Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.
~ Mark Twain, American author (1835–1910)

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  ~ 1 Cor 13:6, NIV

Rev. Michael P. Orsi recently wrote an article, “The Nonhuman Animal” for American Spectator. In his article he supports the findings of Wesley Smith’s book, A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement.  The title is derived from something stated by Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who actually said: “When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” Ignoring the original  purpose of that statement, Orsi goes on to call the term “animal rights” oxymoronic. Taken at the root, “oxy” indicates pointed or acute and “moronic” indicates foolish or stupid; the term is usually used to indicate a contradiction in terminology. According to Smith, animals cannot have rights because 1) they are amoral and 2) they cannot bear obligations. He fails to address the basis of animal rights as sentience, that animals can feel and therefore are worthy of consideration. Orsi too is stuck in archaic thinking as demonstrated by his referring to an animal as  ”it,”, thus immediately objectifying animals:

Thus, an animal’s awareness of its surroundings or its impulses — to whatever limited degree it can be aware — is sufficient to imbue it with rights equal to those of human beings.

Given that human beings have more than enough resources and could choose to leave animals alone yet instead choose to cause endless suffering, it is hard to see how this kind of “exceptionalism” is praiseworthy.

Nonhuman Animals as Rights Bearers

I would challenge Rev. Orsi and Wesley Smith on both counts. First, what evidence is there that animals are amoral? How many animals have risked their own lives in times of danger rather than just skedaddling (Civil War slang meaning to leave in a hurry) in order to save another human or nonhuman animal? Animals show affection and loyalty, something some of our more morally challenged fellow humans often fail to do. They are social beings who show comfort to others in their communities. Recent research continues to show us more and more that we humans tend to miss signs of intelligence, morality and sentience that are not exactly like our own. As to bearing obligations, if Smith means legal obligations within the human community, then he is right. But animals have borne endless obligations to humans, including being forced into lives of misery and servitude. Within the human-nonhuman relational construct, most humans have not borne any obligations towards nonhumans. A one-sided approach to ethics hardly seems fair, especially from a man who is a spiritual leader. Perhaps it is the very “human exceptionalism” that gives Rev. Orsi such comfort that  is causing so much suffering in the world. Domination and exploitation tend to spiral outward.

Orsi fears people whom he perceives want animals to have rights comparable to human beings (voting? driving? paying the mortgage?). I have not read Smith’s book, but have heard him debate Gary Francione regarding animal rights.  Smith, like Orsi, seems unaware of the plethora of evidence about the sentience of animals and takes a stand for exploitation of animals to continue without limitation. While Smith’s book does accept welfarism as legitimate, since it is part of the status quo, Smith and Orsi both believe that welfarism is doing a splendid job of keeping animals protected. Orsi seems particularly concerned with animals achieving any legal status beyond property, fearing that humans will somehow be threatened with extinction. He goes on to fear not only animal protectionists but environmental protectionists, too:

Smith doesn’t connect animal rights activism with the broader environmental movement, but the similarly anti-human aspect of the “green” agenda demonstrates a natural linkage (which would make an intriguing subject for a follow-up book). One need only look at the environmentalists’ emphasis on caring for the ecosystem while decrying the damage done to it by human beings with their infernal “carbon footprints.” Both movements seek the reduction of human presence on the planet through birth control, euthanasia, eugenics — even by starvation, if you carry the policies they advocate to their natural conclusions.

Assuming no responsibility for the tremendous suffering and destruction which human hubris has put forth on the earth, Orsi stays firmly locked into his sense of entitlement. His concern is only for the rights of humans, his rights. Yet the only right I have heard Gary Francione request on behalf of animals is their right to their very lives, the right to be free from property status.  Somehow, treating animals as the living, feeling, sensitive beings that they are, threatens something deep within Smith and Orsi, causing them to make outrageous claims against both animals and the people who recognize the injustice of their current status. Orsi conclude with:

Religious leaders, especially, should take note and warn their adherents of the underlying threat that this radical movement poses to our Judeo-Christian belief system and to all human life.

Isn’t God omnipotent? Surely our little rag-tag group of Animal Rights activists pose no real threat. Once again, Orsi needs to do some research. He has missed what is happening with regard to environmental degradation, especially what animal agriculture, corporate interests and and greed are doing to the natural world. Human overpopulation and a lack of responsibility towards the earth have led us to the brink of self extinction; the vegans and animal rights folks are trying to save the world, not destroy it. If Orsi truly worships the Being he believes is the Creator of this once-magnificent planet, it would seem he would need to treat the Creation with a bit more respect. Were we not supposed to tend the garden, rather than annihilate it?

An Unwillingness to Recognize Exploitation and Injustice Within the Church

Finally, Orsi thinks that people who are proponents of animal rights really value nonhuman animals over human beings; he fears these people and their movement pose a threat to the theory that humans are exceptional and dominant. If Orsi was willing to take the abject cruelty with which animals are treated into consideration, if he had taken any time to research these issues, it would be difficult to see how a man of a benevolent God could support such horrors towards other feeling beings.  If there are any threats to the Judeo-Christian legacy and his own Catholic church, it may be internal, rather than external.  Perhaps it comes from an unwillingness to recognize exploitation and injustice, whether it is in the form of pedophilia or animal cruelty or homophobia.  It is the very conservative, traditional vantage point behind which Orsi hides that will render him unable to witness the truth.  It is revealed when he states that animal welfare is acceptable because the laws have already made certain animals are treated humanely, that animals feel “as little anxiety and pain as possible” when being slaughtered. Rev. Orsi must be living under a rock, with all the undercover videos available these days, with the film Earthlings available for viewing online, with all the documentary films available on any Netflix site, and Meet Your Meat available on YouTube, with all the recorded statements from slaughterhouse workers, if he truly believes that. The global horror that is life for most animals on this earth seems to have escaped him. It would seem that Orsi simply does not want anything to change, because his foundation is inextricably intertwined with a belief that humans are superior and animals are put on earth for man’s use, however cruelly mankind wants to use them. If he were to admit that animals are beings who feel, experience emotions, and suffer greatly, it might cause him to reassess his beliefs. If his religious tradition is in jeopardy because a small percentage of humans believe that such injustice is intolerable, perhaps he needs to look for the numerous inconsistencies inherent in what he espouses. Where is the mercy of his God for the animals? What constitutes morality and superiority? Surely, this holocaust for animals created by mankind does not lay claim to any kind of moral superiority, but rather to shame.

