By admin | July 1, 2009
Submitted by Creature Talk
The weekend of June 13th and 14th I went to an animal rights conference in the Twin Cities called Their Lives, Our Voices. Much like last year, it was awesome. I took notes and hope to write a few entries on what I learned there. For now, I’m going to start with the very last presentation (because I forgot my notebook so I don’t have notes, but it’s still fresh in my memory!) which was given by pattrice jones. It was called “In Defense of Actual Animals”, and it was fantastic. This post won’t do it justice, but I’ll try anyway!
As I sit here writing this, animals across the world are being slaughtered by the thousands every second. Sometimes I think about that and feel completely overwhelmed. As I’m sitting here in my comfy chair, chickens and pigs and cows and so many other kinds of animals are being strung up by their legs and getting their throats cut. Right now, someone is beating a dog, or torturing a cat or a horse. Someone is doing an experiment on a chimp or a rabbit or a rat. And here I sit.
Pattrice’s speech made me even more cognizant of these things when she said that “what matters to animals is what actually happens to them”. Being vegan is helping and is necessary if we’re going to save future animals, but right now animals are still dying by the billions – and me being vegan doesn’t matter one iota to those animals right now. Being vegan is vital…but it’s not enough.
Don’t get me wrong, I never thought that when I went vegan I would be saving the world or saving all the world’s animals or anything. I know that animals will still be dying for food every day. Being vegan, though, allows me to feel at peace with my own conscience when I look in the mirror every day because I’m staying true to my values. That feel-good deed, though, isn’t important to the chickens whose throats are being slit right now. What matters to them is what’s actually happening to them RIGHT NOW.
How very simple! And yet…I had become somewhat complacent in my activism. I thought that if I could at least get the word out about veganism, or encourage people to reduce their animal products intake, I would be doing enough. But it’s not enough if you’re a cow awaiting imminent death in the slaughter line. To her, my veganism doesn’t mean a thing. She will still die today, and someone will eat her flesh tomorrow.
We need to do more. We need to help the animals who are currently suffering in the system. What matters to them is that our actions SAVE THEM.
Now THAT seems even more overwhelming, doesn’t it? I mean, I’d LOVE to start up a sanctuary right now, and open it up to those suffering animals tomorrow. But there’s no way I can do that. So, what can we do?
Pattrice offered up some suggestions, after noting that the reason Big Ag is so powerful is because they have so much money – raising and killing animals for food is profitable business. We need to make it unprofitable. Part of that is decreasing demand – something that hasn’t worked so far (on a pure numbers basis) despite all the vegan converts. Meat consumption just keeps going up and up because they’re finding new markets and getting their current customers to eat event more meat. We do need to continue to get the word out to help decrease de
mand, but we also need to increase their costs of doing business. Passing animal welfare legislation (like the recent victory in CA) is a start, but there’s still a lot of work to do.
We also need to use our individual strengths to help animals as much as we can now. Saving one dog or goat or chicken matters a lot to that one dog or goat or chicken, and that is kind of a powerful thought. We may not be able to save them all, but if you can take in one dog off the street and find her a new home, you’ve made a huge difference to that one dog.
Given my current living situation – a condo association that dictates how many animals I can keep in my home – I’m at capacity and can’t really take in a bunch of strays. Until my situation changes, I’m brainstorming of ways that I could help animals directly now. If anyone has a suggestion, I’d love to hear it! And, if you currently have the capacity or ability to take in foster animals or save animals in some other way, please consider how much your efforts would mean to those animals!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | July 1, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
Yo! It’s me Copper, your favorite Birthday Celebrating hen. Okay, so I’ve been a little loosie-goosie (bird reference, people) since my last entry which was, well, it was awhile ago.
There was a near riot by fellow sanctuary denizens who felt slighted by the fact that I was busy. Yes, it’s true. I was busy. Nesting and pecking at the grass and also falling in love. His name is Arturo, he’s very sweet and saves grapes for me. So you can understand that I had to spend time with him and my nest and the grass.
But now the grass is dead, I am so over the whole broody nesting business and Arturo is still the love of my life but not so overbearing I can’t take some time to update you on the birthdays!
On to the July birthdays! Remember, you can click on the small pictures to see the animals up close and personal (sometimes TOO personal, in my chick-pinion).
This is Olivia and she turns five. She’s a potbellied pig with Personality, some may even say she has bigger Personality than me but that’s crazy. Olivia has been at the sanctuary since she was my size, which is to say perfectly well-proportioned. Someone was selling her at a flea market, which is just as ridiculous as it sounds.
Iris is what I consider a very pretty rabbit. This is because she has spots and I have spots, so we’re practically best friends forever. Iris will be turning four! Now, this will shock you but she was actually stuck in a wire cage for goodness knows how long with a bunch of other rabbits - she could barely turn around! I cannot even imagine. According to the bunny-vine, she’s real popular and hasn’t let the past get in the way of the present, which is why we’re practically best friends forever because this is how I feel too.
Unfortunately, I have to share the chicken enclosure with turkeys. This is a great injustice perpetrated against us chickens by those well-meaning bipeds who do not even realize the great injustice. ANYWAY, I don’t want to detract from the birthday celebrations - this is Zarriah. Along with Serena (who looks just like Zarriah) they are turning 9. These two were found wandering the streets of Napa as wee lasses, probably escapees from a “free-range” farm.
Whoa, another turkey? This is Evil Willow. The bipeds just call her Willow. She is turning three and is a grouchy turkey. She puts on a good front with the bipeds, making them think she’s all nice and sweet. Wrong! Sometimes she pecks us hens on the head! Rude, I think. But Happy Birthday anyways.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | July 1, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
We’ve heard lots of awesome, wonderful things about this past weekend’s Worldwide Vegan Bake Sale, but none could make us more happy than hearing that the San Francisco vegan bake sale made a whopping $3,000!!! Three thousand!! And some of that gets to go to the animals at the sanctuary - Howie says that might be enough cash to make a bath of money big enough for his robust girth! East Bay Animal Advocates, another awesome group, will also receive a portion of the proceeds. Yeah.
We want to thank The Urban Housewife and Vegansaurus for organizing the event and also to the folks who donated their time and baked goods! You made many a vegan and non-vegan happy!! You also made the animals at the sanctuary very happy, even though they tell us Happy to them is Cupcakes + Peppermint Patties + Cookies all in their bellahs.
