You can call on beauty still and it will leap from all directions

You can call on beauty still and it will leap
from all directions

you can write beauty into the cruel file
of things done things left undone but

once we were dissimilar
yet unseparate that's beauty that's what you catch

Adrienne Rich
from Part 7 of "Calle Vision"
from Dark Fields of the Republic

I was thinking about hope and this is where I wound up. Going back to Adrienne Rich and knowing how right she is. In every part of "Calle Vision" actually, because it's a lot about the terrible things we do to animals and each other. But it's also about finding yourself, however broken, and knowing that it's still better to go on than to give up.

I was finishing up Pattrice Jones' AfterShock as well, and pondering this question: how do I make myself useful. Given everything, where do I go, what do I do?

Pattrice talked about the healing power of the narrative, because until we can connect one event to another we can't make sense of them. But to me it is more than this. The narrative is my form of communication. To me there is never a concept independent of circumstance. Instead we are caught up in time and place and what we believe and what we do are intrinsically tied to those things. So I tell stories and I hope those stories convey what matters most to me, and I hope they help.

I was feeling lost in arguments, terrified by the cruelty all around me, and saddened by the indifference I see in response to that cruelty. So many people walking around numb. They don't want anyone or anything to get hurt, but they can't feel it or know it when it happens. So they stay numb until someone manages to hit a raw nerve and then they lash out wildly against that pain. And I thought about Pattrice's words, that this is all part of our fracture, our internal fractures, the fractures that divide us from the earth, from the animals, and from each other.

So to get back to myself I had to call on beauty again. I didn't go to work today. I took the day off and took the dogs to Greenbelt Park. It's not a big park, it's not spectacular. There are no falls or unexpected rock formations. Instead we, the dogs and I, spent our morning in the green leaves and saw three turtles, two deer, and countless butterflies. One spicebush swallowtail fluttered near my face for a moment and then as she flew away her wing brushed my cheek. Even with the trash, the drought, and everything, Rich was right, beauty rushed from all directions. Life was everywhere. Deer grazing. Frogs swimming. Insects buzzing and gathering and fluttering. All those tiny creatures living just as they should, their miniature bodies seeking food and moisture and enjoying another sunny day. Who would deny them this?

August was the cruelest month...

Well, not really, but I like to misquote Elliot whenever I get the chance.

I'm taking a couple days off from work to get my head on straight again and maybe do some hardcore cleaning.

I feel like lately all I have are thoughts bouncing around in my head and nothing focused for a post.

After nearly losing two of our rescued cats earlier in the month, I could escape the evidence of cruelty in my own neighborhood.

Months ago someone had murdered the beautiful heron that frequented our tiny litter-filled park. Stumbling on his body, just too late to help, was a terrible thing. Knowing that someone purposefully killed this beautiful creature was worse.

More recently walking the dogs I found a beheaded robin and a beheaded starling, but all around me my neighbors were planting flowers and setting up bird feeders. It seemed incongruous, this stuff going on while older women in bright sun dresses put up signs saying "welcome to granny's garden."

The cat poisonings stopped as mysteriously as they began. Possibly because Sean had given our prime suspect a firm talking too and our neighbor Stuart was observed saying loudly outside that if he figured out who was doing it he wasn't going to bother with any cops.

Then the other day, walking the dogs, Stuart came out to tell me that somehow one of the male ferals looked burned and he was worried someone had done it on purpose. The good news is the cat, now named Shorty, is living on Stuart's porch now and is all healed up. We don't know what happened. It could have been anything, but with the attacks on wildlife, I do wonder. In a neighborhood of mostly nice people, one sociopathic individual can still wreak havoc.

Yesterday walking the dogs Stuart came out to talk to me again, mainly to ask me if I'd feed some of the ferals over the weekend since he'd be out of town. Then he wanted to talk about Michael Vick. He said "Neva, I know you're a vegan (he pronounced it vaaaaay-gun) and I read Courtland Milloy comparing dog fighting to eating meat, but it ain't the same, it just ain't the same. Somethings wrong with someone who could do that to dogs."

I couldn't disagree with him on that point, there's something deeply wrong with someone who can kill animals and take pleasure in fighting them and hurting them. But I couldn't get too in depth with the topic since he then said that "the skeeters were eating him alive so he had to get inside."

But maybe there's also something wrong in a world where so many of us are so blind to so much pain all around us. There are sociopaths and then there are people who care but turn it off in various ways because caring hurts too much. I can turn it off to some extent as well naturally. To not do so is to become completely overwhelmed. But at some point I hope more of us can wake up and start making changes. Most people, my co-workers, my neighbors, abhor cruelty. They think less of people who are purposefully cruel, yet through their buying habits they support cruelty. How do we bridge the disconnect? Keep reminding them? Bring them vegan cupcakes on holidays?

Renting Dogs?

Just a quickie to comment on the recent story about a company that rents out dogs by the hour.

Many of us in the rescue/animal welfare/animal rights community have been upset by this story because it seems to reduce dogs to the level of other rented things--cars and tuxes. It's also disturbing because it fails to acknowledge that dogs bond with their caretakers and need a consistent home, a routine, and pack-feeling they get when they bond closely with a few people.

I read the whole thing and wondered who would ever be willing to pay for such a service.

For people who love dogs but don't have the time or energy to adopt one there are always options.

When my aunt was first diagnosed with cancer she longed to adopt a dog, but she couldn't in good conscience do it because she didn't know how long she'd be able to care for a dog. Her prognosis wasn't good and she feared that any dog she took in would outlive her and face upheaval and possible homelessness. So my aunt found the perfect solution--she made friends with a person in her building who had a dog and dog-sat and dog-walked this neighbor dog when she felt up to it. This brought the affection and company of a dog into her life and helped out her busy neighbor as well. And it was good for the dog to get the extra attention.

Others find they can satisfy their dog-nurturing urges on a part time basis by either fostering dogs for a rescue group, or just spelling the full-time fosterer off by taking the dogs to the dog park for an afternoon. Dog lovers can volunteer at a shelter, they can help out at adoption fairs, and they can always dog-sit for friends and family.

Dogs take a lot of time and care, and I applaud those who are responsible enough to wait to adopt until they are sure they can provide the perfect home. But sometimes you just need to go running with a dog, or get a sloppy lick across the face. There are tons of good options without resorting to "renting" a dog.

I've been quiet: a few good things.

I had a conversation about veganism in the locker room tonight, sparked by wearing my vegan shirt. So that's a good thing. The two women I talked to seemed interested in trying some vegan foods I suggested. Everything is always kind of awkward and rushed in the locker room so we didn't get too in depth.

Liam and Squeaker are well, so that's in the positive column. Liam is usually so scared of people, he cringes if I reach out to touch him. No, I wasn't mean to him, it's just a feral thing. Anyway, since I took care of him when he was sick he's been coming to cuddle with me sometimes. Of course he wakes me up at like 4:00 AM by kneading on me with his claws. But I'm just so happy he's better I can't complain.

I really, really love this stuff I got. It's a hemp/avocado/olive body oil in vanilla bean fragrance by Althaea herbals. I have really dry skin so a lot of lotions just aren't enough, but at the same time I have sensitive skin and most skin oils irritate my skin. This stuff is incredible, my skin is insanely soft.

