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!

Saving Animals, the Vegetarian/Vegan Way

There is a fascinating article from the Website Counting Animals.com about the number of animal lives saved by going vegetarian. After crunching a lot of figures about animal deaths and the number of animals consumed per person, the author of the article concludes that vegetarians save about 404 animal lives per year. In other words, at least one animal a day is saved by switching to the vegetarian lifestyle.

The author, Harrish, concludes:

My numbers are larger than the ones previously quoted in animal advocacy circles (usually 50, 95 or 100), but I have not seen these quotes accompanied by a detailed explanation of methodology or pointers to their sources. Given how conservative my methodology is and how much larger my numbers are, vegetarians have been undercounting the number of animals they actually save and short-selling their impact on animal lives. Yet, this estimate is a work in progress. With more data becoming available and more meticulous tabulation of some things ignored in this post (such as bycatch), the estimated number is actually bound to increase.

The article includes a lot of stark statistics, such as the following:

When you're dealing with numbers in the billions, it becomes miles to Pluto. It's hard for me to wrap my brain around so many animals being slaughtered. And for what? Because we human beings think they taste good? What an appalling reason to commit murder. Cannibals used to use the same reasoning to eat human beings. When will carnivorism go the way of cannibalism?

When you start to consider that each one of the above animals is a sentient being, with feelings and emotions, and they form bonds with each other and savor life as much as you or I, then it's easy to become overwhelmed with the brutality of human beings.

Yet it is also encouraging that a growing number of people are removing meat from their diets. By doing so, they're saving lives. And if a vegetarian is saving more than 400 lives per year, imagine how many lives a vegan is saving. Remember, dairy is extremely destructive. Dairy cows are kept pregnant to continue giving milk, and their newborns are ripped away from them and turned into veal, and the mothers are murdered when they can no longer give milk.

The chicken egg racket is equally violent. Huge numbers of male chicks that can't lay eggs are routinely thrown alive into huge garbage cans or grinders. Egg-laying chickens live absolutely miserable lives, eventually cut short by death.

Alas, vegetarians who consume milk and egg products are perpetuating this destruction, even as they are saving lives.

A wise person (whose name I can't remember) once said, "The only true vegetarian is a vegan." But even vegetarians are to be commended for saving so many lives.

Vegans deserve even higher praise, for saving lives and being 100 percent consistent in their practices.

And the above study shows that just one person changing his or her lifestyle can save a lot of lives. Which just goes to show what we vegans have been saying all along: Veganism is not just a diet. It truly is, in the last analysis, a way of life. The way of life.

Watergate and Iran-Contra it ain't...

On this Blog, I've lamented the actions of puritanical vegans who take it upon themselves to make sure that the vegan population in North America (which is so small, it almost can't be measured statistically) is adhering to all the rules and regulations of the lifestyle.

Days ago, the purists went on the warpath against VegNews magazine, a respected vegetarian and vegan publication (in more recent years, it has been more strictly vegan), after it was discovered that the magazine has used stock photos of food containing meat and dairy to accompany its recipes. The New York Times (April 18, 2011) described some of VegNews' transgressions:

In one case, an ordinary slab of grilled ribs was made to appear meatless after the bones were digitally airbrushed out of the picture. In other instances, images of hamburgers, hot dogs, macaroni and cheese and ice cream were featured so as to appear meat and dairy-free.

The Ultra-Vegans, predictably, went crazy. The Blogosphere caught on fire, and the "TILT" sign lit up on Facebook and Twitter. Attacks against VegNews came at a steady clip. Threats of subscription cancellations abounded. VegNews rushed to apologize. "We screwed up," said their editorial team in an April 18 statement. "With regard to our use of symbolic imagery in VegNews, our readers got it right. We wholeheartedly apologize." (Source)

VegNews went on to say:

Here's our commitment to you: • Recipes in VegNews will be represented only by custom vegan photography. Count on it. • All stock images used in the magazine and website will be vegan. We will make sure so that you can be sure. • VegNews will build and host a vegan photo bank to assure the availability of vegan stock images. Look for details in the coming days.

