A Great Image...

... with words worth remembering. Have a look:

Two Gore-Free Videos That Say It All

The first is called "I am scared and don't want to die."
The second is called "A kiss before dying."
Zero gore.
Just pathos and tragedy.
Remember: Animals savor life as much as you or I. They want to live, too. They deserve to live. No animal wants to be our food.
Please watch. Please share.
Let these videos strengthen our commitment to a violence-free world, where animals can live in peace.

Back from Summer Break With a Powerful Passage

I am back from a summer hiatus, and I especially wanted to post this powerful passage by Timothy Pachirat, author of Every Twelve Seconds, a book about slaughterhouses. It's an extraordinary description of slaughter, worth including here in its entirety.

“I wanted to understand how massive processes of violence become normalized in modern society, and I wanted to do so from the perspective of those who work in the slaughterhouse. I worked as an entry level worker on the kill floor of an industrialized slaughterhouse in order to understand, from the perspective of those who participate directly in them, how these zones of confinement operate.      

My first job was as a liver hanger in the cooler. For ten hours each day, I stood in 34 degrees cold and took freshly eviscerated livers off an overhead line and hung them on carts to be chilled for packing. I was then moved to the chutes, where I drove live cattle into the knocking box where they were shot in the head with a captive bolt gun. Finally, I was promoted to a quality-control position, a job that gave me access to every part of the kill floor and made me an intermediary between the USDA federal meat inspectors and the kill floor managers.      

Each job came with its own set of physical, psychological, and emotional challenges. Although it was physically demanding, my main battle hanging livers in the cooler was with the unbearable monotony. Pranks, jokes, and even physical pain became ways of negotiating that monotony. Working in the chutes took me out of the sterilized environment of the cooler and forced a confrontation with the pain and fear of each individual animal as they were driven up the serpentine line into the knocking box. Working as a quality control worker forced me to master a set of technical and bureaucratic requirements even as it made me complicit in surveillance and disciplining my former coworkers on the line. Although it's been over seven years since I left the kill floor, I am still struck by the continued emotional and psychological impacts that come from direct participation in the routinized taking of life.        

The cattle come into the slaughterhouse caked in feces and vomit. From the moment cattle are unloaded from transport trucks into the slaughterhouse's holding pens, managers and kill floor supervisors refer to them as 'beef.' Although they are living, breathing, sentient beings, they have already linguistically been reduced to inanimate flesh, to use-objects.      

The knocker is the worker who stands at the knocking box and shoots each individual animal in the head with a captive bolt steel gun. Only the knocker both sees the cattle while sentient and delivers the blow that is supposed to render them insensible. On an average day, this lone worker shoots 2,500 individual animals at a rate of one every twelve seconds.    After the knocker shoots the cattle, they fall onto a conveyor belt where they are shackled and hoisted onto an overhead line. Hanging upside down by their hind legs, they travel through a series of ninety degree turns that take them out of the knocker's line of sight. There, a presticker and sticker sever the carotid arteries and jugular veins. The animals then bleed out as they travel further down the overhead chain to the tail ripper, who begins the process of removing their body parts and hides. Of over 800 workers on the kill floor, only four are directly involved in the killing of the cattle and less than 20 have a line of sight to the killing.     

There is a kind of collective mythology built up around this particular worker, a mythology that allows for an implicit moral exchange in which the knocker alone performs the work of killing, while the work of the other 800 slaughterhouse workers is morally unrelated to that killing. It is a fiction, but a convincing one: of all the workers in the slaughterhouse, only the knocker delivers the blow that begins the irreversible process of transforming the live creatures into dead ones. If you listen carefully enough to the hundreds of workers performing the 120 other jobs on the kill floor, this might be the refrain you hear: 'Only the knocker.' It is simple moral math: the kill floor operates with 120+1 jobs. And as long as the 1 exists, as long as there is some plausible narrative that concentrates the heaviest weight of the dirtiest work on this 1, then the other 120 kill floor workers can say, and believe it, 'I'm not going to take part in this.'     

Over 8.5 billion animals are killed for food each year in the United States, but this killing is carried out by a small minority of largely immigrant workers who labor behind opaque walls, most often in rural, isolated locations far from urban centers. Furthermore, laws supported by the meat and livestock industries are currently under consideration in six states that criminalize the publicizing of what happens in slaughterhouses and other animal facilities without the consent of the slaughterhouse owners.”   

- Timothy Pachirat, Assistant Professor of Politics at The New School for Social Research and the author of Every Twelve Seconds 

STOP THE MADNESS. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GO VEGAN!

Horrific Brutality at Minnesota's Christensen Farms as Pork Producers Circle Wagons Around Extreme Abuse

Mercy for Animals has exposed yet another case of extreme brutality, this time at Christensen Farms in Hanska, Minnesota. Christensen is a pork supplier for Walmart. Bob (The Price is Right) Barker narrates the powerful Mercy For Animals video exposing the horrific conditions inside the Hanska facility. WARNING: THE VIDEO IS VERY GRAPHIC AND DIFFICULT TO WATCH.


Despite a recent post in which I said these types of violent videos leave me shaken and upset, I still watch them because I think it's crucial for animal rights advocates to know what we're up against.

And believe me, friends, this is as awful as it gets.

Not surprisingly, the Pork Racket is circling the wagons around this execrable horror show of savagery and abuse. David Preisler of the Minnesota Pork Producers Association (MPAA) insisted that Christensen is a humane producer, that it treats its pigs well, that it provides "quality pig care." To quote Preisler:

"Christensen Farms has a long history of commitment to high-quality animal care and the adoption of animal husbandry practices that enhance pig well-being." (Source) 

Reading Preisler's comments, I can't help but remember the words of the immortal Chico Marx: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?"

If one believes the Mercy for Animals video posted above is authentic, which I do, then the Pork Bosses had better go back and consult with a dictionary about the definition of "humane," "quality" and  "standards."