I ate mujadara for lunch for day. So awesome!

Walking the dogs today I saw something that I thought were little bits of white plastic by a hole in the sand, I looked closer and realized that they were the shells from turtle eggs and the baby turtles had hatched and pushed on out of the sand. Which is a great thing to think about, though unfortunately I didn't get to see any baby turtles.

The gas company came and finally fixed the leaking gas pipes on our street and didn't even have to hurt our tree, which I'd been worried about. And yay hopefully no more overwhelming gas smell and houses blowing up (that didn't happen in our neighborhood but in District Heights). But we'd been calling the gas company for the longest time.

Survivors: Vulnerability

I have not been posting the survivors writing exercises lately. Many are just too close to the bone, so to speak, and putting them out there into the ether seems strange.

So it was somewhat coincidental that the most recent writing exercise was on vulnerability. Do we avoid the appearance of vulnerability? Do we fear vulnerability so much that we can’t even admit to ourselves when we need help?

To put this stuff out on my blog is in itself an admission of vulnerability. I know that there are people in the world who like to probe others for a sore spot, the slightest bit of weakness and then exploit that. There are others who respond to an admission of vulnerability with their own flood of emotion, relieved that someone else expressed fear or weakness or pain, because now they feel they have permission to express their own emotions.

I’ve been reading Pattrice Jone’s Aftershock recently and I have to admit it’s very interesting and also very reassuring. So I’m sure many ideas I’ll cover here can be traced back to her.

One thing that keeps striking me over and over is how our very denial of own vulnerability can lead us down a path where we stop seeing the pain of others. If we need to believe we are always right (in other words we are not vulnerable to making mistakes) then it is hard to admit that we’ve hurt other people or hurt animals. If we need to be right all of the time, then we can’t allow ourselves to reconsider our past actions, including the harm we may have done to animals by eating them or the products from their bodies or wearing their skins.

If we can’t admit that we ourselves hurt, then it is difficult to understand the pain of others. This might mean turning a blind eye to humans that are being exploited and it might mean telling ourselves that animals don’t mind their confinement, enslavement and eventual deaths for our purposes.

If we can’t allow ourselves to understand that we sometimes need help, how can we comprehend a world out there full of others, human and non-human who are suffering and can’t protect themselves, who are dying and can’t defend themselves, who live only to satisfy the capricious needs of their captors? We can’t admit that this happens because to empathize with that total lack of control means understanding that we ourselves could, if only for a few different turns in our lives, be reduced to a position of zero control.

I am so grateful for everyone who has offered me a helping hand through life. I like to feel that I’m pretty tough and I can take care of myself, but there are definitely days when the only things keeping me sane are going home to a husband who loves me unconditionally and all those furry faces who live for my return. None of us can do this on our own, but sometimes we’re forced to realize that and other times we manage to pull on the blinders and power through believing ourselves untouchable.

Thank you survivor community for letting me ponder these issues again in a safe space. Thank you to everyone working to make the world better.

Then I Handed In My Super-Secret Abolitionist Decoder Ring and Went Home

Mary Martin, a self-admitted abolitionist recently called it “the a-word.” I sympathize. I would consider myself an abolitionist, and yet there are times when maybe I don’t measure up? I’ve seen a number of arguments lately against arguing from environmentalism, or arguing against vivisection on non-ethical grounds (like my recent post on how stupid some animal experiments are). Those methods, according to some, fall short, because they don’t emphasize animal issues from a rights point of view.

What does it all come down to? I think people should be vegan. I think veganism is the only ethical way to live in this world, the world we have, not the ideal world we make up in our heads to excuse our own shortcomings.

I think that to promote veganism we should be honest. We shouldn’t downplay the plight of the animals because the horror of it upsets people. We shouldn’t tell people untruths about veganism or give poor nutrition advice. We shouldn’t pretend we are perfect. But we should face our fellow humans as humans and tell them what we know and what we understand and hope that at least part of that message sinks in.

I don’t think we can promote veganism by praising people for using slightly less awful methods of slaughtering, nor do I think we can promote veganism by giving free advertising to restaurants that don’t really serve vegan food but now use cage-free eggs.

I don’t think we can promote veganism by being degrading to people, whether that means the exploitation of women, or trying to trick people into veganism by capitalizing on their desire to be thin alone. For what it’s worth everyone I’ve known personally who became vegan only to lose weight gave it up because they were looking at it as another diet and then a new fad diet came along and they decided to try that one. Which is not to say that people can’t be motivated by their own desire for health, I’m just not sure the pursuit of thinness alone is enough. But others have told me they knew people who were only vegan for health reasons who stuck with it, so my experience doesn’t define everyone’s, I guess.

But when it comes to promoting veganism I’m going to open up the toolbox and use every tool at my disposal that I don’t find unethical. I think animals have a basic right not to be bred and brought into this world simply to be used and killed for our taste buds or amusement. That’s basic. But I’m going to throw the suffering argument in too. Then I’m going to throw the environmental reasons at my audience. If they want to talk religion, I’ll talk religion. If they’re concerned about health I’m going to reassure them that veganism is healthy. There are lots of reasons to be vegan. There’s really, as far as I’m concerned, one ethical way to view animals. However, it takes a radical re-thinking of our current world view to get there, so I’m all for using everything we have. I’m not against appealing to every reason and every emotion, I just use those things toward veganism, not toward promoting Burger King.

Thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount

With a special thanks to Bruce Friedrich for his assistance and the fixing of my typos!

As a child I spent many summers without air conditioning, without TV, reading the Bible during the worst heat of the day, memorizing and later reciting key passages. Other days my mother sent me over to the house of one of leaders of our church and I would spend afternoons with her, talking and delighting in the wild birds that came to her feeder. Living like this, surrounded by trees and animals and clear springs streaming out of rock, it was easy to feel like this really was Eden, that the world was beautiful and whole and everything was as it should be.

I have tried to look back over my life and identify those moments where I began to see animals as individuals and the early influences that lead me toward compassion. I’m not sure exactly where religious and secular thoughts blended, but somewhere in all of this thinking of a compassionate God, and thinking of the kindness and gentleness of Jesus had a powerful effect on me. I remember that church leader reading to me that no sparrow falls without God noticing, and I thought that if God cares for the sparrows then I should care about them too.

This is a hard topic for me to write about because I grew up in more than just one religion and found value in all those practices. I found more in inclusiveness and commonality than maybe most are comfortable with. This is not meant to tell anyone what or how to believe, but just to share something that was meaningful to me and may ring a bell with others.

My grandmother always said with regard to our neighbors and acquaintances of other religions “It doesn’t matter, we all worship the same God anyway.” Her best friend was Muslim, and this never created a conflict for her. “Religion is about how it helps and changes you, not about changing other people.” Growing up I had a Jewish best friend and my great uncles were born Jewish though they didn’t practice, and I was friends with Hindus, Wiccans, and Seiks, Atheists and Agnostics. I’m sometimes reluctant to even speak on spirituality for fear of not being inclusive enough or somehow making someone uncomfortable.

