable. The best part. I shared it with my wife of 19 years. I wish and hope everyone can go through life with their soulmate. I am very blessed. Happy anniversary, babe -- I love you!

On the way home, we stopped at the store to stock up on frozen dinners and cereal.

I'm strongly in favor of animal rights. I believe that sentient beings with profound interests and the capacity for suffering deserve protection. I believe that these fundamental aspects of sentience are the basis of rights. Species is just DNA arrangement. We enact rights and laws because the beneficiaries of those rights and laws have a sense of quality of life. The animals share with us a deep fear of suffering because prolonged misery is a ruinous, unbearable state. If that doesn't merit obligations on our part, I don't know what does. We know how horrible it is to experience excruciating physical pain or severe denial of the most basic desires in life. From all scientific and common-sense evidence, those feelings are no less intense in animals — at least mammals and birds, and probably fish, reptiles, and amphibians.

But I don't think I have ever or will ever influence someone else's behavior toward animals by arguing rights. In fact, I may just put him off. Rights are legalistic, almost mathematical. You can get into endless discussions about theory and philosophy. You can even "win" the argument hands down. Your opponent may just go home and decide how he'll better refute your conclusions next time.

Animal rights makes for an interesting debate. You could easily use up an evening — or several evenings — at the local tavern arguing the pros and cons and fine points of various rights theories.

But what moves us? What compels us to action, to change our ways? What is it that makes us go from exploiting animals to treating them with kindness? Looking in their eyes. Knowing them. Considering the world from their point of view. Having sympathy for them. Developing a sense of service, not entitlement. Wanting to share and be generous.

Rights speak to none of this. In fact, the desire to enact rights comes from these basic emotions. Empathy for others, not some calculated formula, is why we demand and pass animal cruelty laws.

When someone challenges me on animal rights theory, I can go toe-to-toe with him. I've been doing this for the last few years. I can make points and counterpoints and identify flaws in my opponent's arguments and support my line of thinking and so forth. The other party may or may not agree that I've made a strong case. At the end of the day, I doubt that it makes much difference in his real-life attitudes toward animals.

All I can do is try to open up his heart. To get him to care. To get him to feel just a little bit of the pain animals feel when we lock them up and deprive them of everything that gives their life meaning. To let him see that animals may suffer terribly when we are cruel to them but thrive and dazzle us with their beauty when we are kind to them.

I can only try to cultivate empathy for all the wonderful creatures with whom we share the earth. Empathy, a feeling inside that we are all related, that we share the deepest desires and fears, that — if you are a believer in God — we all derive from the same merciful Source; I believe that is the key to peace.

In the wild, lions live in a society. Females share child-rearing duties. A lions' territory can be as large as 200 square miles.

In circuses, lions are forced to be solitary. They live in cages, sometimes in chains. They have no mothers.

Please don't support cruelty.

To everyone, but especially those who say we must do everything possible to help those afflicted by life-threatening disease or injury. Here's something you can do right now:

Call (888) 355-SHARE and become an organ and tissue donor. This is a powerful way to help advance medicine and save lives.

If you're a minority, your gift is even more precious.

For more information:

• womenshealth.gov


• Coalition on Donation


• Donate Life

My fellow vegans ---

One of the principles that we follow and try to cultivate in others is giving living beings the benefit of the doubt when assessing whether they are aware and capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and whether they have interests that deserve protection. We believe in, and in some cases preach this fundamental aspect of veganism for at least two reasons: a) to make every reasonable attempt to avoid causing harm to beings that do not want to be harmed; b) to promote sympathy for all sentient creatures, which may be the most essential criteria for creating a peaceful, harmonious, and just society.

To be consistent with our values, we need to apply the same benefit of the doubt to human fetuses. For the same reason that we advocate maximum respect for honeybees, we should question the morality of destroying a human fetus (or any fetus, for that matter) as it approaches the end of its second trimester, by which time the fetus is generally considered to be viable. It is highly likely that even prior to that point in its life, the fetus is a sentient being, just like a bird or a bee.

There is no precise moment at which the developing fetus goes from non-aware to aware, just as there is no precise dividing line for sentient and non-sentient species. We try to be as kind as possible to all creatures. If we are to subscribe to the principle of least harm, and if we are opposed to exploitation, we have to critically examine whether it's morally justifiable to terminate the life of a 24-week old fetus under less than dire circumstances.

It may be easy for the average vegan to be "anti-pro-life," because we are opposed to and offended by the tactics used by some of the more ardent pro-life fundamentalists. But, fellow vegans, let's not do to the pro-lifers what others do to us. Questionable tactics by fervent activists — perhaps fueled by built-up frustration and distress at seeing what they perceive to be wanton, selfish slaughter — is not a sufficient reason to ignore the entire pro-life message or the implied obligations in that message. This should have a familiar ring.

Furthermore, we may have a negative reaction to the pro-life philosophy because it is so closely tied in with Christianity, and Christianity in practice — not in theory, I would argue — has been violently cruel to animals and arrogantly dismissive of their suffering. Just as hating PETA is not a sufficient reason to eat meat, revulsion of Church practices should not be the basis of one's views on abortion and fetus rights.

We owe it to ourselves and to in-utero humans to examine the abortion issue independent of the politics, tactics, or shortcomings of its most outspoken proponents.

I do believe one can make a heartfelt and morally sound case for destroying early-term embryos. That is not to say that embryos are intrinsically valueless. But sentience is a hugely significant line of demarcation. Once there is even a small chance that the developing life has interests, and can start to sense the pleasure and pain of life, he or she deserves the same protections we advocate for animals. It is up to us, the powerful and responsible, to make sacrifices where feasible on behalf of those whose fate is greatly affected by our decisions.

I respect freedom of choice and believe that we have a right to privacy, but neither of these things is the highest good; they do not trump the right of an individual to not be tortured or killed. Furthermore, I'm disturbed that often in pro-choice circles, the focus is almost entirely on the needs of the mother; the profound interests of the fetus are frequently missing from the discussion. Much as the pig is totally forgotten when a meat-eater says "I want the freedom to choose to eat spare ribs."