Read about the success and see some mouth-watering photos (seriously, I nearly licked the screen…Frank the potbellied pig says that’s gross) here at The Urban Housewife. Please leave a nice comment letting them know they rock for organizing the event and that all the bakers and volunteers are full of vegan-love for donating their time and products for this event.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | July 1, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
The Vancouver Humane Society attempted to submit an ad that offered an alternative view to the popular Calgary Stampede and Rodeo. The Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun both refused to publish the ad.
You can see the Vancouver Humane Society’s ad here. In it, a “cowboy” takes down a 3-mos old calf in the “tie-down” roping event in which a frightened calf is released into an arena, followed by a “cowboy” on a horse. The calf is roped by the neck and three of his legs are tied. Now I don’t know about you, but when I’m running full force away from something scary (which I try and avoid), I think it would be quite painful to have a rope flung around my neck (or any part of my body) and yanked forcefully back. I could be a secret masochist and really like that sort of thing, but doubtful.
According to the Vancouver Humane Society, one of the newspapers refused because, in their opinion, they did not agree with the ad. Huh? Since when do you have to agree with an ad that, for all intents and purposes is hardly extreme or over the top, to publish it in your newspaper? Why bother with an opinion section or letters to the editor if dissenting opinion isn’t a viable option? The ad in question doesn’t show gory images. It doesn’t mention the Calgary Stampede specifically. It does not do much but offer a dissenting opinion, that maybe there is something wrong with rodeos and hey! here’s an example.
The Calgary Sun has posted this editorial on why they chose not to run the ad. Poor taste. That’s their reason. Wait, that’s their second reason. Their primary reason is that the Vancouver Humane Society is located in, well, British Columbia which, while in Canada, is not in Alberta. It’s apparently a West Coast versus Midwest feud that us, being in California, totally understand. I mean, hello, we feud with ourselves (Southern Californians remain baffled as to why us Northern Californians refuse to add “the” before Highway 80 or Highway 5). So we can get the “whole outsider” thing (we even shun insiders!). That isn’t a valid reason to offer a dissenting opinion, even if that dissenting opinion comes from fellow Canadians next door or Fresno, in our case. Yes, perhaps 85% of Calgarians love the Stampede but the Stampede is an international affair and maybe, if people knew how cruel some events in the Stampede are by their very nature, they would be less inclined to spend their money in Calgary.
And that, I think, is the REAL issue - economics. The Calgary Stampede is huge. When I say huge, I mean huge. It’s considered an integral aspect of Calgary tourism revenue. Over the course of ten days, more than a million people will visit from dozens of countries. That’s big tourist bucks for Calgary. Or it could be that this event is heralded as The Most Important Cultural Event for Calgary Ever. I don’t know whether to be embarrassed or bemused on behalf of Canadians everywhere that culture is being defined as 2 million dollars in overall prize money (thanks to the federal government), strapping belts onto genitals of wild horses, bringing down 3-mos-old calves or big belts and wranglers. Perhaps that is unfair - after all, we view cattle and horses as animals worthy of respect, compassion and the right to exhibit their natural behaviors in a natural setting. No rodeo can offer that. We have a fundamentally different view on animals than rodeos.
For the farmed animals, that is a good thing. We commend the Vancouver Humane Society for doing what shelters within Alberta refused to do - speak up for the animals.
The Calgary Sun and Herald both accept letters to the editor. Accept probably being defined differently by the two newspapers.
But if you’re a brave soul (and I know you are), then write a letter questioning the ethics of denying an ad based on “economics” and “fear of the outside”…
Calgary Sun: cal-letters@calgarysun.com
Calgary Herald
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | July 1, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
Angus directed me to a story about the Calgary Stampede (rodeo) and the Calgary and Vancouver Humane Societies which had me asking: Whose side are they on?
Here’s the backstory:
- Calgary has what they call a “western culture,” which essentially is their two word justification for abusing animals in the cruel and not-even-close-to fair venue of people-over-animals-who-don’t-stand-a-chance.
- The Vancouver Humane Society wanted to run the calf=baby/roper=bully ad in the Calgary Sun, which decided against the idea as the abuse of animals is part of their “very proud local institution.” The newspaper also claims that the advertising department thought the ad was “offensive” and that is why it wasn’t run.
- The Calgary Humane Society works with the Stampede to make sure the animals are safe (and by the way that’s impossible if the animals are being used in the rodeo. Safe, unharmed rodeo animals is an oxymoron).
- The Vancouver Humane Society wants to ban calf-roping. Not the rodeo. Calf-roping (which of course is a hideous practice, but so are the rest of the animal-related rodeo activities).
Do you see where the average, critical thinker might have a problem with this scenario?
- If the Vancouver Humane Society is on the side of the animals, why focus on calf-roping? I find it hard to believe that that’s the only event they think is a disgusting show of injustice and “bullying.”
- The Calgary Humane Society is just as bad for working with the Stampede. How can any humane society worker honestly say that they want the rodeo to continue? Why on Earth would they work with the rodeo rather than to ban it completely? (This sounds an awful lot like the previous bullet, I know.)
- I don’t really believe the rationales the paper came up with for not running the ad, but that’s just my opinion.
- Then again, the ad begs such a basic question (why calf-roping and not rodeo) that I don’t quite understand the purpose. Will the VHS support the rodeo if calf-roping is banned? That’s what the ad would make me think. Is calf-roping some kind of low-hanging fruit and just the beginning? If so, campaign to ban the rodeo, for heaven’s sake! Just be honest about your goal and campaign for it!
I don’t get the overwhelming feeling that anyone is on the side of the animals, here. When I look at the Humane Society of the United States‘ statement on rodeos, I feel much better. It’s off to a promising start and includes a promising end:
The HSUS opposes rodeos as they are commonly organized, since they typically cause torment and stress to animals; expose them to pain, injury, or even death; and encourage an insensitivity to and acceptance of the inhumane treatment of animals in the name of sport. Accordingly, we oppose the use of devices such as electric prods, sharpened sticks, spurs, flank straps, and other rodeo equipment that cause animals to react violently, and we oppose bull riding, bronco riding, steer roping, calf roping, “wild horse racing,” chuck wagon racing, steer tailing, and horse tripping.
However, the opposition to the use of certain devices tells me that if those devices weren’t used, the rodeo would be acceptable. But the HSUS is by no means an animal-rights organization; it is an animal welfare organization. At least it sounds like it’s interested in the welfare of all animals in the rodeo, while the VHS statement is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst.
