Living up to the Lessons We Teach our Children - an excerpt from Confronting Animal Exploitation

Here's another excerpt from my 23-page essay in Confronting Animal Exploitation, officially due out April 1st (though it looks like you can put it on a Kindle or a Nook right now if you wanted to).

The late Stanley Sapon, professor of psycholinguistics at the University of Rochester, said, “we typically raise children from birth to five or six years in a kind of fantasy-land of ideal behavior on the part of the world’s inhabitants … a ‘land of goodness and mercy,’ a land where the animals are our friends, and we are the friends of the animals.”

Children under a certain age are not taught that other-than-human animals are here for us to exploit and kill. Instead, representations of these beings are used in children’s media to illustrate life lessons, as in books like Chicken Little and The Three Billy Goats Gruff. Other stories also teach us that other-than-human animals should be spared suffering and death—as is the case in Bambie—and should live free from captivity and have their intrinsically valuable lives respected by others—a major theme of, for example, the children’s movies Free Willy and Rio.

Vegans parents take these lessons to their logical conclusions and teach their children to not only say that animals are our friends, but also act as if they are. It’s not enough to say, “Be nice to animals.” We need to actually be nice to all animals. Chicken dinner, steak on Fridays and eggs for breakfast run counter to this message.

Religion and Vegan Advocacy

The following is part one of a three-part series I wrote a few months ago. There was a chance that these were going to be published in an upcoming anthology (in which a separate essay having nothing to do with religion will appear), but it didn't pan out. So I'm publishing them here instead. 

Should animal advocates use religion to promote veganism?

The majority of religious belief depends on the idea of hierarchy, chiefly the belief that we humans are given value by and should humble ourselves before someone or something that is ostensibly “greater than us”—be that a deity, deities, religious leaders, or a collection of metaphysical doctrines.

If there is a being[1] who is greater than humans, then by default that means humans are lesser beings. If humans are lesser than that higher power, then it’s not too large of a leap to reason that there are others who are lesser still. This way of thinking (that other = lesser) has been employed to justify racism, sexism and every other oppression throughout human history. While many religious people have come to see those oppressions as unjust, it was not due to their religious traditions that this has happened[2]. Instead, it was due to the rational, logical argument that skin color and sex, for two examples, are not valid characteristics to take into account when deciding whether or not it’s OK to treat a being as someone with lesser intrinsic value.

In the same vein, religious texts and traditions generally don’t support the idea that animals are due equal consideration, and so they would likely not be the true cause of the embrace of veganism among the faithful.

Animal rights philosophy holds that there is no such thing as “greater” or “lesser” when it comes to the interests of animals in avoiding pain and continuing life[3]. It seems strange, then, to hold veganism up as a religion, or to incorporate the language of religion within veganism, when religion has historically been a major perpetrator of the greater/lesser divide.

Marjorie Spiegel writes in The Dreaded Comparison, “By eliminating the oppression of animals from the fabric of our culture, we begin to undermine some of the psychological structures inherent in a society which seems to create and foster ‘masters’” (28-29).

Or as blogger Randy Sandberg has said, “I’m an atheist because I do not believe in superior beings and I am vegan because I don’t believe in inferior ones either.”

Much as David Neibert’s Animal Rights, Human Rights and Bob Torres’ Making a Killing question whether or not one can be opposed to speciesism while supporting capitalism, activists should ask themselves whether or not they can effectively oppose the hierarchy of speciesism, while embracing the hierarchical institutions of religion. 

It should be noted that certain forms of religions have historically opposed oppression of certain forms. A basic precept of Buddhism is non-harm, for example. But most Buddhists are not vegan. The 14th Dalai Lama isn’t vegan or vegetarian. So while a belief system like Buddhism seems to be an ideal institution within which veganism would thrive, the majority of its adherents still value trivial human interests above the very non-trivial interests of animals. This fact alone should be enough to cast serious doubt upon any religion’s ability to fully embrace and promote veganism.

I don’t mean to suggest that personal belief in deities or metaphysical doctrines should preclude one from choosing to be vegan. And I’m fully aware that many people come to veganism through what they would consider spiritual or religious routes. What I’m suggesting here is that religion need not be used as a way to argue for veganism and that if activists are serious about opposing hierarchy and oppression, it might be a good idea to take a hard long look at the religion they belong to and ask if its teachings line up with their stated beliefs.

Activists should also be wary of entangling religion with veganism because it has the effect of excluding all who aren’t adherents of the specific religion they’re utilizing as an outreach tool.

The Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA), for example, makes several points about the biblical case for veganism—though they confusingly refer to it as vegetarianism. If one is Hindu and reads the CVA site, she may wonder what in the world this has to do with her. She needs to be Christian in order for the Christian biblical argument for veganism to apply to her.

The Society of Religious and Ethical Vegetarians, in their Judaism and Vegetarianism question and answer page, responds to a question about whether a move toward vegetarianism would mean moving the focus away from kosher laws. They answer, “Quite the contrary. One of the purposes of the laws of kashrut is reverence for life. Another purpose is to avoid pagan practices, which often involved much cruelty to animals and people.”

So, just to be clear, there’s no moral obligation for Pagans to be vegan? 

Legal scholar and animal rights philosopher Gary Francione makes the case on a blog post that, “the movement to abolish animal exploitation should be part of a larger movement for Ahimsa, or non-violence.” The Ahimsa that Francione refers to is the Jain principle of non-harm which exists for the purpose of increasing good karma and liberating a soul from reincarnation. The value of incorporating such religious terminology into vegan advocacy is questionable at best. Someone who has no knowledge of the principle of Ahimsa still can easily grasp the concept of non-violence, though may balk at the idea of karma and reincarnation. Why then include within an argument for veganism a religious term that is limiting in scope? Ahimsa refers to a specific principle of a specific belief system, but as far as praxis goes, it means the same thing as non-violence. Given that, it’s confusing as to why Francione, who has otherwise crafted a logical argument for animal rights, doesn’t just take religious language out of conversation and stick with the broadly appealing language of non-violence and justice.[4]

There are, of course, arguments for veganism from most religious perspectives. But does each religion have to incorporate veganism within it’s teachings in order to convince its adherents to go vegan?

It’s understood that people view the world through the various lenses of their religions. But this doesn’t mean that activists need to imprint veganism upon each of those lenses. First of all, there’s no reason to believe that it will work. Since the majority of religious leaders are not vegan, it’s too easy for adherents to dismiss arguments for veganism. If veganism was really what their religion demanded of them, the defense would go, their holy leaders would already be vegan. Secondly, veganism stands on it’s own just fine. It doesn’t need to be incorporated into a religion and it doesn’t require buttressing by the language of religion. A simple, honest argument for veganism is compelling and has the potential to appeal broadly to believers and non-believers alike. Activist should look critically at the desire to muddy that argument with interpretation of holy texts, traditions and guesses as to what deities would prefer. Instead of spending time trying to reverse engineer religions to make them fit veganism, activists may be better off crafting messages that not only drive home the point that unnecessary harm is wrong for reasons that are self-evident, but also focus on the myriad ways in which animal use is, indeed, unnecessary.

Should the argument for veganism be based upon amorphous supernatural belief? Or should it be presupposed upon immutable, observable, fact-based, logic-based evidence?

As an atheist, I obviously lean toward the latter.

Alas, like the religious, the majority of atheists don’t embrace veganism. For many, the atheist view that there is no gods ends up elevating humanity to the position of god within the hierarchy of being. Since there is no god, the argument goes, humans make the rules and can rightly position themselves at the pinnacle of the chain of being. Anthropocentrism either goes unexamined or is celebrated. The appeal to nature fallacy is embraced as a defense of the status quo.