I have a stack of beautiful cookbooks to review; some are glorious examples of vegan cookery, with gorgeous photos and thick, luxurious pages.  When I first opened The Get Healthy, Go Vegan Cookbook, it seemed rather lackluster in comparison. The pages are not high quality and the photos are just a few, thrown into the center of the book — not my favorite style of cookbook. I prefer the photos to be right next to the recipes and I really appreciate a good thick page.  But I dove in anyway, and tried a few of the recipes to see what this book would offer.

First of all, each recipe includes nutritional information, which is very helpful. There is also a “Did You Know” section on many pages, filled with interesting facts of use to the vegan cook.  The recipes are clearly presented and very easy to follow.  Best of all, I was pleasantly surprised by the recipes I tried – I loved them!  The first one I tried was the pizza crust; I had just tried one with regular flour and feared this one, which has whole wheat flour in it, might be a bit tough. It was anything but – pleasantly crispy and very tasty, and simple to make as well. First happy surprise.

The second dish I tried was the Toasty Tortilla Soup.  With onions, garlic, diced tomatoes, squash, corn and kidney beans, it is a delicious mixture. I added a dose of hot sauce to spice things up, but the suggested topping of toasted tortillas was wonderful.  I made enough for leftovers and never got tired of it, it was that good. Surprise number two.

Next to try was the Stuffed Cabbage recipe.  This is much quicker to prepare than I would have thought. It includes onions, tomato paste, crushed walnuts, lentils, rice and wonderful spices all rolled into a steamed cabbage leaf and rolled up.  This is a great recipe for parties or potlucks because it may be prepared beforehand and reheats very well. To boost the nutritional punch, the recipe suggests using red cabbage and gives the nutritional differences (increased vitamins A and C and pigments called anthocyanins, which protect against cancer).

The beginning of the book has information about tailoring your diet to your health goals, whether that is slimming down, avoiding high glycemic food,or lowering cholesterol. There is information about fiber, digestion, and chronic diseases. There is also basic information about the ingredients and types of food that are included in the recipes, and supportive information for making a change to a healthier, vegan diet. There is even a three day menu plan in the last chapter of the book. The appendix includes an easy shopping list, convenience foods, and a metric conversion chart – all very useful.

I checked online and, while the list price is about the same as most paperback cookbooks ($18.95), Amazon had it listed for only $11.99. If you have reason to watch your nutritional intake, this just might be a good cookbook to add to your collection.  I would have overlooked this cookbook had it not been sent to me; and I still have another half dozen recipes bookmarked to try later this month. I guess it is the old saying, “You can’t judge a book by its cover,” or in this case, its pages.  While it is not the most lovely book in my collection, I have a feeling it will be well-used.

I have studied population trends for several decades of both human and nonhuman animals. One thing is certain: as the human population has experienced geometric increase and growth, so has the number of animals slaughtered and killed annually. I set up a Google Alert to apprise me of any articles about overpopulation only to find that the articles  all related to animal overpopulation. There were articles related to the overpopulation of shelter animals, of deer, of rabbits, of birds and even bugs, everything but human beings, this even as many animal species are in danger of extinction. I guess it is all in  your perspective. And truly we are experiencing an ongoing problem with the high number of shelter animals that are killed day in and day out for lack of a decent home. I have been posting photos and articles about some of these animals and have been astounded at the reasons these animals become available: the owner does not have time any longer for him or her; the owner has had to move; the owner does not have the money to care for him or her; he or she was found abandoned on the street; the owner is getting divorced. Domesticating animals has really left millions of them high and dry, unsafe, hungry, injured, vulnerable and alone. We have used them and then, when we get tired of them or they are inconvenient or a burden, we toss them aside like yesterday’s news.

The commodification of animals takes many different shapes. There are the billions that are slaughtered for food every year, that are killed for their fur, and that are used in entertainment — the list goes on, but you probably already have a good idea of how long the list is. Today’s podcast is going to look at a very bizarre form of animal commodification: animals as decorations or ornaments, and like the holiday ornaments that get put away after the holidays end, so these animals get obliterated when they become too numerous, or their decorative value diminishes, or they get scapegoated because of someone else’s irresponsibility.

The first group of animentals I want to look at today are the Mute Swans of Chesapeake Bay.  Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. For decades, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources has been involved in a deadly game of eradicating the Mute Swans, alleging that they pose a threat to the ecosystem.  I  guess they are not considered part of the ecosystem because they are targeted as being non-native birds.  As a non-native human being, I grow rather weary of this point of origin nonsense. Where would I belong? Am I too non-native? I am first generation born in this land as was my husband, as is my grandson.  The birds may have been brought over by Europeans two hundred years ago to grace the waterways; in short, they were kidnapped and dragged here against their will and now, two hundred years later, we are going to tell them they do not belong?

The most recent statistic I found about the swans was that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources has already killed over 4,000 of the birds in cruel and terrible ways.  Celebrities have tried to save them from photographer Nigel Barker of America’s Top Model fame, Guns N Roses guitarist Slash, to television’s Montel Williams, all to no avail. Despite placing cruel and possibly dangerous tight colors on the necks of the birds with GPS devices, despite their labeling the birds non-native and therefore worthy of extermination, despite trying in various ways and failing to build a case that the swans pose any  threat to anyone, the swans continue to be mercilessly killed year after year.

There is another twist to this story, which takes us back to the same old tired horrific story. There is a link between the slaughter of the mute swans and the slaughter of pigs, cows and other animals for food. It seems that factory farms upriver are sending 500 million tons of waste into the Chesapeake Bay every year, along with some sewage treatment plants, creating dead zones and threatening the very life of the Chesapeake. But the folks who own those farms have a lot of money and a lot of power, and they are very invested in making the swans the scapegoats for the problems of the Chesapeake, so no one will look to see what is really going on.