Not too long ago my friend Britney said that she hated to see me not talk about things that mattered to me because I was afraid of being associated with intolerance. Why not claim it for yourself again, she asked. It’s not like the fundamentalists own the Bible. She felt that if I found parts of the Bible important in my own development of compassion I should talk about that, not hide from it.

So, here goes. To touch on what my grandmother said about spirituality or religion being important because of how it changes us, not because we use it to change others, I feel that it’s not enough to say the words of certain prayers or wear a certain symbol. We have to examine our lives and try to do better. In both the physical world around me and in wisdom handed down to me through religion I tried to find my own ways to do better, and so often my thoughts came back to how I treated other people and also how I treated animals.

My father performed marriages and funerals, and along with my own memorization of Bible passages I remember watching him give talks of love and of comfort. So often he returned to “The Sermon on the Mount,” particularly the opening known as the Beatitudes, or the later part on faith and worry, as instruction for how to live in this world and not be consumed by it. The words were always so beautiful and echoed in my mind days afterward. When asked to recite a passage out loud, those were the words I always returned to.

In contrast to the voices in our culture that say we have to be cruel because the world is a cruel place, this sermon emphasizes why, despite the cruelties we may see around us, we must still struggle to be compassionate and gentle. Jesus warns us it will not be easy for us to love the way we should and to care the way we should, but that we shouldn’t let our fears and the obstacles in our path stifle that love. He also tells us that others will not always understand or appreciate when we try to do the right thing, but we should not give up.

When I first became vegetarian many of my friends and family members reminded me that the world is an unfair place and that we need to “take care of ourselves first.” This was somehow to them a justification for eating animals. At first I was doubtful about how I’d make it as a vegetarian (and then later as a vegan) because I was so used to eating animal based meals. During that unsure time I thought again about the words “consider the fowl of the air, for they reap not, neither do they sow, yet the lord thy father provideth for them.” I felt reassured that if I was doing something to care for the weak and exploited by no longer eating animals, that somehow this would be ok.

This doesn’t mean that I took the idea of nutrition lightly or didn’t do my homework. It only means that I had to believe that there’s room enough in this world for compassion and empathy. When we talk about protecting the meek and gentle, we cannot help but think about all the exploited animals around us. Jesus never said it was acceptable for us to use others simply because we are stronger, or smarter, or more powerful. Instead he emphasized mercy, which is having the ability to do harm, even the desire to do harm, and choosing instead to help and protect. As our understanding of non-human animals has grown, and we have found that they think more deeply than we ever gave them credit for, that they feel emotion, and feel pain and fear just as we do, then we have to also think of them as our neighbors in this world. When Jesus instructs us to care for the needy and help others, to me this means not only our extended family of humans, but also the animals who are suffering in unprecedented ways and surely need our help as well.

This is an antidote to the ingrained belief so many of us hold that we need to be cutthroat (quite literally) in looking out for ourselves. When we live in a world, like those of us lucky enough to live in the US or Western Europe do, where we’re surrounded by plenty, then our instincts to stock up against famine, to hoard against disaster backfire on us. We have stores of grain rotting while people elsewhere in the world starve. We suffer diseases of excess, too much fat, too many calories but not enough nutrients. And we still believe this idea that we have kill animals for our own survival, that we have to be hard-hearted or the world will eat us alive. Jesus told us that the poor will be rewarded, that the meek are literally our future, and that those who act with love and kindness will lead the way. We can create a world based on kindness, but only if one by one we all take that leap of faith and do something selfless. So often in my life I fall short of that goal, but in becoming vegan I gave up something I liked, something I had trouble imagining my life without, because I felt it was kinder to the earth, kinder to the animals and kinder to people all over the world. I thought it would be a sacrifice, but I found instead love and beauty I hadn’t imagined. Naturally I was provided for, more than provided for. Veganism no longer feels like a sacrifice to me at all.

Of course this is a small thing. It isn’t giving up all my worldly possessions and wandering the earth as a beggar. It’s a small thing with huge benefits, for the animals, for me, and for the world.

When I think also of what the Sermon on the Mount meant to me in particular I go back to this theme of the incredible care and love that God invested in creating us, the world, and all the plants and animals in it. Those lines about the lilies of the field, though ultimately about impermanence, also remind us that though we try to create beauty ourselves, we cannot come close to what God has created. Each wild flower, however common, was formed in beauty and love. Every bird is cared for, his wings crafted exquisitely for flying, the seeds and berries perfectly suited for his diet. So if we acknowledge all of this as gifts, how can we toss it aside like garbage? When I realized the destruction animal agriculture was causing to the planet, all the forests lost, the water polluted, and the animals maimed and deformed, it seemed that we were taking everything we had been given and destroying it. The only responsible choice seemed to be to step away from that destruction and find a new way to live in harmony with the world.

One argument my family brought up when I first decided to stop eating animals was that meat-eating is natural because animals eat other animals, and because people all over the world eat animals. Aside from the obvious concern that so much of what we, as humans, do now has very little to do with nature, I also think about the spiritual instruction that we should try to do better than what we see all around us. While Jesus spoke with reverence and kindness toward animals many times, he never said that we should be like them in every regard. Instead we are capable of thinking about our actions beyond just instinct and desire. Although animals also demonstrate mercy and kindness, we hold ourselves to a higher standard to pursue these qualities in all aspects of our lives. Jesus also tells us it's not enough to just imitate what those around us do, instead we concentrate on doing right ourselves and trying to live a merciful and just life.

I'm not a theologian, I can't pretend I understand every word of the Bible, but there are some passages that just stuck in my head and I found my thoughts turning to them again and again. I know enough to know that many people find different meaning in these words than I do. For example, most of my family disagrees with me on my interpretation of the lines about being the salt of the earth. For me personally, these lines conjured images from museums of ancient salt cellars that demonstrated the value of salt in pre-industrial ages. In biblical times I know that salt was both common and precious. It was something that people needed every day just to survive, it wasn't pretty or showy, but it was difficult to pry from the earth or filter from the sea. So when I think of a person as the salt of the earth, I think of someone who is nurturing and sustaining of life, but also human, or "down to earth," not flashy, or wealthy. This says to me that we should try to protect and care for other people, but also for all life, including animals, and try to sustain the planet itself. So in my view, veganism isn't glamorous, it's the opposite of conspicuous consumption actually, it doesn't make anyone famous or powerful, but it is a simple, often private, commitment to protect and nurture life.

Not all or even most of my reasons for being vegan are spiritual. I find so much logic, so much self preservation even in veganism. Anyone, of whatever religion or non-religion, can find value in compassion and mercy of course. But I do think that people who are spiritual can find that veganism is the natural extension of the beliefs they already hold. We can look back at words that have always helped us through difficult time, and now with new eyes understand that we should extend our love to all living creatures and to the earth itself.

Picture Day

By the way, I'm thrilled to know that other people also sing silly songs to their companion animals. I knew I couldn't be the only one, but now I have confirmation.

I don't really feel up to philosophizing today, so if there's any point to this post it's that vegans do fun stuff sometimes, and we're silly, oh, and vegans look young... I don't know if that last one is actually true, but I do think healthy living can help. I don't know, but here goes.