What’s the difference between the HSUS and the VHS and CHS? The “western culture” that is allowed to rule. Yes, we have pockets of it, too. And in all cases where there is something held sacred today for the simple reason that it was held sacred yesterday, the people with the voices and the dollars have to stand up and say: This is 2009 and we are better than this. There is no reason to continue to torment sentient nonhumans, and to do so for entertainment and profit is to allow the lowest part of ourselves to rule our behavior.
Societies evolve morally. Perhaps the pace of that evolution is glacial in some areas. The only way to speed up the pace is to stand your ground, not back down, and present a message that makes it clear whose side you’re on.
All rodeos, everywhere, should be banned. Period.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 30, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
In March of 2007 I wrote, “in a horribly-depressing vote of 198-138, New Hampshire’s House voted AGAINST a bill that would shut down live racing at its three greyhound race tracks.” E-mails were exchanged between yours truly and NH legislators, and though I knew the hounds would someday be free of racing, they were going to have to wait at least another year. At least.
Nearly two years later, one of the tracks closed. The Hinsdale track ceased operations in December and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
And this year, according to Tom Fahey in “Dog Racing May Be Gone Forever,” the two tracks that remained “won permission to drop all racing dates. They will continue to operate as simulcast betting centers, and to host gambling events for charities.”
If “won permission” sounds odd, that’s because not every track wants to force live dogs to race. Not because it’s wrong but because for most tracks it’s not profitable. Other types of gambling are profitable, but not usually live dog racing. However, the law in most states where there is live dog racing specifically states that if there is to be gambling there must be live dog racing. So NH tracks “won permission” to drop dog racing, thereby also winning permission to be able to maintain their gambling operations.
This is not a ban on dog racing, but that does often come next.
Thanks to the folks at Grey2KUSA for their tireless efforts for greyhounds.
Finally, I’m off to Orlando to see the neurologist again. Charles looked great the first week after his surgery, and his condition has progressively deteriorated to the point where he is about 80% lame. Not 80% better–80% lame. I’ll tweet (http://www.twitter.com/mary_martin)–or you can see updates over on the right column.
Wish me luck!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 30, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
Other than being a vegan, the most important actions you can take to help animals who are used for food are:
I have always been a believer that film is the ultimate medium for thought change, and then behavior change for the average person. Of course, the precise nature of the film is crucial to its success as a vehicle for conversion, and I’m sure you’ve all seen and perhaps even participated in debates about Earthlings and its degree of efficacy. (As you are likely aware, very few people can actually get through the film in one sitting, plus the first third, about “pets,” sends the troublesome message that puppy mills are the problem, rather than breeding in general.)
What makes Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home the best in vegan education and animal rights education is that, without getting too much into the hideous treatment of anyone, James LaVeck and Jenny Stein (a.k.a. Tribe of Heart) have managed to leave the viewer no option that includes eating animals. The film addresses the humane myth straight on, with unprecedented transparency in the discussions of animal farming, by simply letting its characters tell their personal stories. And the characters know better than anyone that animals cannot be farmed humanely, as they, for the most part, are all people who once profited from the use of animals. (Note: I have not seen the final cut but one prior, and the story remains the same, though the percentage of time devoted to each story might be different.)
I’ve not had great luck veganizing anyone through books. Someone has to be very, very committed to learning and to challenging their thought processes to read a book they know is in direct contrast to the way they think. I’m not saying it cannot or does not happen (e.g., I still hear people say they went vegan after reading Peter Singer).
However, everyone wants to see a good film and even if it’s challenging to the way they think, it’s an under-two-hour commitment and an easier sell.
But in order to make sure that there is broad access to the film, it’s got to make it to the public. And in order for that to happen, it’s got to have funding. You might not be in a position to write a pamphlet or book or blog (or even interested), and even if you are you are there’s no guarantee of your reach or success. But you probably can donate $10 to Tribe of Heart, though you might have to forego a couple of soy lattes.
Give generously to Tribe of Heart. To my knowledge, there is currently no opportunity like this for vegan education. This film does show some anguish in the eyes of animals, and that’s always a very powerful image. But Peacable Kingdom: The Journey Home is the only feature film that shows the anguish in the eyes of people–people who were courageous enough to risk everything by admitting they were wrong and standing up for what is right. I’ll never forget the eyes of the dog who had been shot and was thrown, alive, into a garbage truck as it the truck closes on him in Earthlings. But at the same time, I’ll never forget the haunted eyes of Harold Brown and Cheri Ezell-Vandersluis as they speak about their lives as animal farmers.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 28, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
(Sigh.)
Here’s the idea you have to get used to when it comes to Food Inc.: One message is that there’s nothing wrong with eating animals, and in fact it’s fantastic and thrilling and a win-win-win (people-planet-profits) when you eat animals that were “produced” by Polyface Farms. There’s no remotely vegan or even vegetarian (though I’m not even sure what the latter would look like) message. We eat animals, and the CAFO system is an evil, filthy, cruel one, but it doesn’t have to be that way. The moral of the story is that it’s all about the way we farm animals, not that we farm them that is what needs changing.
Film is a visual medium and through direction, dialogue, editing, music and any effects, the filmmaker presents (in this case) his agenda. And though I left my notebook at home and was one of three audience members at yesterday’s 12:10 pm showing and could easily have taken notes, I think I should be able to say what I need to say without exact quotes.
Everything you need to know about what director Robert Kenner wants to say about animals comes a bit more than half way through the film with what I can only describe as a giddy, ecstatic Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. The tone of the film has just changed from here’s-the-terrible-state-of-affairs to look-how-some-ingenious-individuals-are-doing-it-better, and enter Salatin, grinning ear to ear, as he and his family/friends toss chickens upside down into those cones where only there heads stick out so you can yank said heads and access the attached throats to slit. Then they yank the heads, slit the throats, and de-feather and gut the chickens. And all while inspirational music is playing and a breeze is blowing across the fields on a gorgeous, sunny spring day. They grill the chickens, and trust me when I say it’s all presented as a peak spiritual experience.
Now, if you can get beyond that, and if you haven’t read Pollan and Schlosser and seen King Corn and The Future of Food (both of which are far more thorough on gentically-modified food, corn and Monsanto), you might actually learn something. I tweeted that according to Grist’s “Should You See Food Inc.?” quiz, I got a resounding No, so I did know what I was walking into. The film wasn’t made for me, so it’s almost unfair of me to critique it as I have considering I don’t have the same beliefs as the filmmaker or his main sources when it comes to an enormous component of what/whom he calls “food.”
