NY Time Book Review Sparks Outrage

January 26, 2009 at 2:03 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , ,

The following post was written by a close friend of mine, Phoebe Maestri, regarding a recent NY Time article entitled “The Joys and Pains of Being an Animal.” Anyone who feels deeply for our fellow creatures on this earth would be irked to read either the article or the book (I have not but since this is a preview I can only imagine). Phoebe has tackled this nuisance of an article/book for us and does so in a great fashion. Thanks Phoebe!

I read this article in the NY Times recently, and it simply infuriated me – as a vegan, as a human, as a animal, as a woman, as an Earthling. When asked how Temple Grandin can love animals when she designs ’stress-free’ slaughter plants, her reply is as follows: “some people think death is the most terrible thing that can happen to an animal.” She argues that “the most important thing for an animal is the quality of its life.” First, let’s silently ruminate on the phrase, “stress-free” slaughterhouse, for a bit shall we?!

Ok, now I would have to agree on one thing – at the end of the queue the only thing that the animals can hope for is death, and a quick one at that – I mean, wouldn’t you? At that point, death is mercy. Death means the pain is gone. The pain of being captive-bolted incorrectly so you still feel everything that will come on top of dealing with the pain of just having a metal rod shoved in your brain. The pain of being slit at the throat while trussed up by the hind legs, hanging upside-down. The pain, in instances of ‘kosher’ slaughter, of being turned upside-down in a loud metal container so that the blood runs down as you lose all sense of surrounding. Death means that the torture is over. The torture of watching your inevitable fate unfold as your friends are slaughtered first – whether they exhibit this in their facial expressions or not, for us to watch through these glass walls (does anyone else see the correlation to zoos here, or is it just me? putting glass walls on slaughter houses would just be like a zoo in a horror film that you scream at – “ooh no! don’t go through that door.”). The torture endured by you and your mates at the hands of the slaughterhouse workers to get you in the queue.

She adds: “The more I observe and learn about how dogs are kept today, I am more convinced that many cattle have better lives than some of the pampered pets. Too many dogs are alone all day with no human or dog companions.” Ok, this to me says she has no idea or insight into the life of a ‘pampered’ pet. A truly pampered pet lives a very full life, I have no doubt. Even when I am home all day, all my pampered pooch does is sleep, chew on a bone, and occasionally ask me to play – not so desperate that I feel guilt when I’m not there. She’s not missing anything when I’m not there because I give her plenty of love when I am there. Who wants to be hovered around all day? Even dogs need “alone-time.” If Grandin wants to talk about pets being alone all day being the cause of their unhappy lives – let’s talk about dogs left out in freezing temperatures to suffer from exposure. Let’s talk about dogs being chained in the yard without access to their water bowl on hot summer days and suffer from dehydration and heat-exhaustion. Let’s talk about a human beating their dog for having an accident in the home without looking for underlying causes that could’ve caused the accident – the human neglecting to let them out, the human not noticing if the dog has taken ill, the human inflicting so much fear in the dog that it begins submissive urination.

“We’re lucky to have Temple Grandin” the author writes?! Lucky? Sure, she may get the message out there that no animal should be in a state of terror during it’s last conscious moments…so shouldn’t it end there. So, instead of eliminating that terror altogether, she would rather just have it on display for us to frighten our children with? “Human beings can be made to feel like cattle, especially in large cities” – or perhaps when they are actually treated like cattle! “Treated like cattle!” Have we forgotten the Holocaust? Have we forgotten slavery in the South? Have we forgotten female Homo sapiens since the dawn of ‘man’?

~~Phoebe Maestri~~

1 Comment

Oklahoma Senator Pushes “Hunters Bill of Rights”

October 28, 2008 at 12:32 am (Animal Rights, Animals)
Tags: , , , , ,

Democratic Senator Earl Garrison of Oklahoma is pushing for a Hunters Bill of Rights that would help “protect” hunters and fishermen from animal rights activists. Apparently he is fearful that animal rights activists will intrude upon “Oklahoma traditions” and take advantage of the current wording of the state’s constitution. Some “sound” bites from Mr. Garrison himself follow, enjoy!

“We’re trying to put in our constitution the right for Oklahomans to hunt, fish and trap like we always have,” he said. “This will protect our children and grandchildren’s ability to hunt and fish like we always have in Oklahoma. I think it’s a good thing because most hunters and fishers are conservationists first.”