How many more exposures like this one is it going to take? How many more pigs have to be live their short lives in pain and misery, only to be murdered and consumed by human beings?

Defenders of this sort of violence like to say that the abuses in the Mercy for Animals video represent a "worst-case scenario," and not all pork producers are so brutal and uncaring and violent.

The end result in all of these factories of death, whether they practice "humane" methods or not, is mass murder. We need to spread the message that pigs are not our property. They are not our meat. They are not our ham, our pork, our bacon. They are individual beings, who have as much right to live their lives as we do. Murdering them is a crime as heinous as killing a human being, whether that murder occurs in a place that embraces "humane" treatment or an outfit like Christensen, that is clearly engaging in the worst forms of abuse imaginable before stealing the life away from these poor beings.

Beware of Bogus Repented Bullfighter Photo

Last week, I posted a photo making the rounds on Facebook. It shows a bullfighter sitting down in the middle of an arena and bowing his head while a bull looks on. It purports to show bullfighter Alvaro Munera having a crisis of conscience right before a bullfight and demonstrating remorse by lowering his head, as if weeping or showing shame. A fellow animal rights activist from the UK, Jaysee Costa, submitted the following comment about the photo, worth posting as a warning for those of you who see it:

ATTENTION: This photo circulating with a "thinking" bullfighter in front of a dying bull, claimed to be of the repented bullfighter Alvaro Munera, is not of him. This is a photo of a "normal" bullfighter striking a theatrical pose to show how relaxed he is in the proximity of the bull, and trying to elevate his cruel activity into an "Art", imitating sculptures and painting (in this case, probably Rodin's thinker). They do this often. Alvaro Munera does exist, and he is indeed a repented Colombian ex-bullfighter that become animal protectionist (I have met him several times). 

But the photo circulating is not of him, and he did not "turn" during a bullfight, but months after a bull left him paraplegic and had to travel to the USA for rehabilitation, where he discovered for the first time opposition to bullfighting. So the photo is not him, and the story that he "turned" during a bullfight is also false.  

So, Alvaro is indeed a repented Colombian bullfighter turned animal protectionist, and he is not the only one, but we should stop the circulation of the photo (since it is not him) and the story that he repented during a bullfight, since this is damaging the anti-bullfighting movement because the bullfighting industry is using this to claim that the movement is demagogic, and to even try to prove that Alvaro does not exist (or he was not a proper bullfighter) on the basis that the photo is of another bullfighter.  

Please do not distribute either a link of a blog of an English amateur bullfighter (and writer) who is supposedly "exposing" the falsity of the photo in question, because by doing so you are promoting his blog which blatantly glorifies bullfighting. So, if you can, spread this message about (without the photo, or the link of the English bullfighter) letting people know the truth without spreading further damage. 

I appreciate Costa submitting this comment. So many bogus photos are circulating around Facebook, as well as a number of false or misattributed quotes or information ripped out of context. I immediately removed the photo because it's not real. Even a brief amount of research confirms what Costa says is right. There are enough horrific abuses of animals, and enough instances of inspiring heroism by animal rights activists, that we don't need to post anything bogus. I thank Costa for submitting this excellent comment.

Words of Wisdom

Taking it All In, One Animal at a Time

If you're a believer in Animal Rights and Veganism, like me, then chances are you probably came to these beliefs as a result of your sensitivity.

I have a theory that most proponents of Animal Rights and Veganism are extremely sensitive people. Even the ones who seem dogmatic, or who rely too excessively on guilt-tripping, or who come across as too self-righteous, even a lot of those people are extremely sensitive, although they may not seem like it.

Unfortunately, this sensitivity - this heightened awareness of the suffering of others - comes with a price. The price is that we, the ones who feel an empathic rapport with the sufferers, tend to internalize everything we see or hear.

When Lennox the dog was euthanized the other day in Belfast, Ireland, who among us didn't feel the pain of his loss? Here was a dog who had a forever family and a forever home, yet he was killed by the authorities because of the type of dog he is.

Meantime, countless animals who never generate headlines are being euthanized every day. A Facebook friend of mine, who regularly posts pictures of cats for adoption at area shelters (especially ones up for adoption in the New York City area) spent all afternoon and evening (well into late at night) yesterday posting the pictures of cats who had been euthanized at the New York shelter. Without exaggeration, I'd say that by the end of the day there must have been about sixty to seventy pictures of these cats posted, for hours and hours, on my Facebook newsfeed.

Snowball (rest in peace)

Each cat appeared to be scared or vulnerable or upset in some way. They were all colors, all shapes, all sizes. Young and old. Male and female. Every kind of cat you can imagine. All of them were assigned names by the shelter: Bootsie, Wee Wee, Oscar, Dottie, Venicia, Amelia, Felix, Snowball.

Snowball (pictured here) was gray and white, a male cat. He appears somewhat disoriented. He was fifteen years old, so compared to the other cats (many of them a year old or under), he had lived a relatively long life. He was roughly in his 80s in human years. But what an awful way to go, even for a senior citizen:  alone, unwanted, with your remains mixed with the other remains of countless other cats euthanized the same day.

All cats deserve to be loved. All cats deserve a forever home. Yet these poor cats met a quiet and premature death when a needle full of fluid ended their lives.

I'm the kind of person who goes slightly crazy when I see these pictures. I go slightly crazy when I see videos of factory farm animals being slaughtered, or lab animals being tested, or seals getting clubbed, or pigs or sheep being taken aboard planes or ships and hauled off to other countries to be slaughtered in places that have even fewer regulations than Europe and North America. All of the bad news gives me the shakes. I start feeling fidgety. I have a hard time focusing.

And I definitely feel ashamed of my species.

When I disappear from blogging for a while, often it's because when it comes to animals, so much of the news is bad. And it's not just that the news is bad; it's that I internalize all of it. I take it all as deeply as I can. It gives me nightmares and makes daily tasks difficult to do.