Here’s the lesson: We have all been lied to about where our food comes from and what goes into making it and who is running the show. We have (and this is true of so many things in this country) the illusion of choice when we go grocery shopping. We are made to believe not only that the tens of thousands of products available in the store come from different companies/sources, but that they are the result of good old fashioned farming that to this day we teach our children about in their books and their toys.
In addition, our system of subsidies has made it so that it is less expensive to exist on fast food than on fruits, vegetables and grains. And then the way we eat causes diabetes. And then the medication we must pay for costs so much that we have to continue to eat fast food rather than choose to eat well because the money that could have gone to eating better has to go to the medication for the disease caused by eating poorly. That’s criminal.
Luckily, we know who the criminals are who have put us in this position: the politicians who either came directly from Monsanto or the poultry farmer’s association to a position of making food policy, or who are simply bought by them. Our own legislators have put us in this position because they and their friends benefit from it. They are in league, also, with the people who continue to strike fear in migrant workers by performing regular arrests (not of managers, though, but of people more easily replaced), and keeping people with no rights terrified, at tremendous physical risk, and extremely poor.
We also know that many companies with admirable business practices have been bought by colossal corporations (e.g., Tom’s of Maine by Colgate, The Body Shop by L’Oreal, Kashi and Mornigstar by Kellogg) and that if voting with your dollars means anything, you need to find out who really owns the food you’re buying.
If you dare, check out this small chart and these diagrams, and also please let me know if you know of any from 2008 or 2009. If there’s a lesson in Food Inc., it’s that you don’t know what’s in your food or where it came from until you read the label, and then investigate beyond the label.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 28, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
People in South Florida are still in an uproar over the mutilation and slaughter of 19 house cats (allegedly) by 18-year old Tyler Weinman, who was declared mentally competent and not a danger to himself or others (!). There have been inquiries as to the possible relationship between his dissection of cats in school and the 19 counts of cruelty he is being charged with. (Felony animal cruelty is the cruel killing of an animal, and he is also being charges with 19 counts of improperly disposing of an animal body.) The four counts of burglary he is being charged with carry a heftier sentence than the animal killing. Weinman had participated in cat dissection in school, and that is being discussed as a possible trigger for his behavior.
The outrage I’ve been seeing and hearing is typical, as we like cats. We humans have decided that, for a combination of reasons that are important to us, cats are worthy of our respect. I do find it interesting that there is a subculture we’ve all seen via vicious bumperstickers that attest to the existence of people who hate–and I mean hate–cats and want to see them dead or dying. I also find it interesting that I’ve never heard of a woman among their ranks. I don’t trust people who hate cats because there’s something else going on there. Cats represent something: independence. Cats are slaves to no one, at least according to their reputation, which in my experience holds true. And people who want to kill those they cannot control scare me.
I can’t think of another animal so hated by humans that they have actually created an industry to publicize their hatred and their wish to hurt and kill them. We don’t say we hate cows. In fact we say we love them. Grilled. We don’t say we hate pigs and want to see them writhing in pain and slaughtered. Pigs definitely don’t get much respect from humans, but the evil (and I can’t think of a better word and I don’t mean it in a religious sense) I see around cat-haters is different. There’s sadism there, and that’s not good.
I don’t know if dissecting a cat corpse can lead to the desire to steal and mutilate 19 live cats; that seems like a stretch. If someone had it in him to kill cats and cut them open and toss out their entrails, I’m fairly certain that cutting open a dead cat isn’t the reason. At some point, he was going to kill cats and cut them open. What is most surprising is that he was declared mentally competent, as mentally competent people don’t go around killing cats.
Or maybe that’s not so surprising.
Mentally competent people, oddly enough, go around mutilating and killing deer and ducks and cougars, though, when doing so either is in season or some governmental body has decided their numbers need trimming. And mentally competent people slice the throats of flailing cows hanging by one leg. And mentally competent people chain calves to crates. And mentally competent people shovel hundreds of day-old male chicks at a time into what is basically a giant blender to be macerated. And mentally competent people tear babies away from their mothers, as both wail in distress and agony. And mentally competent people anally electrocute mink or skin them alive.
And some mentally competent people know that all of this occurs and they still eat and wear animals.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 25, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
In California, animals can legally be sold in parking lots and alongside the road. Animals are often exposed to the elements, left without proper shelter, food and water, and sold in unsanitary conditions. Animals are rarely vet-checked and may pose a health risk to both humans and other animals.
There is a bill, sponsored by the California Animal Association, that would ban the sale of animals in parking lots and alongside the road.
AB 1122, introduced by Assemblymember Lieu passed through the Assembly and is now in the Senate Public Safety committee. We need your help immediately to get this legislation passed!
What you can do:
Please contact members of the Senate Public Safety Committee and ask them to SUPPORT AB1122. This is especially vital for those of you who are members of the senators’ districts. To find out who your legislator is, please go here.
Senate Public Safety Committee Members
Senator Mark Leno: senator.leno@senate.ca.gov
Senator John J. Benoit
Senator Gilbert Cedillo
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Robert Huff
Senator Darrell Steinberg
Senator Roderick Wright
Talking Points:
- Animals sold in parking lots and along the road may have serious health problems that show up soon after purchase
- Animals pose a health risk due to unsanitary housing conditions
- Animals are not treated by veterinarians
- Animals may not be provided proper food and water
Please contact the Public Safety committee members as soon as possible - the animals thank you!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 24, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
That’s right, Summer and Freedom, have decided to bare it all in this shocking new photo! We warn you, there are a couple of cute little calf tooshes in this photo - it may not be work or child safe!
All kidding aside, this photo shows the primary reasons Summer and Freedom were not bought by any of the farmers at the auction. Freedom doesn’t have a tail and may have problems in the future because of it (he will definitely have many fly-woes). Summer (foreground) is very skinny and was very sickly when he first arrived. Because of his sickness, he lost a lot of hair that is - thankfully - growing back in wonderfully.
These two little guys are the dark underbelly of the dairy industry - the cruelty behind that glass of milk. Male dairy calves are absolutely worthless; farmers make no money off of them, even at auction. They are treated like trash.
