Animal Writings

From "FBI goes to war against activists", in the Sidney Morning Herald:

To evade the fact that we can nearly always choose between being kind and being selfish, some people (many?) decide that animals have been put here for specific purposes. The purposes almost always conveniently describe and presumably sanction behaviors that inflict suffering and death on animals.

Think about it. A God of mercy, who has expressed love and commitment to all His creatures, wants harmony, happiness, and peace. Not murder and torture. Not miserable lives in tiny cages, without exercise, sunlight, or fresh air. The only role for humans that makes moral sense is to strive to bring peace and happiness to all of Creation. Animals were put here as friends, not slaves who can be killed to satisfy humans' indulgences. That's downright cruel, and violently at odds with the original plan of Eden.

As I left for work today, a black squirrel greeted me with two quick shakes of the tail. He was perched in the dogwood tree in my front yard. Or was I in his front yard?

I thought, "Why not try to live in accordance with his interests as well as mine? He wants to live just like I want to live. He wants to be happy just like I want to be happy."

We're all connected, physically as well as spiritually; the world may know peace when we realize that we are one family, one planet, one fate.

If this is God's world, it means each life, not just human life, is precious and infused with Spirit. It means our obligation not just to maintain physical balance but to be kind is awesome.

Because we have self-esteem. Because we think too highly of ourselves to allow ourselves to be mean to animals, or to inflict preventable harm on other creatures. Because we're kind, moral, decent people.

Sign up here to pass out leaflets, so circus-goers can learn the ugly truth about Ringling's "Cruelest show on Earth."

Ringling has an ad for their circus in the Washington Post. It has a picture of a tiger and says "I am tiger, hear me roar." To which I'd like to add:

Note the following excerpts that show Ringling's callous disregard for animals. The show must go on. Everything is revenue and profit. Animal welfare be damned. A death here and there is cheaper than taking good care of them. You can always buy or breed another slave. This affidavit, from former Ringling lion handler Frank Hagan, talks about how Ringling transports lions in small, cramped cages for several hours in over 100-degree temperatures. These are proud, free lions, boxed up like inventory, so Ringling can make money off them. Here's how one Ringling victim died:


And this:


Ringling killed this lion. First they stole his life, then, in their quest to make a buck, or millions of them, they denied him water during a six hour-plus trip in the desert heat. He succumbed. From the trip. From the grueling and thankless life of a circus animal.

Ringling followed the usual corporate animal exploitation game plan: make the animals suffer. Brutalize them. Lie about it. Hide it. Cover it up. Deny it. Blame the whistleblower. Lie through your teeth and talk about how much you value animal welfare and love the animals. It's perverse. Do the dead and miserable animals ever show up in the executives' nightmares?

What are lions doing there anyway? Ringling is engaging in animal slavery. Epic animal cruelty, hidden with lies and deceit, blinding lights and glossy promotion. The lion's purview is shrunk to boxcars, the backs of trucks, and cages. His magnificence is reduced to staged burlesque; stupid, unnatural, coerced tricks. The lion committed no crime that should penalize him to a lifetime of impoverished servitude. The real criminals are the ones with the whips, prods, and bullhooks; the ones counting the money, collecting the receipts, hiring spies to steal records from groups that oppose animal cruelty. No animal joins the circus. They are forced into it. A circus animal has no life; he is instead a prop for a rotten, corrupt enterprise. Animal circuses are barbaric and wrong. We have advanced beyond them. They should and will be outlawed.

From circuses.com:


This fact sheet lists Ringling's animal deaths, violations of state and federal humane laws, documented cases of improper animal care, incidents that endangered people, efforts to impede animal welfare investigations, criminal activity, and more.

Excerpts:

If an animal protection group committed these acts, or allegedly committed these acts, they would be considered a terrorist threat, and the animal abuse industry and their friends in the legislature to whom they donate hundreds of millions of dollars would be considering bills and constitutional amendments to specifically protect giant corporations that exploit animals.