Fortunately, skepticism often goes hand-in-hand with atheism as well. Many skeptics take a look at the institution of speciesism and see it as one of unnecessary oppression.

Mary Martin, author of the blog “Animal Person,” writes: 

"Vegans usually have spent quite a bit of time exploring our relationship with nonhuman animals and making a conscious decision to go against the mainstream. And atheists who were parented by believers have usually spent time examining the religion they were raised in as well as why we'd believe there is a god at all. I see these counter-culture positions as parallel and based on the same evolution of thought and deconstruction of the stories of childhood."

Again, none of this is to say that one can’t be vegan and religious. But as advocates, we ought to be cognizant of the extra layers we needlessly add to the argument for animals rights when we use religious terms and religious arguments in our advocacy.

Advocates should seriously consider leaving religion out of the conversation regardless of the personal religious views of either party—the advocate and advocated to. Most people, regardless of religious belief, are not going to argue against the statement that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary harm upon animals. Religion-specific codes of ethics and morality may come into play further into individual conversations about veganism, but when the dialogue isn’t presupposed upon them, the argument for veganism as a general moral obligation is stronger. 

[1] Or beings. I’ll stick with the singular in this essay simply for flow’s sake.
[2] Despite what they may claim. Also, it’s important to recognize that it’s probably not because of religion that those oppressions initially occurred, but that religion was likely created and molded to justify and enshrine the pre-existing oppression of others.
[3] That’s a statement that needs to be qualified. Animal rights philosopher Tom Regan, for example, maintains that human interest in continuation of life counts for more than, say, a dog’s, since the average human is the subject of an ostensibly more complex and fulfilling inner life, and potential future, than are other animals. For the purposes of this essay, though, I defer to Gary Francione’s view of animal rights, which maintains that sentience is all which is required in order for one animal to have equal inherent value to another.
[4] In fairness to Francione, it’s worth noting that in Introduction to Animal Rights, he wrote in reference to “the basic right not to be treated as a thing and the concept of equal inherent value,” that, “neither of these concepts involves anything that requires our acceptance of any metaphysical doctrines. All that is required is logic” (93) …

One More Dead Wolf

On the morning of June 8th, a Mexican gray wolf escaped from his cage at the Minnesota Zoo. He walked slowly on a path, and people quickly moved away from him. The zoo staff decided that they should shoot to kill instead of tranquilize. Their rationale was that the wolf was a danger to zoo patrons and a tranquilizer dart, according to zoo officials, "can take 10-15 minutes to fully take effect on an animal."

So a choice had to be made by the zoo: either tranquilize the wolf and risk him injuring or killing patrons, or kill the wolf  and deal with the negative publicity that would be sure to follow. They chose to kill.

I have often said that if a tiger broke into my house and seemed intent on eating my children, I would not be opposed to killing her if that's what it took to save my kids. (I should note here that I would do the same if a human broke into my house and she seemed intent on eating (or just killing, I guess) my children. What I would do in this situation says nothing about what we should routinely do to animals.)

My point is, I'm not sure that the zoo necessarily made the wrong choice in this specific instance, though I think they should have more ways to catch an animal unharmed than by just using tranquilizer darts. The process they have in place for things like this should rule out killing an animal except for in the most extreme cases. Their emergency reaction plans don't take the non-human animal lives at the zoo into as much consideration as they should. But since they didn't have adequate protocol and their options were truly kill or tranquilize (as the zoo claims), I can understand why they chose kill.

The big wrong choice the zoo made was when it chose to be a zoo. Zoos are inherently unjust places, tiny pale facsimiles of animals' natural habitats, places where animals go senile, places where animals are merely a commodity to be used to entertain and, ostensibly, educate.

So in my view, the real question isn't whether or not the zoo should have shot the wolf, it's whether or not the wolf should have been there in the first place. It's obvious to me that the answer is no. We can't justify imprisioning these animals for our entertainment or even for (again, ostensibly) our education. And the fact that they escape (and they do quite a bit ... oh and let's not forget this), and then zoos are often caused to weigh the non-human animals' lives against the potential of harm to paying customers ... it seems like a recipe for disaster.

Of course, news outlets jumped all over this story. And there were plenty of outraged citizens, saying the zoo acted rashly and should have done more to capture the wolf alive. I agree. But I think it misses the point of the institutionally entrenched problem of speciesism, which allows horrible situations like this to happen.

---
That's an It. He's an It. Not a He.

On Minnesota Public Radio, they wrote:

"Zoo officials said no people were in immediate danger but they decided to shoot the wolf because they couldn't predict where it would go or whether it would hurt people visiting the Northern Trail." (link)

Elsewhere in the story, Tony Fisher, the zoo's "animal collection manager" refers to this wolf as a "he." I can't for the life of me understand why MPR would refer to him as "it." The rest of the news outlets, of course, also referred to the wolf as "it," even though he was identified as male within their stories.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press managed to gender and neuter the wolf in the same paragraph:

"The 8-year-old male wolf slipped through the gaps of a fence in the keeper area of its exhibit into a secondary enclosure where it jumped an 8-foot fence, said animal collections manager Tony Fisher." (link)

And the Star Tribune did the same thing (in fact, the combination of the words "male that" is the shortest distance possible between gendering and neutering):

"The wolf, an 8-year-old male that was born at the zoo, is one of an endangered subspecies with only a few dozen living in the wild. There were three Mexican gray wolves at the zoo, but this one was not on exhibit because it didn't get along with the other two, Fisher said." (link)

The AP went there, too. They did correctly attribute one gendered pronoun to the wolf, but then decided to neuter him anyway:

"Tony Fisher, MN Zoo animal collection manager, told KARE 11 the ordeal began around 10 a.m. when the male wolf escaped his primary display area. Vets and zookeepers armed with tranquilizers started gathering and preparing to recapture the wolf but it jumped a secondary barrier and ran out among the public walking on the zoo's Northern Trail." (link)

I've got to hand it to Tony Fisher though, in all the quotes I saw from him, he referred to the wolf by the proper pronoun. I wish the reporting media would have followed suit. I don't have my AP Style Guide handy, but I wonder if there's something in there that says you have to refer to a non-human animal as "it" even if you know his or her gender. Any reporters out there want to help me out here? Are there style guidelines on this?

This bothers me, as you can tell. Animals are not its, they are hes and shes (or in the case of hermaphroditic animals, the generic, but non-objectifying, "they"). By routinely refusing to attribute a gender to them, we reduce them to the level of things. Things are "its." We don't have to care about things. We don't really care about animals so we refer to them at "its." And we refer to them as "its" to make it easier to not care about them.

It's pervasive, it's insidious and I really, really want it to stop. Regardless of how you feel about animals, you should at least recognize them as beings who are not mere things. That recognition should be reflected in your language.

---
Precious Species, Worthless Lives

The Minnesota Zoo released a note on their Facebook page which explains why they shot the wolf instead of tranquilizing him. One of the comments on this note sums up what I think a lot of people are feeling:

"I am disappointed that this extreme action had to take place. A precious life had to end today because the zoo we support did not do its job to keep the animals safe. While I don't want to see any humans injured better safeguards should have been in place. I have been a long time member and contributor but am rethinking my support."

First of all, this extreme action didn't have to take place. This is a dilemma that was created by the zoo. If there was no zoo, this dilemma would not have existed.

Secondly, this wolf's life is no more precious than the chicken's life which became your last meal of McNuggets.