Even this act of extreme contrition didn't satisfy certain purists, who continued to go on the rampage. As far as they're concerned, an important element of trust has been violated and the magazine could no longer be trusted. National Public Radio cultural affairs commentator Linda Holmes said as much on her blog:

Unfortunately, when you use pictures of non-vegan food in a vegan publication, you're playing with a whole different kettle of ... well, not fish, obviously. Kettle of something, though. It certainly can read like an implication that if you used vegan food, it wouldn't look good enough, so that's why you're using that juicy beef burger. It can seem like you're disrespecting vegan food in a magazine for vegans. It's tough to think of a better way to anger your readers, other than including a ham hock with every issue.

For the record, this Blogger you're currently reading does not think it is a wise idea to use photographs of animal-based foods to accompany vegan recipes. No question that the editors at VegNews, which had a stellar reputation before this "scandal" and serves a readership of 210,000 (at a time when so many magazines are going down like the Titanic and virtually everything is going up online) suffered from a serious error in judgment.

Still... Still... Still... This is a publication that reaches close to a quarter of a million people (when you factor in all the magazine "sharing" that goes on, it's probably well over that number of people who actually read it). It has won countless awards. While its images were deceiving, its recipes encouraged people to follow a purely humane diet. It did not celebrate the virtues of "cheatatarianism" or "flexitarianism" or "happy meat" or any of that nonsense. Using real meat and dairy products in stock footage was not wise, but they didn't do it out of spite or for malicious reasons. There were deadlines to meet, issues that had to be on the newsstand.

Days before the big VegNews scandal (and I'm sorry, but if this is a scandal, we're in sorry shape scandal-wise, because folks, Watergate and Iran-Contra this ain't...), a lot of purists went ballistic because Oscar-winning actress Natalie Portman decided she could not adhere to a strict vegan diet during her pregnancy. On April 12, Portman said in an interview with Atlanta's Q100 Radio, "I actually went back to being a vegetarian when I became pregnant, just because I felt like I wanted that stuff. I was listening to my body to have eggs and dairy." (Source)

Cue the Red Alert sirens. Buzz-buzz-buzz-buzz-buzz!!! Sure enough... The savaging of Natalie Portman that I read online was horrible. Keep in mind, this is an actress who has promoted the cause more effectively than anyone else, who said she was becoming a vegetarian only temporarily during her pregnancy, and who has come out with her own line of vegan fashion items to promote humane living.

You'd think, based on the online reaction I encountered, the woman was a serial killer of children. Among the adjectives I saw on Facebook included "bitch," "clueless," "murderer," "sellout" - probably "hypocritical" was the kindest one. On some Blogs, people posting comments showed real understanding for Portman's choice (see here, for example). But, on the whole, the level of visceral rage toward Portman was intense and unsettling. People who admired Portman just months earlier now vilified her in very troubling ways.

I raise the issue of Natalie Portman's move from the vegan to the vegetarian camp as a parallel example of the collective rage triggered by a lack of purity. To be certain, in past posts I have explored some of the reasons for this rage: it comes from the powerlessness we feel to change the fact that millions of animals are being murdered every day; historically, protest movements often suffer from internecine conflicts and sectarianism; in our current age of "rage politics," this anger simply reflects the pervasive political culture of our times.

Also, it is crucial to point out that the majority of the vegans I personally know are kind-hearted, compassionate, open-minded people who embraced the lifestyle out of a commitment to the noblest values imaginable. Many of us have made a conscious decision to shun the politics of rage and live a completely different lifestyle, free from the anger and abrasiveness and shouting. It is important not to forget this.