Human beings, when you think about it, have gargantuan, sweeping and monstrous crimes to answer for. A friend of mine once said that the few Beethovens, Shakespeares and Van Goghs we've produced aren't worth the suffering humans have caused.

And yet, here we are, in the driver's seat, at the top of the food chain. And no matter how much the conscientious protest, this is the bitter reality of our world.

We can point to victories in recent years in the fight against cruelty and exploitation. But compared to the catalogue of mass murder, the victories are minor.

This post may sound like a rant, but it's not intended to be one. It is more a way of reaching out and telling the world how I feel each time I learn about the suffering of my fellow sentient beings. Being a vegan isn't enough. Donating money to great causes isn't enough. Leafleting and protesting aren't enough. And it is true that small numbers of people can bring about changes (to paraphrase Margaret Mead), but those changes are small compared to the monstrous cruelty that exists.

A.J. Muste, peace activist

But, in the last analysis, what else can we do but stand up for what our consciences tell us is right? It is an existential decision. It reminds me of when the aging anti-Vietnam war activist A.J. Muste (1885-1967) used to picket the White House during the early stages of the war. Muste, who was in his eighties by the mid-1960s and had spent his life fighting for peace and social justice, walked back and forth with a sign, day in, day out. Sometimes he was with a small crowd of kindred spirits. Often, he was alone. At one point, the uniformed guard came out and said, "Why even bother? What you're doing is not going to change the policies of this government." To which Muste replied: "I'm not trying to change the policies of this government. I just don't want the policies of this government to change me."

That may not seem like enough.

But if you think about it, it's all we've really got.

There. I feel better. Thank you for hearing me out!

Important Distinctions Between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare

I keep meaning to post this. This wonderful graphic makes important distinctions between the Animal Rights and Animal Welfare movements. Even though there is a fair amount of overlap between the two movements, their ultimate goals are dramatically different. Of course, this blogger falls into the Animal Rights camp. Until we recognize that animals are their own beings, with their own lives, and we have no right to use them for our own ends, there can be no real peace in the world.

Jonathan Safran Foer, why hast thou forsaken us?

Facebook and the blogosphere are all aflutter with commentary about Jonathan Safran Foer, author of the bestseller Eating Animals, becoming a spokesperson for Buyingpoultry.com, a website that promotes the consumption of "humane and sustainable poultry."

For those who haven't read Eating Animals (a book I've mentioned several times on this blog), it's Safran Foer's nonfiction account of the harsh treatment of animals in factory farms and a damning indictment of the food industry. It has been extremely influential in winning people over to veganism, including actress Natalie Portman, who, in 2009, said the book converted her to a vegan lifestyle. At the time, she wrote:

I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it). 

Jonathan Safran Foer, at the time he wrote Eating Animals (2009).

Eating Animals is a powerful book. It's not the Uncle Tom's Cabin of the Animal Rights Movement (that book hasn't been written yet). But it's persuasive and beautifully written, nonetheless, and it skilfully advances all kinds of sound reasons for adopting a vegan lifestyle, including arguments having to do with ethics, sustainability, the environment and freeing up resources to help feed the hungry around the world. Safran Foer, a young novelist who gained fame as one of the leading Young Turks in the literary world (no small feat in an industry characterized by declining sales and so hard to break into), is a hell of a writer, and he choses each word with passion and conviction.

When Safran Foer endorsed Buyingpoultry.com, which promotes "humane meat" and accountability in the poultry industry (an industry sorely in need of accountability), some vegans and animal rights activists felt deeply betrayed. Safran Foer's promo endorsing Buyingpoultry.com just went up on YouTube the other day (see it above or here). One particularly perceptive critique of Safran Foer's came from one of my very favorite blogs, the Veganomaly. The author described an unforgettable moment when she crossed a line after reading Safran Foer's account:

Several years ago, at about 4AM I got to the part in ‘Eating Animals’ where he shares the stories of the pregnant cows whose calves are discovered inside of them at slaughterhouses. I’m not going to go into more detail here, because it’s the single most upsetting animal-related thing I’ve ever read. Maybe it was being alone in my dimly lit room with an angry rain pounding on the roof. Maybe it’s the way that the dark and the quiet disrobe all the defenses you cloak yourself in during the day. I found myself so sickened, the kind that makes it impossible to think of anything but the suffering you just has described to you. The room spins, your heart unable to take such pain. I remember thinking “We’re told as children that monsters don’t exist, but I’ll bet no one ever asked a farmed animal”. That night, Safran Foer’s work gutted me. A part of me truly died and in doing so, provided a thick, impenetrable layer of emotional cement over my decision to live as a vegan for the rest of my life. (Source) 

The blogger went on to express her disappointment in Safran Foer, asking whether he'd become "nothing more than a particularly clever puppet for the foodies." Foodies, of course, are people like Michael Pollan and other defenders of "happy meat" and "humane omnivorism." They think that it is possible for human beings to engage in "sustainable" production and consumption of animal products in a way that is ultimately compassionate and shows deep respect for animals.

The blogger's discouragement is understandable. At the same time, as the blogger points out, Safran Foer never embraced veganism and did not consider himself a spokesperson for the lifestyle, despite his book winning over numerous converts. Be that as it may, it is hard to comprehend why someone so deeply aware of the suffering, pain and death that millions of animals endure on a daily basis could defend the so-called "ethical" use of animal products.

We can drive ourself crazy asking questions. Did Safran Foer really believe - deep down inside - what he wrote in Eating Animals? Was this just a cynical ploy by a wunderkind who clearly relishes attention to get even more attention? Does his rejection of veganism somehow negate what he writes?