But now they are happy and safe. It is a joy to watch them revel in being Calf Who Runs Free and Calf who Chews Hair. They prance and leap, exuding the carefree energy of the young. It will be fun watching them grow up, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it too!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 24, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
n Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA. Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, herbicide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won’t go bad, but we also have new strains of E. coli—the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.
Learn more
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 22, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
Stephanie’s post about “The Compassionate Hypocrite” on Saturday reminded me of what Catherine Friend and other “compassionate carnivores” are doing in addition to twisting the definition of compassionate beyond recognition. Their claim is that what has become the customary way to take sentient nonhumans from babyhood to untimely death is not humane. It’s cruel. There’s no “compassion” in the process. It’s impersonal and hideously ugly and the animals suffer greatly.
No argument here.
However, the solution they have created, which harkens back to before industrialized agriculture, is simply to still raise animals for their flesh and secretions, and for profit, but to do it the old-fashioned way. No factory farms, no large-scale operations where animals are crammed together under a roof, never to see the light of day. No hormones, no “feed” that is unnatural for them and/or genetically modified.
I’d say no argument here if this were some kind of sanctuary situation, and the animals were in need of a loving home for the rest of their lives. But the entire purpose, which cannot be glossed over with any amount of creepy love letters, is that Friend and her ilk are being kind to the animals because they believe animals who are less stressed are tastier, and because, just like the CAFO owners, they will profit from their efforts (and perhaps more, as they charge a premium).
Yes, I do think it’s better to have lived a comfortable life and then be slaughtered than to have been tortured the entire time and then be slaughtered.
But looking at it that way is allowing Friend and others to distract you from a far more important issue: none of this is necessary or justified. No one needs to eat sentient beings, so it’s not as if these “farmers” are providing a valuable service to humanity. And regardless of how you treat someone when they’re live and regardless of how you kill them, if you don’t need to kill them and you’re doing so merely to please your palate, how do you justify what you’re doing? You can’t (at least not in a meaningful way).
Getting people to move their focus from the final chapter of the story of the animals–and I don’t mean how they died, but that they died–allows you to appear to be the good guy. It allows you to swoop in with an alternative to the disgraceful human behavior that is factory farming and provide a kindler, gentler way to partake of the flesh of others. And if those whom you’re addressing are willing to drink the KoolAid you’re serving, plenty of profit awaits.
But the real good guy is the one who, like Cheri and Jim and Howard and Harold says (and this is my paraphrasing of everyone): Yes, I have profited from the lives and deaths of sentient nonhumans. And now I regret that because I realize there is simply no way to raise an animal with the intent to kill that animal and call it anything but betrayal. I wouldn’t do it to a dog, and I shouldn’t do it to a chicken/sheep/cow/pig. It’s just not right.
Betrayal, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
1. A treacherous giving up to an enemy. (Here, that enemy being Death.)
2. A violation of trust or confidence, an abandonment of something committed to one’s charge.
Interesting definitions of betray include:
2. a. To be or prove false to (a trust or him who trusts one); to be disloyal to; to disappoint the hopes or expectations of.
4. a. To lead astray or into error, as a false guide; to mislead, seduce, deceive (the trustful).
There is no question about the motive here: seduce the sheep into believing you care so that they are easier to deal with and easier to lead to slaughter. At least CAFO owners don’t use that kind of deceit–of their customers, the animals and themselves.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 21, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
This is Tulip. Now, I usually associate spring and vibrancy with tulip. Tulip the hen begs to differ. In her opinion, Tulip is angry and full of haughty glares of disdain. We are okay with this Tulip. Spices things up a bit.
Chickens aren’t the only residents here, there are turkeys too. And sometimes, rarely really, the chickens and turkeys connect in a positive way. Newman is the rooster on the left and Zarriah is the turkey hen on the right. Newman has been following Zarriah around lately, and this was just a sweet moment of togetherness. No pecking (normal), no fights, no fear, just two different species reaching out.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 21, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
Someone on Twitter said The International was the best film he’d seen in years. I think it was in theaters here for all of a week, which is a good sign, as the better a film is, the shorter its tenure at the local multiplex in South Florida. But you only find out how long it’s in the theater when it leaves, and by then it’s too late to see it. Interesting quandary if you’re playing the I’ll-find-it-somewhere-next-week game.
Was it a great film, in my opinion? Not fantastic, but good. But what kept my interest was the topic, and how true it is (badly phrased–weapons sales aren’t so much about controlling the war but controlling the debt). And there are loads of goofs that confused me and made me stop and rewind to determine if my eyes were wrong. Then there were the predictable twists.
And some of the dialogue was of on-the-nose variety that all screenwriting books tell you to avoid like the plague. But the dialogue I liked was of the Greek chorus-variety or even the “Confucius say . . .”. My favorite lines were:
- I’m more comfortable tense.
- What you need to remember is that there’s what people want to hear, what people want to believe, everything else, and then there’s the truth. . . . The truth means responsibility . . . . That’s why everyone dreads it.
- The difference between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense.
- Character is easily kept than recovered.
- Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.
Thanks to my dad, on Father’s Day, with whom we studied film as he studied film at Columbia when we were tots, for teaching me what to look for when I see, and listen for when I hear. And also for teaching me that just because a film or an idea isn’t popular, doesn’t mean it isn’t great.
Happy Father’s Day!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 21, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
Bea sent me a link to an article in Gourmet called “Humane Slaughterhouses,” by Rebecca Marx, that is absurd. And the absurdity is in the reality that the author and the featured person who kills sentient nonhumans for a living, think they’re onto something. And they were, before they stopped their train of thought prior to it reaching its most important station.
Let’s deconstruct:
- The heading is: “Okay, so your steak comes from a cow that lived a happy life–but how did that life end?” It’s a cow who–who–lived an allegedly happy life. And I guess this is where the pro-death penalty people might have an argument. They believe you can take a life that doesn’t want to be taken in a humane way, and I don’t agree. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
- The voice of Temple Grandin is of course the foundation. And when that happens, you know what direction you’re headed: the justification of taking the lives of sentient nonhumans to please the palates of humans.
- The second paragraph needs to be looked at sentence by sentence. “While plenty of people pay attention to the question of what it means to raise an animal humanely, far fewer stop to consider the notion—and the ostensible paradox—of humane slaughter.” It’s not an ostensible paradox; it’s an actual paradox. But of course the success of the author in manipulating the reader depends on the reader’s belief that the paradox is indeed “ostensible.”