The real reason that Ringling spies on animal rights groups is because these groups expose the truth. Ringling doesn't want the public to know about the animal slavery behind the big top. Ringling is nothing but lies and more than anything else it fears the truth.

This is my initial response to Josie Appleton's essay, "Speciesism: a beastly concept". The essay is pro-cruelty. It's beastly in its arrogance and misinformation.

Dear Ms. Appleton:

Speciesism as practiced treats animals as things. One trip to a factory pig farm or concentrated battery caged-hen operation makes this abundantly clear. We also smash bullhooks into circus elephants to make them do tricks, shock captive rodeo calves with 5000-volt prods so they'll run faster, and skin rabbits alive for our vanity. Animals are so far from being treated with equal moral consideration that to fear they may have too much is ludicrous.

In animal laboratories, we see how long rats will tread water before they give up and drown. We shock newborn kittens and monkeys—decade after decade—to "prove" that babies need their mothers and vice versa. AIDS research on primates has been a bust, yet we continue to squander scarce resources on it—which may be seen as anti-human. Drugs that destroy tumors in rats are worthless in humans; using rodent data to predict whether a substance will cause cancer in a human is no better than flipping a coin; the head of the National Cancer Institute, in a moment of honest clarity, once called the history of cancer research cures that worked in mice but failed in humans. Animal experiments couldn't even show a conclusive link between tobacco smoke and cancer. Even where superior non-animal alternatives exist—to test skin irritancy or toxicity, for example— increasingly archaic animal tests that cause enormous pain and suffering persist.

There is a huge list of drugs that were safe in animals but produced deadly side effects in humans. Misleading animal data delayed the application of penicillin— the world's most important antibiotic—by a decade. Let's quit pretending that every animal experiment, or even most of them, are done to save human lives. Because animals are sentient beings who feel pain and suffering, the burden of proof of whether animal experiments are necessary to cure disease rests on the pro-vivisectionists. So far, they have done a lousy job. They've done a great job of marketing, however. They scare an uninformed public into fearing that cancer won't be cured unless we experiment on animals.

Many learned minds would disagree with your assertion that a human-centered worldview is necessary to cultivate just and meaningful human-to human relationships. Personally, I think the assertion is preposterous on its face. To sever our moral obligations to the other beings of the world makes us more hard-hearted and selfish; more isolated from the multitude of species and individuals with whom we share the planet. To include animals in our moral universe makes us more peaceful. It is only the speciesists who are threatened by animal rights. Those who practice least harm for all sentient creatures, and the Golden Rule for all beings who benefit from kindness and suffer from callous cruelty, welcome a more equitable world.

You state that "Wanton torture is wrong, though less because of the pain it causes to the animal than because it reflects badly upon the torturer." This is obscene. Torture is the most heinous evil. It is the state we most profoundly fear, for us and our loved ones, including our animals. To be tortured is our worst nightmare. When animals are tortured, they writhe in pain, they scream, they shake, they defecate uncontrollably, they contort—they react just like us. For them, the pain may even be worse, since they lack certain coping mechanisms available to humans. It is hellish. And you are worried about how it reflects on the torturer. That sentiment is not just speciesist but megalomaniacal. What kind of cold-hearted soul does not weep for a defenseless animal enduring protracted, unbearable suffering? The coyote whose paw is crushed in a steel-jaw leghold trap, who in exhaustion and desperation chews off her own leg so she can feed her young? The cat in some sadistic experiment who is shocked with every step she takes? The pig hanging upside down in slaughterhouse shackles, bleeding and alive, squealing for dear life as he's lowered into boiling water? The fox in a fur "farm" who paces endlessly in his tiny cage, yearning to run free, and eventually giving up, and lying in a heap until he is killed by anal electrocution? The raccoon dogs in China, swung overhead so their head crashes into the ground, then de-skinned while still weakly struggling? What twisted sickness drives a person to rationalize mass torture? Can you not look into these animals' eyes and realize the tragedy of what we are doing to them? Can you not confront your own complicity in all of this?