For answers to these questions, maybe we should look at another author, Upton Sinclair, who lived before the emergence of the modern animal rights and vegan movements. His book, The Jungle, was a horrifying indictment of the meatpacking industry, with some famous passages about the inhumane slaughter of pigs. Many online sources claim Sinclair was a vegetarian. I tried to verify this in a biography about Sinclair by my friend and colleague Kevin Mattson. Mattson mentions Sinclair embracing vegetarianism in 1909 after a visit to Harvey Kellogg's sanitarium (Kellogg was the famous cereal maker), but there is no evidence that Sinclair was a vegetarian his whole life. And there is zero evidence that he was a vegan.

Yet The Jungle stands as a great monument that no only critiques the excesses of Gilded Age capitalism, but severely denounces the harsh treatment of animals more passionately than any other classic work of literature that I know of. It has been said (and maybe this is apocryphal) that Teddy Roosevelt promptly became a vegetarian after reading it (although T.R. didn't seem to abandon hunting). Certainly, it moved a lot of people in the early 20th Century to reject eating meat, which happened regardless of Sinclair's own personal diet.

Today, animal rights activists often quote the pig slaughtering scene from The Jungle (I've included it here on my blog) to capture the brutal essence of the slaughterhouse experience. Certainly, Sinclair was no vegan. Nor were a lot of the historical figures that we vegans quote for inspiration. I even found out the other day the other day that a famous Alice Walker quote I often use about animal rights - "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" - was actually not her opinion, but her summary of a book she was reviewing, and that animal rights people have been quoting her out of context all these years (she's not a vegan; she's not even a vegetarian). Yet Walker's words, even quoted out of context, leave an indelible impression on people who are quietly contemplating the possibility of going vegan.

I bring up these things to make a point. Safran Foer isn't a vegan, that's clear. But his book - while not a masterpiece - is still a damn good one, and with his high profile, he's able to spread his message to a very large audience, one most of us could never hope to reach. It is too bad he doesn't necessarily practice what he preaches. Alas, a lot of writers do not. What is more important is that he has built a monument, in the form of a book, that will touch countless readers for generations to come, and continue to convert a lot of people to veganism. Of how many people can that be said?

Why I Can't Be Vegan Anymore

Don't worry. I'm not giving up on veganism. Neither is the maker of this video, nicknamed Richie Fruitbat. It's an excellent video that refutes some of the myths spread around by former vegans who go back to their omnivore ways.

There is a lot of wisdom in this video. I'm not a raw food vegan like Richie (I don't think I can go quite that far), but I really like what he does with this video and - as he points out - what he says is applicable to raw food vegans and regular vegans alike.

Check out this video, if you get a moment. It's insightful and really good at refuting the anti-vegan myths.

Words of Wisdom

An Extraordinary Public Service Announcement from Manitoba

If you get a moment, please check out this advertisement made by our Canadian brothers and sisters in the struggle about sow stalls, which will air on TV stations in Manitoba. It's a brilliant commercial that drives the point home in 30 seconds. Those who think it doesn't make any difference that so many restaurant chains are now demanding their suppliers get rid of gestation crates should re-think their position. Yes, our goal is to make the murder of pigs illegal. But I firmly believe jettisoning gestation crates takes us a step closer to that goal, because at the root of this move is a recognition of the sentience of these extraordinary beings.

Thank you to the Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals and Canadians for the Ethical Treatment of Food Animals for making this great commercial!

The Canadian Seal Hunt: First the Bad News, Then the Bad News

When it comes to the ultra-violent and sadistic Canadian seal hunt, which do you want to hear first? The bad news? Or the bad news?

First the bad news: During this year's commercial seal hunt, 70,000 harp seals were killed, according to the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries. That number is up substantially from last year's kill figure of 38,000. (Source) This sad news runs contrary to view that the seal hunt is dying due to declining demand for seal fur in other parts of the world.

Senator Mac Harb fought a
good - but very lonely - fight
against Canada's gruesome
and ultra-violent seal hunt.

Now the bad news: In a noble attempt to end this sickening practice, Senator Mac Harb introduced a bill to the Canadian Senate in early may that would end the commercial seal hunt. It was a brave thing to do. It took guts and very strong principles for Senator Harb to do that. 

Not surprisingly, Tweedledum and Tweedledee - whoops, er, uh, I mean, Harb's fellow Conservatives and Liberals in the Senate (the two political parties are virtually identical here in Canada) went after Harb's legislation and torpedoed it like the Lusitania. Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield spoke for most of the senators when he aid:

“Mr. Speaker, this is yet again another attack by a Liberal senator to try to undermine this safe, humane and sustainable hunt that is vital to coastal communities in northern and eastern Canada. Members on this side of the House have been unequivocal in our support for the Canadian seal industry. We will not abandon this industry at the behest of opposition parties or irresponsible and out-of-touch animal rights activists. We will continue to put the livelihood of hard-working Canadian families first.” (Source)

And there is one more piece of bad news (as if we need anymore): The Canadian Television Bureau, in an Orwellian move reminiscent of Eastern Europe during the communist era, banned an anti-seal hunt advertisement made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) from being shown on Canadian television. So much for the people's right to see all sides of the story. This is merely another move by Canadian authorities to put the seal hunt out of sight, out of mind. 

Defenders of the seal hunt insist that it is an essential part of the livelihoods of large numbers of people, and that if it were banned, it would devastate the economy. But I quote from a Canadian Press article: "Darin King told the [Newfoundland] provincial legislature that 680 sealers took part in this year's hunt, which had a total allowable catch of 400,000." Since when have 680 people added up to substantial portion of the nation's economy? 

Pardon the abrupt change in subject, although I'll tie it in shortly to the seal hunt. Cocaine is a vital part of the economy in Latin America. In Andean nations, various Caribbean countries and Mexico, untold thousands rely on the production, movement and distribution of the drug. It's huge. It's in demand. And if the giant narco-captialist system were destroyed, it would devastate entire villages and ruin the livelihoods of families throughout South and Central America. Armies of campesinos go to work in the coca fields, while a massive network of smugglers keeps the drugs flowing north. 

