"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right" (emphasis added). 

This book is one of the best resources for the vegetarian-going-vegan, long-time vegan, and any person who takes even a remote interest in their health and well-being (and the health and well-being of their friends and family).

Buy this book! I cannot state it more clearly: it's cogent, full of facts - decimating, as it does, our collective assumptions about diet and nutrition (And protein, oh the protein!) -and very, very accessible.

Here are some "fun" facts:

The % of calves that never suckle from their mothers' udders is 50% - never.  (Thanks to the dairy and veal industries for this.)

Male chicks (from laying hens) killed per year by suffocating, gas, or grinding in the U.S.: 200 million. (Oh, so that's what happens to the baby boy chickens. It's like reverse China.)

Pigs with pneumonia at the time of slaughter: 70 %. (Pneumonia's fun isn't it? Maybe those PETA videos about farming conditions aren't the result of "selective editing" after all.)

Proportion of all antibiotics that are used in animal agriculture: 40 %.  

How about some more numbers:

10-40% of calories in most plant foods are derived from protein. Therefore, by consuming enough calories from well-balanced vegan foods, it's easy to get more than enough protein. (Get out! I guess vegans and vegetarians do actually eat protein. They're human after all.)

B-12 is a bacteria that also lives on plants, not some crazy vitamin that only (and naturally) occurs in animals. That's interesting, and easily remedied then.

Animal protein raises blood cholesterol levels, while plant protein lowers it. (Not to mention the saturated fats our fat society loves so much.)

All essential amino acids (you know, the building blocks of protein) are derived from plants. If you get any from eating nonhuman body parts that means that the animal ate a plant (or ate another animal who ate a plant)!  

One medium egg provides 5.5 g protein, so someone who needs 50 g of protein (that would be most of us) would have to eat 9 eggs each day to meet their entire need for protein. Versus 1 1/4 cups - ya, that's right! - of extra firm tofu. (So much for the egg-as-"gold standard"-for-protein-quality myth.)

This could go on forever. For the vegan athlete, the young and old alike, everything you need (and everything you don't need!) is stated succinctly on each and every page of this book.   

A man sits comfortably eating a cheesy-bacon-chicken sandwich in either an isolated car or a hotel room off the beaten path - the type of place one visits when they are sleeping with someone who isn't their husband or wife. There he sits devouring decomposing chickens when a large bull forces himself into the room - or bashes himself into the parked car - with a rage in his eyes reminiscent of the stereotypical "scorned wife." 

His anger is the result of jealousy of course: This man, how dare he, chose another nonhuman to kill because he/she tastes good, which seemingly doesn't allow the bull to fulfill his life's ambition to be that piece of rotting flesh in our bellies. And he's not happy about it. Breathing is overrated when compared to suffering and death for our gastronomical pleasure, right? 

"Chicken so good it will make you cheat on beef," as the commercial says.      

The situation was as follows: The father of the vegetarian or soon-to-be vegetarian stood fast defending his daughters choice (he seemed to imply that he was also considering giving up flesh), while the other two individuals expressed their sincere concern for his daughters' health stemming from her (and his I suppose?) poor choice.

A: "Well, you know, vegetarians have to be very concerned about their health."

B: "Like protein?"

A: "Yes, protein, but not only protein; they generally lack nutrients essential for energy and muscle health. There also seems to be a problem with vitamin absorption...But yes mainly protein."

B: "She seems to be doing well. But thanks."

A: "Blah, bliggity blah, blah, blah, blah."

I sat there wondering to myself, here they were discussing what food they were going to eat later (e.g., Italian meats and cheese) without a single mention about what foods may lead to hypertension, obesity, heart disease, diabetes and all those other health issues that plague nations of omnivores.

Neither of these two individuals now overly concerned about health and diet suggested that whatever they eat, they should reduce the overall amount of meat being consumed (to, essentially, three pieces of meat that are about the size of your palm per week) because evidence has been compiled recently which suggests that over-consumption of meat leads to various forms of cancer; or dairy and its correlated cancer risks. These now enlightened individuals didn't argue that they must make sure to eat their vegetables, fruits, grains and legumes (you know, those foods that compose the bulk of the "food pyramid"), while avoiding large amounts of meat and dairy (you know, those boxes up there with candy). Indeed, I didn't hear either of them mention to this man whose daughters' choice now interested them so greatly, that they had most likely allready consumed their allotment of meat for the week - by Tuesday - and they, therefore, ought to avoid eating anymore flesh.

It seems to me that there are unstated assumptions in these conversations we vegans and vegetarians constantly have with omnivores.