I am still tired today because I got up bright and early so Sean and I could go the arboretum and have our pictures taken. I accidentally met a photographer/filmmaker because he was making a short film on proper bunny housing, and Sean has created the ultimate bunny palace. Said photographer agreed to take our pictures and give us "mates rates." So that was just such a stroke of luck!

Anyway, long story short, Sean and I really have no pictures of us together since we didn't have a wedding and any pictures of us have been taken by other hikers as we happen upon them on trails. Needless to say I'm always drenched in sweat, bright red, and have my eyes shut in such hiking pictures. And sometimes showing such pictures is like "here I am about to pass out and this is the thumb of some hiker we don't know." Not very romantic.

This might sound entirely self-indulgent, but I also kind of feel like I were to die tomorrow people would have trouble remembering what I look like because there would be no decent pictures. Plus people seem to have trouble remembering what I look like anyway. Sean and I ran into the father of one of his old friends recently and later the friend asked her father "Was Sean with his wife when you saw him?" The father said "No, he was with some redhead." The friend said "The redhead IS his wife!" I'm thinking redhead? Who? No, I don't think so.

Also the acquiring of a picture would be nice because Sean previously had one that he liked that he took himself in his office and he recently removed it. He said too many clients were asking "Is that your daughter?" and then acting weird when he said "No, that's my wife." I feel somehow like Dorian Grey in reverse where I'm aging in real life but still appear to be a petulant pre-adolescent in photographs. So it would be nice if Sean could actually have a picture of me in his office without people wondering where he went to get around age of consent laws.

Also, when we did get married we asked the J.P. to snap a picture of us. But I have camera-fear which just translated as fear in the picture, so it kind of looked like someone was holding me at gunpoint to take my picture. It was bad, horrible really. I used to have it in my office but too many people were asking "Awww, is that you at your prom? You look so nervous!" Sigh.

In any case the cats are recovering well. Liam is really completely back to his old self and you'd never know there was anything wrong except for his shaved ankle where the iv was. Squeaker is still not eating like I would like, and getting her back to eating is difficult, so I'm still putting some food directly into her mouth to make her eat. She doesn't seem to mind one bit actually, and it's made giving her the antibiotics much easier because she knows something really yummy is coming next, but eventually she's going to have to go back to eating on her own.

Other than this I've mainly been working on silver for a while now and I'm pretty much pleased with the results though certainly there have been some hitches. I hope to start selling some soon to both offset my massively breath-stealing vet bills, but also to contribute to some worthy causes, so stay tuned.

Here's a sneak peak. These are a double-sided dangly pendants I've been working on. I put a dime in for scale. I use this stuff called PMC/ACS that is silver particles recycled out of old film or things like that combined with a wood putty so I can shape it. Then I fire it and all the wood burns out leaving essentially pure silver behind, but it gives me huge flexibility with what I do. Each of these pendants have two sides, one I painted and then used water etching to make it 3-D, the other side I cut out the silver like I do with my paper cutting art to make the design. The bird is a bird on both sides, the deer is a deer on both sides. I used sterling findings and glass crystals, plus amethyst on the deer and green flourite for the bird. Oh, and I treated them with sulfur to give them a nice patina.

The painted sides



















And the cut out sides



















And just for the sake of complete self indulgence here is a picture of me looking much younger than I actually am standing in front of the National Cathedral, just to illustrate the problem.

We Are Spokes In The Wheel

Or Why I Keep Breaking the Golden Rule Every Freakin’ Day

I’ve been pondering the Golden Rule since Bruce Friederich’s post over on Animalblawg where he said in essence that fighting for animal welfare reforms is just extending the Golden Rule across the species barrier.

While I at first bristled at the implication that I’m so speciesist that I can’t extend the Golden Rule across the species barrier, my next realization was worse. There are tons of areas in my life where I simply don’t live up to the Golden Rule, and I had to start thinking about why that might be. The thoughts this stirred up are complicated and troubled. In some spots they make perfect sense to me, and in others I wonder if I’m doing the things I should. But here goes…

Before I delve into other life areas where the Golden Rule isn’t guiding my every action, I had to ask myself if Bruce is right. If I were to apply the Golden Rule to every single campaign, letter to the editor, blog entry, etc. would I be lobbying for welfare reforms to make small improvements in the lives of farm animals. Possibly. But on examining this I have to say that if I were to truly put myself in the position of the animals and ask “what would I want” I come closer, though maybe not as far as the Jerry Vlasak view. The animals would want me to charge the battery egg farms, punch the farmer in the face, and start opening cages.

What holds me back from that action, and why I think that action is not good for the movement as a whole, is complicated enough to warrant a whole entry by itself naturally. So if we just for now take that off the table for later discussion, what’s the next thing? It’s likely Bruce is right and any small improvement to the lives of these animals is significant to them. At the same time I have to understand that the reforms made today won’t affect the animals alive today, instead these reforms might not be instituted until generations of animals later, might be instituted in an uneven manner, some farms may cheat and never institute them at all. Further, for the animals born in later generations that might have more space, we are still talking about unthinkable cruelty, unimaginable crowding. So for those generations born under the welfare reforms we’re pushing through today, we’re still talking about millions of animals born into misery, living their whole lives in misery, and dying in agony.

Just so I’m not sugar-coating anything here.

So looking at that, I still have to say that if I try to imagine what it’s like to be a chicken, and then have a choice between someone giving me one or two extra inches of space now or just fighting for the rights of future chickens… But that’s where it gets tricky, because when I try to put myself in that position the thing that runs through my head more than anything is “please kill me now.” I can’t imagine being in that position and I can’t imagine retaining any will to live under those circumstances. But then I’m bringing my own baggage to it, where I personally fear captivity more than death. So to set my reactions aside. For most if the choice is between a little space and no space? Sure most would choose a little space.

My issue continues to be that if we, the “Animal Rights Advocates” pat farmer Jim on the back and call him a hero for crowding huge numbers of chickens into a dim barn, but on the floor, not in cages, does the general public also think farmer Jim is hero? And if they do think he’s a hero do they see eating the animals he raises and slaughters as their only obligation to helping animals. If they are people who say “Peta is so radical, I could never live up to their standards,” then what are they to think about “Burger King Victory?” Ah, you know the speech, I’ve said it all before.

But then my rambly mind went to other places, other aspects of my life where I’m not adhering to the golden rule and why I came to be this way. In some respects it was purely utilitarian. I was raised to fill other people’s needs and put my own last, and with that kind of upbringing comes this huge guilt that I’m being selfish when I ask for something for myself. But it took really getting to that point where I started to think I really might be consumed by the needs of others to start trying to reconsider some assumptions I’d always held. The first realization was that if I allow myself to be destroyed, whether that destruction is a complete mental breakdown or actual physical death, then I’m useless to everyone, useless to me, useless to the world. So, if I define the choice as being between fading away/falling down and doing nothing, or doing the things I feel are within my reach while preserving my own sanity, one choice seems obviously better for all involved.