But there is another factor at play in the public displays out outrage: Tribalism. No matter where political groupings and subcultures happen to fall on the political spectrum - left, right, center - they are often characterized by an intense form of tribalism. And we all know that when it comes to tribalism, consensus, not dissent, is the goal. In the seventeenth century, Puritans banished dissenters like Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams into the "howling wilderness" for disagreeing with the dominant views of the society. Today, the equivalent of seventeenth century banishment is attacking "apostates" as savagely as possible. In 2008, when conservative commentators Christopher Buckley and Kathleen Parker had the audacity to criticize Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, they received thousands of furious responses, including death threats. A few years earlier, Christopher Hitchens similarly aroused the ire of the Left when he supported George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, an awful lot of people want to be a part of a larger tribe, even if it means jettisoning the right - no, make that, the responsibility - to criticize your own group if you think they're being excessive or unreasonable. But isn't it ultimately more fulfilling - and doesn't it make life far richer - to be a Tribe of One, and to think freely, break free of partisanship and come to whatever conclusions seem the most rational, than to simply say what seems to be the easiest and most politically correct thing to say?

Some Thoughts on Compromise versus Militancy

I have several vegan and animal rights friends on Facebook and I read their posts every day.

One of my friends is very outspoken and militant and, well, he can be harsh at times toward omnivores and other people with whom he disagrees. He often has mean words for ominivores, calling them (among other things) "corpse munchers," and insisting that those who drink milk were just as guilty of abusing the cows and calves as the workers at the Conklin Dairy Farms in Ohio (see my post on that situation below). This friend loves controversy. He even posted a picture of Jesus Christ flipping the middle finger with the inscription "Dear Corpse-muncher" on it. Not surprisingly, that image triggered a heated debate.

Lots of the posts on this friend's page, in fact, involve debates that often turn downright nasty - and some even involve vegans ripping into other vegans.

The more militant veganistas and animal rights activists not only lambaste the omnivores; they occasionally go after the non-confrontational vegan moderates who don't necessarily enjoy trashing omnivores. The moderates, too, are sometimes guilty of fanning the flames by focusing too much on the tactics of militants instead of those institutions and ways of thinking that result in rampant animal abuse.

I have to admit, I am probably what one would call one of the "nice" people. I have lived a lifetime committed to nonviolence, and remain a firm believer in the power of nonviolent action as the only method of resistance in democratic society. I don't refer to my foes as "motherf---ers." When I come across a heated posting debate on Facebook that deteriorate into a heavy-duty trashing session, I feel incredibly uneasy.

Those of us who read a lot of history know that what I'm seeing on Facebook is actually a common trait of mass protest movements throughout history. All movements contain overzealous types who can be hardcore, harsh and even hateful at times. One can understand the level of animosity. A lot of animal rights activists are mindful of the thousands and thousands of animals who are being slaughtered every minute of every day.

Also, there have been times in the past when fanaticism has been effective. Look at abolitionist John Brown. Most historians agree that his utopian raid on Harpers Ferry in the summer of 1859, even though it had zero chance of liberating slaves (which was its purpose), was one of the key events that led to the coming of the Civil War.

Movements need moderates and militants. Moderates are needed to keep the discussion going; militants are needed to pull the pendulum leftward.

But speaking strictly personally, I feel far more comfortable with people who embrace Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s attitude of hating the sin, not the sinner.

It is, I think, profoundly unrealistic to say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Those sadists who kicked and beat innocent cows and calves do not seem like the kind of guys I can "love" (even though I like to hope that maybe the best among them can try to redeem himself). But don't ask me to love them. Not the way I deeply love those in my personal life, like my children or my companion and her children or members of my family. That's asking too much. We don't want to turn saintliness into a form of insanity. And let's not make a mockery or cliche' of the word "love."

But it is also important to remember that bad ways of thinking and harmful institutions are the real enemies, more so than individual people.

In addition, I think vegans need to try to reach out to omnivores. I know some omnivores can be frustrating. I like a lot of what Michael Pollan has to say about the food industry, but when he starts talking about animal rights or veganism, I often disagree fiercely with what he says. But I am grateful that he speaks his mind. Free speech should be celebrated. Dogmatism and rigidity should be rejected.