Thirdly, support for the zoo should not occur if you truly regard the lives there as precious. I know that this wolf is a member of an endangered species, but that doesn't mean his individual life is intrinsically more precious than any other animal's.

And let's not forget the reason this species is on extinction's door: human hunting of wolves. Speciesism feeds speciesism. On the one hand, humans have nearly eradicated Mexican gray wolves. On the other hand, humans are confining Mexican gray wolves in hopes of saving the species.

But what good is a species?  A species is a concept. A species doesn't have feelings. A species doesn't care if it's extinct.

What matters - who matters - are the individual members of species. But it's the individual members who are routinely confined, abused and killed. We confine them in zoos. We further encroach on their habitats with  urban sprawl. We clear-cut rain forests so we can have cheap cow flesh (and we kill cows for flesh). We kill 23 million individual chickens per day in the United States alone.

Looking at the patterns of abuse and disregard, it's obvious that the overwhelming majority of we humans could care less about individual members of species. It's almost comical to me then, that we go to such lengths to save species.

---

Anna and the Aquarium

Needless to say, my family doesn't go to zoos. The potential for escaped carnivores doesn't really come in to play when we make that choice; the right of animals to live free from ownership and exploitation does. Our sense of justice does.

That said, a few weeks ago Anna's class took a field trip to the Mall of America's underground aquarium, Minnesota Sea Life. We talked with Anna about it before hand and told her that she could go if she wants, or she could stay home. She said she wanted to go. She said she thought fish shouldn't be in cages, but she also wanted to go to see what it's like. She said she would maybe ask the people who worked there if they could let the fish go.

But she was sick that day. So she didn't go after all.

Her teacher and I were talking about it today and she said she was glad Anna wasn't there. There were a lot of dead animals that the kids could look at up close. Like a dead turtle, for example.

How many kids wondered what the turtle's life was like? What lessons did they learn by gazing upon this deceased individual's lifeless form?

What lessons did they learn by looking at the living beings trapped behind glass?

---
Further Reading


After writing this post, I looked online for critiques of zoos from an animal rights perspective. The following pieces are worth taking a look at (note: I don't necessarily endorse all views expressed on the sites at the other end of these links):

Should Zoos Keep Endangered Species? by Doris Lin
What's Wrong With Zoos? by Gary Yourofsky
Zoos by Wanda Embar at Vegan Peace

UPDATE: The Animal Rights Coalition has released a statement in regard to the shooting of the wolf. You can read it here.

The Life I Did Save

I saved a squirrel today.

Well, I don't know for sure that I saved him. He may have lived without my help, but it didn't look like things were going that way. And I'm not sure of the gender, but in my head the squirrel is a "him," so that's what I'm going with until I find out differently.

Anna carpools to school with our neighbor. It was their turn to drive, so I watched Anna as she crossed the street, but then I looked down toward my neighbor's house and there they were, Anna's friend and her mom, standing on the street with a cat and a squirrel.

It's important to note that the squirrels in the Twin Cities are not fans of humans. When my wife and I were in San Francisco, at Golden Gate Park, squirrels walked right up to us, stood on their hind legs and basically begged for food. I assume it's like that in some other metropolitan areas as well. But not in the TC. Squirrels cannot run fast enough from humans. If I look in my backyard in the summer, I'll usually see a couple squirrels running around, but when I go out there with the kids, they are nowhere to be seen. So it's a big deal that this squirrel was just walking slowly around two humans on the road.

I walked over there with Anna and checked it out. The cat was just following the squirrel around. Not swatting at him or trying to eat him, as far as I could tell. She was just watching, probably weirded out as we were by the fact that he wasn't running away.

The squirrel seemed to be limping a bit, and after a while we noticed that his hands (or at least one of them) were swollen and red and he had a large lump on his back. Anna and her friend got really close to him and I was worried about rabies, what with our bat experience in the fall. (Holy crap! I forgot to write about our bat experience! I should totally do that.) I suggested they stay a bit further away, but I couldn't blame them for wanting to get close. He was cute and squirrels always run away. Hell, I even wanted to pet the little guy. But instead I ran to my house, got our recycling bin and a piece of an apple. (Do squirrels eat apples? I don't know.)

I was sort of expecting him to run away from me when I approached, but he just sat in the middle of the road and didn't move a muscle. I put the bin on its side on the road and asked him nicely to get in. He didn't. So I moved it right up to him and gave him a gentle pat on the butt with my boot. He crawled in and cowered in the corner. He didn't make an attempt to climb out or anything.

The cat watched all of this from the side of the road.

I brought him into my porch and gave him a little piece of bread, just in case he wanted some carbs. He just huddled in the corner of the bin, scared shitless.

He almost didn't even look like a squirrel to me, he was so still. I went inside and called the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. They said to bring him in, so I did.

On the way there, I kept glancing in the rearview mirror at the recycling bin, scared of two things happening:

1. The squirrel dies en route.
2. The squirrel, refreshed by the heat in the vehicle, jumps out of the recycling bin and starts tearing shit up.

Luckily, neither of these happened. I brought him into the WRC, they said they'd take a look at him. While I was there a woman came in with a box. "Squirrel?" I asked. "Duck," she said. I filled out a form and left.

Here's how I felt: Heroic.

You'll hear vegans say they save lives just by being vegan, but that's not really accurate. We reduce demand, but that doesn't mean there are animals on farms who won't be killed because of someone's vegan choices. Instead, the reduction in demand that vegans create would ideally cause a lessening in demand, thus lessening the amount of animals bought into existence for the sole purpose of being used as a resource. Unfortunately, animal consumption is still on the rise, so the 1% or so of the US population who are vegan don't actually create a net reduction in animals brought into existence for the sole purpose of being used as a resource. It's less of more of the same, instead of less of an equal amount of the same.

I don't feel, on a day to day basis, like I'm saving lives. And I'm not. So bringing this squirrel in has created a much different feeling in me. I'd imagine it's similar to what those involved in open rescues feel when they free animals from farms. "You were going to suffer and die, but because of my actions, you have a much better chance at living a longer life with less suffering."

It's gratifying and alluring. I also feel that it's also sort of ... I don't know. If we're serious about respecting animal interests, then I think the best thing we could do right now is to challenge speciesism on a daily basis with our every-day actions. If we want to built a serious movement, then we need to show that a life without animal exploitation is possible and help people to take the view that animals are moral persons to whom we have obligations, chiefly among them the obligation to not use them as as resources.

This is not to say open rescues and wildlife rehabilitation aren't important. Indeed, to the lives they save, they are the most important thing (since they result in the lessening of suffering and the continuation of life). I guess I'm just trying to say that as long as we live in a society which so routinely devalues non-human animals and treats them as things instead of beings, we probably need to place most of our focus on educating others that, as Joanna Lucas from Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary (an organization that saves lives and educates the public on veganism) has said, "The value of a sentient life is not measured in its utility to others, but in its immense, irreplaceable value to the being whose life it is."

Another angle of thought that this all brings up: I've had a problem in the past with fully supporting wildlife rehabilitation. There's a part of me which thinks that if a wild (or to use a term more accurate: free living) animal is harmed, then that's just part of the life cycle and some predator somewhere will be better off for it. I have felt that by interfering, even to save these animals, we potentially harm ecosystems.

But those thoughts sort of flew out the window when I saw this little squirrel who was obviously injured. I just wanted him to be OK.

I brought this point up to one of the people at the WRC and asked her how she felt about it. She said that there are cases where it's obvious that we shouldn't interfere. She said someone once brought in a mouse that she saved from a hawk who was attacking him/her. But, she said, when a rabbit is hit by a car, or a squirrel is injured by a cat (which may well have been the case with the squirrel I brought in), the injury is due to our interference. By trying to save these animals, we're negating a very small portion of harmful effects our presence has already created.