This might be easier to understand when we apply it to survivor work, so we can get specific, rather than remaining purely theoretical. We have all heard that old metaphor about the oxygen mask on the plane—put yours on first, then help others, because you can’t help anyone if you’re out cold. In survivor work we sort of have to cling to that idea because so often the women volunteering to help and counsel victims of sexual assault or other forms of violence and abuse have lived through those same experiences themselves. Having been there themselves, they can often provide excellent real world advice, tons of empathy, and a truly understanding ear. But survivors often find old wounds re-opened through doing this work, and they also might be vulnerable to being manipulated or used in various ways.

If we think only in terms of the Golden Rule, we can end up going down some dead ends. When we think of the one survivor in front of us at the moment, we can feel her need for company and comfort. She might express anger she can’t express at others toward us. We do understand those things. If we were in her place we’d want someone who could supply bottomless compassion, without resting or taking care of herself, who could take our rage quietly and make something positive out of it. But we also know that this is about more than this one woman in front of us at the moment, it’s also about all the others before, the others waiting their turn right now, and all the many more who will need help later. So we have to pace ourselves and look after ourselves, even knowing that to the one person begging for more help right now, our distance, our sanity-preserving detachment seems unthinkably cruel and selfish.

However it is a trap to think that we must be everything to everyone. Saving the world is not our task to be shouldered alone, instead it is a shared task for all of us. This is not to say that we should shirk personal responsibility and do nothing because we’re waiting for others to take up the slack. Instead it is an understanding that we are spokes in the wheel that we are slowly moving toward better things. The wheel cannot turn without us, but it can’t turn with our effort only.

So to be better spokes we need to seek out those tasks that are suited to our skills and experience, and try to excel in those areas. We need to keep an eye on the big picture, because we don’t want to be so wrapped up in our own tasks that the wheel starts spinning backwards. At the same time we need to think about being effective in our own way, putting our particular talents to work.

If we are to go back to working with people, not animals, we have to believe in our own work, and believe in the ability of others to do their work. Even when we are faced with the disappointing reality that others can fail us and can fail the most vulnerable out there. But we still struggle with this idea that we do our part: the reporter does her part telling the stories and raising awareness, the educator does her part trying to instill respect and compassion in young people, the advocate does her part accompanying the survivor to hearing… Even the lawyer for the other side is doing her part because it protects all of us to try to have a fair system and make sure the convictions we get are actually for the right people and are just.

To go back to animals, a friend told me a story of going out leafleting with an organization and being told by the organizer that if people rejected taking a “vegetarian starter guide” she should urge them to eat cage-free eggs and free-range meat. The rational of the organizer was that the suffering we’re facing is so vast that if people aren’t open to being vegan we should immediately offer them a much smaller step. But this is working on the assumption that we’re the only ones out there. We’re not and we need to recognize that. We can hand them a leaflet, even if they don’t take it we’ve put the thought in their mind “there are people who care so much about animals that they go stand in the sun all day to ask me not to eat them.” But then they might see a news story, read a book, meet a friendly rescued cow or a thousand other things. We have to hope that us, standing there, leaflet in hand, is just one spoke in the wheel. Though I do recognize that some people just aren’t open to change, but if they’re not then how likely are they to go out of their way for free-range anyway.

If a group like PeTA who already has a reputation for holding the hard line against all forms of animal exploitation praises certain exploiters, sends out press releases, and gives them free advertising for getting slightly better while still torturing and killing countless animals, what’s the message there? It’s because they don’t want to be a spoke, they don’t want to fill that role of continually hitting people with one message. Instead they want to be the whole wheel and be everything to everyone. Which is understandable of course, particularly when we see so many people doing nothing, in fact seeing nothing. But is it effective to try to be the whole wheel? Does it mix the message up? I think so.

Odds and Ends, or real life is kicking my butt

Playing cat-nurse and just the worry, etc. in addition to the normal routine has me pretty tired this week. Liam and Squeaker are both very much improved. Thank you all for your kind thoughts.

I’m not sure I can manage to put together one coherent post today. So this is just bits and pieces.

On the real life front I wrote previously about my attempts to press assault charges against my neighbor and how those efforts went nowhere. At one point the trial was postponed because he was locked up in prison in Virginia. I was never able to figure out what he’d done in Virginia as the records aren’t online. Maryland though is online and it seems he’s had three more arrests in Maryland since the incident with me last September. (That’s 3 more in addition to whatever the offense in Virginia was, and no idea if there are additional arrests in DC either) There is another trial date set, but he’s requested a jury trial which might mean the judge will decide it isn’t worth it and just never send it to trial. I feel so exhausted with the whole thing and everyone is telling me not to expect anything.

I sort of consider the whole thing closed, but I hate to think that this guy is just still hurting people. But oh well. I did what I was supposed to and gave my statement and all. Beyond that I have no control over it.

Next up I want to touch on a discussion that’s come up lately about whether women are held back from embracing veganism by domineering male partners. I’m not sure how I feel about this because I’ve known a fair number of men who claimed to give up veganism because their wives or girlfriends didn’t want them to be vegan or made fun of them for it. But there have been some articles lately telling women to eat meat to impress men and other weird things. I always thought it should be the exact opposite, straight men should go vegan to impress women. I swear I have so many beautiful, intelligent, accomplished female vegan friends who would love to meet a guy who was at least making efforts toward veganism. Think you’re a huge geek and nobody will ever love you? Eat tofu and volunteer at an animal sanctuary!! Works like a charm.

Related to this though, I can’t help but think how much better a place the world would be if people would just be nice for a change! You know, if someone’s spouse wants to be vegan that person should ask why it’s so important to their partner, and then listen, rather than mocking and bullying. Yeah, I know, I’m a hopeless dreamer.

If anyone wanted a chuckle, someone was going through our neighborhood selling home security systems, and she stopped me just as I came home from work before I’d gotten to my door. I told her I already had a security system. She looked for a sign or stickers and not seeing any, she kept pushing her system, I said no thanks…. But the thing I wanted to say, but didn’t was “How about I unlock my door and walk away, and if you can step through my front door and stay in my house for at least 30 seconds, I’ll buy your security system.” But I was afraid she’d actually try it and then I’d get sued. It seems she didn’t notice the German shepherd and hound faces peering out at her. I know I should not make light of the protective tendencies of my rescued dogs, but it did amuse me for a while.

On the front of becoming the most ridiculous person who ever lived I’ve starting singing a new song to the bunnies while I feed them and clean up their area. I sing them Bif Naked’s “Lucky Ones” only I change all the words to be about bunnies. So it goes “It was on bun-day when my bunny told me, never pay the bunny with love only, and what could I say to you, except that I love you, and I’ll give you lots of treats. I know we are we are the lucky buns, I know we are we are the lucky buns.” I also find this additionally amusing to my warped sense of humor since Biffy is vegan herself. It is a beautiful song. I mean her version, not mine, is beautiful.

Apologies and all

I've continued to be missing and when I have posted it's been tossed together with possible grammar and spelling errors. This is because I've been sleep deprived due to care for ailing cats.

I'm also sorry I haven't responded to all of your wonderful thoughtful comments. I really will, I just need to get my head on straight first.

As I posted previously Liam got very sick. We were never even able to completely explain what happened to him. The vet theorized that he was suffering a bacterial infection, but no tests were completely conclusive, and our focus turned just to keeping him alive.