That doesn't mean we should become "flexible" vegans, or even adopt an "I'm OK, you're OK" attitude. We owe it to the animals who live in the worst conditions imaginable, and who are being murdered by the thousands as you read this post, to be decisive and vigorous in our fight for them.

But we should also recognize that most of us were omnivores at one point or another. And omnivores who are having doubts are potential comrades in the struggle for the liberation of animals and steering the human race toward a plant-based diet.

Now Mike Tyson is on our side! Don't mess with Vegans!

Mike Tyson is now a vegan. You heard right! The Mike Tyson. A headline on the Vegetarian Star website pretty much said it all: "Mike Tyson Vegan - Won't Bite Human or Animal Ears." (Of course, that's a joking reference to when Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear in an infamous boxing match on June 28, 1997.)

In addition to being a vegan, Tyson insists he has "no drama" in his life at the moment. Tyson stars in a "reality" series on Animal Planet in which he races pigeons (!). (Source) I've never actually seen it, but maybe working with the pigeons had an influence on the boxing legend. Who knows? Tyson insists his first ever fight was in defense of birds when he was a young boy. (Source) Good for him! It's refreshing to know that we vegan/animal rights types have such a tough guy on our side.

Welcome to our side, Mike! We can use all the support we can get!

Vegan "Humour" - British Style (hardy-har-har...)

The British tabloid The Sun published its "Top 10 Funny Vegan Jokes" (they inserted the word "funny," not me). A few of them are mildly amusing, although they all sound like the kind of jokes that a vegan version of Henny Youngman might tell on the rubber tofu "chicken" circuit.

Here they are:

Q: Why did the tofu cross the road?

A: To prove he wasn't chicken.

---

Q: How many vegans does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Two, one to change it and one to check for animal ingredients.

---

Q: Why does vegan cheese taste bad?

A: It hasn't been tested on mice.

---

Q: What did one vegetarian spy say to the other vegetarian spy?

A: We have to stop meating like this

---

Q. What do you call a vegetarian who goes back to eating meat?

A. Someone who lost their veg-inity!

---

Q. What do you call a militant vegan?

A. Lactose intolerant.

---

Q: What do vegan zombies eat?

A: Graiinnnzzzz

---

Q: What's a vegan's favourite chat up line?

A: If I said you had the body of an all-natural, organic-living, animal-loving, environment-nurturing, whale-saving sex machine, would you hold it against me? Please?

---

Q: What do you call a vegetarian with diarrhoea?

A: A salad shooter.

---

Q: Why did the vegan cross the road?

A: Because she was protesting for the chicken, man!

A Wonderful Article on the Sarah Palin Project in The Record

The Waterloo Region Record ran a wonderful article on the Sarah Palin Project. Please have a look:

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/666128

I'm serious about this. I've already sent off the first letter to Sarah Palin. One down, 51 left! I'm already at work on letter number two.

Stay tuned, Blog Pals, for future updates.

The Sarah Palin Project: My Year-Long Attempt to Convert Sarah Palin to Veganism

I am embarking on a new project.

It's called "The Sarah Palin Project."

I am going to write a letter to Sarah Palin once a week for one year. If my math is correct, that's a total of 52 letters. I'm going to send the letters to her house in Alaska. I got her address by Googling "Sarah Palin's address in Alaska." I hope to hell it's correct.

Who knows? Maybe I'll also forward a copy to Fox News, scene of her current gig.

Why am I doing this?

I was reading Palin's book Going Rogue (pictured here) and I came across the following passages:

“If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore: If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?”

“I love meat. I eat pork chops, thick bacon burgers, and the seared fatty edges of a medium-well-done steak. But I especially love moose and caribou. I always remind people from outside our state that there's plenty of room for all Alaska's animals -- right next to the mashed potatoes.”

Fair enough.

Palin's book has been a bestseller. She has become a media superstar across North America.