Because we kill squirrels all the time. About four years ago I ran over one with my car. I can still feel the crunch of his bones. Last year a squirrel died after falling into our chimney. I still remember the smell of death when a nice man came out to remove the carcass (we found out about it because we heard a grinding noise when we turned on our furnace ... and yes, I've since wrapped chicken wire around our chimney). We're responsible for so much unintentional harm to animals. When we have the opportunity to save one of those animals, even when we don't know how they arrived at the injured state they're in, I say go for it. 

I'm even thinking of keeping a box in my car in case I come across any more injured free-living non-human animals. 

And in case you're wondering, I'll post an update on the blog once I find out how the squirrel is doing. I hope to know next week. 

Bruce Friedrich Debates Bruce Friedrich’s Monster

I’m going to start this post with a disclaimer of sorts. I generally don’t write about animal rights theory on this blog unless it relates to my family. Though I frequently read animal rights books, blogs and consider myself well versed on animal rights theory, this blog is about raising my kids. So I don’t tend to focus on theory too much. Also, there are others who articulate animal rights theory much better than I do, and I feel that what I would write in this blog would be a repetition of what they already eloquently say.

But today I'm going to break character and delve into animal rights, specifically the debate within the larger animal activist movement about how best to spend our time advocating for animals. If you’re here to look at pictures of my kids, this probably isn’t the post for you. On the other hand, if you consider PeTA an animal rights organization, maybe this is the post for you.

___

I went to a debate on Friday night and I need to write about it. My thoughts about this are like a raging fire in my brain, actually, and I’m pretty sure the only way to extinguish it is to relate how frustrating the experience was for me, and maybe to help you feel some of my frustration (as Bleeding Gums Murphy once said, “The blues isn’t about feeling better, it’s about making other people feel worse!”).

The debate, titled “Is Meat Ethical?”, was between PeTA vice president Bruce Friedrich and a member of the University of Minnesota debate team whose first name was Nick. I didn’t catch his last name.

I arrived about ten minutes early and a couple members of Compassionate Action for Animals (CAA) were handing out leaflets for their Veg Week. A young woman asked me if I wanted a brochure and I said sure. CAA is a local new welfarist animal activist group.

Hold on. Some of you might not know what I mean when I say “new welfarist”. In a nutshell, new welfarists (like PeTA) focus on the treatment of animals and spend time and money trying to incrementally improve that treatment. They have the long-term goal of animal liberation, but they focus most of their money, energy and time on regulating industry rather than educating the public about veganism.

CAA is a new welfarist organization which focuses primarily on educating the public, though they have also done work with industry and declared incremental changes as victories. They have a “Veg Week” and encourage people to go vegan or vegetarian, confusing the drastic difference between the two and perpetuating the idea that the average person doesn’t have the wherewithal to understand a cogent argument and choose to be vegan without first being vegetarian or without first reducing their meat intake or cutting meat out one day a week, etc.

I’m not picking on CAA here, I’m just trying to convey who they are and what they believe (as an organization).

In regard to the new welfarist ideas on reductions in animal suffering, I personally don’t think that supposed short-term reductions in suffering are anything to toot your horn about.

First, how do you quantify suffering? How do you know that birds crammed onto a floor are suffering less than birds crammed into cages?

Second, when an animal organization declares one type of exploitation as being better than another type, they implicitly encourage people to purchase that “better” product of exploitation.

Third, there has been animal welfare for about a couple centuries now, and we’re using more animals in more horrible ways then we ever have before. Animal welfare doesn’t reduce demand. If it did, demand would have been reduced by now, instead of growing exponentially.

I’m an abolitionist vegan, which means that instead of advocating for bigger cages or no cages, I advocate for no ownership at all. Abolitionism is, as far as I’m concerned, the only logically consistent approach to animal rights.

Dan Cudahy put all of this better than I ever could in his essay, Abolition versus New Welfarism: A Contrast in Theory and Practice. I suggest giving it a read.

And while your at it, read Prof. Gary Francione’s piece, The Four Problems of Animal Welfare: In a Nutshell. 

If you’re one of my readers who doesn’t read a lot about animal issues, you might think the differences between welfare and abolition are like the differences between two slightly different religions, where one kneels during prayer and the other doesn't for example, and you’d be excused for thinking so. But for people who think about these things and engage in animal advocacy, it's clear that the differences between abolitionism and new welfarism are quite pronounced and that they have real-world consequences.

___ 

OK, that was one hell of a diversion, but I wanted to provide some context for the debate.

So the debate started and Bruce Friedrich was introduced and here’s the first thing he said:

“Why do University of Iowa graduates put their diplomas in their car window? So they can park in handicap zones.”

Oh yes he did! He started off with an ableist joke. As VP of a profoundly sexist organization, this didn’t surprise me.

Friedrich went on to say in his opening comments that as long as you oppose being wasteful with food, oppose global poverty and animal cruelty (he presented them in that order), then you’ll agree with him that eating meat is unethical. He didn’t need to talk about the first two points at all to make his case, but he did, which left the debate wide open, unfocused and wasted a lot of time. More time was spent debating the economics of global poverty than debating whether or not animals should be treated as resources.

Friedrich said that the only ethical diet is a diet that avoids meat. He did use the word “vegan” a couple times, but he also used “vegetarian” and he used them interchangeably. Is it any wonder that people are confused about what these words mean?

After closing his arguments about meat being unethical he undercut them by showing the first minute or so of Meet Your Meat.

Meet Your Meat (a video Friedrich co-directed) is a film that focuses exclusively on the animals at factory farmes. So yet again, he left the debate wide open and basically invited his debater to talk about the virtues of “happy meat” and “humanely” raised animals. In fact, there were times when both of them seemed to completely agree on the point that supposedly humane raising and slaughter of animals is commendable.

Part of Nick’s counter-argument, of course, was that the problem isn’t meat, but the way the animals are raised. He maintained that there were ways of doing it that gave animals good lives and that killing them for meat wasn’t necessarily wrong. To buttress this idea, he quoted Peter Singer. He called Singer the father of the animal rights movement, a title that is often attributed to him.

Singer himself is not a rightist though, and he doesn’t actually argue for animal rights (the term appears in his book Animal Liberation, but he later said he regretted ever using it). He’s not vegan, he promotes welfare reforms and maintains that death is not a harm for non-human animals. For a critique of Singer’s views, I suggest reading the essay “Peter Singer and the Welfarist Position on the Lesser Value of Nonhuman Life” by Prof. Gary Francione. 

So where would Nick have gotten this crazy idea that Singer, a man who says there’s nothing inherently wrong with killing animals, is a proponent of animal rights? Why, from Bruce Friedrich’s PeTA, of course! When you click on “read more” under “Why Animal Rights” on PeTA’s home page, there’s Singer’s book, Animal Liberation.

(For an analysis of the myriad contradictions of PeTA, I suggest reading Dan Cudahy's essay, PeTA, a Corporate Tangle of Contradictions.)

Nick also said that hunting gives animals a nice clean end to their lives instead of starving to death and that it manages populations which lessens suffering of deer.

Friedrich’s response to this wasn’t that we shouldn’t kill deer because they have an interest in living their lives and that to ignore that interest for unnecessary reasons is wrong. No, instead he said that Nick was wrong on his population point because hunting actually increases populations since deer breed more when under duress.

So … Friedrich’s argument is that people shouldn’t hunt because if they do there will be more deer?