- Interestingly, the campaigns of happy meaters are acknowledged for perhaps being somewhat of a scam with the next sentence. “Words like ‘pastured,’ ‘grass-fed,’ and ‘free-range’ are now synonymous with quality meat; they carry a potent if symbolic meaning that has eased many a consumer’s conscience and driven many a marketing campaign.” Potent if symbolic? In other words, it’s a scam.
- Finally, “But the idea of how an animal meets its ultimate fate is usually ignored—until, of course, we see YouTube videos of sick cows being hauled to their deaths on bulldozers.” The animal is an “it,” but I wouldn’t expect anything more in this type of article. And though being hauled to their death on a bulldozer is terrible, any other form of slaughter at the hands of another, on that other’s timeline and terms, is nevertheless slaughter. It is murder. But by presenting that example to the reader, the author positions herself to then present an alternative that is worlds better by comparison. And perhaps that “better” will distract the reader from the undeniable fact of the unjust slaughter.
- The featured slaughterer is Bev Eggleston of EcoFriendly Foods, who says, “My perspective of what is humane is broader than how you harvest a cow. It’s how we treat humans, too. . . . To treat animals fairly, he needs to treat his workers fairly.” Wait . . . harvest?
- Here’s where the train of thinking falls short of the station: “Because of his plant’s small size (it employs 15 laborers), his unwavering conviction that ‘the animal needs to be respected,’ and his concern for his workers’ welfare, Eggleston’s operation is an expensive and relatively inefficient one.” Seriously, folks, if you are going to respect someone, you’re not going to hold them captive and kill them. What kind of definition of respect includes: I don’t need to kill you but I’m going to because it will make me money?
- The chef’s perspective is represented by Dan Barber, who serves Eggleston’s meat. “For him, the importance of humane slaughter manifests itself in the quality of the meat.” The needs of the cow aren’t even mentioned. That sounds a lot more honest to me.
- At last we come to Grandin’s thoughts: “Ultimately, for Grandin, ‘humane’ is a loaded word. ‘I’d rather say low-stress, painless slaughter,’ she says—ideally as stressful as a vaccination shot. The biggest obstacle, she feels, is quantity. ‘Quality and quantity are two opposing goals,’ Grandin says. ‘But there’s a sensible balance.’” Where to begin . . . All you need to know is one word: slaughter. The rest is just noise trying to distract you from what’s really going on.
For all of the verbiage that is supposed to convey legitimate care, and care that is above and beyond the norm, one thing will always be true: these people are in the business of killing sentient nonhumans for profit. They have no moral justification for taking the lives of the nonhumans other than that certain humans like the taste of their flesh but don’t want to do the killing themselves.
It’s absurd that this has to be said, but respecting the needs of cows is the same thing as respecting the needs of dogs. It involves not killing them. Not eating them. And there’s no way around that. Even death by vaccination shot doesn’t change that.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 19, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
A very provocative article in the most recent edition of Johns Hopkins Magazine entitled “Farmacology”.
For decades, the livestock industry has perpetrated a grave injustice by providing subtherapeutic levels of antimicrobials in animal feed. The use of antimicrobials, some the same or in the same family as antibiotics used in humans, increases the growth rate of animals and farmers are always looking for ways to get animals fatter, cheaper and quicker.
Knowledge that subtherapeutic use could increase antibiotic resistant bacteria isn’t new. Alexander Fleming warned in 1945 that his discovery, penicillin, when used in doses insufficient to treat disease could create penicillin-resistant bacteria. In 1951, UC Davis scientists published a paper that subtherapeutic use of streptomycin in turkeys resulted in streptomycin-resistant coliform bacteria (within three days, no less).
What is so disturbing about the use of antibiotics in the livestock sector is the abject lack of transparency. There are no federal or state laws that require farmers to share the nutrient content of animal feed nor are there reporting regulations. We don’t know how much antibiotics are being used - we just know that it’s a lot and that the antibiotics are ending up in our air and water. Best guesses put it at between 17-24 million pounds of antibiotics are used as additives annually (guesses that the pork and broiler industry folks consider outlandishly high, no surprise there).
In the article, an experiment is described in which researchers traveled behind a truck transporting broiler birds to the slaughterhouse. Air measurements for enterococci bacteria were taken before and after. Prior to driving behind these trucks, samples taken from the air and from surfaces in the vehicle showed no antibiotic-resistant enterococci bacteria. After the trip? A quarter of the bacteria were resistant to several antimicrobials, including tetracycline, erythomycin and streptomycin. Scary stuff.
I think the essence of this issue is summed up by a quote at the end from Ellen Silbergeld (PhD) who has done numerous studies on the issues of antibiotic resistance.
These are feed additives. It’s like using antibiotics as hair dye. We have this practice of permitting the addition of almost any antibiotic that you can think of to animal feed, for no therapeutic purpose, under conditions that absolutely favor the rise of resistancy. We have no controls or management of these wastes. Our food safety system is a shambles. This is a situation that is widely recognized by the World Health Organization, the American Medical Assocation, and by others, and nothing happens! It’s astounding to me!…..
Sometimes I think we’re such a dumb species, we don’t deserve to survive on this planet. I mean, how many times do we have to do this?”
Thousands of people die annually from antibiotic resistance. Thousands. Now some of it could be due to overuse of antibiotics in the human medical field. But certainly the situation is exacerbated exponentially by using antimicrobials in a manner that is certain to create a friendly environment for resistance.
Choosing a vegan and vegetarian diet is certainly helpful as it reduces the demand for cheap meat, dairy and eggs. But we must all pull together to stop this - vegans and vegetarians won’t be saved from antibiotic resistance when the bacteria can travel from person-person, fly-person or from simply traveling behind a tractor hauling birds to their death.
There are two federal bills that would phase out the use of antimicrobials as additives:
H.R. 1549 and S. 619 - you can ask your respresentatives to co-sponsore the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act by using this form.
You can learn more here at saveantibiotics.org (a website of the Pew Charitable Trusts).
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 17, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
We bloggers often get e-mails from individuals and organizations in search of promotion. And that’s fine, as we all want to spread the news of fantastic work that needs support. Case in point: AnimalEquality.
But there are two types of requests that are irksome to me:
1. People I hear from only when they want me to promote them, and I have never asked them to promote me (I’m terrible at that) nor have they ever done it of their own accord. I should recognize their work, yet they won’t recognize mine. And though it’s not a colossal problem by any means, it’s annoying for a moment, and with the world being the way it is, I have enough to be annoyed about.