We must strive to consider the widest definition of sentience, to presume sentience in the fetus if we're unsure. Probably long before viability, the fetus is a person, living in the womb, with feelings, sensations, and emerging emotions such as happiness, sadness, and fear. He is an animal, too, and thus deserving of rights and the compassion of ethical vegans.

Judge Roberts, do animals -- at least some animals -- deserve the right not to be tortured by us?

The animal rights movement, though tiny in terms of budget and number of people compared to the multi-billion-dollar animal exploitation industry, continues to make headway. Its central message -- show compassion to animals because it is decent and right and because the animals deserve to be treated well by us -- is resonating more and more with the public. In addition, some animal rights groups, such as Compassion Over Killing, are using the law to fight false advertising that dupes consumers into unwittingly supporting cruelty to which they're opposed.

Two recent cases illustrate how society is slowly but surely moving away from treating animals as mere resources:

• The two largest natural food stores in the US —Whole Foods and Wild Oats — now sell only cage-free eggs.


• Giant Food Stores, the largest supermarket chain in the Washington, DC area, has removed the misleading "Animal Care Certified" (ACC) label from its store-brand eggs.

In each of these victories for animal welfare, animal rights activists have played a central role, influencing consumers' attitudes by educating them on the horror of battery cages and how ACC hens are subject to torturous not humane conditions. In fact, when shoppers learn the real truth about all the cruelty and suffering allowed under the deceptive ACC label they are often livid. Why don't any animal rights opponents — such as the Center for Consumer Freedom — have the integrity and moral courage to speak out against this fraud?

According to all major translations of the Bible, the one time God describes everything as Very Good is right after declaring the world to be vegan.

One of my wife's and my funnest times was going to the New Orleans JazzFest in 1994. It is a non-stop party, and the music is simply out of this world. Cajun, Zydeco, blues, gospel, country, rock and roll -- it's amazing. Some people go every year; we were lucky to have caught it once (so far!). The highlight of our visit was seeing Irma Thomas at her club, the Lion's Den. I had recently been introduced to her music and had performed some of her tunes with a local singer. She is best known for her hit "Simply the Best," which was nominated for a Grammy, and for being the inspiration for the Rolling Stones' version of "Time is On My Side." But she has a huge repertoire, including some soulful ballads that are sung with so much bittersweetness you clutch at your heart when you hear them.

The Lion's Den was like a cluttered rec room, or a basement used for band practice. It had the feel of "excuse the mess" and we immediately felt at home. The club served red beans and rice — and they were cooked by Irma Thomas. Here was a Grammy nominee and nationally known musician cooking the food she served in her club! I found out also that at that time, she was in a local bowling league and taking community college classes. In contrast to so many pop stars who are full of ego and entourages, Ms. Thomas was the very essence of unpretentiousness. She was the real deal.

And she belted it out. We were about two feet from the stage. I gushed when I asked her to autograph a CD. She was very graceful and put me and all her other guests at ease. Her husband, nice to a fault, helped make sure that people got home safely, keeping them company while they waited outside for a taxi.

Several years later, I covered one of the songs on that CD, "Cry, Cry, Cry". I'll put that up on the music page I'm building (it will have a link from the blog).

I heard today on the radio that The Lion's Den was destroyed in the flood caused by Hurricane Katrina. I hope they can rebuild it. Nothing can take away our wonderful memories or diminish Irma's enduring heart and soul. But it's sad to see such a down home treasure lost. New Orleans, I have faith: some way, somehow, the good times will roll again.

(For all the jazz cats and all the animals, too!)

I was reading an article about a new shelter for feral cats. The building had all the amenities: skywalks, hiding places, scratching posts, soft beds, high perches, a screened-in porch. The construction took months and now the big day had arrived. A shelter volunteer let the first cat through the door to render judgment. The cat, a semi-feral, ventured a few steps, took a good look around, walked straight over to the volunteer and gave her a powerful head-bump. That was his approval.

Can animals communicate? You could write a ten-thousand word thesis on the new shelter and not make as eloquent a statement as that head-bump.

Pig "races" teach disrespect for pigs and reduce intelligent social animals to promotional gimmicks. Teach compassion and real information about animals by letting children see how pigs really live. Visit your nearest farm animal sanctuary to see how well-cared for pigs make beds out of straw, choose friends, cover themselves in mud to keep cool, and enjoy having their tummies rubbed (under supervision). Piglets like to play, explore, and be with their mothers. If there's not a farm sanctuary near you, consider taking a walk in a wildlife sanctuary or petting some very appreciative cats and dogs at your local animal shelter.

"To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice."

Animal rights (AR) opponent: I believe in animal welfare.

Me: How's the animal welfare in factory farms, where animals are severely confined, amputated without painkillers, and denied exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and soft ground?

AR opponent: Not too good.

Me: Do you buy meat from the store or eat meat from a restaurant, which probably came come a factory farm?

AR opponent? Yes.

Me: Why?

AR opponent: I like it.

Me: Would you switch to veggie meats if they tasted nearly as good?

AR opponent: I don't know. I like the real thing.

So much for animal welfare. The slightest inconvenience to the routine is enough to throw the concept out the window. This goes beyond hypocrisy. It's more like an addiction. Or a delusion of caring.

---

---

At some point, fake meat will be indistinguishable from animal meat. Slowly but surely, people will switch. A few holdouts, basically afraid of change, will make all kinds of excuses, each of which will fall by the wayside and look very silly a few years later. Vegans and compassionate consumers have already started the trend. Each new wave of people who try veggie meat alternatives are less like pioneers. The bar for buying veggie bacon, chicken, and burgers keeps falling. No one is the first one on their block or in their office to try Boca Burgers any more. Eventually, the last resistors will join the bandwagon or die off. Meat by then will be a luxury item and start to seem weird, primitive, and unacceptably inhumane to the average person, who will have grown up with meat being a marginal item. It's unfortunate that in the long meantime, so many people are locked into their regimens, unable to break out of a cruel and destructive lifestyle, blind to the fact that their protestations against quitting have about the same merit and sense as those used by the alcoholic.