Wouldn’t you expect the VP of an animal rights organization to instead defend a deer’s right to live free from unnecessary harm and death? Me too! Which is why I and many others contend that PeTA should not be considered an animal rights organization.

For all the contradictory messages that come out of PeTA, Friedrich could have just as well debated himself. 

Friedrich also kept coming back to the point that if we wouldn’t do something to the cats and dogs in our care, then we shouldn’t do it to any other animals either; that the abuses that farmed animals endure would be cause for legal action if they were inflicted upon our pets. But what he didn't say is that there are plenty of horrible things we can do to our companion animals that are perfectly legal, but would not be so if we did them to our children.

And he should know. You might think that Friedrich would be opposed to killing perfectly healthy cats and dogs just because homes can’t easily be found for them, but you’d be wrong. PeTA killed (they use the term “euthanize” of course) 90% of all dogs and cats relinquished to its headquarters in Norfolk, Va. In 2009.

Given that, you'll understand then why Friedrich’s insistence that we should treat farmed animals as well as we treat our cats and dogs rang just a tad hollow and frightening to me.

Friedrich also maintained that any meat you buy in any grocery store is the product of great suffering. He repeated this several times, which made me wonder about that love letter PeTA wrote to Whole Foods…

___

The debate then moved into the “questions from the crowd” period.

I asked one. It went like this (it was, for the most part, a prepared question):

I would like to read part of a letter to John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, one of those grocery stores you keep talking about, on January 24th, 2005.

"The undersigned animal welfare, animal protection and animal rights organizations would like to express their appreciation and support for the pioneering initiative being taken by Whole Foods Market in setting Farm Animal Compassionate Standards. We hope and expect that these standards will improve the lives of millions of animals."

This letter was signed by, among other organizations, PeTA.

Nick’s defense of “happy meat” is a symptom of organizations like PeTA focusing on factory farms instead of animal rights.

How can you argue that eating meat is unethical when the organization you are Vice President of is actively congratulating businesses for killing animals for meat? To say out of one side of your mouth that killing animals is wrong and then say out of the other side that you appreciate companies who raise and kill animals "humanely" is indicative of some awfully confused thinking. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Just as someone wouldn't say that putting padding on a waterboard makes waterboarding better (note: my waterboarding example came from a Gary Francione post, Ingrid Newkirk on Principled Veganism: “Screw the principle”), or raping gently makes rape better, anyone who takes the interests of animals seriously should not say that inflicting somewhat less suffering on animals while they're alive makes the unnecessary suffering and death of that animal any better. Arguing for better treatment and then patting yourself on the back when a company takes heed only serves to make people feel better about eating animal products.

I ask this question under the assumption that you agree with most policy decisions of PeTA. If you don't, I apologize, though I don’t know why you would remain VP if that’s the case.

Can you explain why your organization supports animal compassionate standards and what those standards are?

He answered my question with three main points (everything in this post is paraphrased, by the way):

1. PeTA, of course, wants to see animal liberation, but incremental reforms in the meantime are important. They are steps toward liberation.

2. He likes to apply the golden rule in situations, and the way he applies it is by asking himself, if he were a chicken and in a small cage, wouldn’t he want to have a bigger cage or not be in a cage at all?

3. He also dragged out the familiar new welfarist assertion that focusing on welfare reforms helps the animals who exist right now.

And this is when my head nearly exploded. I think it was right at this moment. Because I had so much to say in response, but I wasn’t the one on stage with him. My question was over and that was it.

So I’m going to douse my brain fire by responding to Friedrich’s points here in this blog, where people might read it and get something out of it (but even if they don't, I had to write it down somewhere and this seemed like the best place).

1. Incremental reforms are not steps toward liberation. Instead, they further entrench animals into the property paradigm, writing more laws about animal ownership and codifying the ways in which animals can be used to satisfy our every whim. They make people feel better about animal products overall, thereby increasing consumption. And when incremental reforms are touted as victories by organizations such as PeTA, it gives people the impression that, if they eat these products of less suffering, they are off the hook; they’ve fulfilled their moral obligations to animals. Why would an animal rights organization perpetuate this view?

2. The golden rule? If you’re hitting me in the head with a tire iron while kicking me in the shin with steel toed boots, wouldn’t I ask you to stop doing both? Wouldn’t your obligations to me (based upon the golden rule) demand that you stop doing both? If you stopped doing just one, let’s say the tire iron to the head, should I congratulate you? Thank you? Give you an award for your humane kicking of my shin?

Shouldn’t the application of the golden rule demand that we advocate for the end of animal use? Don’t you think the chickens would rather we do nothing unto them?

Should PeTA have given an award to Temple Grandin for designing “humane” slaughterhouses that cause somewhat less stress for animals? How about if these slaughterhouses also increase the efficiency and rate with which animals are killed, and increase the profits of the businesses who run and rely on those slaughterhouses (all of which means more dead animals)? How does applying the golden rule lead you to award and promote a slaughterhouse designer? How does this create anything but confusion and continued slaughter?

3. Friedrich says that welfare reforms are helping animals right now. To not work for welfare reforms now, he says, is to abandon the animals who are alive and suffering at this very moment. But in his answer to another question about "happy meat", he laments the fact that broiler chickens live only seven weeks.

When a welfare reform laws are passed, they don't go into effect within seven weeks. It usually takes years. And more often, they are not enforced or never go into effect. So, by passing reform laws, you’re not helping the chickens who are alive now (remember that they have, at most, seven weeks to live), you’re not helping the chickens who are alive in the future (at the very least, you might be hurting them a little bit less, but you’re not helping) and you’re wasting precious time and resources on further entrenching the property status of animals while you could instead be putting all that effort into vegan education.

What does vegan education do? 

Well, it helps a lot of people go vegan. And what does that do? 

It reduces suffering in the short and long term.

If Hank goes vegan tomorrow, he removes himself from the demand for chickens to be raised and slaughtered (a chicken not brought into existence doesn’t suffer at all). Hank’s decision to not buy chickens’ flesh immediately starts to have an effect on the pocketbooks of those who raise chickens for meat. And while it’s true that more chickens are always being brought into existence - it’s a market that’s expanding, not contracting - Hank’s refusal to buy animal products causes that market to expand at a lesser rate. And eventually, given enough time and enough Hanks, this rate of expansion will level off and then start to decrease. The more vegan education, the more vegans, the sooner this can happen.

There you go. Short term and long term goals met and there’s no confusion about what we “animal rights people” maintain we owe animals. 

Why do you think PeTA disagrees?

Dead Birds

I wrote a long post about this and it somehow got deleted and I don't think I have it in me to write it all out again. I'm going to sum it up now.

Photos of the birds suffering and dying in oil are horrible. I agree.

I've seen these photos linked on Facebook quite a bit recently. It makes me sad too and I understand the urge to post the photos and make sure others know what's going on.

It's important to share in the communal outrage.

I feel that outrage. But I also feel something else.



On one hand, it's frustrating to see outrage over the photo on the left and silence when it comes to the photo on the right.

On the other hand, the amount of concern for the animals affected by the oil leak proves that people can and do care about animals even if they don't personally know them. This gives me hope. I wish that everyone could connect the dots and realize that the animals we exploit on purpose are every bit as sentient, thinking and feeling as the Brown Pelican drowning in oil.

There is no moral distinction between the bird on the left and the birds on the right. Both deserve the right to live free from unnecessary suffering and death. Both deserve our consideration and sympathy and empathy. Both live(d) brutal existences (one accidental, one intentional) caused by humans.