2. People who want me to promote them but they clearly haven’t spent any meaningful time reading what I have written. They probably have a list of people whom they blast an e-mail to, changing only the field after the Dear in the letter, and they hope some of them will stick. And that’s when I get e-mails like this:
Dear Mary
I’m Caroline and I’m one of the Supporter Services team members for Compassion in World Farming.
Having read your blogs I thought you might like to hear about Compassion in World Farming’s Bake with Compassion fundraising week.
From the 6th -10th of July we are asking everyone to get their aprons on and bake with free-range or organic eggs.
By encouraging people to bake with higher welfare eggs (as well as organic milk, butter and chocolate) vital funds will be raised to campaign against battery cages. We are hoping you might be interested in spreading word of the event to readers of your blog, or may know someone who would like to blog about this fundraising event.
Now, I’m the first one to say that when I began blogging I thought the end of the use of animals would never come, so in the meantime, welfare reforms could at least be supported. But that was back in 2006. And if Compassion in World Farming wanted to see if I knew of their campaigns and might want to support them, they could have easily Googled CIWF right at Animal Person, at which point they’d find:
When someone takes the time to write a personal e-mail and it’s obvious they’ve interacted with me and readers or at least know what I stand for, and their cause is aligned, I’m always happy to oblige. It’s not as if I have an enormous readership, and certain folks stay away because it’s not in my nature to travel with any flock, but if I can make even a small contribution to someone who does great work, I’m thrilled.
Note to Compassion in World Farming: I want to see the end of farms that use sentient nonhumans. An end. Not a change in the way they do things. An end.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 16, 2009
Submitted by Animal Place Sanctuary
Our youngest and most recent residents are two adorable Jersey calves - Summer and Freedom.
Both were rescued from an auction where calves were being sold for between $3-20. The calves were all male, all Jerseys or Holsteins - all byproducts of the dairy industry.
We’ll be reporting on the experience at auction in our next newsletter. For now, please enjoy a photo of the two little ones.
Aren’t they precious?
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 16, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
It never ceases to amaze me that people will get upset about the death of an animal whose killing was their job.
This time, and thanks to a tweet from CaptainGraviton, it’s “beef farmer” Jim McDougal in Scotland. In “Cows Killed by Lightning Strike,” by Angie Brown of the BBC Scotland, which today was updated to “Lightning Strike Kills Bullocks,” we learn that Mr. McDougal was “very upset,” numb and shocked by “the carnage he saw.” That carnage wasn’t observed after the animals were slaughtered, but before he could get to slaughter them. The evildoer responsible for the carnage . . . was lightning.
What I don’t understand is why this moment was so upsetting to Mr. McDougal. Perhaps he can no longer profit from the animals. But if he can still carve them up or have them carved up, it would seem to me that nature merely helped him do his job, no? They were going to die anyway, as that’s why they were brought into this world–to be slaughtered. Why the phony concern over the death of animals?
And finally, wherever the animals were to be slaughtered and whether or not it was scheduled to be at the hand of Mr. McDougal, in that place, at that moment, would Mr. McDougal use the word “carnage” and would he be “very upset” or numbed by what he saw?
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By Compassionate1 | June 16, 2009
Save New York City’s Canada Geese
Protest the Killing
Tuesday, June 16 @ 12:00 pm
Join Win Animal Rights this Tuesday, as we protest the planned killing of 2,000 Canada Geese by New York City. In a program devised by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office and with the complicity of the Port Authority, New York City is about to start rounding up geese in the vicinity of the city’s airports in an alleged effort to make the sky safer for air travellers.
This is just another sham to make New Yorkers feel that the Mayor is concerned about safety instead of his own shameful re-election to an illegal third term. A term that is unethical and contrary to the will of the people, who have voted twice for term limits, which Bloomberg has conveniently overlooked.
In the face of compelling evidence that the birds killed in the recent airline incident which forced the landing of a jet on the Hudson River were migratory geese, the Mayor and the Port Authority are planning to slaughter 2,000 geese that had nothing to do with the problem. Geese that are currently molting and unable to fly will be captured and put into trucks where they will be killed with lethal gas.
Has anyone considered that the geese they are about to kill had nothing to do with the accident? Has anyone considered that there are alternatives (dogs, chemical repellents, etc.) to lethal measures? Has anyone considered the environmental impact of the planned killing? Has anyone considered the costs of this program, at a time when city services are being drastically reduced because of financial constraints?
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - 2:00 pm
Where: Port Authority Headquarters
225 Park Avenue South (18th & 19th Sts.)
We are sorry for the short notice, but this plan to kill our geese was only made public a couple of days ago and the killing is scheduled to begin on Monday, June 15, 2009. Animal advocates were not given any advance notice and the plan was put into effect with no period for public comment. This from a Mayor who claims to speak for the people.
Other events are being planned including one targeting the cold uncaring Bloomberg.
If you cannot participate in the protest, please take the following action:
Contact Mayor Bloomberg:
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10020-1175
PHONE 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK outside NYC)
FAX (212) 788-2460
e-mail: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html
Contact the Port Authority:
Ray Tragale
Deputy Director
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
225 Park Avenue South, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 435-3730
Port Authority Corporate Headquarters
General number: (212) 435-7000
Public Affairs: (212) 435-7777
(Get a live person on the line and demand to speak to someone about the Canada Geese — keep calling until they respond)
Fax: (212) 435-4032
Anthony R. Coscia,
Chairman, Board of Commissioners
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
Phone: (732) 846-2120 (direct line), 732-846-7600 (general number for Mr. Coscia’s law firm)
Fax: (732) 846-8877
On-line Feedback form for Port Authority Board of Commissioners:
http://www.panynj.gov/feedback.php
Coming events: Mark your calendars now!
