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?

Anna Wednesday #26 ... and Happy Turkey Day!

Click on the photo up there and you should be able to read Gideon's details (where he's from, what he likes to eat, etc.).


Anna "adopted" a turkey from Farm Sanctuary this year, as she has the previous two years. This year was better though, because she actually picked out the turkey, Gideon, from this page, and she waited and waited for his photo to come in the mail.

When we got the certificate she got all excited about, "the turkey that we feed." We hung it up in her room.

For the Piggy household, it's "Happy Turkey" day, instead of happy "Turkey Day."

And of course, we're still going to gorge ourselves on all sorts of deliciousness (which may or may not be detailed in an upcoming post).

Happy Thanksgiving! (To those of you in the US, that is.)

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.

Denver Trip Part 1: In Which I Show You Photos

So we went to Denver last weekend to visit family. Oh, and I've been editing wedding photos for the last month. And doing some more work on that friend's book I was talking about. So, yeah, that's why I haven't blogged in two weeks. I sincerely apologize to the reader that I have left. Sorry dude.

Well, on to some photos of our trip.

Anna loved the flights. Here's her all excited at the gate in Minnesota. She wanted to get on the plane sooooo bad. We were at the end of a long line to get on the plane and we decided to sit down and wait for the line to shorten. When we did this she started crying. That's how bad she wanted to get on.


I didn't get any photos of her on the plane, unfortunately. She looked out the window as we took off and really enjoyed it. Once we leveled off and all the "taking off" hub-bub was over with she emphatically commanded, "More!"

The first day in Colorado was spent at Anna's uncle Jeremy and cousin Noah's place. Anna loved playing with Noah's toys (and I have to admit, I did too) Noah showed me his super awesome Star Wars Lego game that he plays on his dad's computer. It was sooooooooo cooooooooool!

That first night is also one I will never forget. It touched me in a way that ... well there's no words. It's were I got my first taste of ... wait for it ... the new vegan Spicy Sweet Chili Doritos. There is currently a half-eaten bag in our kitchen (I bought it ten minutes ago). Thank you Doritos. You've just made me (and I assume you will continue to make me) less healthy.

The second next day we hung out in Boulder on our way from Ft. Collins to Denver. My favorite non-food related stop was Left Hand Books on Pearl St. (I'll get to the food-related stops in my next post). It's where I purchased the Marx For Beginners graphic book (not graphic as in nudity and swears, but graphic as in comic book style). I have to admit I know very little about the man and his theories. Where better to start than a comic book, right?

Anna chillaxed at an art store which also had those hanging chair things.


And then she played outside in this rock garden play area. Most of her playing consisted of putting on and taking off her sunglasses. There's just something about kids in sunglasses...




And here's Anna's "I'm fracking adorable and I know it" look. It's pretty rare ... for now.


The next day we drove up to Look-out Point overlooking Denver. It was wiiiiiiiindy as all hell, but it was a nice view.


Anna and her aunt Jessica looking at Denver.


Anna was a big fan of the mountains. She would point and say, "mountains! big!" It never got old. I think the trip, with flying and mountains and everything, really taught her about the concepts of up and down. Now whenever we drive up or down even the slightest hill in the car, she will announce that we are doing so.

At a second stop I walked down some rocks to get this photo ...


... and I guess I just assumed that Anna would want to stay up top, but no, she walked down the dangerous mountain rocks toward me (holding mommy and auntie's hand, of course). Atta girl!


Obligatory Red Rocks photo.


By the way, you can click on any of these photos to view them at a much larger size. If you do that on the above photo, you'll be able to see Denver on the horizon.

And here's the part where I have to break the bad news. Later on this day, it started to blizzard in Denver. As such, our Peaceful Prairie Farm Sanctuary tour was canceled. The animals were all in their barns and if outsiders walk into the barns while they're in there they get spooked and run outside. Since there were blizzard conditions outside, that would not have been good.

So BOO bad weather! But YAY Peaceful Prairie for putting the well being of their animal friends above our uneccesary tour! Seriously, this made me only respect them even more. You should all click on that link up there and give money to them. Now.