The big difference between these two situations is that one is an accident and other is on purpose. Billions upon billions of animals unnecessarily suffer and die every year on purpose.

Which do you feel worse about? But more importantly, why?

Happy Feet

Mumble the emperor penguin, in a zoo, yelling at humans: "Hello! Hello from Emperor Land. Good afternoon. Why are you taking our fish? I'm sure you don't mean to, but you're causing an awful lot of grief. Am I not making myself clear? I'm speaking plain penguin. Penguin! Don't you understand? You're stealing our fish! Please! Anyone! Talk to me! For pity's sake, you're stealing our F-I-S-H!"

Voiceover: "After 3 days he would lose his voice. After three months, he would all but lose his mind."

And that right there is when I fell in love with the movie Happy Feet. It took the movie over an hour to get there, but this scene... Whew! The protagonist, Mumble, is in a zoo, put there after he's found on a beach. A beach he ended up on after swimming after a fishing barge. A fishing barge he swam after because he wanted to tell the "aliens" to stop taking their fish. The "aliens" who were taking their fish because, well, why do we eat fish again?

Right after the voiceover tells us Mumble all but lost his mind we see him with the other penguins, swaying back and forth with a vacant look in his eyes, mouth open as fish are thrown over a ledge and down to the penguins.

Anna was watching this scene with a friend of hers the other day and she said, "This is a happy and sad part."

I asked her why it was happy and sad.

"It’s sad that he’s in a cage and it’s happy that he gets fish."

I was pretty proud of her for recognizing that something could be happy and sad at the same time. And yeah, free fish falling from the sky could be seen as a positive aspect of zoo life. But at what price? Penguins can't really be penguins when they're stuck in a zoo.

And of course, the movie (being a kid's movie) gives us a simplistic view of things. The fish in the ocean aren't any more the penguins' as they are the humans'. Nobody owns the fish. The fish aren't possessed by anyone (that is, until they're captured or eaten).

Here's how I explain it to Anna:

Penguins need fish to live. Without eating fish, penguins would die. They have no choice. Fish don't want to be eaten, but penguins have to eat them to live.

People do not need fish to live. Without eating fish, people live long, healthy lives. We have a choice. Fish don't want to be eaten and we don't have to eat them to live.

She understands this. In fact, she seems to completely grasp the concept.

At the end of the movie the "aliens" decide to stop fishing (at least in the area around Antarctica) and the fish's numbers grow and the penguins' famine is over.

When this happens, Anna's gets happy. She has no aversion to carnivores. She sees nothing wrong with a penguin eating a fish and I see nothing contradictory about that fact.

It's all about choice and the ability to choose. And I'll write more about this in a future post. Specifically, I'll write about how I've explained non-human omnivores to her. For example, bears eat plants and fish. But if they can live on plants, then why do they eat fish? It seems like we intuitively know the answers to questions like these, but try explaining it to an almost-four-year-old.

It's not easy, but it sure is fun.

Anyway, a little more about Happy Feet. There's a part where a leopard seal chases Mumble with the intention of eating him. This is a little harder to explain to Anna, since she's rooting for Mumble to escape. Here we get into the complexities of narrative a little more. The leopard seal is portrayed as a "bad guy", but on the face of it, he's just trying to eat what he needs to eat to live.

Leopard seals eat penguins, penguins eat fish. Who we root for is dependent solely on the story. In a few years, Pixar will come out with a touching movie about leopard seals and we'll all root for them to catch the penguins.

My point is that accepting and appreciating the need for some animals to kill and eat other animals to survive does not contradict an animal rights position. The animal rights position is dependent upon the fact that we as humans do not need to exploit animals in order to survive. We don't need to eat or wear their flesh, we don't need to drink their lactations and we do not need to scramble their menses every Sunday morning. It's all unnecessary.

If it were necessary; if we needed animal products to survive - if we could not survive without them - then there would be no animal rights movement. There may still be an animal welfare movement though who would say (as they pretty much do now) we should still own, rape, exploit and kill animals because we have to ... but do it a little nicer, m'kay?

Luckily for us and for those exploited non-human animals, there's another way. We can live just fine by eating plants.

But this was supposed to be a review of Happy Feet. Let me just say that there are a couple overtly and covertly sexual parts to this movie. Just so you know. I mean, it's nothing that big. Just stuff like one penguin saying, "Gloria! Gloria! I want to see more of ya!" And there's some talk of making love. There's this one quick scene where, no joke, two penguins are stumbling over each other on the ice and manage to hit all the major sexual positions. I don't think Anna picks up on a lot of that stuff, but even if she does I'm not too worried. We're open about the biology of sex with her.

In fact, just the other day I heard her saying to Liam, "Do you see birds outside, Liam? Are they having sex, Liam?" Then she asked us what sex was again, I explained it to her and she then explained it to her baby doll.

Oh, and there's a nice "rational thinking trumps superstition" theme that comes into play at the end of the movie. Have I mentioned that I love Happy Feet?

It's a musical, too. There's a ton of music and dancing in it, which is why I think Anna considers it her favorite movie. It's a movie and a work-out for her. I'm actually quite sad that they don't make more musicals these days. And I'm looking forward to the day when she's old enough to watch West Side Story. Mambo!

Well, I'm rambling. I'm going to reward you now for sticking with me for this long. Here's a video of Anna dancing to the end of Happy Feet. The video didn't pick up the sound of the movie, so I threw in a song by Malajube.



So, have any of you seen Happy Feet?

Vegans, how have you talked about the movie with your kids?

Everyone else, same question.

Winners!

Well, 36 people answered the question of why they are or aren't vegan. That's a pretty good turnout. Thank you to all who answered.

To be honest, I was hoping for more, but the responses I did get were all civil and mostly thoughtful, which just goes to show you that vegans and non-vegans can coexist in an online public place without jumping down each others' throats.

We have honest differences, to be sure. And those differences do matter (indeed, they're a matter of life and death). But the point is that we can and do discuss these differences with each other without resorting to name-calling and/or pie-throwing. I think the hardest part of starting a civil conversation about veganism is convincing both sides that it's a conversation worth having civilly (which can include speaking openly and honestly and not stifling our ideas simply because someone's sensibilities might be offended).

Anyway, a pat on all your backs.

Now on to the winners!


(The new camera does widescreen and I haven't figured out yet how to embed that correctly, so I suggest just clicking on the video and viewing it on the YouTube page.)

So that's what eight minutes of my day looks like. If you felt rushed, confused and pulled in different directions while watching it, then you know what my days are like. Let's just say I appreciate concurrent naps.

A note on the video, we had picked names (two of the three, to be exact) one time before what you see in this video, but the camera wasn't recording when I thought it was (it's a new camera that I'm not used to, as is evident by the sound being muffled now and then when I put my finger over the microphone area). So I decided to do it all over again. The same person was picked first both times! Crazy.

And toward the end of the video I give my reason for being vegan. To elaborate, I'm vegan because I don't need animal products to live a long, happy and healthy life. Since I don't need these products, I'm presented with a choice of whether or not I should continue to consume them. I can find no good argument to cause suffering and death when that suffering and death is not necessary ... so I choose veganism.

I'm vegan because animals are sentient beings who should be extended the basic right to not be treated as things; as property. The property status that we place upon animals is what allows we humans to cause the aforementioned suffering and death for reasons such as tradition, convenience and pleasure (not necessity).

Simply and more concisely, I'm vegan because I agree with the majority of humans that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on another sentient being.

For a great introduction to this view visit this page and spend a few minutes reading the pamphlet.