It is not just the Mute Swans that are under attack, for when animals become objectified, they become property and “things” rather than individuals with feelings, the sentient beings they are, things are bound to go awry.

~~

One of the other problems for the rabbits on the University of Victoria campus is that they land in the gray zone that Susan Vickery spoke about, where they are not really wild animals but in so classifying them, they may be killed in ways that would be illegal were they classified as pets. The University has been known for the rabbits, the rabbits have graced their calendars and have been a draw to the public, but when the University grew tired of them, or they became too numerous, they became the brunt of many cruelties. Some locals have jokingly placed recipes for rabbit stew on their posts and others have suggested they serve as a way to eat locally.  The rabbits and the Mute Swans are only part of the picture, with flamingos, black swans, ducks, peacocks, and numerous other animals often purchased to grace a small body of water or grass in hotels, housing developments and resorts.  Many times, the birds may have their wings clipped so they cannot leave, making them vulnerable to predators and unable to live a normal life.  The habitat is usually inappropriate for the animals.  Like gardeners without green thumbs, the animals’ caretakers may need to restock frequently to keep up the facade that the business wishes to project.

Animals originally imported as animentals who have escaped to form wild breeding populations in the western US include snapping turtles, water snakes, Himalayan tahr, doves, parakeets, parrots, and many others.  Ornamental aquatic animals are part of an international business which places many animals of all kinds in inappropriate and unnatural habitats with little chance of survival and virtually no quality of life.

As an abolitionist, I know the best thing I can do for these animals is to maintain a vegan lifestyle and encourage others to do the same. As more vegans exist in the world, the use of animals as ornaments will become intolerable.  Meanwhile, if I see animentals in any facility, you can be sure I will be speaking to the management about those animals and letting them know that not all the public appreciate their attempt at creating a false and destructive environment for fellow earthlings.  As our voices become louder, these disturbing practices will die out.

Elizabeth Collins of NZVeganPodcast recently said that it will be a wonderful day when being human means being vegan.  That day is getting closer with each blog post, podcast, tweet and lecture.  Adam Kochanowicz recently created the iVegan ap so that vegans can shop more easily.  Adam has generously made the ap free of charge so that it can reach the most people. He also has some wonderful brochures available online at vegan.fm – look for the links on Veganacious.

There is another blog I wanted to mention, too – one created by Nathan Schneider. Vegan Abolitionist has some excellent articles on it, including one I just linked to on a forum that was lauding Veggie Pride parades. Nathan saved me a ton of time because his article had all the salient points listed in clear and concise manner. You can find Nathan’s blog at vegan-abolitionist.blogspot.com.

New on Veganacious is Veganacious/Recipes.  The recipe blog is accessible via the top navigating buttons on the veganacious blog, or you can go directly to veganacious.com/Recipes.

Another new project which will be a long time developing is the Vegans Directory. This directory is at vegansdirectory.com and will display international vegan businesses. While it is only in the preliminary stages, it will eventually allow interactive use, with comments and a rating system for the businesses.  If you know of any vegan businesses you would like to see included, please contact me at babs (at) animail (dot) com.

Music in this podcast was from Nabi Camara’s M’Soumbulle, highlighting his wonderful expertise with the balafon.

Montel Williams – Stop Killing the Chesapeakes Mute Swans

Animal Voices – Bunnies on a Deadline

iVegan on iTunes

Vegan FM brochures

Vegan Abolitionist

Nabi Camara – music

The Vegans Directory

Recently, on a vegan forum, I commented on the use of the term “vegetarian”  or “veg*n” rather than “vegan” while promoting animal rights.  It seemed to unleash a storm of criticism and ad hominem attacks: “Someone is VERY NEW….,”  ”so fundamentalist in nature,”  ”is there ANY evidence base whatsoever…? ”  My comment was in response to the posting of a Huffington Post article by Bruce Friederich, Vice President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as well as a suggestion to develop the inclusive “veg*n” culture on the same forum.  Mr. Friederich has stated before that he no longer advocates in vegan tee shirts, because people respond better to the vegetarian message. That may be, but it is not a message that will help animals. In fact, it may even create more suffering for the animals. How can an animal advocate promote the dairy industry?  I think of the abuse of babies, little newborn calves; and mothers who are forced into servitude of being milk machines, with distended udders, infected and dragging the ground.  Then there are all those newborn chicks ground alive in massive machines because they cannot lay eggs.  THAT is something for animal advocates to support?

The message Mr. Friederich was giving was that it is indefensible to eat meat. Unfortunately, his last  line reads,

Put another way: If we believe that people should try to protect the environment, OR we believe that we should try not to cause people to starve OR we oppose cruelty to animals, the only ethical diet is a vegetarian one.

Wrong. This following many salient points in Friederich’s article is so disappointing.  Why is there such a great fear of the word “veganism?”  It is a simple word, much more simple and clear than “vegetarianism.”  There is so much ambiguity in the term vegetarian that it leaves people thinking giving up meat for dairy products will somehow be less cruel. Even if one is focusing solely on the dietary aspects of veganism, then why not support incremental veganism? At least doing so would leave a clear impression in the minds of the audience that veganism is the goal, not vegetarianism.

Mr. Friederich has another contradiction or two on his hands. It is difficult to be accepted as someone who values animal life while working for an organization that kills a higher proportion of animals in their “shelter” than most other shelters. It is also an organization that owns stock and profits from animal agriculture, gives awards to slaughter house designers, and uses some questionable tactics which diminishes the level of dialogue regarding the significance of animal rights.  Again, so disappointing. One young animal rights advocate, Beckah Sheeler, recently posted on the site Animal Writes an article titled, PETA: A Hurdle for Vegan Advocacy:

What we are faced with is the split between abolitionists and welfarists, and this will always exist; however, (as cliche the saying as it may be) with the amount of power Peta has, comes a great amount of responsibility, meaning the lives and welfare of animals, the planet, and the indirect meals able to be fed to the hungry due to this lifestyle, are resting in its hands. Bruce Friedrich, VP of Peta, also has stated in a recent post that being an absolutist is the worst way to attract people to this cause. The members of Peta should, of course, not give up their strong convictions of remaining not only meat free, but egg and dairy free, but being that Peta is so big, I believe that it is the organization’s responsibility, with all of its money, resources, and recognition, to advocate in such a way that helps the most amount of animals being that this is its perceived cause.