Lastly, taking a "bear-centered perspective," even in those exceptional circumstances where our will to live compels us to act contrary to the bear's interests—is what makes us human. Actually, that's not quite right. Many species of animals have demonstrated displays of altruism that literally take your breath away, and I've witnessed this with my own eyes. Empathy is a gift that we humans share with other species; Let's "widen our circle of compassion," as Albert Einstein counseled, and use our shared gift of empathy to the best of our ability. That will bring peace.

This in my initial response to a wretched pro-vivisection article, which contains the ignorant and self-flattering notion that if you're against vivisection, you're against "progress" -- or you're a "misanthropist."

• For the same reason that opposition to slavery is not anti-white. We derived benefits from that cruel institution also, and slaveholders often claimed that the slaves were well-treated and happy.


• Hate the sin, love the sinner. Inflicting unnecessary harm — at times, severe, protracted torture — on living creatures is wrong. Lying about it, profiting financially from it, and making self-serving excuses for it violates a multitude of deadly sins and basic ethical principles. Animal advocates have faith that humanity can realize the error of its ways and improve itself, as it did by abolishing slavery. That's not misanthropy.


• The animal advocates I know (and I know quite a few) identify with all victims of exploitation, and are generally more concerned than the population at large about human rights. Do a test: correlate willingness to avoid sweatshop stores or boycott products made from slave labor with attitudes about animal welfare and animal rights. You'll also find a correlation between moral concern for animals and acceptance of gays and minorities—you won't find homophobic animal rights activists. On the other hand, criminologists and psychologists have long known about the link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to people.


• Animal experiments hurt humans. Extrapolation and artifact errors are notorious and inherent in animal-modeled research. Response to a given medication, pathogen, chemical, or environmental factor tends to be species-specific. AIDS research on primates has squandered scarce resources, since non-humans do not get AIDS. Animal tests led us to believe that smoking, arsenic, thalidomide, Vioxx, phen-phen, and about a thousand other drugs were safe. Animals delayed the use of penicillin by a decade. Animal data led us to believe that diabetes was a disease of the liver and that polio entered through the nasal passage and attacked neural tissue (which delayed work on a vaccine). Animals are poor predictors of carcinogeneity in humans. In fact, the respective responses of rats and mice don't agree 30 to 50 percent of the time. Animal experiments, like most large government programs, persist mainly because of inertia. And money. The claims of its saving lives are just marketing. The multi-billion dollar vivisection industry depends on the public being misinformed. They're scared that animal rights activists will expose both the horrific cruelties in animal labs and the lack of scientific basis for animal-modeled research in the 21st century, and public support will dry up. Animal rights advocates vigorously support ethical, scientifically sound medical research.


• A common way of evading accountability is to recast criticisms of one's moral transgressions and specific actions and statements as an attack on one's ethnic group. Despite the critic's well-reasoned case and mountain of evidence, the accused who plays this game—who often has no real defense for his or her actions— can do no better than respond with "you just hate all <fill in the blank>." Playing the misanthropy card is a variation of playing the race card. Ironically, in this case, the critic's charge is speciesism, and some of those who don't like the charge, who treat non-humans as disposable property, use the speciesism charge in reverse (though without basis) when it suits their purposes.


• Some uses of animals, such as subjecting them to learned helplessness and maternal deprivation, are nothing more than sadism. To take part in such atrocities brings us all down.

The author of the article claims that to assert that rats have rights is misanthropic. If this is an indication of his reasoning, he's no fan of sound science. Rats deserve rights for the same reason we deserve rights: because they suffer. Codifying rudimentary respect does not amount to misanthropy; that's twisted logic or emotional panic. Maybe guilt.

Actually his exact words were: "one of the protesters on the anti-lab demo, who was wearing a badge that said 'Rats have rights'; how misanthropic can you get?"