OK! Well thanks again to everyone who answered the question. And to the three who won, Alafair, Ashlee and PL&V, just click on the "email" link on my profile page and send me your address. Then wait patiently for the goodies.

And thanks again Go Max Go Foods for donating the candy bars! You're the best.

Other People's Posts (and my thoughts on them)

Hey there. I read a lot of blogs. A lot of them, I'll share via Google Reader, but every so often I'll want to blog about them.

First off, my friend Celeste wrote a great post about her and her husband's attempt at redefining the meaning of "milk" with less than desirable consequences.

The first paragraph of the post:

Since our eldest was young we made a conscious decision to "take back" the word milk. After contemplating it, we thought it would be good to refute the common acceptance of cow's milk taking the all-encompassing title of "milk". While this seemed like a good idea, it turned out to be unhelpful for our son.

Now go read the rest of it and then come back here.

This is something I think most vegan parents have to deal with at some point (or many points). I know that we try our hardest to give foods names with modifiers in front of them. Milk is "soy milk", "chicken" burgers are "veggie patties", and cheese is "soy cheese". Anna's pretty good about asking people if something's vegan, and if they don't know what that means then she'll clarify, since she knows (as much as a 3 1/2 year old can know) what "vegan" means.

Last night at Early Childhood Family Education she asked her teacher if the freeze-dried peas they were having for snack had cow's milk in them.

And by the way, Anna does not hesitate or feel awkward in asking questions like this. It's all matter of fact with her. The teachers tell us that she never complains about not having the food other kids eat. There was even one time when someone brought cupcakes for their kid because it was their birthday and she didn't care about not eating them because she knew they weren't vegan. Her vegan upbringing is as mundane and ordinary as anything else in her life.

That may change as she gets older, of course. But it's not going to change because of Anna or Jen or me. It's going to change because of non-vegan kids and adults making her feel embarrassed and awkward and ashamed for asking if something is vegan. Do I worry about this? Sure I do. But I'm sure I don't worry about it any more than same-sex parents worry about their kid or interracial parents worry about their kid or... You get the point.

Our job as parents isn't to follow the status quo at all costs in order to ensure that our child has an upbringing free of teasing and being ostracized. Our job is to raise our children the best way we know how and to grow them into confident adults who do what they believe to be right regardless of how others may view them.

--

There's a new vegan parenting blog out there called Spawn Better. The blog, run by Jason Douchette of the Better Network, utilizes the experiences and opinions of a Council of Vegan Parents, which now has over 30 members (including yours truly).

Spawn Better's recent post titled Vegan children, meaty world: dealing with overlap, is a good sampling of what the blog has to offer.

Note: Spawn Better might seem boring or possibly even annoying to non-vegans. So, warning to non-vegans, this blog really isn't for you. Unless, of course, you're considering going vegan (come on, you know you've thought about it). If you want a window into the types of things vegan parents talk about amongst themselves, then go have a read.

One more post from Spawn Better. Veganizing Children's Songs features a video of Anna at the end. She's a star now.

--

Finally, the post Clarifying the Meaning of a Right by Gray Francione at Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach is definately worth a read. If you're perplexed and unsure of what we're talking about when we vegans argue for animal rights, this post spells it out as clearly as I think is possible.

Happy reading.

We're All Made Of Meat

I had the strange experience last night of using my arm to illustrate to Anna what meat is.

I had her squeeze my arm and told her that all animals have skin and muscle and fat like we do and that's what people call meat. The animals are killed and then their skin, muscle and fat are cut off of the animal and that's meat.

I think her expression during this explanation (which I tried to strip of overt emotion (not that there's anything wrong with emotion)) could accurately be described as grossed out. I actually grossed myself out while explaining it to her.

Anyway, this reminds me of a photo series I recently saw by Ashley Watson. Check it out. It's not safe, but it's safe for work.

One Planet - Animals and Us

The BBC program One Planet recently aired a two-part series called Animals and Us by Victor Schonfeld.

Schonfeld produced The Animals Film twenty-eight years ago.



I've never seen The Animals Film, but it looks like it was one of the first of its kind. It seems to me that it was Earthlings before Earthlings was Meet Your Meat.

So now Schonfeld has produced a two-part radio series, "to give a very personal view on what, if anything, has changed since then."

Listen here:
Part 1
Part 2

Gary Francione (who is interviewed in each broadcast), Roger Yates and Elizabeth Collins did post-show commentaries which can be listened to here (review of part 1) and here (review of part 2). I have to admit I haven't listened through both commentaries yet, but I know Gary's podcasts (not to mention his guests) are always insightful and thought-provoking, so I feel confident in linking to them here.

I felt that Animals and Us was well done. Shonfeld, largely by virtue of interviewing Francione, gave quite a bit of air-time to criticism of the use of animals (as opposed to just focusing on the treatment).

Schonfeld is clearly taking an activist stance in these broadcasts, which I find refreshing. He states early on in each broadcast, "Be warned. This is not balanced dispassionate journalism. I'm opposed to animal suffering for human needs and pleasures, as are most of the people we'll be hearing from."

Given his activist stance, my main qualm was that there was too much of a focus on lab animals in the second broadcast (pretty much the whole thing). The overwhelming majority of animal exploitation occurs within animal agriculture. That's not to say that we shouldn't also care and talk about vivisection, fur, circuses and zoos. But when all you have is two 28 minute broadcasts I think the most productive angle to take, from an efficient activist point of view, is to focus on the use of animals for food.

Not a huge qualm, but a qualm nonetheless.

Did you listen to Animals and Us? Have you seen The Animals Film?

If so, what did you think?

Honey, Honey.

I ran across an article today about why vegans don't eat honey.

It's one of those things that people are confused about, and I understand why. In fact, I know vegans who eat honey and I still consider them vegans. I'm not sure that eating honey disqualifies you from being considered vegan and I don't know if it's something to make a big deal about ... I don't know.

I ate honey until just a few years ago. I didn't make a point to buy it, but I didn't refrain from eating things that contained honey either. But if you ask me, I'll tell you I've been vegan for about seven years.

Maybe that's dishonest. I don't know. It's not like there's an application out there that you have to fill out to be a vegan. But at the same time, words matter and I think the word "vegan" should mean something specific, and not just whatever you want it to mean.

Food for thought, I guess.

Anyway, this site is what caused me to realize that honey wasn't vegan (yes, I realize that statement contradicts my previous statements ... like I said, it's confusing and I'm dishonest) and that I couldn't justify eating it anymore. It's an in depth look at honey "production" and the moral implications as it relates to veganism and animal rights. It was illuminating.

And once I read that page, it was easy to stop eating honey. Here's how I did it:

I stopped eating honey.

I know. Groundbreaking, right? The hardest part of any change is actually deciding to make that change. Once you summon the will to change and then commit to it, it's easy.

Going vegan is easy once you decide to go vegan. Give it a try if you haven't already. The animals, the Earth and your body will thank you. Well, none of them will literally express thanks to you. Animals don't speak the language of humans, and the Earth doesn't speak at all. I guess your body could thank you, but then you'd just be talking to yourself...

Make It Stop!

Ran across this graphic today. I find it depressingly hypnotizing. I really love the idea of being able to make it all stop.

Veggie Nugget #25

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men."

-Alice Walker

Peaceful Prairie Interview

I just saw this video over at On Human-Nonhuman Relations and thought I'd pass it along. This is the first thing I've ever watched from vegan.fm and I look forward to watching more.

It's a really great, not-too-long interview with the owners of Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary.

Note for the squeamish: There are no images of animal cruelty in this video whatsoever. All you'll see are animals living a life of peace and freedom. Enjoy!