One, omnivores such as these two individuals seem to be implying that not being a vegan or vegetarian is all that one must do to avoid having health problems. Hence the lack of concern for their own diets and food choices, and their over-concern for the vegetarian. The assumption is obvious: being a vegetarian brings with it health issues whereas being an omnivore seems to not warrant any concern. Therefore, why have a little inner reflection - it's not necessary to turn all that anxiety and unease over food options upon the choices being made daily by themselves and the greater majority in our society.

This assumption is sound insofar as people are not dying from colon cancer and cholesterol related illnesses that seem to directly result from the consumption of flesh. This is plausible (?) or maybe it's an embarrassingly stupid assumption.

Another assumption is being suggested by the paternalistic tone of the advice. There seems to be a presumption that those going vegetarian don't consider the alleged health issues that confront them; therefore, individuals such as those two at the table are there to fill in the parental gap and offer their service. This type of gall is frustrating for any somewhat autonomous individual and we shouldn't be worried about letting those stand-in mothers know how we feel.

I think, however, what underlies it all is defensiveness disguised as care. We vegans and vegetarians are made aware everyday that our very presence causes irrational defensiveness on the part of omnivores because, well, I don't know. We make them feel uncomfortable, which, in keeping with our status as a minority group, is easily countered by challenges to our choices on various fronts: ethics, freedom, health. On each of these fronts, fortunately, not for us but for the billions of nonhumans we unnecessarily torture and kill annually, we have readily available (and correct) responses. Let's respond indeed; the time must pass when we allow these assumptions and false concerns to go unchallenged.

Vegans make non-vegans feel uncomfortable. There it is, isn't it? You feel this inside therefore out comes the same tired old arguments (excuses?) for the benefits of being an omnivore - or more accurately, not being a vegan. You may not even know that your sympathy is false, a disguise, a not-so-clever front. But it is.        

We have the upper hand because I think it's only appropriate that individuals such as the two paternalists mentioned above turn their consideration inward and figure out why we are increasingly the fattest and most unhealthy nation on this planet. All while meat industries continue their reign as one of the most prolific lobbying groups in Washington, D.C. and McDonalds convinces parents that cheeseburgers, french fries cooked in saturated flesh fat, apple slices (?), and a large coke is actually a well-balanced meal.

Please, hold your concern and, since you are apparently so concerned about health, consider your own choices and save the stereotypes and misinformed advice.  

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox

"A "right" is a moral principle that governs one's freedom of action in society...man is the only being capable of grasping such an abstraction, understanding his actions within a principled framework and adjusting his behavior so as not to violate the rights of others." 

"Unlike most mammals or other types of creatures, humans are not born with instinctual, inherited knowledge of how to survive. Rather, man's survival is achieved through reason, which allows him to integrate the facts of his surroundings and apply this knowledge to use and shape the natural world for his preservation and advancement."

What should we think about this situation? I certainly don't want to give the impression that I am cold to the boys suffering. I am not. Whenever nature causes pain it's always tragic. But it is, in fact, nature causing the pain isn't it. Nature is amoral; it cannot be judged "right or wrong." To label an avalanche "evil" is to make the concept meaningless. There is no intent or reason that animates nature; it just is. A storm doesn't decide to do what it does. The same is pretty much true (to the best of our understanding) of nonhuman animals, such as the alligator.

He (the gator) did not do anything wrong. He simply acted in accordance with his nature. It seems unreasonable to apply an ethical test here. To do so would mean that statements such as "Your natural aggression ought to be tempered by moral reasoning" would be relevant in the case of nonhuman animals, which, like in the case of some mentally challenged humans and all infants, is erroneous. Therefore, again, the alligator did not do anything wrong.

This necessarily raises a question about the actions taken in response to this attack. Is it ethical to take the animals life from him? If the issue is the recovery of the boys arm, isn't there another method that doesn't involve ending this animals chance at happiness? If there exists an alleged threat from this alligator, isn't relocation a more ethically defensible option? (This isn't "Jaws".) These are legitimate questions that ought to be raised in so-called civilized societies, but they are never asked for some reason. (A prejudice perhaps?) The gator was a ferocious monster, therefore, whatever means are available - not necessary, but available - the arm was going to be retrieved.

Upon some reflection, who is the true monster here, the animal necessarily acting out of pure instinct, or the human beings capable of moral reasoning who decide instead to act blindly (morally speaking), as though it was from instinct? I hope the boy survives and lives well. He should never forget, however, what resulted from his little swim in the alligator's home: his suffering and the unnecessary death of this feeling being.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox 

The motive of the person who commits an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. The individual who is suffering has an exceedingly poor quality of life, for example, and is, therefore, the direct object of concern. I repeat: The interests of the person being euthanized are the impetus for the act, as opposed to economic motives or mere convenience.