---

If you spend the weekend handing out leaflets about the horrors of the fur trade, so people can learn about the suffering that goes into every fur handbag and every fur collar, so shoppers can learn that rabbits made into fur never take one hop in their life, and foxes go insane from the confinement -- you inevitably get: "Why aren't you helping people?" But if you spend the weekend watching football, you're not asked that.

Why does animal advocacy so often generate these mini-inquisitions? I have my ideas; what are yours?

(For an extreme example of this phenomenon, read about the mockery of justice at the Chesterfield County, Virginia Board of Supervisors meeting in the "I'm Not Stopping" -- Part 2: Chesterfield County post.)

We said "they can't feel pain" until we found out they could.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they are irrational" until we found out they were not.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they cannot speak" until we found out that gorillas can learn sign language and parrots can construct meaningful verb and object sentences.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they don't know how to use tools" until we found out that some do.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they have no culture" until we found out they did.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they have no art" until we learned that some elephants play drums or paint — on their own, and wolves harmonize.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they can't play" until we found out they invented play.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they are inferior" until Darwin said "different, not inferior."
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they cannot love" until we found out that pigs saved their humans' lives, and dogs braved gunfire to be with their human family, and rabbits grieve themselves to death, and elephants after an absence embrace, and that the sighted cat guided his blind brother by intertwining their two tails, and that two hens living in a filthy cage with nothing offer comfort to each other.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "we have to eat meat" until we found out we didn't.
Still we beat them and killed them.

We said "they have no soul" until we read the original Hebrew bible. We said "God put them here for our use" until we read "A righteous man regards the life of his beast" and "Blessed are the merciful."
Still we beat them and killed them.

We say "they have no rights."
And we will go on beating them and killing them until we find out they do.

All attempts to justify cruelty have been vain attempts to maintain power. Only when we release our grip on power and stand humbly as servants to Creation will we truly find our power.

"God looks unjust but is not. God asks more from those who more is given. They are not greater or better; they have greater responsibility. They must give more service. Live to serve."

In remembrance of those who were killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. They are not just anonymous names. They are friends' and co-workers' spouses. They are whoever drove the car with the funny vanity tag and proud parent of an honor student bumper sticker in the parking garage. They are people I passed on the road. Personnel list entries, now crossed out.

May peace come to us all.

As I drive past the Pentagon, the fire is still there. The soldiers' and the bureaucrats' faces are indelible in my mind's eye, their spirit forever in my heart. I will not forget you. Lord, let me play my role in creating a country of which they would be proud.

Dedicated to those who perished in the Pentagon, September 11, 2001.

The next post is a moment of silence for them.

This post is not about animal rights, just a poem I wrote four years ago that I dug out of the vault.

The newest link on the right-hand side is: JoeParadox.com. Self-effacing, funny, brutally honest, humane. A chronicle of the ups and downs and missteps and achievements and amusing inanities of life. The writing exudes a wonderful warmth, like you're having a conversation with an old and dear friend. Who happens to be vegan.

Millions of cats and dogs are killed for their fur each year.

They're raised in small cages where they have no room to move.

They're killed by a variety of inhumane methods, including strangulation -- the animal struggles to remove the noose from his neck until losing consciousness.

Cat and dog fur is often labeled as something else, for example, rabbit or wolf, or a more obscure-sounding animal.

Thanks in part to investigative efforts by the Humane Society of the United States, the U.S. banned the importation of products with cat or dog fur. It is still legal in Canada and some European countries.

It is difficult to detect if a piece of fur in a garment came from a cat or dog.

The most effective way to end these atrocities is to not buy fur of any sort, and to urge your friends and families not to buy fur. When the market for all fur decreases, so does the number of cats and dogs that suffer and die in the fur trade.

Other animals raised for fur suffer the same as cats and dogs.

Excerpts from a letter to the editor that appeared several months ago in the Washington Post:


Zoos often defend themselves by touting their educational value.

In a recent thread about naturalist Aldo Leopold, I was unnecessarily rude to an anonymous commenter. My rudeness was uncalled for and I apologize. I let my readers down and I let myself down. I wish I could erase some of the things I said, but I said them, and I've left them out there. As I have mentioned in this blog, guilt and shame can be catalysts for positive change. That applies to me, too.

I pledge to the best of my ability to be civil and polite, to give commenters and emailers the benefit of the doubt, to refrain from gratuitous personal judgments, and to be as non-confrontational as possible. I realize that in a contentious realm like animal rights that is not always easy. But it is doable. I owe it to myself, to blog readers, to discussion participants, to God, and to the animals to show courtesy and respect to all people, including those with whom I disagree, and to represent the animal rights movement with grace and dignity. I will strive to do that, with renewed determination. I apologize to anyone to whom I was unfair, and to the blog readers who expect and deserve better.

I do have some posts coming up about certain remarks made in that thread that disturb me greatly, not because they were a personal attack or anything of that sort, but because they arrestingly, astonishingly remind me of the extent to which humanity feels — or invents — an entitlement to destroy members of other species simply because it wants to. The remarks make me fear for my species, for the animals, and for progress in compassion and peace. Not enough to lose hope, but enough to feel sick for all the cruelty that is yet to be inflicted and all the needless suffering that is yet to be endured, before we heal ourselves and become more benevolent in our dealings with non-humans.