How many fishermen and hunters do you know that are big on conservation? Sure they may use it as an excuse to do what they enjoy, aka murder innocent creatures who have no means of fighting back, but they are not doing it for true conservation. Plus in my book a conservationalist would be concerned about the conservation of the earth in general….which would imply recycling, vegetarianism, bike riding/mass transit use and a plethora of other tiny acts to protect the planet. I dare say most hunters/fishermen do not fall into this category (and definitely not the vegetarian category).

“For most Oklahomans it’s a heritage we can pass on to our children and grandchildren,” he said. “Hunters are some of the most sensitive people in the world; they understand the value of passing this on to the next generations.”

Hunters are some of the most sensitive people in the world? What planet does this guy live on? Are you kidding me?!? Sensitive? Perhaps sensitive to their own needs and wants but it ends there. Also, why do they feel the need to pass down the “value” of death and violence towards other creatures on this planet? Can you answer that question, oh sensitive one?

The face of a sensitive conservationalist hunter/fisherman

The face of a sensitive conservationalist hunter/fisherman

“And you never know when extremist groups might come in and say this is not a good thing,” he said. “I think there is some fear that some groups will make it against the law to even hunt and fish because they think it’s cruel to animals.”

What a wonderful world it would be if we animal rights activists could just come in and say ” No hunting! No fishing!” and have it be done. I want to live in that world. Unfortunately that is beyond impossible at this stage of the animal rights movement. Not nearly enough people care about other animals enough to deem hunting and fishing be eliminated. It is hard enough to get people to stop wearing fur or to stop testing on animals for useless products, like Botox. Oh and Garrison, it IS a bad thing. Get over your need for weekend bloodbaths already.

“Animals have to be harvested,” he said. “And if you have good management, and that’s what the Oklahoma Wildlife Commission does, it’s important that you have management because if you don’t, you get overpopulation, and the animals get smaller and there’s too much inbreeding.”

Harvested? HARVESTED? Now that doesn’t sound like a sensitive conservationalist said that to me. Well in that one phrase Mr. Garrison makes it clear how he feels about animals: they are mere commodities. Is that sensitive? I think not. Also, the conservationalist in him does acknowledge a potential increase in population due to the lack of hunting, however he deems this unwanted because the animals would be smaller, aka less attractive on the mantle I suppose. *Note: Whereas the decrease or elimination of hunting would cause some animal populations to increase, nature would even out if predator/prey numbers were able to attain the correct balance. This has been a major problem since hunting/fishing/general killing/territory encroachment has increased. Prey species increase because predators are killed or do not have enough territory etc. How do you think the planet existed without hunting before humans existed/decided to kill other creatures? Hmm? Yeah, I think nature has a handle on what it needs to do.

5 Comments

Cows Raised As “Food” Fed Junk Food

August 20, 2008 at 2:23 am (Animal Rights, Animals)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

As per usual, I was reading my daily dose of vegan, animal rights and environmental news when I came across this article on The Daily Green. Apparently the geniuses behind the beef industry are feeding cows potato chips, waste from ethanol plants and chocolate factories. Huh? Yes, cows are being fed junk food. Would it not be fitting to then postulate that people who eat beef are also eating potato chips, waste from ethanol and chocolate waste, all of which were deemed not good enough for human consumption? As they say, you are what you eat.

Cows are grass eaters, not potato chip, chocolate or ethanol waste eaters. The absurdity of their diets has led to a vast increase in the number of E. coli in their guts. Could this possible rise over the decades have led to the greater number of recalls DUE to E. coli, just like the one earlier this month? The one in which Nebraska Beef, Ltd. based in Omaha, Nebraska had to recall about 1.2 million pounds of beef? Of this I have no doubt. But you also have to consider the great E. coli risk due to incompetent slaughterhouses (if there is such a thing as a competent one…rather oxymoronic), in which demand is high so work is quick and lousy. But in and of itself, the increased amount of E. coli in the animal being slaughtered would easily be a prime suspect for the root of contamination. But would anyone admit to this? Probably not, considering they would then have to admit that they are not only consuming something they shouldn’t, but also admit that they are feeding the cows what they shouldn’t eat either. Afterall, what is more important: feeding a cow what it actually eats or feeding it something that increases their fat factor? By all means, E. coli is only a minor problem considering the thought of slim cows *gasp*! No no, it is more important to risk over 1.2 million pounds of beef to be recalled (or approximately 2600 cows that died for absolutely no reason whatsoever…even from a meat eater’s viewpoint…so would that make it negative quantities of reason for death?).