After Liam came home from the ICU, I spent a good number of nights getting up at all hours to medicate him, and sit with him, and just search for any sign of improvement.

As Liam slowly recovered, Squeaker, one of our older cats also fell ill, with similar but less severe symptoms. The vet said she was definitely suffering a bacterial infection and she's on antibiotics too. Though she didn't get as sick as Liam did, her recovery has been slow. Her appetite was never the most voracious anyway, and being sick and on antibiotics seems to have killed it completely. We've been trying for days to get her to eat. I can persuade her to eat a little if I sit by her and brush her the entire time (Squeaker is semi-feral, she loves to be brushed with a hairbrush, but hates to be touched with human hands).

Late yesterday Squeaker seemed to start improving and I hope that continues. I've really been a wreck all this time.

I know it sounds like we are bad cat parents, but these are indoor only cats. We can't determine what they could have been exposed to, and we've searched the house. Sadly the only thing we can say is that the cats had their check ups at the vet shortly before they got sick, and also they may have eaten some treats that were meant for the dogs. Neither one of those things stands out as a likely source of illness, but we can't find many other common factors.

I've been a nut case, bothering Liam every five minutes to make sure he's still alive, but he's very much improved. Now we just hope Squeaker will continue to get better too.

More on Peta, Welfare, NeoCarns, Oh my!

Today Bruce Friedrich posted a response to the inspiring essay by Jenny Stein and James LaVeck. Bruce's response is here on Animalblawg.

Having discussed this issue many times I'm disappointed to see the repetition of the idea that those who advocate for abolition OPPOSE welfare reforms. I know of nobody who opposes larger cages or more humane slaughter methods, quite the contrary.

What is at issue is whether or not the largest and best known animal advocacy groups are in essence putting a seal of approval on certain "humane animal products" by declaring minor (though certainly positive) reforms as major victories. Or to put this another way, as I've said many times before: if PeTA gives an award to the designer of a slaughterhouse does that give the general public the impression that what goes on at that slaughterhouse is morally acceptable?

I know that Bruce has previously answered this question as no, he does not believe that the word "award" conveys approval or endorsement. He and I just see this differently as I do feel that the words "award" and "victory" imply that the fruits of those victories, ie the animal products coming from those award winning slaughterhouses have the PeTA seal of approval on them.

I admire Bruce's work greatly and am thrilled that he saw fit to reiterate his position that there is no such thing as a humane animal product in his recent article. My admiration doesn't change the fact that I'm troubled by some of the wording in some recent campaigns, some from PeTA, more from HSUS and other groups.

This might be a simple difference in personal philosophy. I think that we can set the bar high and keep telling people that veganism is the only choice for people who love animals. The industry can then respond to that as they see fit, which would hopefully be to push through humane reforms on their own. In addition there are groups, like AWI or the farmers on the panel at TAFA who have no other goal than these welfare reforms and can continue to push for them. I would see this as "both ends against the center" with animal rights groups and activists pressuring the consumers with a message that veganism is the only humane choice, and then with the animal welfare side pressuring the industry to reform. But we all need to determine our own role in this and try to act in accord with our own integrity. Feeling that it's a positive thing that others are pushing for welfare reforms isn't necessarily an indication that we need to put the majority of our energy or financial resources into pushing for those reforms ourselves.

To imply that people who do not work toward welfare reforms are not acting in accord with the golden rule is somewhat insulting. As is the comparison of our view to the current regime in Iran. We all interpret this differently, often in keeping with our own experiences. But my views do stem from caring and I do often try to put myself in the position of the animal, as imperfect as that approach may be. I also recognize that how I've felt in certain situations, or my projection in trying to imagine how I would feel may not determine the best long term strategies for the movement as a whole.

But it is valuable to the welfare side to continue to paint abolitionists as bumbling morons who lack empathy. Because it is easy to dismiss our views if you feel we are stupid, immoral, or misinformed. What I see going on in the movement though is a deliberate effort to marginalize activists who do advocate for abolition. TAFA saw fit to include "humane" farmers who presented saccharine accounts of killing animals. We were assured that these animal exploiters were included because we're all on the same side. However, those promoting abolition or with doubts about the Whole Foods, Humane Certified, small family farmers theme were excluded from the conference. So there was a range of views presented, but heavily skewed in one direction, with one whole end of the spectrum chopped off as if it didn't exist.

I do wish we had decent studies on the topic of how people interpret and respond to animal welfare reforms, because I would be swayed by hard data. However there is a tendency within the movement to confuse correlation and causation. For example I often hear people repeat that humane reforms lead to more vegetarians because the countries with the most vegetarians have the most humane laws. This is correlation, not causation. It's equally likely that vegetarians push for humane reforms, or that some other third factor in the population leads to increases in both.

For me personally I don't feel it's my role to make people feel better about continuing to eat animals. As with any of us as activists, my thought stem from my own experiences. I came from an agricultural background and never even remotely thought there was anything wrong with killing animals, so long as it was done "humanely." I became a vegetarian in my teens reluctantly because I was upset about the practices of large scale animal agriculture. Once I stopped eating animals I was able to take a step back from a belief system I'd been steeped in and realize the problems with the entire practice of breeding, raising, and slaughtering animals for food. Had anyone told me during this time that I could happily eat free range chicken, I'm sure I would have done so.

This is not to say that the animals need to suffer the worst abuses so people like me can wake up and see the light. Instead I'm saying that I really feel I'm vegan today because I wasn't told that free range chicken, grass fed beef, or cage free eggs were huge victories. Worse, when we declare reforms by fast food chains as victories, when those animals are still treated in a way that just defies the imagination of most average consumers, are we putting a stamp of approval on fast food products? Keep in mind that the declaration of victory with Burger King went out on every major newswire and even made the TV news and got commentary on talk shows. Bruce's essay stating that he is for welfare reforms but still feels there is no humane meat, that went out on two major blogs. That's a large audience, but clearly not as large as the audience that heard that Burger King is now humane.

I value the honesty of the PeTA pamphlets and mailings I got when I was younger that kept telling me over and over that veganism was the only option to end the suffering of non-human animals. I took a half-way step and became vegetarian before becoming vegan, but I was never told that this was ok, that this was the end of my journey. PeTA set the bar incredibly high--a life where compassion had to touch every aspect from my plate to my shoes to my shampoo. PeTA also never wavered from the idea that every single person who got a pamphlet from them was capable of achieving this.

I try to approach others as I would want to be approached, with complete honesty and openness on the issues. I don't chase people down and call them names, or act unkindly toward them, because I've been there and then some, but I do let them know how I see the situation. In keeping with that I would not feel I was treating another human being the way I myself would want to be treated if I pre-judged them as too unkind, too lacking in compassion, or too ignorant to understand the basic concept that animals are not ours to use. It is a radical concept, it takes some getting used to, but if I can get it I really believe that almost anyone can.

I know Bruce employs the same respect and honesty with other people when he gives presentations or talks to people one on one, of course. But I return to my earlier point that the campaigns for welfare reforms and the subsequent declarations of victory may send a different message to the average consumer. Particularly as PeTA has the reputation of being the hard line on opposing animal cruelty, so if even PeTA thinks Burger King is awesome, then shouldn't we all eat there?