Well.. The dairy industry basing a nationwide "drink milk, lose weight" campaign on an 11-person study funded by the dairy industry. The same industry insulting our intelligence and showing contempt for morals with "happy cow" ads. Meatpacking companies denying health coverage to new employees doing one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Animal agriculture allies proposing a state constitutional amendment to permanently thwart the will of the voting public. Using scarce AIDS research money trying in vain to reproduce the disease in monkeys and chimpanzees, and lying about the lack of success. Squandering taxpayers' money on blatantly unscientific anorexia nervosa "studies" in rats. Pharmaceutical companies colluding with the FDA to put unsafe (but profitable) drugs on the market. Food lobbying groups claiming the obesity crisis is all hype. Fast-food corporations promoting fat-laden, nutritionally weak foods in poor neighborhoods. How about the Chinese officials who tried to make companion dogs less popular by stealing them for biomedical research? What about Al Queda? Stalin? Jack the Ripper? The Unabomber? Aryan Nations? This could be a mighty long list.

To be an animal rights advocate is to see past present-day cruelties and have confidence that humanity can improve, that it will continue to morally progress. Otherwise, why be an activist? We once widely thought that slaves were here to serve their masters. Then, as now, we imposed arbitrary, selfish limits on moral inclusion. But we overcame our white male-centric view of the world, just as we can and will overcome our human-centric worldview. To admonish one's fellow humans for moral transgressions is to express care for them, to hold them to a higher standard, to walk one's talk about creating a peaceable kingdom where every living creature is shown compassion and respect.

One last comment: the author's "human-centered morality" is a politically correct name for "might makes right."

---

(The article is filled with false premises, fallacies, faulty conclusions, myths, delusions, and insults, and I may respond to more of them in future posts.)

Humans are the only species to suffer from Anorexia Nervosa (AN). Those afflicted with the disorder have an extreme fear of obesity and an aversion to food. In this article, Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., examines the pointless cruelty of studying a contrived, superficially similar version of the condition in rats.

Excerpts:


In a follow-up article, Dr.Balcombe shows how human-focused research yields relevant data and theories that could lead to cures and treatments for AN:


Scientists are also conducting epidemiological, brain-scan, and various types of clinical research using human volunteers and actual AN patients.

Excerpts from Why kill bunnies?, from Eye Magazine (Toronto):


The biomedical research lobby tends to call these outmoded animal tests "life-saving" and "essential." I call them a disgrace.

In this article in Isthmus magazine ("Let's talk about the animals"), Bill Leuders discusses the University of Wisconsin's incriminating record of neglect and questionable research in its animal labs, and its refusal to engage in debate with critics of animal research.

Excerpts:


This is the same obfuscation we see with circuses, factory farms—any place that profits from exploiting animals: "Everything's fine. The animals are well taken-care of. We religiously conform to welfare standards. Trust us. And don't look behind that curtain."

---

Read more about the UW Taser debacle:

Taser CEO conducts experiments on pigs in his garage

UW-Madison Professor Withdraws From Study in Protest of Colleague's Taser Experiments on Pigs


The sister of a Taser fatality also urged the University to cancel the pig tests:


A reporter who volunteered to experience a shot from a Tasered recounted:


The reporter's description is for a one-second Taser jolt. The Air Force conducted Taser experiments on pigs in which the pigs were forced to withstand an intolerable 15 seconds of current. Video of the experiments shows the pigs screaming and convulsing.

---

Also recommended:

Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN). Ex-USDA inspector Michael Budkie documents non-compliance, violations, and underreporting of Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations—at lab after lab. He also explains the various loopholes in the AWA that allow research labs, to a large degree, to operate in secret. SAEN reports and official complaints to the USDA have resulted in animal lab fines and termination of abusive primate experiments. (Why didn't the USDA find these problems in the first place? How hard are they looking?)