The posts will be harsh and heartfelt, likely to draw controversy. I hate the sin and love the sinner, even though I fail myself sometimes in the latter goal. If I am to advocate kindness, it must start with my dealings with everyone. Who am I to know precisely what motivates a person to do the things he does and say the things he says? Did I have his childhood, his life, his genes — even his day? Am I any better? No. Can I judge a person before I have walked in his shoes? No. All I can do is strive for peace. Each of us can do better, including me. But I am dedicated to go further than that and inspire, implore, and challenge all of us to upgrade how we treat all creatures, including, and especially, the weak and powerless, but also the strangers whose words make us shudder. There is no point in winning an argument or telling someone off. That breeds resentment, not understanding. Any short-term satisfaction dissipates into embarrassment and emptiness soon enough. But I have fallen prey to that superficial attraction at times. That's petty and wrong. The animals suffering in their cages are not impressed. My challenge will be to articulate my passion for saving animals, and my determination for pushing my own species into becoming the greatest helpers and friends ever to walk the planet, rather than a species to be dreaded and feared — and to do that with humility and respect.

Each of us ultimately seeks our own truth, yet I feel each of us is capable of tapping into the moral goodness that is the real basis, the real unifying force and hope of the universe. To some, that is the God of the Bible. To others it may be the sense of solidarity and paternal love that overwhelms you when you hold a small animal in your hand. Who is to say those are not ultimately the same power? How can I best contribute to us reaching that state of grace? I'm not sure but I'm trying.

On a much more down-to-earth note, one reason I have decided to keep my embarrassing failings of decorum on the blog is to show people that anyone can be vegan. You can live in a penthouse, townhouse, or a trailer park. You can be a pacifist, you can be a soldier. Vegans don't always talk in platitudes or walk on air. We stumble as much as the next guy. We say things we regret and have moral lapses. Perfection is out of reach but trying to do your best, to be as kind as possible, is within everyone's grasp. We're all equals in that respect. Our progress can be measured not by comparing ourselves to others but to our potential.

Contention by animal rights opponents: Laws governing animals should reflect the will of the public, not a fringe group of animal rights extremists.

Challenge back #1: Three-quarters of the American public opposes steel-jawed leghold traps. The American Veterinarian Medical Association, American Animal Hospital Association, World Veterinary Association, and National Animal Control Association all consider leghold traps to be inhumane. They are still legal in the U.S. (They are illegal in 89 countries.)

Challenge back #2: In 2002, both houses of Congress voted to expand the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to finally include coverage of rats, mice, and birds. This was the original intention of the Act, but the vivisection lobby has fought all attempts to define rodents and birds as "animals." (They also fought the AWA's inception.) The AWA expansion was part of a package of animal protection legislation included in the Farm Bill. Then-senator Jesse Helms was charged with reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill. Going outside his charter, at the 11th hour, behind closed doors, and with pressure from the vivisection lobby, he deleted almost all the animal protection amendments, including the one that would have included rodents and mice — which comprise more then nine out of ten research animals — in the AWA.

Challenge to lawmakers and regulators: Arm Americans with all the facts. Let them see how battery-cage eggs are produced and how pigs scream to their death in the slaughterhouse when not completely bled out. Let the public know that veal pens are a by-product of dairy, and that most dairy cows live in dirt and mud, not green pastures. Let consumers see the suffering, including animals collapsing, during and after transport. Then take the pulse of the people. Then do what's right, balancing cheap meat versus the infliction of life-long suffering; the luxury of fur versus insanity in a tiny cage and terror in a body-gripping trap. Keep in mind that standard procedures in factory farms and the fur trade are illegal, on grounds of cruelty, to companion animals. So it's not a question of whether those acts are cruel; it's a question of whether cruelty is allowed.

-- Thomas Paine, founding father of the American Revolution, staunch abolitionist, believer in God but fierce critic of the Church, author of Common Sense

Aldo Leopold, like John Muir and other great naturalists, called upon us to respect wildness and recognize our obligation to preserve the earth and its inhabitants -- not just in quantity but in its pristine state.

In the last 60 years we have constructed huge, hideous shrines to the destruction of wildness. What could be more un-wild than 80,000 genetically-altered birds crammed into a windowless shed, never breathing fresh air or seeing the sun, their excrement seeping into groundwater and estuaries?

In modern, large-scale agriculture operations, we stifle animals' basic instincts, pervert their sexuality, separate mother from child, cut off body parts, distort their basic anatomy, and induce diseases they would never naturally acquire.

There is also an unnatural meanness in factory farms. Sick animals are painfully poked with electric prods so that they will march toward their slaughter. The bellowing of a cow whose calf has just been stolen from her is callously ignored. In fact, to show sympathy would likely invite ridicule.

When animals are bred, grown, and killed like soulless machines, we sever our relationship with them. They race by on slaughterhouse lines, so fast that they lose all individuality. They become a blur, an indistinguishable thing. The consumers of the dead animals see a package of wings. The living, breathing creature that once owned those wings is removed from the picture.

I cannot imagine Leopold and all the other great naturalists of the past, with their keen sensitivity and respect for nature, being anything less than outraged by today's factory farms and other institutions that thoroughly corrupt nature.

In fact, since these men were activists in their time, unafraid of espousing ideas that challenged the prevailing anthropocentric relationship with the environment, if they were alive today I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were on the front line, writing articles and books that decried our widespread industrialized crimes against nature.

(A copy of this commentary was sent to the Aldo Leopold Foundation.)

This afternoon I was "comment spammed" (whereby someone with nothing better to do sends out a mass flood of comments), so I turned on the Blogger comment verification feature. That's where you have to enter the numbers or letters you see on the screen before your comment can be saved. According to Blogger, this shouldn't interfere with any legitimate comments, including anonymous comments.

From Evacuees angushed at leaving pets behind:


I distinctly recall, a few months ago, the host of a popular anti-animal rights web site dismissing "pets are family" as a "figure of speech."

PETA president Ingrid Newkirk starts off her blog post by highlighting human heroism and kindness to animals in the wake of Katrina:


She reminds us of the dark side:


This image haunts me, for many reasons.

Newkirk ends with a plea to plan for disaster, and to include your animals in your plans. The post also has a link to Are You Prepared for Disaster?. I highly recommend reading this page; it lists important steps to take now that could save your animals' lives in a future emergency.