Stupid User Error?

S.U.E. Anyone?

A co-worker introduced me to this term after a very frustrating day when someone dominated actually several hours of my time because a database wasn’t working for them. Turns out they never read the instructions, never tried the initial solutions I sent them, and just kept insisting “it’s broken!” I had given them all the obvious fixes, I’d gone in back end to see if I could spot a problem, but then I went for back up. I went to someone with more technical skills than I have and asked her to take a look. “I’ll look at it,” she said, “but from what you describe you’ve probably got an S.U.E. going on here.” “Huh?” I responded. “Stupid User Error.”

Ah, how correct it was. Some while later we were going over the basics again, like if you’re creating a new document, hit the “create new document” button, don’t open and revise and save an old document then ask why your old documents keep going away. If you’re having a problem and I tell you what to try, don’t just tell me you tried and it didn’t work, you have to actually try it. On defined fields, don’t try to type in unallowable values. Hi, that’s why we gave you a pick list.

Sorry, a little on edge lately.

Anyway, I was wondering if S.U.E. applies to other areas of life, not just databases.

As I contemplate what it means to be abolitionist with regard to animal rights, I find my obsessive tendencies getting in the way. I don't want to just say that certain things are wrong, inherently wrong, I also want to point out how they're stupid and useless too. I don't think it detracts from the moral argument to say "Oh, and another thing..." For example, when it comes to animal agriculture I see terrible ethical problems with using other living beings for our own ends. At the same time I'm distressed by the environmental damage from intensive animal farming. And I think it's not healthy for us to eat all those animals and their excretions anyway.

That's sort of how I approach vivisection too. I think it's wrong to inflict suffering on a living, feeling, sentient creature in the name of science. I'm also upset by how stupid a lot of vivisection is and how wasteful. Maybe it's why I also delight in stupid crook stories. Sure it's inherently wrong to rob a bank, but to rob a bank and then drive the get away car straight into a police cruiser because you're counting the money instead of watching the road... It's just a whole different thing.

It's stupid user error (I have the equipment, the brain, the eyes, the ability to read, I just neglected to use any of those things). So today I'm going to talk about the silliness of some experiments trying to create a model of mental illness in mice.

I read about how experimenters genetically modified mice with a human gene tied to schizophrenia to create “the world’s first schizophrenic mouse.” Aside from the obvious fact that this is unethical and cruel to the mice, there are other problems 1) we have no way to determine if this mouse has schizophrenia because all the tests for it are designed for humans and require spoken language and some self awareness to answer questions, 2) we don’t know if any mice naturally develop mental illness apart from us splicing their genes because (see 1) we have no tests to diagnose mental illness in mice (or other non-human animals). In humans, even with interviews and such, there is a fairly high misdiagnosis rate. So this is not a schizophrenic mouse, this is a mouse that has a human gene implanted which may be tied to schizophrenia. Then 3) even if this mouse is schizophrenic and even if drugs were developed to treat the schizophrenic mouse, it's likely those drugs wouldn't work in people. In fact we'd really have no way of knowing if they're working in the mice either. You can't ask the mouse if the "squeaking" in his head is better now and even if he seems calmer you can't really know if his thinking is still scrambled or if the hallucinations have gone away completely.

As someone who has seen friends and family members torn apart by mental illness I want good treatments and available treatments. But I don't want schizophrenic mice. Not just because if I don't want to be mentally ill myself I can't justify purposeful making an animal mentally ill. But also because the vast majority of research on schizophrenia in humans (which involves large cross-sections of patients, not just one family in Scotland) shows that while there are genetic factors involved in the development of schizophrenia, it is not purely a genetic disease.

Identical twins are more likely to have schizophrenia if their twin also has it, but it's not 100%. So far in all genes identified as associated with the disease there are some patients found to not have those genes, and thus no known genetic cause is present in a subset of schizophrenics.

The consensus at this time is that there is a genetic tendency toward schizophrenia (often compared to a light switch which may be on or off) and then there are triggers that can flip that switch. Suggested triggers include prenatal exposure to viruses, chemical exposures, nutritional deficiencies, a traumatic episode, and many other theorized influences, even social factors. There is no trigger that is present in the history of all patients.

When we talk about all mental illness, not just schizophrenia, some of the most of the promising research and advances have come from brain scans/mris and blood tests of actual patients. Things that were once considered some personal failing ("you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps!") are now being shown to have physical, identifiable aspects. If the mental illness is indeed the result of a chemical imbalance then that can be identified and treated in this way.

Sadly, for most mentally ill patients, diagnosis isn't the biggest issue. Medications that work aren't the biggest issue. The side effects of those medications aren't the biggest issue either. Instead the main thing that keeps these people disabled by mental illness is access to treatment and care. It is not unusual to observe clearly mentally ill homeless people in urban areas--many are homeless chiefly because of mental illness, not the other way around. When you see this you are seeing the failings of our health care system at work.

Also we are beginning to understand that treating illnesses, especially mental illnesses, isn't as easy as handing someone a bottle of pills, no matter how good those pills are. Most mentally ill patients need therapy and continuing support even when they are on medication. Therapy helps patients re-integrate with society and supports them through problems relating to their illness that friends and family often cannot understand or advise on. Therapists can also observe subtle changes in behavior and either prescribe adjustments in medication or refer the patient to a doctor who can prescribe. Because the mentally ill are vulnerable, many patients are not just dealing with a chemical condition but also trauma or other co-morbid conditions and therapy can assist with this. Without ongoing therapy many patients will not successfully reintegrate into society and may stop taking medication.

As someone deeply concerned about mental illness in our society, I'm also appalled by the thought of spending millions on genetically altering mice, while generations of our citizens are felled by mental illness just because they have no access to care, and more never even get a decent diagnosis.

MIA

Sorry I've been missing in action for a little while. I've got a number of things partially written up and will get to them shortly.

I've been away because Liam got very sick. He actually wound up in the ICU over night, but he's home now and recovering.

Get well soon Liam!

The Book Skinny Bitch

The authors of Skinny Bitch were on the Today Show. I would love to hear some further discussion of the pros and cons of Skinny Bitch, but an internet search turned up almost nothing except some book reviews.

Apparently "Posh Spice" has been photographed with the book, though she gave some statement that she eats fish. Am I the only one who finds it odd that such a very thin woman would be reading a weight loss book? But ok, moving on...

I have to admit that I purposefully have not read the whole book, but only a few excerpts, because I really don't need to feel any worse about myself or the way I look. So maybe I'm not in the best position to comment. I know people in real life who would be happy to call me a "loser" and a "fat pig" but I avoid them, so why would I pick up a book to put that kind of stuff in my head.

While marketing veganism as a weight loss diet may get people to give veganism a try, I have doubts about the sustainability of such an approach. This might also be why it can be criticized as a "fad diet" as opposed to a sustaining lifestyle that is kind to animals, the planet, and our own bodies. People tell me that Skinny Bitch encompasses these ideas too, and it’s not merely a weight loss book.