Thanks go out to Creature Talk for finding the following essay:

When I was a puppy, I entertained you with my antics and made you laugh. You called me your child, and despite a number of chewed shoes and a couple of murdered throw pillows, I became your best friend. Whenever I was "bad," you'd shake your finger at me and ask "How could you?" ­ but then you'd relent, and roll me over for a bellyrub.

My housebreaking took a little longer than expected, because you were terribly busy, but we worked on that together. I remember those nights of nuzzling you in bed and listening to your confidences and secret dreams, and I believed that life could not be any more perfect. We went for long walks and runs in the park, car rides, stops for ice cream (I only got the cone because "ice cream is bad for dogs," you said), and I took long naps in the sun waiting for you to come home at the end of the day.

Gradually, you began spending more time at work and on your career, and more time searching for a human mate. I waited for you patiently, comforted you through heartbreaks and disappointments, never chided you about bad decisions, and romped with glee at your homecomings, and when you fell in love.

She, now your wife, is not a "dog person" ­ still I welcomed her into our home, tried to show her affection, and obeyed her. I was happy because you were happy. Then the human babies came along and I shared your excitement. I was fascinated by their pinkness, how they smelled, and I wanted to mother them, too. Only she and you worried that I might hurt them, and I spent most of my time banished to another room, or to a dog crate. Oh, how I wanted to love them, but I became a "prisoner of love."

As they began to grow, I became their friend. They clung to my fur and pulled themselves up on wobbly legs, poked fingers in my eyes, investigated my ears, and gave me kisses on my nose. I loved everything about them and their touch ­ because your touch was now so infrequent ­ and I would have defended them with my life if need be.

I would sneak into their beds and listen to their worries and secret dreams, and together we waited for the sound of your car in the driveway. There had been a time, when others asked you if you had a dog, that you produced a photo of me from your wallet and told them stories about me. These past few years, you just answered "yes" and changed the subject. I had gone from being "your dog" to "just a dog," and you resented every expenditure on my behalf.

Now, you have a new career opportunity in another city, and you and they will be moving to an apartment that does not allow pets. You've made the right decision for your "family," but there was a time when I was your only family. I was excited about the car ride until we arrived at the animal shelter. It smelled of dogs and cats, of fear, of hopelessness. You filled out the paperwork and said "I know you will find a good home for her." They shrugged and gave you a pained look. They understand the realities facing a middle-aged dog, even one with "papers." You had to pry your son's fingers loose from my collar as he screamed "No, Daddy! Please don't let them take my dog!" And I worried for him, and what lessons you had just taught him about friendship and loyalty, about love and responsibility, and about respect for all life. You gave me a goodbye pat on the head, avoided my eyes, and politely refused to take my collar and leash with you. You had a deadline to meet and now I have one, too.

After you left, the two nice ladies said you probably knew about your upcoming move months ago and made no attempt to find me another good home. They shook their heads and asked "How could you?"

They are as attentive to us here in the shelter as their busy schedules allow. They feed us, of course, but I lost my appetite days ago. At first, whenever anyone passed my pen, I rushed to the front, hoping it was you ­ that you had changed your mind ­ that this was all a bad dream...or I hoped it would at least be someone who cared, anyone who might save me. When I realized I could not compete with the frolicking for attention of happy puppies, oblivious to their own fate, I retreated to a far corner and waited.

I heard her footsteps as she came for me at the end of the day, and I padded along the aisle after her to a separate room. A blissfully quiet room. She placed me on the table and rubbed my ears, and told me not to worry. My heart pounded in anticipation of what was to come, but there was also a sense of relief. The prisoner of love had run out of days. As is my nature, I was more concerned about her. The burden which she bears weighs heavily on her, and I know that, the same way I knew your every mood.

She gently placed a tourniquet around my foreleg as a tear ran down her cheek. I licked her hand in the same way I used to comfort you so many years ago. She expertly slid the hypodermic needle into my vein. As I felt the sting and the cool liquid coursing through my body, I lay down sleepily, looked into her kind eyes and murmured "How could you?"

Perhaps because she understood my dogspeak, she said "I'm so sorry." She hugged me, and hurriedly explained it was her job to make sure I went to a better place, where I wouldn't be ignored or abused or abandoned, or have to fend for myself ­ a place of love and light so very different from this earthly place. And with my last bit of energy, I tried to convey to her with a thump of my tail that my "How could you?" was not directed at her. It was you, My Beloved Master, I was thinking of. I will think of you and wait for you forever.