So cows have not only been fingered for consumption, but also for being forced to eat crap. No, this would be worse than that, this would be the waste FROM crap. Apparently the increase of ethanol needs in this country has quite a bit to do with what cows eat. Corn prices are high, but apparently ethanol waste prices are low. So of course the cows get the waste. Not only that, farmers obtain waste from Hershey’s and Mars as well. Isn’t that grand? Cows get to eat chocolate considered not suitable for human consumption. But guess what? Humans are still consuming it each time they have beef. So no matter how “healthy” a meat eater THINKS they are (which they aren’t even if they don’t realize it), they are still consuming junk food. I find this a tad bit humorous…considering how terrible junk food is considered, yet beef is still found even on menus of Jenny Craig and and other idiotic diets. Of course I feel awful for the cows, as who knows what this crap they are feeding them is doing to their systems. Afterall, their lives are terrible enough.

3 Comments

Veganism and Animal Rights Vilified Yet Again

August 16, 2008 at 4:18 am (Animal Rights, Animals)
Tags: , , , , , ,

It seems as though people have found a new target to focus their aggressions on: vegans and/or animal rights supporters. Not only that, but these individuals have begun writing anti-animal rights books. Their “reasons” to vilify our beliefs are proposterous and unwarranted. Apparently believing in the lives of animals makes us inconceiveably evil and elite. How dare we think of others! The irony of this is that true animal rights supporters will just become more vigilant in the face of these people and perhaps even change their opinion of the human species.

What on earth am I talking about? I’m talking about this article on the National Review Online (*ahem* screams right-wing) by an idiot by the name of Wesley J. Smith. It appears that Smith doesn’t like vegans and animal rights supporters. His main reason for writing this article seems to be various antics of PETA. Did you know that PETA was the one and only animal rights group? Did you also know that they represented all of our beliefs? No? Well good thing Smith came along to help us realize this!

The driving foundation of this article is the response of PETA regarding Jessica Simpson wearing a t-shirt declaring that upstanding females consume the flesh of others. PETA’s response, which was unnecessary considering who is taking dietary advice from the likes of Jessica Simpson, was the usual meat consumption causes death and anguish declaration. True indeed, but yet another move by PETA that allows twits like Wesley J. Smith to accost our belief system.

It appears that those in the vegan and animal rights community are “hold(ing) a weak intellectual hand” when it comes to debating the issue of “meat is murder”. Did you know this? Because this was all news to me. It appears that we are not actually vegans in the true sense, since mice, rabbits, birds, snakes and other small creatures are killed by the cultivation of the land. It is true that those poor little guys probably do get killed by farm equipment daily, and for that I am sorry. But how is this fact a reason to attack vegans? Since we consume only vegetables, grains, fruits etc., we are apparently responsible for each and every death that occurs on the farms. Or at the very least we cannot claim we are eating a murder-free diet. But is that really true?

I see it this way: those in opposition to us have so little in their favor in terms of evidence for maintaining their heart-clogging, global warming enhancing, death mongering lifestyle that they now need to vilify us to make themselves feel better. It is becoming ever-more alarming how similar war mongers are to meat mongers. What’s that? Yes, you’re right. Most vegans probably do come from the left-wingers side. Good catch! (Oh but this is a whole ‘nother story indeed!)

So let me just break down the article of this special consultant to the Center of Bioethics and Culture (that gave me a good laugh).

Nor can they argue that field animals experience less-agonizing deaths from plant agriculture than food animals do from food-animal slaughtering. Field animals may flee in panic as the great rumbling harvest combines approach, only to be shredded to bits within their merciless blades; they may be burned to death when field leavings are burned; they may be poisoned by pesticides; they may die from predation when their plant cover has been removed.

Really? Are “food-animals” allowed the option to flee? Are they allowed the option to live in this field or that one? Are they allowed the option to eat what they want instead of being force-fed antibiotics and remains of their former relatives? I think not. I am sure that many animals do die in the harvesting process of modern-day grain etc. farming. But, Smith seems to deliver us a terrible image of animal after animal being killed by farm equipment at every turn. First of all, has this guy ever seen a farm actually harvested? Farm equipment doesn’t exactly move 90 MPH. On the other hand, have you seen a rabbit run? I’m quite certain that most animals that enter the fields leave the fields alive (except if captured by predator species). This cannot be said for any farm animal grown for food (except for those lucky few that are rescued by farm sanctuaries!). Have you ever known a mouse to NOT be afraid of a human nonetheless a gigantic machine? Most of the animals listed on Smith’s article are either skiddish by nature or very quick. In no way am I saying NO animal ever dies from the likes of farm equipment, I just suspect it is much lower than individuals on Smith’s side contend. Also, do animals no longer have the capability to smell? Do they not realize to run when a huge fire ball is headed their way? Generally animals killed in fire deaths are surrounded by fire with no escape. This would not often be the case in controlled burns on farms. Poisoned by pesticides? People poison animals in their homes and call it “pest control”, when are those people going to be attacked? Plus, humans are be continually poisoned by pesticides daily…its just a much slower process that is supported by pesticide companies and non-organic farmers. Lastly, animals dying from predation is the least of any animals problems these days. At least predation is a natural norm and necessary for a healthy ecosystem. Did anyone care to consider all the animals and entire species being wiped out by global warming (which factory farming of animals is the #1 contributor to)? Also, does it even matter to such people as this that most grain, soybeans etc. are raised for livestock feed? Eh? I feel absurd for even validating these reasons of Smith’s by repeating them here, but I wanted everyone to see the stupidity!