Part of my concern is from participating in the Vegan People forum and seeing quite a few young women join the forum and post that Skinny Bitch has inspired them to try veganism for weight loss and describing their current non-vegan diet and asking for help finding vegan versions. Most of the non-vegan diets being described were severely calorie and nutrient deficient to begin with, and it did worry me that veganism was being regarded as a new way to be eating disordered.

This is troubling because I know that I have had difficulty finding doctors that didn't regard my own veganism as a form of eating disorder, to the point that now if I need to find a new doctor I have to open with "I'm vegan. I take this seriously as an ethical lifestyle. I am not underweight. Here is my height, here is my weight. I eat 3-4 good meals a day. If my veganism is going to be a problem with you, it's better that we just agree right now that I should find a different doctor."

Another thing I find worrisome is the alleged catch phrase of Skinny Bitch which is "skinny=healthy, fat=unhealthy." Because this is so glaringly inaccurate, I wonder if people will disregard all other information in the book. While I agree that everything else being equal, it is better to be a healthy weight than overweight, mortality studies actually show that being underweight is associated with a higher premature death risk than being slightly overweight according to BMI indexes (though these stats might be misleading as nearly all athletes are "overweight" by BMI charts).

Furthermore, some diseases, like osteoporosis are more common in thinner people. I hope Skinny Bitch covers exercise and physical fitness. It is worth mentioning that there is increasing awareness lately of how being thin but out of shape carries significant health risks and that people who appear thin but don't exercise can have similar organ damage as the obese. So skinny definitely does not automatically equal healthy.

The language is actually an issue for me, though others may disagree. I don't believe in calling women "fat pigs," nor do I approve the use of words like "pussy" as a derogatory term because it implies something inherently defective in being female, particularly as the term is generally used to mean weak, wimpy, useless, etc. So many women (and I think more and more men as well) in our culture already have self-defeating "tapes" playing in our heads telling us our worth is based on our physical appearance and weight, and that in those regards we can never measure up. I'd prefer to see veganism promoted in a more holistic way that empowers rather than degrades people.

I do think a low-fat vegan diet, in addition to an exercise plan can help people be healthier and in some cases lose weight. But I'm a vegan who couldn't be called "skinny," though I think I'm relatively healthy. I hate to encourage a mindset that does only value women for what they look like or a number on the scale. A person can be overweight and still do good work to help animals, contribute to society and culture in many ways, and look very attractive while doing it all.

By all means disagree with me, though. Tell me more about this book, so I won’t cave into the desire to read the whole thing and risk restarting those self-critical tapes in my head.

Edit: I edited this entry because I worried that I was implying all vegans are thin, which they're not, or that people who weigh more than they should are somehow not trying hard enough, which is also something I didn't mean to say.

Small Family Farms Are Better?

I read the Animal Welfare Institute’s statement about the inclusion of farmers (only farmers who raise and slaughter animals incidentally, no farmers of organic veggies were invited) in the Taking Action for Animals Conference.

Though I was thrilled to hear that in addition to concern for animal welfare AWI also opposes “counterproductive marketing techniques” for animal exploiters, I’m still not sure I understand what they’re saying with that.

As the Tribe of Heart essay pointed out, we’re on the brink of a major environmental catastrophe and animal agriculture is one of the primary culprits. Do small family farms offer us a way to keep eating animals but be better for the environment? In a word, no.

The reason why small family farms are better for the immediate environment is that they have fewer animals. IE you’d rather live next door to Joe Bob and his 10 cows than right beside Cows, Inc and their feedlot of a thousand or more cows. Fewer animals in one spot means fewer greenhouse gases emitted and less feces and urine going into the water supply. There would be less smell and less use of antibiotics to fight the rampant often resistant diseases that flourish in these settings

That’s good news, right? It’s good news maybe, but it’s incomplete news.

Joe Bob’s cows cost more to produce and he sells them at a premium to places like Whole Foods that promote “humane meat.” Animal welfare organizations encourage people to buy their chunks of cow flesh from Whole Foods or other stores that sell “compassionate” animal products. But this remains the realm of people who are better off, who have the extra money to buy these premium products. Everyone else is still buying from Cows, Inc, and Pigs, Inc., and Chickens, Inc., etc. So while these “free range” animal products are a symbolic gesture of concern for animals they make little difference for the vast majority of the animals tortured and killed so we can eat their bodies.

Does this mean that we need to do more to promote Joe Bob so he can sell more cows? What about legislating Cows, Inc to improve the conditions there?

None of these solutions will work because we aren’t addressing the demand side of this equation. Even if it were ok for Joe Bob to breed, raise, and ultimately slaughter cows to feed wealthy people, there just isn’t space in the world to graze all the cows people want to buy and eat. Would the 25 million cows slaughtered each year in the US cause less environmental damage if they were never put into feed lots? Where would we put 25 million cows? In your backyard?

There is no way that 25 million cows (not to mention all those raised and slaughtered abroad) could not have an environmental impact. So the only way to address these issues is to not buy the flesh of cows so fewer cows will be bred into existence. The only thing that can eliminate factory farming is massive conversion to vegan diets because there is no way enough animals can be raised "free range" to meet the overwhelming demand for animal flesh. There is not enough grazing land for that many "grass fed" cows, not enough happy farms with red barns for all those chickens to see sunlight and hunt for bugs. There is not enough space or resources, so it makes sense to try to chip away at this from the demand side of the equation.

Can we work with "humane" farmers and small family farms to further this goal? To improve things a little at a time?

No. Very simply our goals are at opposition. We say that we accept that some people will never become vegan so we must compromise. But let's imagine that despite whatever compromises we make we are far more wildly successful at converting people to veganism than we ever imagined. That would put these people out of business, so we are at cross-purposes.

In addition I think that large gains in the number of vegans would hit these "humane farmers" harder than factory farms, as the people willing to spend more and go to special stores for "humane" products are generally the ones who care and might be receptive to the idea of veganism. No wonder these farmers would like to ally themselves with us and get our endorsement for their animal flesh. They want that "humane" seal of approval, they want us in the animal rights/environmental community to tell the people who listen us that people can eat this type of meat and still do the right thing. The question I have more trouble with is why we're so eager to join forces with them.

Small family farmers like to talk about the close relationship, love and caring, that they share with the animals they raise and slaughter for profit. If I learned anything from reading Frederick Douglas it's that even the best intentions become perverted when one human being owns another. When economic systems depend on the exploitation of others anyone entering into that system can become a monster, no matter how much they thought they cared before their livelihood depended on not caring.

These people may say that they care about their animals, they may even believe they care about them. But they still slaughter them at young ages and purposefully breed animals into this world only for the purpose of killing them.

Because I grew up in an agricultural setting I've seen things that defy explanation. I've seen a woman cry because foxes got into her yard and killed some of her chickens, only to turn around a few weeks later and chop the heads off the surviving chickens. I've seen a man mourn the loss of his hunting dog as if the dog were a person and then purposefully drown an entire litter of puppies because he was unable to sell them. I've seen the idealized "small family farmer" openly beating and kicking animals that weren't cooperating. Sure it's better than factory farms still, but don't confuse what is going on here with true compassion.

This push to promote and work with small farmers and "humane" farmers is a wrong turn for the movement.