Ms. Sheeler then goes on to support widening the appeal rather than clarifying the message that PETA spreads.  However, Dan Cudahy, on his blog Unpopular Vegan Essays, reports on the failure of such tactics that are contradictory at the root (from the article PETA: A Corporate Tangle of Contradictions):

PETA’s contradictions in philosophy, rhetoric, and activities – which have led to profound public confusion and fortification of the utilitarian-welfarist status quo that has been in existence since Jeremy Bentham – have been a barrier to progress in advancing animal rights, and will continue to be a barrier as long as they continue as an animal welfare organization.

For a clear look at the problematic nature of the confusion in such welfarist rhetoric, Professor Gary Francione states in a post on his blog, Animal Rights: The Abolionist Approach (Some Comments on Vegetarianism as a Gateway to Veganism):

It is clear: if you explain that there is no distinction between flesh and other animal products and why we should go vegan, and the person with whom you are talking cares about the issue, she will either (1) go vegan immediately; or (2) go vegan in stages; or (3) not go vegan and adopt some version of vegetarianism (or “happy” meat/product consumption). But she will at least understand that veganism is the aspiration toward which to work. She will understand that the line between flesh and other products is entirely arbitrary. If you maintain that going vegetarian is morally meaningful and that there is a distinction between flesh and other animal products, then you increase the chances that her progress toward veganism will be impeded.

In other words, you do not need to advocate vegetarianism. It is completely unnecessary, morally meaningless, and, as a practical matter, it impedes transition to veganism.

While I appreciate the sincere motives of individuals like Mr. Friederich and do not challenge them, it does seem important to continue looking at the tactics of the animal rights movement. This is very different than disparaging individuals.  I fully admit to many shortcomings and work on them; I have my own blind spots. Assuming that all animal advocates sincerely want what is in the best interest of nonhuman animals rather than promotion of their individual animal organizations, then looking critically at tactics and contradictions that may become barriers (Dan Cudahy) or hurdles (Beckah Sheeler) or impediments (Gary Francione) would seem a positive way of helping advocates learn to help animals achieve true rights as living, feeling beings. While listening to a podcast today, I heard someone interrupt a speaker discussing vegetarianism and interject “a lacto-ovo vegetarian — that is pretty much the same thing as a vegan.”  No, no, no.

Another way of stating this was posted by Tim Gier in an article titled, Is Half A Loaf Better Than None?

If you do intentionally participate in the subjugation of nonhuman animals, it does not matter that your participation is infrequent, or irregular, or occasional. Whenever you eat the flesh of a nonhuman animal, a life is ended for your pleasure, and for nothing else. The same is true whenever you wear the skin of another as clothing, or you patronize the zoos and circuses that cage others for life, or you support the medical, scientific or commercial experimentation on others as well.  Cutting back on those things, while better than not, still amounts to participating in them. There is no “half loaf.”

By spreading vegetarian education rather than vegan education, we collaborate in the subjugation (however unintentionally) of nonhuman animals.  The baseline is veganism. The fact that it is not immediately appealing for 100% of all people everywhere is not the point.  Veganism is the goal. It can be incrementally achieved, but it remains the goal. To ask for anything less, anything with wider appeal, anything that appears to be a more popular message, is to sell out the rights of animals. Want to make veganism more popular? Start by talking about it.

To reach a goal, you have to believe — believe you can achieve the goal, envision reaching the goal, then take a step towards the goal. Imagine if you did not believe you could make it through school — you would not attend the first class. All those classes between entering school and graduation may seem overwhelming at times, but it is only by taking them one class at a time that you finally reach your goal. You have to step out in faith and believe before you can make it happen.

I just read a commentary on a vegan forum that said no, we cannot, no we will not. That person believed that human beings were incapable of making significant change, that we were so mired in our traditional approaches that we would mess it all up and miss all cosmic deadlines. We would not fix global warming; we would not find cleaner energy. We would not go vegan. We would not make significant change.  In short, we are doomed.

Maybe, but maybe not. Lately I have been mired in lassitude, but even while mired, I knew it was transitory. So will we as a movement overcome; our collective lassitude is just our denial, not wanting to change, not wanting to deal with reality. War, recession, budget deficits, unemployment, oil spills, energy crisis, solar tsunamis, deforestation, overpopulation — it all seems too much to handle.  So some days, we pull the covers over our heads. It may take a crisis for some of us to get out of bed and make a change, but other people are continuing changing every day. Someone on Twitter just tweeted me that they had gone vegan – one more vegan!  Lassitude leaves, energy returns, and the movement gains momentum.

To all the nay sayers, Oh, Yes We Can and Yes We Will. The vegan movement is having an impact and it is growing every day.  How many teenagers were vegan a generation ago? Look at what is happening among  young people, those with the biggest stake in our future – they are still flexible, open, and inquisitive and many are learning about veganism and supporting the movement forward. And there are others of every agen, including elders, too, who prove daily that it is never too late to become educated about what is happening to animals.  We will abolish the commodification of animals. We must. There are a hundred billion reasons every year to do so.

Borden Cottage Cheese ad, circa 1950s – from Fury, a western television show with Peter Graves and Bobby Diamond.  The two young boys are called to lunch – a big bowl of Borden’s cottage cheese, covered in jam or maple syrup.  If this stuff is so delightful, one wonders why they must pour sugary substance over it so the kids will eat it.

Disney’s Selena Gomez is busy promoting a “healthy” lifestyle. She has partnered with Elsie The Cow and her friends at The Borden Company for a new wellness campaign encouraging kids to drink milk. In her ad, she talks about “something magical” about the milk she drinks. It seems the dairy industry has long tried to use magic and fantasy to promote their products.

(from popcrunch.com/selena-gomez-borden-milk-ad-campaign-photos-video.)