Why do I bring up cocaine? Nobody argues that thousands of Latin Americans are dependent on so-called Cocaine Capitalism for their survival. Perhaps that's one reason why the War on Drugs never really went anywhere. Had it succeeded, it would have left vast areas of Latin America's narco-economy in ruins. 

And yet look at all the lives that cocaine destroys. Look at all the harm it causes. Look at all the hopes it has snuffed out. 

The seal hunt also destroys lives. Some would scoff the comparison I've just made. After all, in the case of the seal hunt, they aren't human lives. 

The prophetic Russian
novelist Leo Tolstoy
(1828-1910) warned
about violence against
animals.

That's a dangerous kind of reasoning though. It was Leo Tolstoy who said, "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." What he meant by that is that the violence we inflict on animals will inevitably metastasize into violence against other human beings. Earlier tonight, I blogged about a murderer named Luka Rocco Magnotta, who started off killing cats and moved on to killing a human being and sending his body parts out in the mail. I'm not comparing sealers, who make a living from the seal hunt, to Magnotta. But what I'm saying is that a society that accepts the "they're just animals" argument is one that is tacitly approving violence. And that violence, in one way or another, is going to come back to haunt us. 

That's more bad news, in case you needed any. 

One Atrocity Leads to Others

Luka Rocco Magnotta, the 29-year-old Canadian
who allegedly sent human body parts in the mail
recently, got his start as an animal abuser.

There's a piece of conventional wisdom that I've always agreed with that goes something like this: People who begin as animal abusers often graduate to heinous crimes involving human beings.

Take 29-year-old Luka Rocco Magnotta, a Canadian who has appeared in Internet porno videos and is now being sought by authorities for allegedly murdering a man, dismembering the torso and mailing various body parts to the offices of the federal Liberal and Conservative parties. 

The story is almost too gruesome and twisted to be true. 

And guess what?

In today's Vancouver Sun, columnist Stephen Maher reports that animal rights activists had been hunting Mangotta down for videos he posted online showing him murdering kittens. Maher writes:

They were motivated by four horrible videos in which a young man gleefully kills kittens. In the first one, in 2010, a young man alleged to be Magnotta suffocates two kittens in a plastic bag. A few weeks later, he posted a related video.

By January of 2011, after frantic online searching, animal lovers tentatively had identified Magnotta as the suspect. They meticulously compared photos that Magnotta posted of himself, identifying jewelry and furnishings that appeared in both, until they were certain they had found the right guy.

They then focused on finding him, something which was made more difficult by the many apparently fake photos Magnotta seems to have posted — using a host of false online identities — showing him in cities around the world.

This news, horrifying as it is, should come as no surprise. 

By the time police raided a Montreal apartment on Tuesday where Magnotta lived, they discovered scenes of human depravity and violence too horrifying to describe. The National Post, a Canadian newspaper I read religiously, actually describes a website called Best Gore that has posted a sickening video purported to be Mangotta cutting up his bound victim, having sex with the body and feeding parts to his dog.

Hard to imagine anything more vile than that.

Magnotta's story is a cautionary tale. There is a banner going around the Internet (especially Facebook) that says, "FAMOUS ANIMAL ABUSERS," and shows pictures of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz and Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick. Below their faces, it says, "THE LINK BETWEEN ANIMAL CRUELTY AND HUMAN VIOLENCE IS INDISPUTABLE." 

I refuse to post that banner here because Vick, unlike Bundy, Dahmer and Berkowitz, is not a serial killer and does not belong with those monsters, despite his involvement in horrific dog fighting matches. Vick's dogfighting ring was broken up by authorities in 2007 and he endured a trial and punishment. Since then, Vick has served a prison term, publicly apologized and lobbied for legislation to create much stricter penalties for those who take part in animal fighting. 

As Vick said last year: "I deeply regret my previous involvement in dogfighting, I'm sorry for what I did to the animals. During my time in prison, I told myself I wanted to be part of the solution, not the problem." (Source) 

I believe Vick's face shouldn't have been added alongside Bundy, Dahmer and Berkowitz. We should forgive those who express genuine, heartfelt remorse about their crimes against animals. And Vick's example shows that not every single animal abuser goes on to become a murderer of human beings.

But take away Michael Vick's face, and the banner is absolutely correct. The link between animal cruelty and human violence is indisputable. My suggestion is to remove Vick from that banner and add the face of Luka Rocco Magnotta, who - if the ghastly stories about him are true (and they appear to be) - has earned a prominent spot among the very worst of the worst of the animal abusers who turned into savage killers of human beings. 

It's All How You Look At It...

Source: Lolcats

Words of Wisdom (with an inspiring video)

Below is a splendid quote from historian, author and activist Howard Zinn (1922-2010). To reinforce the sentiment expressed in the quote, I've also posted an uplifting video about the 2010 rescue of two very sick piglets, Chloe and Coco, by the Australian animal rights groups Uproar (Pig Rescue) and Animal LIberation Victoria. Uproar and ALV nursed these two beautiful beings back to good health, and they now lead happy lives at an Australian animal sanctuary, free from harm. Please read the quote and watch the video. You'll be glad you did.

"To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places--and there are so many--where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don't have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory."

- Howard Zinn

Fear

From Italian photographer Tommaso Ausili's powerful photoessay "The Hidden Death" (2011). 

A Physician Makes the Case for a Plant-Based Diet

This is a brilliant talk by Dr. Milton R. Mills, M.D., who makes one of the most convincing series of arguments I've ever heard that human beings are naturally herbivores, not omnivores. It is almost impossible to walk away from this incredibly informative speech without agreeing 100% that human beings were meant to consume a plant-based diet. Mills, a doctor from Virginia, Stanford University-trained and a member of the advisory board to the wonderful Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (which promotes alternatives to animal testing and advocates a vegan diet).