Peruse the SAEN site. Examine some of the graphic pictures of burned rabbits, dogs with hunks of flesh missing, primates living their lives in restraining devices, all four limbs rendered practically useless.

Excerpts from The sad lot of lab chimps, by Jane Goodall and Ray Greek, in the Bostom Globe (emphasis mine):


Strong close:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Dear Editor,

Re: David Martosko's hatchet job, "Please enjoy your Thanksgiving turkey--and tell PETA to stuff it."

Shortly after reading Mr. Martosko's contention that animal rights groups--with their inconvenient habit of reminding us where our food came from--are turning Thanksgiving into a "three-ring circus," I read an article about a church that was burned down because of a turkey fryer incident. I think Mr. Martosko's concerns are misplaced.

Mr. Martosko's derogatory comments about Farm Sanctuary and sponsorship of rescued farm animals were cheap shots. My wife and I sponsor two rescued chickens at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary in Poolesville, Maryland. Children and adults love visiting the birds, and learning that they're intelligent and have distinct personalities. The chickens like to be petted, and will often softly cluck as their feathers are stroked. Most of the animals at the sanctuary were horribly mistreated before being rescued. It is wonderful to see them restored to wholeness and become trusting of humans. Some of the animal sponsors are kids who pooled their Bar Mitzvah or birthday money and sent it to the sanctuary because they wanted to help animals instead of acquiring more stuff. Mr. Marsotko's remarks about this compassionate act are insulting and mean.

I realize Mr. Martosko may think that veganism (abstaining from animal products) is extreme and impossible—or perhaps he gets paid to say that, since his clients profit from animal cruelty. I once thought the same thing. Then I tried it. It's actually pretty easy; just follow the Golden Rule. The feeling of no longer making animals suffer and die on my behalf is exhilarating. Anyone, including Mr. Martosko, can do it.

(To help you move in that direction, please visit www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm, recommended by George Will—that radical animal rights activist—as an introduction to the everyday horrors of factory farms.)

(Mr. Martosko works for the Center for Consumer Freedom, which promotes agricultural exemption from animal cruelty laws.)

Today, in this part of the world, with the presence of healthy vegans everywhere, it is abundantly clear that eating meat is unnecessary. Furthermore, most people have some inkling that animals suffer on their way to becoming meat. Meat eating is therefore, discretionary cruelty. So why do people still eat meat?

In this eye-opening essay, psychologist Melanie Joy explains how various personal and societal mechanisms conspire to make meat-eating--despite its dubious ethics and dubious health value--the norm:


Dr. Joy then discusses:

• specific coping mechanisms that individuals use to allow themselves to engage in behaviors that they find troubling at a deep level


• the price of chronically trying to arbitrate between your conscience and your more carnal desires.

I like how Dr. Joy closes out the essay:


The carnism concept puts modern meat-eating in a proper perspective: it's an arbitrary, malleable, and ultimately replaceable norm. To my mind, carnism goes even beyond a choice or ideology. To willingly cause pain, suffering, and death in other living beings even though it is unnecessary, and to make excuses for it, is an emotional disorder.

People who manage to disengage themselves from carnism can see plainly that the multitude of reasons given for carnism are unconvincing, and sometimes bizarre—much in the way we shake our heads when listening to an addict's contorted justifications for his or her habit. But when everyone's doing something that from the outside is strange or immoral, on the inside it may have the illusion of being normal and acceptable. Ideologies are like enablers. They can enable cruelties such as slavery, exterminations, and factory farms to perpetuate. One day we'll look back in horror at the mass misery and slaughter of farm animals. But for now the population is mostly trapped in present-day carnism, kept alive by advertising, inertia, government subsidies, profit, "myth-information" about happy farm animals, and fear: fear of confronting one's complicity in causing animals to be suffer and be killed; fear of switching from the comfortable and mainstream ideology to the new and relatively unknown, though ultimately most humane one.

---

Update: You can hear an interview with Dr. Joy on the Vegan Freak podcast, number 29.