Moreover, even if the relative number of animals killed were the morally decisive issue, veganism might not be the most ethical solution. In 2001, S. L. Davis of the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University, Corvallis, wrote a paper claiming that the diet most likely to result in the deaths of the fewest animals would be beef, lamb, and dairy — not vegan. Davis found a study that measured mouse population density per hectare in grain fields both before and after harvest and estimated a harvest casualty rate of ten mice per hectare. Then, he multiplied that figure by 120 million hectares of farmland in the U.S.; meaning that 1.2 billion mice would die each year in food production if America became a wholly vegan country.

Oh the insanity continues! First of all, S.L. Davis is an ass. I am officially ashamed of Oregon State University. I am increasingly disturbed by these individuals in the academic community, frequently in the animal sciences/biology departments completely vilifying animal rights and animals in general. I was under the impression that academia was supposed to be better informed and wise. All this makes me wonder how my former professors stand on these issues. I may be horrified to know! But I digress! Davis’ paper is ridiculous, plain and simple. First off, he is assuming that dietary habits regarding beef, lamb and dairy would stay exactly the same if people in this country no longer ate chicken, turkey and pork. Really? No one would eat more beef or lamb or milk or cheese? Wow. What a omnivorian utopia. Consider the more likely scenario: no chicken, turkey or pork would raise the consumption of beef etc. drastically, thereby completely negating Davis’ thesis. Second, if we are all supposed to be omnivorian, based on this paper, wouldn’t the very idea of current vegans and vegetarians now eating beef, lamb and dairy cause an increase as well? Wonder why Davis’ chose to just make it a beef, lamb and dairy diet? Because chickens would have thrown a gigantic loop into his logic, since more chickens are killed than the concocted number of mice in his theory. Secondly, his estimations regarding population density are fairy invalid as well. He does not take into account that the field equipment may have scared away individuals, natural predation and general mouse lifespan. But don’t take my word for it, here are the ridiculous notions straight from Davis”:

Accurate numbers of mortality aren’t available, but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

So just for the hell of it, lets assume half of the missing mice are dead from human activity–even though we have no actual mortality numbers available and no decent former studies to prove it. Yeah, good science Davis’, you should be up for an award. And with this blatant assumption game on Davis’ part, anti-vegans/animal rights individuals are finding ammunition. Oh, their reasonings are flawless!!

Also from Davis’:

According to the USDA numbers quoted {…}, of the 8.4 billion animals killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows, calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that would need to be killed under this alternative would still be fewer than in the vegan alternative.

I suppose that answers my previous statement regarding increase of beef etc. consumption, but double? So this country will go from consuming 8 BILLION chickens and 41 MILLION ruminants, to ONLY consuming at most 82 MILLION ruminants? Really? What on earth will all those flesh craving individuals do with 7.96 BILLION less creatures to eat? Seriously? The idea of only doubling is proposterous!!!

Further brilliancy from Smith:

Contending that meat eating is somehow murder while veganism is morally pristine because it doesn’t result in intentional animal deaths is factually false and self-delusional. No matter your diet, animals surely died that you might live.

I cannot believe oxygen is being wasted on idiots like this. How are vegans simply “contending” that meat is murder? Are animals NOT in fact raised for the sole reason of being killed for consumption? Isn’t intentional killing in fact murder? Did I miss something during my time on earth?? If us vegans are not “morally pristine” I would like to know what strict omnivores or carnivores are then. Morally vacant perhaps? I know two people who are morally vacant *ahem*.

13 Comments

Quote Of The Day!

July 30, 2008 at 6:00 pm (Animal Rights, Quotes)
Tags: , ,

“As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap the joy of love.”