I can't wait to someday visit this place. We were so close to touring it the last time we were in Denver, but then it had to go blizzard all over the place.

These Thy Gifts...

I'm atheist, so I don't think my family would ever ask me to say grace before a meal. But if they did...

(click to view larger size)

Comic from Abtruse Goose.

(hat tip to Vegan.com)

Oh, Steven...

It occurred to me this last weekend, when I quoted Steven the Vegan to my parents and siblings, that not everyone has seen the hilariousness that is...

Cooking With Steven the Vegan


So there you go family (and anyone else who hasn't seen the video). Now you'll know what I'm joking about.

I actually have a point of contention with this video. I'd argue that if a monkey made me a sandwich - even if the contents of the sandwich were vegan - I wouldn't consider the sandwich vegan. Because chances are, the monkey would have to have been trained and forced to make the sandwich for humans. That's animal exploitation. I can't get behind that.

My friend Tony asked me once a while ago, "Do you ever turn off?" I think I have now definitively answered a big fat NO to that question.

Anyway, watch the video. It's funny.

Welcome to My Blog

I'd like to extend a warm welcome to everyone who came here after reading The Pioneer Press Father's Day story about dads who blog. I'm glad to have you.

First off, let's get this out of the way:

"The American Dietetic Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that well-planned vegan and vegetarian diets can satisfy the nutritional needs and promote normal growth of infants and young children."

-American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition, 1998; Messina & Burke, 1997

There, now that we've answered whether or not a vegan diet is healthy, you might be wondering what exactly it means to be a vegan.

The commonly accepted definition of vegan is this, from the Vegan Society:

“A vegan is someone who tries to avoid - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. This is for the benefit of people, animals and the environment. Vegans eat a plant-based diet free from all animal products, such as meat, animal milks, eggs, honey and gelatin. They also avoid animal products like leather, wool and silk for clothing or other purposes.”

Simple enough, right? We humans do not need to exploit non-human animals. We can live just fine without causing fellow sentient beings harm and suffering. In fact, we can live better!

I used to eat a lot of animal flesh ("meat"), drink a lot of animal secretions ("dairy") and eat quite a bit of chickens' menstrual waste ("eggs"). But after I learned what happens in order to get those things on my plate, I could no longer choose to participate in the unnecessary suffering and exploitation of animals.

My family is happy, healthy and compassionate. And my wife and I aren't the only parents out there bringing our kids up vegan. There's a whole bunch of kids these days being raised to respect animals and oppose cruelty. Check out a sampling of awesome vegan kids here.

The reasons for choosing a vegan diet and lifestyle are numerous.

FOR THE ANIMALS

The thinking man must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another, even the lowliest creature; to do so is to renounce our manhood and shoulder a guilt which nothing justifies.

-Albert Schweitzer

For more information on the cruel treatment of farmed animals, check out this website.

And for a great film about the exploitation of non-human animals by humans, check out Earthlings, narrated by Joaquin Phoenix (yes, the guy who played Johnny Cash in "Walk the Line"). Here are links to Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of Earthlings.

You may watch those videos and then feel helpless. But you're not. You can go vegan. Yes you. About five years ago, I couldn't imagine my life without fatty, artery-clogging animal flesh either, but here I am, healthier and happier than ever!

FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

“A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.”

-National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? If so, you probably want to look into going vegan. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow:

"The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport….Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems."

For a recent local example of the environmental damage, check out this story about families in northern Minnesota who had to be evacuated from their homes because of fumes rolling off a dairy operation. Yuck.

More information on the environmental devastation caused by animal agriculture can be found here.

FOR YOUR HEALTH

We've already covered the fact that a vegan diet is healthy for infants and toddlers with that American Academy of Pediatrics and Dietetic Association quote above. For information on vegan diets for children, check out the Physicians Committe for Responsible Medicine's information pages here and here.

For health benefits for adults, see this page.

We don't need milk for calcium. We don't need meat for protein. We don't need to eat any animal products to live a healthy life. In fact, studies show that removing animal products from your diet actually reduces your chances of getting heart disease and cancer. It can prevent and even reverse diabetes. It can lower your blood pressure.

I ingest zero cholesterol. A vegan diet is a diet free of cholesterol. The cookies I make? Free of cholesterol. Homemade vegan cinnamon rolls? Free of cholesterol. The "cheesey" potato casserole I made last week? You guessed it - free of cholesterol.

Which brings me to another question someone unfamiliar with veganism might ask: What do you eat?

The easy answer: Everything that you eat, and probably much more! Do you like bratwurst straight off the grill? So do I! Tofurkey makes amazing vegan brats. Do you like chocolate cake? Me too! Google "vegan chocolate cake" and you'll find a ton of recipes, from simple to gourmet. Do you love tacos smothered in cheese with a side of sour cream? Hot damn! I do too! Except I use vegan cheese and vegan sour cream! Zero cholesterol! Zero animal exploitation!

I could go on and on and on. The point is, I'm not starving. I didn't have to give up on food when I went vegan. Quite the opposite, I have discovered more food in the 5 years I've been vegan than I ever thought possible. Going vegan closes the door on meat, dairy and eggs, but it opens every other window in the house. For me, it knocked down walls I didn't even know I had.

Sorry about that. I tend to take metaphors too far.

If you are at all curious about veganism, I urge you to order (or view on-line) a free brochure from any of these sites. At the very least, you'll get some great recipes out of the deal. 

Why Vegan?

Try Veg

Vegetarian Starter Kit

For more resources and reading on veganism I suggest checking out these sites:

Vegan Outreach
Veg Family

Animal Rights Coalition (a home-grown Minnesotan group)
Compassionate Action for Animals (also Minnesota-based)
Fast and Furless (a vegan boutique in Minneapolis)
Veg Guide (a Twin Cities based restaurant guide for vegans and vegetarians)
Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection
Anima Naturalis (en Espanol)
An Animal-Friendly Life
Vegan Soapbox
Creature Talk
Animal Emancipation
The Abolitionist Approach

And for something completely unrelated to vegansim, I want to give all parents of pre-Kindergarten kids in Minnesota a quick little link to the Minnesota Early Childhood Education (ECFE) site. ECFE is an invaluable resource in parenting. From the Saint Paul ECFE website: "ECFE works to strengthen families and enhance the ability of all parents to provide the best possible environment for the healthy growth and development of their children."

There is a very small fee for the classes, but cost is based on income. Those who find it unaffordable are not forced to pay. In other words, you can get top-notch early childhood education and screening for potential problems for cheap or free.

You can find an ECFE program near you by going here.

And finally, a little shameless plug from yours truly. I'm a stay-at-home dad, which means my income is pretty close to zero. But I take wedding photos on the side! So if you know anyone who's getting married and wants their wedding photos taken for under a thousand dollars, feel free to point them toward my photo site.

Finally (for real this time), to reward you for reading through this whole post, here's a video of Anna being silly the other day.



Oh, and one more thing! If you have any questions about veganism let me know in the comments section and I'll do my best to answer them in a future post. If you don't want to leave a comment, but still want to ask a question, you can email me at: thislittlepiggyhadtofu @ gmail . com (delete the spaces).

Have a look around the blog. Stay a while. And feel free to come back any time. All are welcome at the Piggy house.

Veggie Nugget #19

"I became a vegetarian after realizing that animals feel afraid, cold, hungry and unhappy like we do. I feel very deeply about vegetarianism and the animal kingdom. It was my dog Boycott who led me to question the right of humans to eat other sentient beings."

-Cesar Chavez, farming activist