Dr. Milton R. Mills

One of the many omnivore arguments that Mills destroys is the notion that other animals feed on animals, therefore human beings ought to be able to do the same. He does this by showing that human beings simply aren't built like carnivores. We don't run through the forests chasing down wildebeests and wild boars, ripping our prey open with our mouths and tearing at their flesh as they buck madly. Well, maybe some of us do. But it isn't natural.

Mills very capably demonstrates the many ways in which human beings are really physically plant eaters. If you're interested in reading about his ideas online, the website Vegsource.com has published an excellent essay by Mills that covers much of the same ground as his speech. Mills makes extremely persuasive arguments that I do not hear often coming from defenders of the plant-based diet. We need more advocates like him to help us understand where human beings, as a species, went wrong, and how we might get back to doing things the right way.

Words Nobody Should Ever Have to Say

Words of Wisdom

What the Ag Gag Laws Don't Want You to See

If you get a moment, please watch this graphic video footage of life inside of a Wyoming pig factory farm. The clip above contains only a few scenes from the actual footage, which was shot by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) inside of a factory farm that supplies Tyson Foods. Most of the video above contains a discussion on the lefty Young Turks Network about the violent practices of factory farming and the rapid proliferation of these death houses around the world. The discussion is an superb one.

Below is the ENTIRE HSUS VIDEO (and it's quite graphic). If you're not vegan, I beg you - beg, beg, beg you - to watch the video below. Find out what you're paying other people to do for your eating habits. Please do not look away! These are the very types of videos that Ag Gag Laws are trying to ban. These are Orwellian laws, designed to punish people who tell the truth and reward those who allow the worst sort of savagery and cruelty in the name of profits.

The day will come when future generations look back on these times as the Dark Ages in the treatment of animals. If Ag Gag Laws prevail, the times will get darker and darker. Is this really what we want? Is this really a way to build a civilization that we wish to pass down to future generations?

Marc Bekoff in Forbes? The Times Are a-Changin'!

When I think of Forbes Magazine, I think of a business magazine that has been around a long time and has rightfully earned a reputation as a staid and venerable bulwark of free enterprise.

But Forbes surprised me with a long and detailed profile/interview with Dr. Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Bekoff is the author of the powerful The Emotional Lives of Animals and The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding our Compassion Footprint.

Bekoff is one of the most eloquent spokespeople for animal rights. He has written numerous books about the ethical treatment of animals and he travels around the world lecturing on the subject. He is also a past Guggenheim Fellow and a fellow of the Animal Behavior Society. In short, this guy is a heavy hitter. Yet he's not necessarily the kind of guy you see profiled in a magazine like Forbes.

However, there he is, speaking his mind in Forbes and saying very eloquent things. He speaks about a wide range of topics, from animal ethics to climate change to what he calls "proactive compassionate activism." There are moments when he sounds pessimistic. For example: "The stakes are huge if we fail to take care of other animals and Earth because we are on the brink of numerous irreversible losses to magnificent webs of nature. Our wholeness and that of the world at large is in peril.

But Bekoff ultimately sounds an optimistic note:

Rest assured that we are indeed making positive differences even if we don’t see them now. I also travel a lot, like you, and meet incredibly passionate and committed people all over the world who are dedicated to making the lives of other animals much better than they are. So, there is light, it sometimes seems very dark, but there is that ever-present glow that keeps me and many others going. I like to say we must get rid of all negativity, focus on what works, keep the faith, be nice to everyone including our opponents, and never say never – ever. We also need to “pick our battles” and accept that some people will never change, and that’s the way it is.

Marc Bekoff appearing in Forbes - a magazine that definitely does not have a history of publishing articles about animals and their well being - is itself a great victory. It is a sign that times are changing. Hopefully for the better.

Encouraging Signs Of Late

Staring into the abyss too long not only hurts the eyes, it can crush the soul. To allow yourself to empathize with suffering animals is noble. However, taking in too much suffering, seeing nothing but agony, and seeking out only the negative, can leave the sensitive person feeling defeated, traumatized and alone. That is why here at We're All Animals, I encourage kindred spirits to take out a moment from time to time to look on the bright side. Sometimes it's easy to miss the good things, the encouraging developments. They don't always generate headlines. But they're there.

There are five encouraging developments that are worth highlighting here. All three given me a heightened sense of hope about the future.

1. Denny's is now going gestation crate-free! They'll be joining McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and other fast-food giants in moving away from the practice of forcing pregnant pigs into tiny cages.  It's hard to grasp the significance of this development unless you know a bit about the history of Denny's. Growing up in a conservative Red State, I remember Denny's being the restaurant of choice for ordinary folks, working stiffs, truckers, night owls, flapjack-loving patriots and elderly men and women who sought out big plates of food for cheap prices. Denny's was always the all-American joint, usually located near the freeway, promising comfort food at all hours of the day and night. Denny's, according to the L.A. Times, has more than 1,650 locations across the United States. And they serve an awful lot of food made out of various pig products. So when they start the move away from gestation crates, that will have a big impact.

Said Greg Lindford, Denny's vice president of procurement and distribution: "Denny's takes its role as a responsible corporate citizen seriously. We will endeavor to purchase products from companies that provide gestation crate-free pork and are committed to influencing our suppliers to share in a gestation crate-free vision for the future."

Score one for the movement to jettison gestation crates. Actually, score many! Up here in Canada, the massive doughnut chain Tim Hortons is moving in the same direction.

2. While we're talking gestation crates, the grocery store chain Safeway in the United States is also going gestation crate free. Some vegans may say this is not enough. And they're right. But for these huge chains to acknowledge the cruelty of gestation crates, an issue that wasn't even on the table five years ago (honestly, who in 2007 even knew about gestation crates?) means the animal rights and animal welfare movements are having a huge influence on these corporations.