–Pythagoras, the “father of numbers”, a famous ancient Greek mathematician, c. 580 BC-c. 500 BC–

 

How horrifying is it that these views have been around and even conveyed by such great minds as Pythagoras and essentially very LITTLE has been done in terms of animal rights in 2500 years?? I really wonder how much the human population has really “advanced”.

Leave a Comment

Faux Fur Potentially Dog Fur

July 23, 2008 at 4:06 pm (Animal Rights, Animals)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you are vegan or just generally involved in animal rights issues, you may already know that a great deal of labeled faux fur is actually dog fur–domestic or raccoon dog. However, there are many people out there that are completely unaware that they may in fact be purchasing REAL fur. I personally do not like the appearance of faux fur because it reminds me too much of REAL fur and the atrocities that come along with it. I pretty much ban anything that is faux animal material…..I just can’t help but feel it in some way supports the actual industry behind the torture of real animals. Put it this way: people see you in your faux fur coat and faux snake bag–do they necessarily know its faux? No, therefore you are both supporting the use of the REAL thing and making it seem all fine and dandy by doing so. Also, you never know–a PETA campaigner may come up and spray paint you accidentally!! (I in no way am denouncing the spray painting, more power to PETA!)

Back to the subject at hand: faux fur that is dog fur. In 2007 the Humane Society purchased 25 coats that were said to be coats containing faux fur (mostly around the collars of the coats). They tested each of the coats and 24 of 25 coats were in fact REAL fur, mostly from the raccoon dog native to Asia. The companies claimed that the “asiatic raccoon” aka the raccoon dog, is legal to import into the USA. However, what does legal have to do with it? These coats were labeled FAUX FUR!! People who purposely buy faux fur products do not wish to have an animal tortured for their fashion statements, whether it be LEGAL or not!!! The majority of coats tested turn out to be from the raccoon dog but there was also fur from coyotes and domestic dogs.

Look how freakin adorable the raccoon dogs are! How could you let them suffer?

The majority of real fur and fake fur garments coming into the USA is from China. China does not have animal laws in place to protect domestic dogs and cats, and they especially do not have laws in place to protect raccoon dogs, coyotes, raccoons etc etc. Therefore, these poor creatures are more often than not, kept in small crowded cages with sick and deceased animals. This is how they spend the rest of their lives before they are taken off to be skinned alive. These are atrocities that we should not allow to happen!! There is absolutely no reason animals should be tortured and skinned alive for FASHION!!! Nonetheless FAUX FASHION! Its absurd!!

I hope that some of you reading this did not know about this and are now as outraged as I am. Whether you knew about these atrocities already or not, PLEASE let others know too!! I remember having a conversation with my boyfriend’s niece, she had just received a faux fur collared jacket for Christmas. She is an animal lover and I felt the need to advise her that her coat may in fact be REAL dog fur. She was horrified. Part of me felt bad for ruining one of her favorite gifts from Christmas but I felt the knowledge I left her with was much more important. I hope that the knowledge leaves her second guessing the next time she is looking at faux-anything! Know what you are buying and if you are not sure, don’t buy it or do some major research! Is having a “faux” collar important enough for an animal to be skinned alive for? Nothing is important enough for that!

For more information on mislabeled faux fur and the fur trade in general, visit these sites:

http://www.furisdead.com/feat-dogcatfur.asp

http://www.peta.org/feat/ChineseFurFarms/index.asp

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v710173tYXT8zHE 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/dog.fur/

4 Comments

Quote Of The Day…errr…Week!

July 3, 2008 at 9:31 pm (Animals, Quotes)
Tags: , , , , ,

I have been falling behind on my Quote of the Day blogs so maybe we should rename it Quote of the Week! I am finally filling your brains with ever more quote knowledge, here is another one of my favorites:

“People only see what they are prepared to see.”

Which was written by Ralph Waldo Emerson. A very fitting quote for everyday life, fits almost every situation you can think of when dealing with individuals on the “other” side of a debate. Take for instance vegetarianism. People KNOW that it is in fact a pig that was once living on their plate when they have pork or bacon, but do they ever really SEE it for what it is? Or how exactly the animal came to be on their plate? Most people do not want to think about the life that the animal may have lived, they just want to be able to eat what is on their plate. But, like many vegetarians I have heard the stories of, they come to the realization of what is TRULY on their plate, then and only then do they seek answers regarding the pig or the cow or the chicken. Its because they were PREPARED TO SEE it.

I am a great proponent of animal rights and I believe that in every effort we convey to the world that there is someone out there for the first time finally PREPARED to see why we struggle for animal rights. This is why we must always do the little things, because every little thing is not so little added up–especially if we help someone SEE. After all, people only see what they are prepared to see.

Leave a Comment