Spotted recently on the web:

The defiant immorality of the Ringling family goes beyond beating elephants:

Ringling lawyers ordered to pay PETA $51,000


Not mentioned in the article is the reason Feld was spying on PETA. Ringling, Siegfried and Roy, and just about all companies that make money from animal exploitation and enslavement base their business on deception. They hide the ugliness from their customers, from the public, and present a false, feel-good reality. PETA uncovers the evidence to bust those myths, and displays it for the entire world to see. The corporate animal exploiters desperately do not want the public to think about the horrid cruelties that go on behind the glitter of the show; that could cripple business. But rather than institute humane reforms, they go after the whistleblowers. In this case they got desperate and resorted to espionage. How much do you wanna bet these are not the only guys illegally spying on animal rights groups? Good for PETA for fighting back and exposing yet another seedy side of the circus / animal entertainment industry.

Let me throw this out, also. I would not be a bit surprised if some animal rights vandalism incident was completely faked — actually carried out by operatives working for the animal exploiters. This is only conjecture, of course. But ---

1. It would be easy to do. Have the confederates claim they're with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). That puts ALF on the defensive. ALF will correctly deny that they had anything to do with the break-in, but the company behind the scheme will work the media, play up their victimhood, point the finger at ALF, and express righteous indignation at the "extremists and terrorist elements within the animal rights movement." They'll use their publicists and media savvy to win the court of public opinion and score points — at the expense of the animals and the truth.


2. There's at least one documented case of a very similar stunt having already been attempted — by U.S. Surgical, which started the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a pro-animal experimentation lobbying group that fights animal welfare laws and makes claims that are so ridiculous they'd be laughable if they weren't so deadly.

Virgil Butler, once named the "best chicken killer in Arkansas," came to see, largely through the eyes of his partner Laura, how excessive corporate greed turned torture into profit and turned decent men into monsters. He is now the animals' best friend in Arkansas. He and Laura are doing a wonderful thing:

• Soliciting throughout nearby communities and over the Internet for much-needed clothing and personal care items for Hurricane Katrina victims.


• Collecting food and dishes for animal survivors of the storm.


• Delivering them to relief centers in Shreveport, Louisiana, making as many trips as necessary.


• Providing space and basic necessities for displaced people, pets, and possibly even chickens on their property.

If you'd like to donate items, please send them to General Delivery, Pine Ridge, AR 71966. If you'd like to donate money, you can do so through the PayPal button on their blog. Virgil and Laura are also looking for volunteers to help with driving chores. This is a true grassroots effort. There will be no coffee mugs or fancy calendars sent out, and no executive salaries to pay. No "general fund" coffers will be filled. All money will go toward helping victims — humans and other living beings who are suffering from the disaster.

I have had the good fortune of meeting these big-hearted people, and wish them Godspeed in their efforts. Please spread the word — and not just to animal rights sites, but any sites. We can all work together for the common good.

---

[Side note: Today, in front of the grocery store, some girls were holding a bake sale to help flood victims. They presented buyers with the option of donating to the Red Cross and/or the Humane Society of the United States, "to help the animals."]

A dilemma that's often talked about but never resolved in vegan circles, and that's usually kept "inside:" What about cats? More specifically, how can we ethically feed cats a vegan diet? I want to focus mostly on the second question for right now.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to formulate healthy and tasty vegan foods for cats. In fact, it's probably possible to develop vegan cat foods that are healthier and taster than meat-based diets. Do we have that technology right now? I would think so. Are we pursuing it? Not really. Lack of demand.

A vegan diet is one rather elegant way out of a quandary: we love our rescued cats but need to feed them animals to sustain them. I've heard lots of discussions and proposals and contemplations and frustrations and arguments about this, and probably played most of them in my head. Of course, there are always some anti-animal rights activists that are looking for any chink in the integrity of vegans, will cite that cat dilemma, and go directly from that to justifying factory farms and rodeos. For the rest of us, who are looking for compassionate solutions...

I think the ethical way to test vegan diets for cats is to come up with the best formulation in the lab, feed it to cats in minute doses, monitor their health, then ramp up the dose in small increments. If something looks troubling, hold back, fix the problem, and start over. This "micro-dose and increment" method seems like a logical and ethical way to test new drugs, also, once the in vitro part is done. It's not my original idea. I've read researchers' much more articulate explanations. But stop me if I'm off-base.

We would test on cats like we test new drugs on children. The cats' guardians give informed consent on behalf of their cats. The guardian, as usual, is in a unique position to detect changes in the cat's health, behavior, and demeanor.

In one sense, this effort is has been underway, albeit imperfectly, for several years. Some vegans already feed their cats vegan cat foods. The brand I see most often as a source for vegan pet food is Evolution. I've talked to a few of these folks. I haven't hear any bad stories yet. Everyone I've talked to who fed their cats vegan food on a regular basis has had good luck, provided the cat didn't snub his nose at the food. This small set of anecdotal evidence of course doesn't prove we can put our cats on a vegan diet, and home-testing is no substitute for a coordinated, carefully monitored study conducted in conjunction with veterinarians and feline nutrition experts. The vegan cats could be developing chronic dietary deficiencies that may not show up for years. The ones doing fine may have a rare gene expression that influences a key aspect of protein digestion and distinguishes them from other cats. And so forth.

But the "leading edge" home testers do provide some proof-of-concept basis, however incomplete. What's missing is interest by the veterinary community. One reason — no money. If pet food companies saw a big market for vegan cat food, they'd pump money into it. Also, almost all veterinarians consider a vegan diet for cats dangerous, impossible, or impractical; at least that's what they say. I suspect that if you discussed it further with them, they would agree that theoretically it's doable. After all, it's not the meat that cats need, but the ingredients in the meat. At the risk of over-simplifying, you put those ingredient in a can, add flavoring, and you're good to go. Already, pet food companies, for nutritional reasons, intentionally do not perfectly mimic the meat that cats would eat. They may add vitamin C for enhanced immune function, cranberries to lower the risk of urinary tract infections, vegetables for phytonutrients, omega-3 fatty acids to support various bodily processes and improve coat luster, coenzyme Q-10 to strengthen heart muscles and gum health, and extra taurine because there is apparently little risk but potentially significant health benefits from supplemental taurine.