3. According to Mercy for Animals, meat consumption is on the decline in the United States. This is great news. As MFA notes:

In 2011, compared to 2010, the number of land animals that died for American consumption fell from 8.4 to 8.2 billion, or 242 million fewer animals - including 1 million fewer cows, 5 million fewer pigs, and 240 million fewer chickens. That's a nationwide drop from 8.9 billion in 2005 to 8.2 billion in 2011, or 725 million fewer animals killed. 

It is true that the number of animals dying is still staggering. But the decline is an encouraging sign. MFA points to a growing awareness of cruelty to animals, as well as such gruesome industry practices as the use of "pink slime."

4. The state of California is banning foie gras. The statewide ban goes into effect on July 1. There is also talk that other states may follow California's example (source). For those of you who don't know what foie gras is (even in my omnivore days, I never ate it), it means, literally, "fatty liver." One again, I'll let the wonderful folks at Mercy for Animals explain:

Its production entails extreme animal cruelty and suffering. Pipes are painfully shoved down ducks' throats and they are forced to ingest several pounds of food at once--far more than they would eat naturally. This process is often repeated two to three times a day. The ducks' livers become engorged and diseased, swelling up to ten times their normal size, and resulting in horrific emotional and physical suffering of these unfortunate animals. Most ducks find it difficult to walk and breathe normally. Many suffer from ruptured organs and die. Ducks are typically crammed into small, filthy cages for the duration of their lives, unable to move, walk, or spread their wings. They become so distressed, they sometimes tear out their own feathers or cannibalize each other. 

Kudos to California for banning this hideous "delicacy." Let's hope that other states follow California's example right away. Make no mistake: This ban on foie gras wouldn't have happened were it not for the rising influence of animal advocates.

Finally:

5: The Collapse of Ag Gag?: Earlier in the year, animal rights advocates became alarmed about the passage of repressive "Ag Gag" laws in Iowa and Utah that have introduced harsh penalties against whistleblowers who expose (through videos or photographs) the insides of slaughterhouses and factory farm operations. For a time, it seemed that Ag Gag laws were spreading across the United States like wildfire. But the movement's momentum is slowing. Efforts to introduce Ag Gag have either died or are dead in several states, including Florida, Illinois and Tennessee (source). Sadly, an Ag Gag law has just passed in Missouri, but thanks to compromises made as a result of pressure from animal advocates, there is a loophole in the legislation that gives whistleblowers 24 hours to report incidents of animal abuse or neglect to law enforcement should they witness such acts. Not surprisingly, the pork industry is calling the law "diluted" (source). 

It is true that animals are dying all around us in huge numbers as a result of human cruelty on a massive scale. But people are waking up. Pressure being applied steadily and rigorously to big corporations is working. Slowly, painfully, there is movement away from the insanity, in the direction of what might truly be called "civilization." If we ever get there, we have those kind men, women and yes, even children, who took it upon themselves to become voices of the voiceless, and who fought for the well being of animals, to thank for it. 

Words of Wisdom

"In a way, to be indifferent to suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response."
- Elie Wiesel 

A Mother's Day Message: The Truth About Dairy

Watching Omnivores Struggle

The slippery slope.

It's interesting to watch omnivores grappling with their food choices. I just finished reading an article in the Toronto Star defending meat eating. "Why Consuming Animals May Be the Right Thing to Do," said the headline.

Echoing a New York Times contest in March asking readers to defend meat consumption in 600 words or less (which, not surprisingly, the big food industry/factory farm shill Temple Grandin entered), the Star published a litany of familiar excuses justifying the act of killing animals and then devouring them.

Author and New Yorker contributor Adam Gopnik led the charge: "All animals die. The choice for a pig is not between painful death and perpetual life, but between one death and some other. If we ate only animals that died naturally, then could there be any rational objection to our eating them - to eating their flesh in celebration of their life rather than burying it to rot or merely burning it?"

Toronto butcher Stephen Alexander, a big supporter of buying local, "humanely" raised meat, is clearly wrestling with the ethics of meat eating when he tells the Star: "You're killing them to live, you're killing them because you enjoy meat and it's good for you. But at the end of the day, there is the cold, hard truth that you're killing animals to eat their meat.... You have to justify it to yourself and that's all there is to it."

"Ethics are an individual choice," reasoned Heather Travis, who handles public relations for Canada Beef Inc., which represents 83,000 farming families here in Canada. Travis said her organization "strongly advocates beef as part of a balanced diet," and warned that staying healthy on a meat-free diet "can be trickier if you eliminate animal protein sources from your diet."

The temptation is great to pick apart these arguments one by one, and most intelligent vegans would be able to dance circles around these people in a debate.

But to me the most interesting element of all of these defenses of meat eating is the extent to which omnivores feel the need these days to justify the act. Five years ago, when I was an omnivore, I never felt any need to defend my choices. I liked meat. I ate it. End of story.

Today, five years later, more and more people are either going vegan, or feeling the need to justify and explain their food choices. I run into thoughtful omnivores all the time who are really - really - struggling with consuming animal products. Increasingly, it's getting so only an over-the-top fruit loop like Ted Nugent gives absolutely no thought whatsoever to chowing down on the flesh of sentient beings.

Famous food journalist Mark Bittman.

For the rest of us, it's a different story. I personally think the New York Times' challenge - which triggered an avalanche of responses from across the country - was a useful exercise in getting omnivores to think about why they do what they do.

A decade ago, the renowned and widely respected New York Times food journalist Mark Bittman gave little or no thought to the animals he was cooking (by his own admission). But in recent years, Bittman has developed profound misgivings about eating animals. These days, he believes that "20 or at most 50 years from now, those of us still alive will express incredulity at the way we once treated animals destined to become food." (Source)

Gordon Ramsay and friend. 