June 20 & 21 - June Justice Weekend - Protests on behalf of Prisoners of Conscience
June 26 - 28 - Let Live Conference - Portland, Oregon
July 16 - 20 - AR2009 National Animal Rights Conference - Los Angeles
(see the WAR calendar at Yahoo for details and web-links)
Visit the WAR Calendar for future events: http://calendar.yahoo.com/winanimalrights
Visit the WAR MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/winanimalrights
Visit WAR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Win-Animal-Rights/25169195791
For more info contact Win Animal Rights at: winanimalrights@optonline.net
Call: 646.267.9934 or visit the WAR website at: http://war-online.org
By admin | June 15, 2009
Submitted by Creature Talk
Several years ago my now 59 year old father had a heart attack. It wasn’t a major heart attack, but it has definitely caused him problems. He’s been on medication since it happened, and has regular stress tests to see if the damage to his heart has progressed. Thankfully, up until this last time, his heart showed no additional signs of damage….but his test a few weeks ago had a different result. His cardiologist told him that another part of his heart that previously hadn’t showed any damage now was. The doctor gave him 2 choices: proceed with an angioplasty now, or take 6 months to change his lifestyle and see if his condition improved. After asking what the latter would mean, he decided to take that option.
So, what lifestyle changes did the cardiologist recommend? First, he said my dad needs to lose weight, and that he should do this in two ways: 1) by walking at least 2 miles every day, and 2) by changing his diet dramatically.
Let me explain to you exactly what I mean by “dramatically” in the case of my father: this was a man who ate beef at least once a day, if not more, for the majority of his life. He ate high fat, high cholesterol meats and other animal byproducts. Butter, ice cream, cheese, steak, pork, eggs – you name it, he ate it. He would stop at fast food restaurants and get 2-3 burgers to eat over the course of a few hours. At this last visit, however, his doctor told him that his diet should be primarily plant-based – 80% at a minimum, but the more the better. He said no more red meat, no more high fat dairy products, etc. This prescription would be a hard for a lot of omnivores, but for a farm-raised, country boy like my dad, it was a pretty tall order.
In the past month, however, he and my mother have been eating almost exclusively vegetarian, and have even switched from using butter (a staple for them) to using Earth Balance. My mom asked me for healthy vegan recipes, and has been cooking completely differently than she had been. My dad has taken to walking and is getting in some cardio almost every day. And guess what? In about a month, he’s already lost 16 pounds, and he feels great! And probably most amazing of all is that he says he doesn’t even really miss meat. Usually I say that when people start eating healthy vegetarian food, they WON’T miss meat, but my dad was just such a meat lover that I didn’t know if that would be the case. I am thrilled that it is. I’m thrilled that he’s feeling good and losing weight, I’m thrilled that both my parents are eating fewer animal products, and mostly I am thrilled that he’s making this effort for his health. I want him to be around for a long time, and unless he does this, that just won’t happen.
And maybe, just maybe, if he keeps this up and works hard, these new lifestyle changes can even reverse the damage already done to his heart. I am hopeful that it will!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By admin | June 14, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
I watched Home earlier in the week and you can watch it on YouTube here, though a huge flat screen is definitely preferable. You get the idea at YouTube but the experience is vastly different on a great television.
Home reminded me of Winged Migration in a couple of ways: the sweeping cinematography and the score. (Important differences between Home and Winged Migration include that the latter had staged scenes, computer generated scenes, took over three years longer to shoot and had narration that was largely superfluous.) The cinematography did present a bit of a problem for me in that I often had difficulties with scale–I didn’t know how wide or large things were, and though it might not necessary to know, I like to nonetheless. Also, there was something odd in the editing of Glenn Close’s narration and often words would come in late and cut off, not to mention there were grammatical errors that drove me bananas.
And now that I’ve said all of that you might notice when you probably wouldn’t have otherwise.
My husband watched the film over several days and took notes, which was most impressive. And he texted or Facebooked friends with various statistical tidbits and a recommendation to watch the film. As I’ve written previously, I never pushed him to go vegan, and now that he is I don’t push him to do any vegan education. But he has come to that desire on his own, and has found his way of reaching people in his alien world of alpha male types, and I think that’s fantastic and I certainly would never have been able to do it.
It’s amazing to observe as someone learns about what we humans have done to this planet in such a short period of time, and how dire the situation really is. You can read about it all day long (or be lectured about it by your spouse), but to see it, and filmed so magnificently, is more powerful. Plus though the film isn’t long (under two hours), it covers an enormous amount of ground (!), not deeply of course, but sufficiently so you get a clear picture that is impossible to deny.
On the animal front, there is definitely a message that factory farming is unsustainable, and that subsistence farming is and was preferable; there is a vague if-we-did-it-differently-it-might-be-sustainable message. But with so many other topics to cover, such as water and oil, that message that happy meat is acceptable doesn’t even get any airtime.
I would like to have seen action points in the film: things the average person can do to stop our hyperspeed collision course with the annihilation of all of our planet’s natural resources (and by consequence Earth’s nonhuman and human inhabitants). I think that any film that presents a problem should also provide solution. But that’s me.
Thumbs up, watch it, pass it around, and discuss thereafter.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
By Compassionate1 | June 12, 2009
Be sure to see and sign the petition;
http://animalnews2.blogspot.com/2009/06/ny-to-gas-2000-wild-geese.html
By admin | June 12, 2009
Submitted by Animal Person
Here’s an e-mail from a linguistics junkie for your consideration . . .
Is using the word “bullshit” un-vegan? Does it perpetuate linguistic-based speciesism? Ditto with horseshit, chickenshit, dogshit — they’re speciesist by default, if not always used in a speciesiest context.
I never associate the word with actually shit from a bull. BUT… we need new words that are cut free from exploitation. Just as people have chosen to jettison their slave names sometimes generations later, it’s never too late to get the exploitation out of our words.
Also, I think it is easier than most people think to create new words. Especially if there’s a need for a better word. And everyone has their private vocabularies among their kids or friends.
I invented a word couple years ago, which quickly took root among friends: Whiffdoodle.
Here’s the definition:
wiffdoodle - Also spelled “whiffdoodle.” The iteration of an idea or plan (for an invention, business, civic improvement, etc.) which one knows he or she will never have the time, energy, or talent to execute. e.g., Chris: I had a high-quality wiffdoodle the other day. Wanna hear it? Cindy: Chris, your entire life is a wiffdoodle.
In a very short time, it’s become very natural to the friends of mine who use it. It works, has a Roald Dahl quality to it. And the meaning is clear.
The lesson: If you pick the right phonemes (memorable, fit with existing ways of making words, etc.), you can easily get new words into use.
So here’s a whiffdoodle: A book or series of books (maybe just a wiki) of replacement words for speciesist terms — of which there must be thousands.
For “bullshit,” I’m still trying to find a substitute in my own vocabulary — once I do, will let you know.
Any ideas? Any thoughts on the speciesism or un-veganness of “bullshit”?
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