So what's the best course of action? We love our rescued cats, they're part of our family and our lives but we don't want to harm animals any more than minimally necessary for survival. Do we step up the effort to look at vegan cat food alternatives? Now that we've helped establish the market for vegan chicken, ham, and turkey for humans, do we apply our consumer power to at least exploring vegan cat foods? Do we broach the subject with our veterinarians? At least those whom we feel are open-minded and with whom we have a trusting relationship? I'll bring it up, gingerly, with my vet. I like my vet a lot and he's not very dogmatic (especially since he's cats-only). I'll let him know that this is nothing I'm thinking of doing immediately. I'm sure we'll get resistance. Putting myself in their shoes, I could not see me endorsing a vegan diet, if for no other reason than I would know that people would go about it irresponsibly. That's one reason most vets don't endorse home-cooked diets. They know it can be done in a diligent manner that provides quality nutrition to the cat. But people can also do it wrong and hurt their cat. Canned foods are imperfect but predictable.

Now, invariably some wiseacre, perhaps through email, suggests that we haughty, holier-than-thou vegans should just put down our cats if we have zero tolerance for killing animals for meat. Of course, that's just angry rhetoric; we'd no longer put down our beloved cats down then we would kill off all the coyotes because they might prey on stray cats. Should environmental advocates live in tents and own no more than three changes of clothes in order to be pure? (They ought to be vegan, since that's fairly easy and most likely has a bigger environmental positive impact than any other lifestyle change.) Or is a more realistic goal doing the best we can, guided by compassion, cognizant of our human "weakness" for favoring the ones we love rather than striving for absolute optimum allocation of resources for the entire planet? There is a dilemma here, make no mistake. Just like the needs of our child may conflict with our dedication for human rights, the needs of our animal "children" may conflict with our vegan goals. What's the most compassionate but realistic solution? Let me lay out my non-binding but sincere and highly desired request for guidelines and ground rules in this discussion. I'm interested in constructive solutions. It's incredibly easy and thoroughly counterproductive to "nyah, nyah" someone who's trying to sort out competing interests and do the right thing. That said, all criticism is welcome, although I'm more interested in productive ideas and solutions.

---

Long story short, our cat basically knocked on the door, walked in, and took over. My wife and I were already mostly vegetarian for health and environmental reasons, but we only had a superficial knowledge of animals. We had never thought about animal rights and I couldn't tell you what the word "vegan" meant. I would probably have said it had something to do with Venus. After our cat moved in, I was quickly mesmerized. I had never been an "animal person" before. (I've since found out that lots of non-animal or non-cat people experience this dramatic turnaround when a cat "chooses" them.) From learning about cats and observing my cat, this curious and mystifying invader, came my belated interest in animal rights and animal welfare and a fundamental sea change in how I viewed the world and my role in it. This all happened in the last five years.

Researching cats became a cascade of disturbing and unsettling discoveries. First I found out about declawing, robbing a cat of an integral part of his body and lifestyle. I found out that in most countries the procedure was illegal or de-facto outlawed on animal cruelty grounds, vets almost unanimously despise it, and as a consequence so did cat owners. But in this country, vets not only performed the procedure at practically the drop of a hat, but often actually recommended it and gave scant or little information about humane alternatives such as multiple, well-located, sturdy scratching posts, or SoftPaws nail caps. I quickly learned about the multiple benefits of embedded scratching with claws, and the myriad ways in which cats used their claws. Claws are a part of a cats skeletal and sensory system. I couldn't believe that people would so callously lop them off. Anyway this burst my bubble. I just thought that pets were pets. You called them pet names and played with them and it was sad when they died and that was that.

Next I learned that a company was going to kill 200 feral cats because the cats lived on property and that was slated for a new office building. "What? They were just going to kill them just like that? Not even try to re-home them? How could people be so heartless?" My eyes were opening and I was greatly dismayed about what I saw. How can humans who are so magnificent in some ways be so thoughtlessly —
casually — cruel in other ways? My heart soared when a coalition of animal rights groups talked the company into trapping and relocating the cats.

I learned about hideously cruel lab experiments on cats. At first I gave the experimenters the benefit of the doubt. I always thought all scientific research was necessary to cure disease or solve pressing world problems, and that it was carefully scrutinized. I had nothing really to go on besides reading about cures that were always just around the corner. The more I read about the experiments, the more deeply skeptical I became. My, how claims of "science" and "curing disease" can be a powerful way to fool people. I learned about experiments that went on for decades, in which kittens were painfully shocked when they tried to approach their mothers, and these experiments were defended on grounds that they provided valuable insights into juvenile delinquency. What an insult to my intelligence. By this time I saw that people, corporations, and government agencies could destroy cats to save or make money. I was pretty horrified, disgusted, and saddened by the heartless attitudes of my fellow humans who tried to hide all this from the public.

I learned about the conditions on factory farms. One cruelty after another, starting with incubation and painful debilitating procedures (or death) given to newborns, and ending with a hideously inhumane ride to the slaughterhouse, where torture was inevitable due to sloppy practices, lack of training, and lack of animal protection laws.

Now this next step in my own evolution took a while. I understood and accepted factory farm horrors at the abstract level. I thought they were atrocious. But I was fairly addicted to cheese and eggs. I couldn't see giving them up. I went through the whole usual chain of excuses and justifications: eating eggs isn't invasive, there's nothing left to eat if I give up those foods, I'll buy free-range eggs, where do you draw the line, etc. The same ones I see all the time now on the other side. We're all so different yet in our excuses to eat animals we're all so much the same. But as I thought about it, played over the conflicts in my mind, and researched (not just going to the PETA web site, mind you, but talking to adamantly pro-meat disciples sometimes for hours at a time), the excuses fell by the wayside. I really wanted to continue eating eggs and dairy. I liked those foods. I cooked with them. It was comfortable. I was reluctant to accuse myself of participating in daily animal abuse of a severe nature. I put distanced between my personal behavior and what I saw in pictures and videos and heard from eyewitness accounts and knew to be true in far-off, dark factory farms and killing floors. Eventually, and with great hesitation and frequent backsteps and flip-flopping, I became vegan because I had to. I just could not contribute to such preventable suffering. Some of the agonies we put animals through are just horrific. They're out of a horror movie. They're so unthinkably mean, that, just like now, I have to stop typing because there is no word to describe them; they all fall short.