Bittman is not alone. Not long ago, famous TV chef Gordon Ramsay watched a hidden camera video of the inside of a factory farm (in this case, a pig facility). Seeing the male pigs being castrated without any anesthesia, sows chewing nervously on bars, and pigs shrieking in horror during the last days of their short lives, Ramsay was visibly shaken - and disgusted - by what he witnessed. Of course, Ramsay didn't go vegan. But the treatment of animals, an issue that for the longest time was never on his radar, has entered into his consciousness.

Bittman has been much more aggressive in moving away from cooking animal products than Ramsay. In fact, Bittman gained fame for his Vegan Until 6 diet, spotlighted in his book Food Matters, that advocated going vegan before dinnertime for improved health. Yet what began for Bittman as a health issue keeps coming back to the more significant matter of animals and their suffering. He can't get away from the issue. These days, in fact, he keeps bringing it up. It haunts him, just as it haunts any thoughtful omnivore. And this trend is working its way into corporate America. Burger King made headlines in late April when the chain announced it will switch to cage-free eggs and pork by 2017. Other fast food restaurants are likely follow.

Pigs in a factory farm. Many omnivores are troubled
by what's happening in the food industry. 

We vegans tend to be somewhat dismissive toward omnivores who are struggling with their food choices. But it's impossible to overemphasize the importance of this development, because it's a very new one. And it's becoming more and more widespread. Recently, I went on a local radio station to talk about these very issues on a program about farming and agriculture.  I could see the host, himself an omnivore and advocate of what he called "humane" livestock farming, was also grappling with these same issues. He and I shared a sense of uneasiness with the growth of big, corporate factory farms. A lot of omnivores, having watched documentaries like Food Inc. and Forks Over Knives, are experiencing these same feelings. I believe Bittman is absolutely correct, that  "20 or at most 50 years from now, those of us still alive will express incredulity at the way we once treated animals destined to become food." This is not a Pollyannaish notion. It's a reflection of the changing reality of our times.

A growing number of omnivores are troubled by their actions, and the increasing defensiveness of some is an outgrowth of a moment in history when the animal rights movement is gaining traction around the world. For those of us who feel passionately about animals and their rights, this shift may seem too slow and way overdue in coming. But it is happening, little by little, and it offers a glimmer of hope.

Look Out for the Meat Gene!

More interesting stuff from the frontiers of science: A study conducted by scientists at Duke University Medical Center in the United States and a group of researchers in Norway found that people who dislike meat are genetically predisposed to be disgusted by the smell of it.

The researchers were particularly focused on a gene called OR7D4 that is "linked to an odor receptor that detects a compound called androstenone, which is found in male mammals, and is most commonly detectable in pork meat." (Source)

Apparently, people with two functioning copies of that gene can more easily zero in on the smell of androstenone, while those with one or no functioning copies of the gene cannot detect the odor. Interestingly, it is the people who can detect the smell (researchers estimate 70 percent of people have two functioning copies of the gene) that are far more likely to be repulsed by it. Those who cannot detect it are more likely to like meat.

Tests were conducted on 23 human participants. Researchers concluded that the desire - or lack thereof - for meat could often be determined by the number of functioning OR7D4 genes in a subject. One of the researchers, Dr. Hiroaki Matsunami, an associate professor of molecular genetics and microbiology at Duke, pointed out that the presence of the OR7D4 genes in people are often a determinant in whether they will like meat. Not just pork. All kinds of meat.

"The male pork meat contains relatively high levels of androstenone, but you can also find it in other types of meat," said Dr. Matsunami. "In fact, androstenone is also found in human sweat, so it's not a pig-specific chemical." (Source)

It is encouraging to know that 70 percent of the population is genetically inclined to find the odor of meat repellent. But don't expect to wake up tomorrow to read headlines that over two-thirds of all people have gone vegan. There's a reason why meats are often cooked with spices and sauces that probably end up overwhelming the smell of androstenone. It's the same reason the walls around slaughterhouses are so high and so thick. Denial is the key word. Still, this is an interesting story. You can read about it here.

The Smiths had it right all along!

But I also think it's a mistake to over-emphasize the genetics angle. I myself used to love meat - every kind of meat imaginable - and now I can't stand the stuff. Hate to look at it. Hate to smell it. Would starve to death before I had to actually put it in my mouth. Once upon a time, I was the person for whom the Meat Lover's Pizza was invented. Now I find the concept of a Meat Lover's Pizza to be horrific, gross and completely inedible.

For a long time, I assumed learning and socialization (nurture rather than nature) had a lot do with that. But who knows? It's starting to sound like there is a genetic component to vegetarianism and veganism. It would be interesting to know how many of us fit the right genetic coding for people who are disgusted by meat and how many of us are sickened by it in spite of our genetic composition.

Food for thought.

Be Kind to Animals - Always

This week is Be Kind to Animals Week. I just read a lovely - and very inspirational - story about Yvonne Wall (right), who runs a horse sanctuary in California called Forever Free Horse Rescue (check out their wonderful website if you get a chance). The story (click here to read it) talks about Yvonne's tireless efforts to help abused, abandoned and neglected horses. She gives them a loving home where they feel both safe and wanted, and where they form bonds with each other and with compassionate people.

These stories are so important because we're inundated, day in and day out, with tragic stories about the harsh and violent treatment of animals in factory farms, slaughterhouses, laboratories, fur manufacturing facilities, hunting grounds and countless other places where harm and death run rampant. It is so important for us to remind ourselves that there are also good people in this world trying to make a difference. People like Yvonne Wall, who gives and gives and gives of herself. Her reward, as she tells it in the wonderful video that goes with the story, is to make a difference in the lives of these beautiful beings. 

People like Yvonne deserve our thanks and inspire us to do more. Those of us who are passionate about animal rights hold out hope that one day, this is what all interaction between human and animals will look like.