May everyone in your life continue to show you so much loyalty.

The End

Jim Willis 2001

This is not euthanasia; it's killing out of convenience. Our species' efforts to collapse these two distinct actions into a unified concept in our dealings with animals are pathetic. We try to make ourselves feel better about doing something we know, intuitively, is plain wrong. Stop lying about what we're doing. Don't confuse the language. Indeed, we have misused this term so frequently that it has lost its meaning entirely.

Similar actions are (and ought to be) illegal in the case of human beings. They're also immoral. Likewise in the case of our companion animals and all those other nonhumans we kill because it's more convenient than allowing them to breathe and experience this world.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox   

As both the US and UK governments (and many others) are cracking down on animal rights and environmental activists, labeling them as terrorists and hitting them with outrageous prison sentences, supporters say it is for a few reasons. First, they say that these activists are national security threats. Second, they say that this boot-on-the-throat approach will deter future illegal activity by underground, "eco-terrorist" groups like the Animal Liberation Front.

But here's a recent example of how this "Green Scare" plays out in real life.

A UK activist named Sarah Whitehead was just sentenced to 2 years in prison for rescuing a beagle from an abusive home. That's right, two years. Neighbors had filed complaints with the police and the RSPCA, to no avail. When Whitehead rescued the dog, cops pounced surprisingly quickly: it turns out Whitehead, like many activists, was already under police surveillance. So has this use of police resources, to crack down on a woman rescuing an abused dog, deterred illegal activity by "eco-terrorist" groups like the Animal Liberation Front?

Far from it.

In response to Whiteheads sentence, animal liberationists rescued 50 turkeys from an Eastern factory farm.

Will Potter writes,

"But lets stop for a moment so we can truly appreciate the absurdity of this situation. This is what the global "War on Terrorism" has become: an "animal rights terrorist" sentenced to two years in prison for rescuing a dog, and the method of retaliation chosen by the "terrorists" is... saving more lives."

Sarah was already on a suspended sentence for rescuing several hundred animals from a notorious puppy farmer in West Sussex, which authorities argue accounts for the severity of this punishment  

Reports say that the dog was living outside in a wooden cage, and was muzzled at all times except for when he got to eat. The dog was made to wear an electric shock collar and the neighbors informed Sarah that they had witnessed beatings. The neighbors had also heard the dog screaming on many occasions. The RSPCA had been called numerous times, but they failed to help this dog and left him with his people who had on occasion tied him to a radiator.

What would you do if you saw this animal suffering? If you saw (and heard) this helpless animal being tortured with no help from those charged to provide aid and support in these situations? 

She's a "terrorist" because she acted. So it goes.   

Thanks go out to Vegan Soapbox

"Turning the lying talking-(meat)head meaty-uh into truthful media on animal suffering, human health, world hunger, energy crises, and environmental devastation."

Bob Linden hosts "the planets first and only commercial vegan radio show" extolling the many virtues - both ethical and prudential - of animal liberation and veganism.

Listen here

"Being kind to animals is not enough. Avoiding cruelty is not enough. Housing animals in more comfortable, larger cages is not enough. Whether we exploit animals to eat, to wear, to entertain us, or to learn, the truth of animal rights requires empty cages, not larger cages." 

Misinformation, infantilism, and negative imagery aside, ethical veganism

"unmasks the rhetoric of these industries (e.g., factory farming) and shows why what their spokespersons say about their treatment of animals (these industries treat animals "humanely") is not sometimes false. It is always false."

Note: Ad hominem "arguments" are fallacious:

1) Person A makes a claim;

2) Person B makes an attack on Person A;

3) Therefore A's claim is false.

"The character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made - or the quality of the argument being made."

What this method of argumentation amounts to is the strategic avoidance of having a discourse about our premises, opting instead to rely on childish antics and attempted character assassinations such as the following:

"Of course you believe that nonhumans shouldn't suffer merely because we believe they taste good, you're an atheist; ergo nothing you say in support of your position counts because, again, you're just a godless heathen (and you hate humans and Jesus)."

Listen closely to Dienna Capers' words: She is an omnivore who make's an emotional appeal that can only reasonably end with her going vegan (or at least stop sanctioning the murder of Maxine's brother because he tastes good).

 

All beings tremble before danger, all fear death. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. (Dhammapada, 129-130.)

 

He who for the sake of happiness hurts others who also want happiness, shall not hereafter find happiness. (Dhammapada, 131.)