Luckily I found out very quickly that there were a thousand foods I'd overlooked in the grocery store, and the gap left by omitting diary and eggs soon filled up and overflowed with new taste sensations. Plus, by this time you could get fake versions of most meats, so much of my fear about what to eat was unnecessary and all in my mind.

My moral evolution, like yours, is always a work in progress and unfinished. Where it will go next, I don't know. That's one of the excitements of being alive.

And I owe it mostly to my cat. It was through seeing his intelligence, behaviors, playfulness, curiosity, desires, and sometimes pure joy, that I became fascinated in animals and became an activist. He was the representative for all animals. Indirectly he is responsible for saving the lives of thousands of animals. The hundreds that won't be killed or cruelly confined since my wife and I became vegan. All the ones that won't be killed because my mom reduced her meat intake by 75 percent. The ones spared because I've convinced some friends and co-workers to reduce their meat intake. (I was the catalyst but they made the decisions on their own.) People on the street, after receiving info I handed them on how fur is produced, sometimes are immediately horrified and declare right then and there that they're going fur-free. I think they're sincere. More animals relieved of excruciating suffering and inhumane deaths. Through my work at the animal shelter, I educate people on the value of claws. I tell them that the Iams corporation has put companion animals in small barren cages for years at a time, de-vocal chorded them and killed them, and denied it. So those lab animals are spared suffering and cruel death. Each person that changes their lifestyle may tell others. A friend lent his colleague the Peaceable Kingdom video, and now that person has stopped eating meat.

In return, I take good care of my cat.

---

[Side note: I don't ask anything of others that I don't ask of myself. I believe people who have the choice should get meat and dairy out of their diet, for ethical and environmental reasons. I would never tell someone that they should kill their cat to save other animals. I don't believe in violent or totally unreasonable solutions. I don't believe in being a hypocrite: telling someone they should do something that I wouldn't do myself. But I believe ethical vegans have to honestly look into the moral aspects of feeding and nurturing carnivores. It comes up in discussion groups frequently, but typically ends with "I don't know" and then gets swept under the rug. The situation gets murkier if we theorize into the future when there are no more companion animals to rescue. I'll have a post on that in the next 2-3 weeks.]

From the In Defense of Animals E-Newsletter:



One word stands out: Chained.

"What makes a human being human is precisely the ability to understand that the suffering of an animal is more important than the taste of a treat."

I need to update my comments, and perhaps my perceptions, about the looting in New Orleans. Previously I merely condemned it. I think it's more nuanced than I thought at first glance. I still cannot condone gratuitous violence or unlawfulness, but as an animal rights advocate I know full well that it's all too easy to point your finger at someone doing something illegal and shout "criminal" self-righteously, before fully considering what led up to the act.

I think some — not all — of the blame for the mayhem has to be placed on President Bush's shoulders. Not only because of his inexplicable and inexcusable languid response to the disaster — that we knew was coming well in advance — but because of policies that gutted FEMA and tied up resources like helicopters and national guard units. His willful decisions have exacerbated the situation.

In addition, when humans — or any species — are in dire straits, confined, mistreated, and lacking access to vital resources, some will break under the pressure and display their worst sides, even if normally they are polite and peaceful. That doesn't blanket-excuse miscreant behavior, but it helps us to understand what may have caused it.

There are multiple layers of tragedies occurring, and I'm in no position to pre-judge victims' behavior without knowing the whole story.

[Side note 1: Yesterday, one of my wife's co-workers showed her two nearly identical news pictures of hurricane survivors trudging groceries. The caption on the first picture was something about coping. The caption on the second picture was something about looting. The people in the first picture were white; the people in the second picture were black. I wish I could chalk this up to coincidence, but I can't.]

[Side note 2: Thank you to animal rights activist Ed Mulrenin, who appropriately goaded the Washington Post for omitting animal-related organizations in their list of disaster relief groups. His efforts paid off.]

The employees of the National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST), and nearby residents in Gaithersburg, Maryland realized they had too many deer on the NIST campus. But they did not want to reduce the size of the herd through hunting. Many people had come to know the deer on a personal level and thought of them as extended family.

With assistance from the Humane Society of the United States, NIST embarked on a non-lethal control program using anti-fertility drugs. Several months ago, I talked with a spokesman from NIST who was centrally involved with the effort. We spoke for about 20 minutes. Unfortunately, I've lost all my notes, so I can only give a summary of the conversation.

In short, the program has been an unqualified success. NIST has met its goals and reduced the herd by several hundred members. Not a shot was fired. The spokesman was very pleased with the outcome. So, apparently, was the community.

Prior to embarking on the program, the local government held hearings on the program. Support was very positive. Some citizens expressed gratitude that there were options for controlling deer populations besides killing them.

I asked the NIST representative how well he thought the fertility-based approach would work elsewhere. He was guardedly optimistic but realistic. He predicted that with current technology (there are few competing methods), the NIST success could be reproduced in other settings where there was either a large tract of property belonging to one owner or to several owners who agreed on policy. At present, sterilization measures work best on smaller, controlled populations where it's not too difficult to get to the deer. Urban and suburban settings, in which deer-related concerns are common, jive fairly well this ideal scenario. However, as the number of decision-makers increases, the tougher it is to reach consensus. The spokesman acknowledged that in some areas there might be resistance from hunters, who look forward to deer season with great anticipation and excitement.