Somewhere in a distant countryside, nestled in an oasis of pearly enchantment, lies a milky magical land where hair mysteriously grows like a finely woven silk and muscle rebuilding borders on the miraculous.  Where teeth and nails are mistaken for pearls and dreams are played without intermission.  A perfect paradise some would say; or is it?   Mootopia…

A perfect paradise? Where babies are stolen from their mothers to be slaughtered for the rennet used for cheese or for veal for the gourmet diners, where mothers milk is given to adults of another species, where pain and suffering is the norm. Mother’s udders are so distended for maximum profit that they may drag the ground and many are infected and have mastitis. Most cows stand in their own waste and are left for endless hours at a time on a cement floor.  Yet the above advertising, from the folks that bring you the “Got Milk” campaign, is more than likely the kind of image people have of drinking milk.  What is more healthy and wholesome in the public’s mind than a glass of milk.  A recent subject of the Got Milk Campaign is Taylor Swit, who relates she’s “always seen the ads in the magazines and thought, ‘if that could be me, I would be so lucky!’”  Maybe not, if it means being part of the Dairy Deception.

Blue Bell Ice Cream ad

A bowl of sunshine? More like a bowl of Bovine Somatotropin, antibiotics, blood, pus, pesticides, hormones, high cholesterol, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, mucus, osteoporosis, immune deficiency, kidney stones, and skin eruptions.  Please note the sense of fantasy of these ads; there is an obvious attempt to transport the public to la-la land, away from pesky things like facts and reality. Remember those Happy Cows from California? Let’s check on the truth about those cows.

~~~~~~~~ Colleen Patrick-Goudreau clip

Colleen is right; it doesn’t make any sense when one looks at all the health problems that come from consuming dairy products, when one watches the undercover videos of life on dairy farms, when one begins to notice the deception in dairy advertising.  Playful cows on open lands of pasture are not the reality of the billions of animals raised as food commodities for human beings.

Millions of dollars go into advertising campaigns such as the “Got Milk” campaigns.