So, since we didn't go to the sanctuary we went to the Denver Science and Nature Museum. They had a ton of dinosaur fossils, which Noah loved. Anna really dug them too. Get it? Dug?


It's a little sand-box type thing where kids can "dig" for fossils. Pretty cool.

Stay tuned for the second and final chapter of the Denver trip blog series where I write about the food we ate. I promise it won't be two more weeks.

A Lot of Us Don't Like PETA

I feel the need, at times, to remind non-vegans and non-vegetarians that PETA does not speak for a lot of us.

PETA is an easy target for those who want to belittle animal rights people, and rightfully so.

Crap like this is one reason I don't donate to PETA. It's one of many.

Why do they do this? Why waste valuable resources holding a Sexiest Vegetarian contest? I'm pretty sure this blog right here is the reason. I'm writing about PETA. Part of me feels like I should just ignore them.

But I'm not ignoring, because I feel that calling them out is more important right now.

So, what's wrong with this contest? Let me list a few ways (it's by no means a complete list):

--The money that went into this contest could have been better spent on things like no-kill animal shelters, farm sanctuaries, and vegan education.

--Oh, wait, did I say vegan education? What was I thinking? PETA isn't really a vegan organization, are they. If they were, then the contest would be for the Sexiest Vegan. (Yes, I know they advocate veganism, but you wouldn't know it from their marketing and their "happy meat" campaigns. They do not project veganism as the moral baseline for animal rights. This should infuriate anyone who knows anything about egg and milk production.)

--This contest (and PETA in general) perpetuates sexism. Sure, they have a Sexiest Vegetarian contest for men too, but that's not really the point, is it? It's all sexism. It's using sex to sell. It detracts from the message (would you know what PETA's message is by looking at the linked page?) and it allows people to disregard the animal rights movement (of which many people see PETA to be the official spokespeople) as a bunch of soulless marketing wankers who have nothing better to spend their time and resources on.

Like I said, it's not a complete list. Feel free to list more grievances in the comments.

Now here's where I have to say that there are some good resources on the PETA website, and I think I've even linked to them before. But to view these resources, you need to first go to the PETA website and look for them. The average omnivore is so turned off by the crap that PETA does in the public sphere that they'll never even consider visiting the PETA site.

Traditioooooooooon! Tradition!

Thanksgiving is right around the corner. And we all know what that means, right? Time to bow our heads and give thanks for all we have. Time to thank the good lord above (if that's your thing) for the food on our table.

Wait. What? There's a dead turkey on the table? We're thankful for this?








(In case you're wondering, this last photo was taken at a "free range" farm.)

Well, we here in the Little Piggy family have decided to start our own Thanksgiving tradition. We have adopted a turkey from Farm Sanctuary. It's only 20 dollars and it provides feed, bedding and vetrinary care for one lucky turkey.

In case you didn't click on the Farm Sanctuary link up there, here are a few snippets from their website to give you an idea of who they are and what they do:

Sorrowfully, animals raised on today's industrialized farms are treated like unfeeling commodities, and their basic needs are completely ignored. They are crowded in factory farm warehouses, and confined so tightly that they cannot walk, turn around or lie down comfortably. Farm animals are de-beaked, de-toed, tail-docked, confined, crowded, neglected and denied the very basics of life: fresh air, wholesome food, room to move and, most importantly, freedom - all for the sake of a profit margin.

Farm Sanctuary was founded in 1986 to combat the abuses of industrialized farming and to encourage a new awareness and understanding about "farm animals." At Farm Sanctuary, these animals are our friends, not our food.

It's nearly impossible to describe the exhilaration in the eyes of a rescued animal when he or she steps off a transport truck into an open field of green. After initial tentative steps, the new arrivals run for the very first time, savoring the earth beneath their feet and kicking up their heels with joy.

So I went online and picked out a Turkey from their adoption list and in a couple weeks I'll get an adoption packet with a photo of the bird and an adoption certificate. I'll be sure to post again once I receive the info.

So instead of my money supporting the industry that allows the gore and violence in the above photos it's going to support the turkeys who were saved from that hell. Turkeys like...

Cinnamon:
Comet:
And these little buggers:
Don't they all look so happy and healthy? Now there's something to truly be thankful for.