Fertility-based wildlife management technology is still in its infancy. Its potential is huge, but it's up against politically powerful hunting and shooting interests, including the NRA. Funding is almost non-existent. But the NIST experience shows that it works. All we have to do now is improve delivery methods, refine techniques, and sell the idea to the public, the vast majority of whom are non-hunters. Our new "heritage" can be one of peacefully preserving nature. (Even pro-hunting groups admit that up to 25 percent of animals shot by hunters don't die right away.)

NIST employees are experts at precise measurements, and they can certainly quantify the success of the deer reduction program in terms of herd size. But as the NIST spokesman pointed out, the real measure of success is something to which NIST can't apply a number: seeing an old friend grazing on the grounds.

From the Falls Church (Virginia) News-Press:


Full editorial...

Here's a recurring argument proposed by advocates of animal exploitation, and often seen in anti-animal rights web sites in one form or another:

By that logic, since we inevitably contribute to human deaths through air pollution from our cars, its okay to run over people.

Why do anti-animal rightists even bother with such feeble arguments to defend the intentional killing and (in most cases) torturing of animals? How much energy they must waste trying to convince themselves that these contorted and clearly self-serving excuses justify mass brutality. It would take far less effort to do the right thing, divest themselves of complicity in cruelty, and switch to an animal-free diet.

Compassion Over Killing sums up this common stonewalling tactic:


Doesn't the fact that we already inadvertently harm creatures through daily living obligate us that much more to refrain from causing them further pain and suffering — especially if we can easily prevent it?

Veganism is guided by the moral, peaceful principles of the Golden Rule and "least harm." It aims to minimize the destruction and injury we cause others. By choosing not to eat animals, we each save one or two thousand animals directly, and potentially millions indirectly (through less clearing of forests, lower fuel usage, decreased water pollution, and so forth). Since most food animals are raised in factory farms, where they are forced to live in intense confinement and deprivation, removing animals from our plates (and from our closets, while we're at it) almost certainly reduces the amount of misery in the world. That is a shared goal, I hope. It is far easier to give up meat and dairy than it is to give up electricity, so vegetarianism is a good starting point for developing a more humane lifestyle. We need not wait for zero-impact energy use to become more kind to animals. If we are committed to treating all creatures with respect and compassion, we will inevitably find additional ways to reduce our negative impact upon them, such as becoming more energy-efficient. But first there has to be a desire. Attitude leads to action.

Of deeper concern: when I visit web sites that stridently defend and practically celebrate institutionalized animal abuse, I notice something glaringly missing: empathy. Where is the simpatico with other living beings? The self-restraint that compels us to help rather than hurt our fellow creatures? These anti-animal rights sites leave me cold. Superficially, they're about offering rationales for exploiting animals and opposing animal rights. The atmosphere is raw and chilling, however. The suffering of the animals seems to be of no consequence, or it is completely invisible. Perhaps through repetition and practiced denial, these defenders of enslavement and participants in cruelty have managed to turn off all sympathy for their victims. That's the tragedy.

Or maybe there's still some hope. The fact that some of these arguments are so flimsy, so desperate, indicates to me that even the most diehard meat-eaters have to go to great lengths to squelch their consciences, to overcome the still-small voice that cries on behalf of the weak and powerless when they're mistreated. Avoiding self-incrimination can be a morally expensive, chronic condition. The cure is stunningly simple: stop doing the things that bring on the guilt. This site may help you on your way.

It's not just cats and dogs that are abandoned and end up at the shelter -- if they're lucky. Perhaps your home would be perfect for a hampster, guinea pig, or rabbit. Or two, to keep each other company. There are plenty available for adoption. This compassionate letter in the Frederick (Maryland) News Post laments that "bunnies are inexpensively bought at local pet stores and the fair, or won as carnival prizes," and, as you'd expect, often end up with sad, short, neglected lives.

Unless someone intervenes. Think about it. I don't want to give the impression that these animals are a breeze to care for, because that's not true. Not only do you need to tend to their health, nutrition, and sanitation needs each day, but it is essential that you interact with them frequently. These creatures are social, and thrive when they're able to interact with their human family. They get lonely, sometimes even despondent, when deprived of companionship and play.

But the modest effort required to be a responsible caretaker is well worth it. Adding a furry addition to your household is a great way to give and receive affection, and to teach kindness and respect for life to your children. As has been said by many other people, animal companions, even the very little ones, "leave pawprints on our hearts."

"Once the demand for primary animal products shrinks and the by-products are no longer so cheap, companies will find new filtering methods, new ways to cure concrete, new means of producing steel and rubber, new blood-test methods, etc. As more people are concerned with animals, farming practices will be altered so fewer animals are harmed and killed during planting and harvesting of vegan food."

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) graciously lowered their estimate on the number of deaths caused by obesity each year in the United States, the Center for Consumer Freedom was up in arms. Shocked. "Scandal!", they cried. I think they wanted to declare the obesity crisis over, or claim that it never existed.

But as Paul Krugman points out in the New York Times, the reason for the CDC's adjustment is most likely that advances in medical care are able to sustain the lives of people suffering from obesity-related illnesses. In other words, high-tech intervention may stave off early mortality to some degree, even though quality of life may plummet. When the body is forced to carry considerably more fat than normal, it puts a burdensome and risky load on the joints and internal organs.

Most independent public health officials, insurance experts, and medical associations agree that health costs as a portion of GNP have shot up over the last 20 years in part due to rising rates of obesity, which is currently at epidemic levels (including in children) and is a significant factor in debilitating diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and stroke.

(The Center for Consumer Freedom represents major corporations in the meat industry.)

---

Related representative study:

Effect of changing to a self-selected vegetarian diet on anthropometric measurements in UK adults.


Not every study on vegetarianism reaches the same conclusion, but this is the trend if you browse through abstracts in medical journals and the PubMed database. Always check funding source if possible. As reported by the Washington Post, in a recent survey 15 percent of scientists admitted to suppressing data to comply with wishes of the study's sponsors.

Earlier this a year, a friend who knows vaguely that I'm involved with animal rights asked me, somewhat rhetorically, when I arrived late at his house, "So, were you out saving animals?" "For the most part," I said, " I don't save them. You do. I just show you how."