~~~~~~~~~ Milk advertising clip

That is a lot of money going into advertising and a lot to overcome in getting the world out regarding the truth about consumption of dairy products and the health and environmental problems resulting from their commodification.

~~~~~~ The Dairy Farmer

It is interesting to hear this dairy farmer verbalize his support for the exploitation of animals, but he is very wrong that it is necessary for humans to sustain their existence. In fact, the opposite is true, with dairy farms wreaking havoc on the environment, on human health, and on the character of human beings.  One exploitation often leads to another, so it is not surprising that the exploitation and commodification of animals for dairy products has led to exploitation of the public and children in particular with deceptive advertising. So often these kinds of deception are boomerangs of the truth: milk is advertised as healthy and natural, when it is completely unnatural for human adults to drink the milk of another species, and it is far from healthy. Many children develop anemia from intestinal bleeding caused by ingestion of milk.  Milk causes digestive problems in most human beings and reliance on animal products may actually increase the incidence of osteoporosis.

I recently contracted Salmonella from a family member, who contracted it from eating in a restaurant. The first question the CDC asked me was this: Do you work in a dairy farm? It seems the pathogens there are mighty and powerful. How do the manure pits that have killed several workers mesh with the bowl of sunshine or perfect paradise of the dairy advertisers? It is just one more way the exploitation of animals leads to more exploitation: of the workers who have few options and must endure walking into manure pits, risking disease, for a few dollars an hour. While the workers have some choice in the matter, the animals do not. They all end up at the same horrific place — the abattoir, where many are tortured and die a mechanized death that does not even give them time to die before they are processed and torn apart.

Next time you hear one of those sunshiney advertisements or see a white mustache on a celebrity, remember this truth: there is an ugly business hiding behind deceptive images.  This is all about Dairy Deception.

Music clips are from Y’All (My Mother Likes the Feel of Cottage Cheese) and Dan HIcks and The Hot Licks (You Gotta Believe)

Audio clips are from Beef Buzz, Compassionate Cooks, Duke University, and  The Dairy Farmer.

Information regarding dairy consumption:

Selena Gomez milk ad

Got guilt?

Ovarian cancers

Milk, USDA and Monsanto

Unhappy Cows

Mootopia

False Health Claims made by Dairy Industry – PCRM

Got Milk?

Battle of the Bottle

Recently, I have become very disappointed in progressive media.  It would seem that when it comes to animal rights, things are not all that progressive.

Huffington Post Misses the Irony in Recent Post by Jamie Lee Curtis

Huffington Post recently published an article by Jamie Lee Curtis, lamenting the Conklin Dairy Abuse revealed by undercover videos.  We now know there will be no cruelty charges for the owner of the dairy (see linked article by Angel Flinn), no matter how distressing the videos.  Where there is demand, the brutality continues.  How does Ms. Curtis think that the very product she touts, yogurt, is created? By raping the cows with artificial insemination, stealing the baby calf from his or her mother, and then stealing the mother’s secretions from her, secretions made for the survival of her baby, not for adult humans. I always find those yogurt commercials to be interesting.  They suggest their brand of yogurt will help people with digestive problems, the very problems that come from eating a highly processed, animal-based diet. The solution? Another highly processed, animal-based product of course! Perhaps Ms. Curtis has never considered the cost for other beings of the products she sells. But when she wrote that article, obviously distressed at seeing animals treated as objects, devoid of any consideration for their personhood, she missed an important connection between what she does for a living and the act of living for other beings. And Huff Post missed a chance to post an article based on the stark and horrendous reality of the more than sixty billion land animals that perish for the pleasure of human appetite each year.

Mother Jones Appears to Have Lost the “Fearless” in Their Journalism

Even more egregious, Mother Jones (July/August 2010) published an article by Kiera Butler, a “lifelong vegetarian,” who broke her no-meat stance to dine on “grass-fed beef” (an interesting term denoting how devoid of acknowledgement of animal personhood our thinking is — cows eat, not beef; beef is a dead animal.)  She shared that it was delicious and she felt satisfied.  In the article, Get Behind Me, Seitan, Ms. Butler reports that the “vegetarian-equals-green argument” is not so cut and dried.  She then proceeds to offer a comparison between highly processed fake meat and grass fed animal flesh. She notes that her Berkeley, California crowd is really moving towards eating more meat, not less, and she seems to move along with them. One wonders why she ever became vegetarian; she did not mention any moral concerns, health concerns, certainly no consideration for the impact on the animals themselves, no discussion of violence or cruelty.  This was all about the trend and “local buzz.”  It seems preying on baby animals is all the rage these days.

Touting the “great caloric bargains” of things like fish, there is no mention of the toxins that accumulate the higher you go up the food chain. There is no mention of the dying oceans, respect for nature, or a moral baseline; there is plenty of talk about crab feeds and pig roasts.  There is discussion of hexane, used to remove soybean oil and keep soyburgers low in fat, a registered air pollutant and suspected neurotoxin.  Ms. Kiera reports that with a processed soyburger, there are numerous ingredients but with grass-fed beef there is only one, making it somehow purer. This defies everything we know about the accumulation of pesticides and other toxins as one moves up the foodchain, making it more and more dangerous to eat other  beings. There is no discussion of the impossibility of providing enough grazing land for the way the world now consumes animals. And worst of all, there is no discussion of the animals themselves, discussed solely as a commodity for humans throughout the entire article.

The progressive media needs to become truly progressive in the arena of animal rights and veganism. A start would be to post the work of one of the really good vegan advocates who are talented writers — Gary Francione, Roger Yates, Dan Cudahy, Angel Flinn, Tim Gier, Nathan Schneider, Jeff Perz, Mylène Oullet, and many, many others.  They could select someone to write who actually has a philosophical stance that does not move with the crowd, and leaves the “fearless” in their ability to stand alone when necessary, to actually take a position based on something beside their own health, coolness or gustatory delight.  It is  much easier to be oh-so-flexible when dining out, selling out the suffering of animals at every turn, and keeping in lockstep with mainstream thinking. This is progressive? NOT!

The article in Mother Jones did:

• present some of the problems with highly processed foods
• discussed some of the problems with unnatural methods of feeding animals that result in disease
• highlighted that Great Plains pastureland stores 54% more CO2 per acre than cropland

The article failed to:

• mention the many ways to eat a vegan diet that provides plenty of protein and keeps you fully satisfied
• investigate the consequences should the nation move towards grass fed animals
• mention the high levels of toxins in flesh products
• look at the fact that a vegetarian diet may not offer any moral, environmental, or welfare benefits over an omnivorous diet
• mention anything about the lives of animals as living, feeling beings
• mention the correlation between animal slaughter and violence in society
• even consider a whole foods vegan diet
• address the false dichotomy presented: there are infinite choices besides eat animals and eating fake meat.

In the end, Ms. Kiera decides to eat mostly plants, but with an occasional “indulgence.” Most vegetarians and vegans would not consider eating meat an indulgence; they would find it disgusting and nauseating. The callous disregard for the various ways these decisions impacts other living beings, the environment, or public health seems out of sync with the purpose of magazines like Mother Jones. The complete lack of any consideration for social justice towards animals, human or non-human, is a glaring omission.

Other articles online at Mother Jones include one about a “kinder, gentler, more convenient abattoir,” a man who kills animals six days a week. This sounds like ancient history, not “fearless journalism.”  Buying into the humane slaughter myth, the happy meat myth, and misrepresenting the positive aspects of healthy vegan cuisine seems more like something one would hear on Rush Limbaugh. Et tu, Mother Jones?