But I'm going to challenge her. Not in a mean or abrasive way. My letters to Sarah Palin will be down-to-earth, friendly, frank - just the way I'd be if I were sitting at her dinner table, having a conversation.

The first quote (above) from Going Rogue reads to me like an invitation. I think Sarah Palin wants to have a conversation about meat eating and veganism.

I want to try to convert Sarah Palin to the vegan lifestyle because I think she'd be happier as a vegan. I'm going to take some time out of my schedule each week to explain why I think veganism is the way to go.

Why devote one year to this? I'm giving myself a year to talk Sarah Palin into becoming a vegan. If, at the end of that year, my efforts have not borne fruit (excuse the pun), I'll put aside pen and paper and move on.

The animal rights and vegan movement is about winning over converts, one person at a time. I'm sick and tired of people on both sides of the political spectrum shouting at each other and dehumanizing each other. I'm tired of the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters assassinating people's characters. I'm tired of overzealous militants throwing pies in the faces of their "enemies." I'm tired of the Red State/Blue state paradigm.

I want to reach out across the political spectrum and have a friendly and honest conversation with someone who is on the opposite side. And I want to talk about what I see as the most important issue of our times: The sanctity of life - not just human life, but all animal life as well.

But my letters to Sarah Palin won't just be about that topic. Fifty-two letters about the sanctity of life would get awfully boring after a while.

No, my letters will cover a wide variety of issues: Personal and political; the food people eat; the ways in which we argue with each other; attitudes about meat and veganism; vegan recipes; the treatment of human beings and animals in capitalism; movies, music, literature. You name it, it'll probably make an appearance in my letters.

You might ask: Why bother trying to convert Sarah Palin to veganism? It's not fundamentally altering the status quo. It's not going to get rid of the factory farm system or any of the other pernicious manifestations of capitalism. It's not going to trigger a revolution.

True. True. True. It won't do any of those things. But I've been sitting on my tush cursing the darkness long enough. It's time to act. Time to do something. Time to reach across the spectrum with the hand of friendship and start sharing ideas in a manner that does not involve yelling, pies in the face, name calling, etc.

And who better to have that conversation with than Sarah Palin? And what better way to do it than through the dying art form of letter writing? Each week, I'll print off a letter in Courier font, each week I'll address it, each week I'll mail it. Will any of this make a difference? Maybe not.

But damn it, I'm going to try.

I'll update you from time to time on my efforts, Blog Friends. Stay tuned!

Good Times for Vegans

Please take a look at Virginia Messina's excellent Blog called The Seattle Vegan Examiner. There is some very good news on there for vegans, courtesy of Vegan.com Blogger Erik Marcus. There are more successful vegan books, movies exposing the brutalities of the factory farm system and the fur industry, and big donors and celebrities backing pro-animal and pro-vegan causes than ever before. It's great to see. The actress Natalie Portman (pictured above) converted to veganism last year (after being a vegetarian for years and years). Portman now has her own line of vegan shoes that are apparently selling like gangbusters (right on, Natalie!!!). More and more food chains are starting to carry vegan food, including Starbucks and the growing cupcake chain Sprinkles.

Things are really looking up for vegans. I remember watching a video on YouTube not too long ago, about the time I was converting over to veganism. One of my favorite actors, Casey Affleck (Gone, Baby Gone and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Bob Ford) was promoting the vegan lifestyle. Affleck has been a vegan for years, since 1995, as a matter of fact. He was discussing how hard it was back in the mid-1990s to find any vegan food anywhere. Vegans were thought of as total freaks back in those days. Now the market for vegan cookbooks has exploded and bookstores have vegan cooking sections, there are vegan mail-order houses across North America specializing in clothing and other vegan goods, and groups such as Vegan Outreach are aggressively promoting vegan living.

Capitalism is all about supply and demand. The best way to change the system is for more and more people to go vegan. If everybody went vegan, the factory farm system would disappear overnight. Change the demand, you change the supply.

(Above: Actress Natalie Portman, fighting the good fight for veganism.)