A recent article in The Daily World suggested that we “learn flexibility with meat eating.”  The scenario posited was this: imagine you have decided to go vegetarian, have tossed out all meat, poultry and fish, and stocked up on plant foods. Then you are invited out to a romantic steak dinner. Do you throw your ethics out the window or decline the invitation?  According to proponents of flexitarianism, you can hold on to you ethics and your steak by being flexitarian.  For anyone who is an omnivore, this might seem reasonable.  But the real kicker for vegans who care about animals is this: Bruce Friderich, Vice President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is right there saying:

“If people influenced by health consequently cut back on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals. If two people cut their meat in half, it helps as much as one person going completely vegetarian.”*

Suddenly, Flexitarianism now has the PeTA stamp of approval, so it must be ethical, right?  First of all, vegetarianism does not improve the situation for animals; in fact, it may exacerbate things. How many newborn chicks die for the eggs, and how many babies (calves) die for the milk, cheese and yogurt that a vegetarian consumes?  Then there is the horrific life of a dairy animal, which includes rape, long hours of standing, mastitis, and hugely enlarged udders which become encrusted with sores.  If you have ever seen a video of those newborn calves taken from their mothers, you are not likely to ever forget it. And then there is the ultimate trip to the abattoir for the calf and mother alike, of course. Telling the public that going vegetarian or flexitarian helps animals sends a very muddled message.

This seems to be a new position for PeTA, whose director of research said in a Newsweek article circa 2009:

“Given the environmental, cruelty and health impact of a meat-based diet, going vegan is best, going vegetarian is good, and being a flexitarian is like smoking two packs of cigarettes instead of ten, beating one pig down the slaughter ramp instead of two, and pouring a pint of gasoline down a drain instead of pouring down a gallon.”**

Mark Bittman, noted author of Food Matters suggests much the same. After all, it is just too hard to go vegan, right? Usually those making that statement have never even tried; they are looking for an easy way out. But it is no easy way for the animals that must endure horrendous lives of illness, discomfort, pain, and misery. It does not help those that must suffer the terror and callous treatment at the end of the line at the slaughterhouse. And the truth is, there are thousands upon thousands of vegans who beg to differ: we find it extremely easy to be vegan. For most of us, one bit of information about the lives of animals, one video of the slaughterhouse, and we were done. It was easy, because every time we think of animal products, we see those images and we refuse to budge. We will NOT participate.

Earlier this year, Wayne Pacelle offered the following:

“It doesn’t take an all-or-nothing approach to make a major impact, and giving customers more meat-free meal choices will improve health, reduce the impact of global warming, and help animals,” Pacelle said.***

Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, is not known for taking all-or-nothing approaches to protecting animals. HSUS has owned stock in some of the worst animal exploitative industries, allowing them to profit from the consumption and slaughter of animals. This fact alone weakens any moral stance Mr. Pacelle could take.  Coupled with the fact that many if not most HSUS members consume animal products themselves, this appears to be one very flexible animal protection organization: for some of the animals, some of the time. While Mr. Pacelle is himself a vegan, he must as CEO of a large animal welfare organization protect the donations which come is to the tune of millions of dollars per year.

Standing in opposition to child abuse, human trafficking, rape, incest and domestic violence somehow does not make a person fanatical. Standing in opposition to abject cruelty and torture of animals does. Call me fanatical, but all this talk of flexibility and flexitarianism offends me, coming from supposed animal rights folks. Sounds like a lack of spine to me.

*“Learning flexibility with meat eating,” Daily World, July 14, 2010

**”Part-time Vegetarians”, Newsweek, September 29, 2008, by Karen Springen

***“Compass Launches Landmark ‘Flexitarian’ Initiative”, HSUS website

Years ago, I was the only female on a project for the hookup and commissioning of an oil platform off the Southern California coast, north of Santa Barbara.  My job was onshore computer functions, technical support, and employee relations. Translation: I ran errands and took the men that were injured to the hospital., went and loaded steel plates in the back of the company truck, ran toilet paper out to the helicopter, went and selected their movies at the local movie rental place. And I took the heat when someone had to get fired, because the thinking was they were less likely to punch me in the nose than the next guy.  When I saw where I was going to be working, I was horrified.  The only bathroom in the heliport had a door that didn’t lock or close all the way and it was right where the men congregated to wait to get out to the platform. I immediately told my boss, “I will not drink any water until this project is over!” In a weird bit of coincidence, my boss and I had the exact same birthdate, same year, and same place. We were two little babies in those plastic beds on rollers, side by side, never knowing we would one day be reunited on a tragic mission of folly.

Hooking Up An Offshore Oil Platform

I went out on the helicopter to the platform a lot. Sometimes the helicopter pilot would ask me to come along to even out the load; other times it was just for company.  He said that flying a helicopter was about as interesting as running to the end of the street, running back, and repeating ad nauseum every day, every week, every year.  My son voiced fear about my flying on the helicopter but I told him not to worry. Sadly, before the end of the project, there was a fatal helicopter crash and all on board were killed. It seems helicopters are very unstable.  My son has always been wise beyond his years; he never even said, “I told you so!”

The platforms are like small cities way out in the water.  They operate in a way that is rather incredible, and because they are in the middle of the ocean, the winds and storms hit them hard with no land mass to soften the blow or break up the impact.   There were close quarters for sleeping and a roomy dining area with decent cuisine, a host of people working to take care of the men who were working to take care of the platform.  I remember asking why there was the rainbow sheen of oil on the water surrounding the platform, and was told that was just normal, it had nothing to do with the oil platform.   I was shocked to learn that when the oil rig is done pumping oil, they take the top off but leave the platform.  Abandoned old platforms were dotting the ocean, and it did not take the wildlife long to set up housekeeping on them. Still, it seemed rather rude to litter the landscape with cast off platforms. It seemed downright disrespectful.

The Controversy Over Oil Platforms and Petroleum Products in the Ocean

There had been a lot of controversy about the platforms for years, and I was on the side opposing them for environmental reasons.  But as a single mom, I desperately needed the job, with two growing sons and two hungry cats at home to support.  It meant an incredibly long commute but I signed up anyway. Planting a metal beast in the ocean is no small undertaking. Just fighting the “June Gloom” to get the guys out on the platform was a major task, with the fog making it impossible to fly much of the time.

One can of motor oil out there could do a lot of damage, because there is an entire world under that water. It may be a world with which most of us are unfamiliar, but it is an entire ecosystem nonetheless.  When I first heard about the BP spill, I felt for those men out there working and killed so unnecessarily. I felt for their families. But I was also very aware of all the damage and death that was going on beneath the water, so deep down that we humans have no idea what we just unleashed. There were already dead zones in the ocean, and much of the sea life has already been decimated. There is an island of plastics larger than Texas out in the ocean,  and all those plastic bits are degrading into smaller pieces, killing and destroying wildlife. A single plastic bag, caught in the wind, can end up in the ocean and fool a marine animal into thinking it is a jellyfish, an unlucky surprise that ends in death. I have seen dozens of photos of those plastic rings that keep six-packs together, with a living animal trapped in it.  If there is this huge island out there somewhere, I am always amazed that we humans aren’t cleaning it up. If every nation would just go get a few barges full, we could stop the disaster it is creating, but we don’t. We could all use cloth bags, but we don’t. We don’t see it so we don’t deal with it.  And the innocent animals keep paying the price for our passivity.

The Mission of Folly Completed – Death, Bankruptcy, Injury

At the end of the project on which I worked, the platform was installed, but the company I worked for went bankrupt. The helicopter pilots never got paid. My money went into getting my car in good shape for those long commutes – at the end of the project I was hit by a high school student who was too busy fighting with his girlfriend to watch the road; my car was totalled and I never recovered any of the investment I had put into the car. Men died on that platform. Animals die, too. With the leaking wells in NY leaking for 50 years, the ones in the Amazon, the ones in Niger delta…this one..the growing island of plastics and the ever increasing dead zones in the ocean….it seems as if we are determined to destroy every bit of wildlife on this earth.

Two words come to mind: destruction, and deception.  I have heard reports that BP has people pulling dead animals from the shores, lest people realize the full scope of this disaster.  But even if they left the carcasses, no human will ever fully realize the scope of the disaster.  It is the animals, both human and nonhuman, that will pay for this folly. I think of the men that died on the installation of the platform on which I worked, those that have died working for BP and other oil companies, the millions to billions of animals that will be consumed by the toxicity of the petroleum, by the plastics. I recently tweeted something about the spill and said Go Vegan. I received a nasty tweet back saying shame on me, there is nothing about veganism that has anything to do with the oil spill. I guess if you think veganism is about diet, then you are right. But to me, veganism is about non speciesist respect for life.  I cannot imagine abolitionist vegans invading another’s habitat so callously, treating workers so carelessly, and lying so cavalierly about being prepared. It is behavior unworthy of a vegan.  Abolitionist vegans in particular are respectful and non-violent towards animal life in all its many forms.  What really gets my knickers in a knot is hearing the PR ads that BP is putting out, repeatedly stating that they will “make this right.”  How can they? How can they give our children a healthy ocean again? How can they return the wetlands, the wildlife, the dolphins, pelicans and fish? They don’t even know how to get the oil out of the water and suggest using more toxic ways to deal with the disaster they created, like nuclear options or chemical disbursements – meaning more death and destruction for wildlife. Why is it that Kevin Costner, a mere movie actor, has developed a  machine to remove oil from water, yet none of the oil companies have? And none of them, til now, bought his? Mr. Costner had gone to our congress about this machine, but no one cared. Such passivity is indeed toxic.  Veganism is one answer to these many complex problems which at the root are a disassociation from the natural world of which we are all a part. The end result of our passivity is the ever increasing black waters.

Vegan Abolitionists to Know

Paola Aldana hosts video podcasts all about veganism and abolitionist animal rights. Not only is she a clear spoken vegan, but she is delightful as well. You can find Paola on Facebook and Twitter too. Be sure to subscribe to her podcasts; that way you are alerted via email whenever there is a new one available, and you never miss a thing.

Dr. Roger Yates is a professor of sociology who is also an animal rights legend. He is currently creator of Human NonHuman Relations and one of the hosts on Animal Rights Zone.  His podcasts are by the same name as his blog and are available on iTunes.

Music:

Harry Shearer’s Addicted to Oil

Adam Lambert’s Mad World

New Broadway Musical Cast Recording of Cabaret – Money

Clips:

Best of the Left podcast

Bill Maher – Real Time

Leonard Lopate’s Underreported

Paola Aldana’s You Tube videos

Roger Yates - On Human-Nonhuman Relations

Recommended Films:

Crude - a documentary review

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Aerial View of Oil Platform

Oil platform

Not everyone has the chutzpah to set up a table on the street and recruit vegans. To those of you who are willing, it can be incredibly empowering to find people do actually stop and listen, and some come back to find out more information.  Try setting up a table at a place that is likely to garner you some interest, such as a local farmer’s market or street fair. If it seems intimidating, take a friend along with you. Most such events have a wide variety of people with a wider still variety of viewpoints.  It only takes one person’s interest to make the whole day worthwhile.

If you prefer working behind the scenes, you can write letters to the editor, to your elected officials, and to store and shop owners, promoting a pro-vegan stance.  Use your letter to the editor to educate people about the cost of animal agriculture, the positive impacts of veganism, or address a pertinent issue with your representative.  To business owners, request the type of food (be specific) you would like to see them carry, refer to a recent experience either positive or negative regarding their business.

There are articles filled with misinformation about veganism and abolitionists. If you are so inclined, go onto those articles posted and leave comments. Each person that reads another positive, peaceful vegan comment may be educated a bit more about what veganism really means.

Go onto vegetarian or vegan forums and do the same; see who is struggling, has received misinformation, or feels becoming vegan is a daunting task.  Reaching out may be just the ticket to helping that person make the commitment to change.

Responding kindly to challenges helps keeps veganism part of the peace movement. While it may be difficult at times, it is usually more productive for the person challenging you to find a relaxed, confident, happy person overflowing with health and goodwill rather than a snarky, judgmental person overflowing with frustration. Not fair, I know, but there it is.

Opportunities to discuss veganism abound – When I go to the market, I invariably get comments from the checker or bag person about how healthy my purchases are, noting that they are all or nearly all produce.  I always smile broadly and say, “Yes, and look at how much food I get for very little money. Not only that, my cholesterol went down 100 points, and my conscience is lighter, too.”  If the person says, “Oh I would love to do that but it is too hard,” I offer a different perspective and suggest they just go vegan one meal at a time. One meal does not seem overwhelming, and it opens them up to possibilities.

Even a casual walk around the neighborhood or an outing to the park is an opportunity to mention your happy, healthy dogs.  When someone comments on how well they appear or all the energy they have, that is an invitation to let them know how well they are doing on a vegan diet, too.

Challenge corporations – Recently, some omni-subs (meat substitutions) began to add egg whites into formerly vegan products, while another company got rid of eggs, turning their vegetarian products into vegan products. I frequently write to companies to applaud or bemoan these types of changes and often write to others to request vegan recipes or vegan products, particularly if the product is near vegan and would be a hit with fellow vegans. I usually receive generous and thoughtful responses.  When I find a product labeled “vegan” in traditional markets, I usually will respond by saying “Thank You!” to the company for the labeling and the product.

Challenge schools – the public schools are not the healthiest place for children to eat and sadly receive some of the worst of the animal products in the world.  Our local schools and preschools do allow children to abstain from the usual mandatory milk by drinking water or juice.  I have spoken to the owners and administrators at the local private preschool and I found out from the County officials that a vegan preschool is acceptable as long as it meets the State nutritional guidelines.

Display at the library – If you are creative and prefer a quiet advocacy, speak to your local library about putting up a pro-animal or pro-vegan display.  Many libraries have glassed cases that they allow people to use just for this purpose.  I have done several on overpopulation and the environment, the impact on animals and habitats, and population projections.  Contact your local library and see what is possible if this type of advocacy interests you.

Wear vegan tee shirts - After recently purchasing a bright turquoise shirt that reads, “Life is Better Vegan!” I found that  I need to order more such tees!  These shirts can often get people talking just as I go about doing my weekly chores, shopping, or saying  hello to neighbors.  It is a quiet advocacy, because it gives visibility to veganism, keeps it in people’s minds, and often prompts further dialogue.

Think of yourself as a Vegan Ambassador.  It will make it easier to maintain civility, open dialogue, and remind yourself that you are from another culture, another world. By showing sensitivity and being available, you just might find someone reaching out. Clear, consistent vegan education is one of the best things any of us can do to help liberate animals from commodification.