Who has time for justice?

"In Memory Of Rosa Robota, Estusia Wajcblum, Ala Gertner, Regina Safirztain and Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley, Addie Mae Collins, who all died from different manifestations of the same disease."

Thus is written the dedication of a novel titled "The Street Sweeper" by Elliot Perlman. One of the main characters in the novel is a psychologist who travels to Germany in 1946 to interview survivors of the Holocaust. This psychologist, after hearing a woman tell her story of having to abandon her infant daughter in a futile attempt to save the child's life, asks himself: "Who will sit in judgement over all this?"

Close to the end of the novel, a female physician faces a situation wherein she is called upon to intervene on behalf of a fired hospital cleaning worker.

"...what a tremendous injustice it was for him to be accused of theft and fired because of it. She worked at the hospital but not in Human Resources. She had her own life. She had her own problems. Who had time for this kind of thing?

She asked herself this and then wondered what she meant by "this kind of thing."  She concluded a few seconds later that what she had really meant was "justice" of some kind. So what she had, in fact, asked herself was "who had time for justice?" and  the fact that she had articulated this question, even if only privately to herself, jolted her. She caught a vague, elongated momentary glimpse of herself walking past a reflecting surface and, not wanting to be the sort of person who asked her self that question, ..." p.596-597

 I'm not going to 'review' the novel...there are a number of adequate ones available on the web. Instead I want to write about the bitter and tragic fact that in a very well written novel such as this...in a novel that addresses beautifully the disease that kills (racism) noted in the dedication quoted above...this novel is blind...utterly...to speciesism (which also kills).

One of the more sympathetic characters in the novel is an African American man who is kind and gentle and sensitive, helpful to a fatherless boy, and who also 'works' as a "splitter" in a slaughterhouse...he spends his working life murdering or dismembering pigs.

And yet...and yet...this is a sensitive and powerful and well-written novel about the horrors and damage and suffering and deaths that accompany the ugliness of racism...but the novelist and the characters are oblivious to their perpetuation of the same behaviors and attitudes that so scarred and injured and diminished their lives. How can this be?

I know the novelist did not set out to write a novel about racism and injustice and human blindness and human casualness toward perpetrating or supporting horror that exemplified the very thing he was attempting to explore and highlight in the book...but he did. His work is tainted and diminished so terribly much by his own blindness...by his (and thereby his characters) own inability to perceive that speciesism is simply another manifestation of that terrible 'disease'.

I found reading the novel to be so disorienting...for instance in one part a mother and daughter are discussing the Upton Sinclair novel "The Jungle" and on the following page are talking about the ugliness and wrongness of using the "Nword" when referring to African Americans. With never a hint that the pigs and cows and sheep murdered by the slaughterhouses referenced in Sinclair's novel are murdered for exactly the same reasons that slavery once was legal...for exactly the same reasons that the Germans built the gas-chambers, for exactly the same reason that using the "Nword" is ugly and wrong.

They were (and are) enslaved and murdered because they are considered to be "inferior", unworthy of serious consideration...or dog and cats and rabbits are murdered because no one wants to care for them...or for "sport". It is the same...the same old story of devaluing those who are "different", of denying the worth of those not the same...your life is forfeit to the group in power if you don't fit their criteria of worthiness.

And Elliot Perlman has written an excellent treatment of racism directed toward African Americans and Jews. And Elliot Perlman casually and apparently with absolute obliviousness supports and reifies and normalizes at places in his book the same ugliness, the same 'disease', when directed toward those who happen to not look like a human animal. Without a thought or a word or a tear for their anguish, for their terror, for their lives. How sad, how very sad.

"Who will sit in judgement over all this?"

Please don't be someone who doesn't have time for justice...ethical veganism is the only way of living that supports justice for those who don't happen be human animals...and...while you're at it...live a just life toward your fellow human animals too.

A day for Honoring all Human UnMothers.....

On my behalf and on behalf of all sentient beings I want to thank and honor all of you human animal females who have avoided becoming mothers. Thank you Thank you and Thank you! You have chosen to not participate in or contribute to the ongoing and accelerating destruction of most of the current habitat and environment of the planet Earth.

The human overpopulation of the planet is destroying other species and the environmental conditions necessary to support Earth's species at an astonishing rate. The single most significant thing any human animal can do to reduce their negative impact on the ecosystem is to not reproduce. While not disrespecting those who have children...the real heroes who deserve acknowledgement are those brave women who have had the courage to remain childless.

When scientists talk about overpopulation, they are usually referring to a population exceeding its biological carrying capacity which is defined as "the maximum number of animals that a specific habitat or area can support without causing deterioration or degradation of that habitat.” 

 Look at the bottom left corner of the graph, it is estimated that the human population of the planet exceeded 1 billion in 1804. In general, thought suggests that a human population of around 500 million (in other words, a population of humans half of the 1804 population) is a "sustainable" number of people. If you want to poke around, there is an abundance of information available...

What is important to remember is that every additional human animal on the planet means two things for our fellow Earthlings:

A. Less space and food (natural habitat) for other animals.
B. More animals killed for food by humans.

The direction of the number of human animals needs (for the sake of the planet, for our fellow Earthlings and for ourselves) to be decreasing, not increasing. We could make the number decrease by killing (and we are amazingly good at that) or by death from disease or starvation or whatever....or we could make the number decrease by not adding to it and letting death due to age begin to bring the number down. Obviously the least violent and painful way to make our numbers drop is to quit having so many children.

So...thanks is due to those courageous and heroic human females (inadvertently or not) who have had the generosity and vision to help all living beings by being UnMothers.  Your planet thanks you, your fellow Earthlings thank you...especially all mothers who aren't human animals, and I thank you. You are appreciated and valued and treasured.

Your not having children means you voted to have more tigers living in the wild instead of another McDonalds hamburger joint.

You voted to preserve, not to destroy. You voted for the future, not for the now. This is caring, this is concern, this is love...this is true "mothering". Be impressed with yourselves, you should be...we all should be. Thank you!!!   (Repost from May 7, 2011)

Joie de vivre!

The french phrase, which means pleasure or joy in living or life is one that comes to mind every time I think about or see Howard. The photo below shows Howard doing one of the things he seems to enjoy totally...running. He moves pell-mell wherever he goes....

and he seems to always be going somewhere. Except when he's not...then he might be looking to see where he wants to go next.

I've been wanting to write about Howard for a long time but words about him come with difficulty. He came to us after having been dumped in a parking lot (in a cardboard box). He was picked up by the local municipal animal shelter and his execution time was approaching...that's the penalty in Oklahoma if you're a bunny without a home. Death. He was thrown away. The best estimate of his age is that he is between 2 and 4 years old...likely he is on the young side of that range...he seems to have grown a little since he came to us and his energy level certainly is that of a kid.

Howard is what is known as a "New Zealand White". Now, first of all these guys don't have a damn thing to do with New Zealand...the "breed" was developed in Mexico...supposedly in 1916. The "big whites" (that's what I like to call them) were "bred" for their "fur" and for "meat" and for "use" by laboratories. I'm enclosing words that are repulsive and euphemistic in quotation marks because they obscure the horrific reality that these bunnies were manipulated by humans for profit...absolutely and totally ignoring the rights and needs of these beings. But...that's a rant for a different time.

Howard came to Heartland because the Director made the space for him (even though we didn't have it...Heartland is chronically over capacity) to save his life. When he first was given a chance to run around it didn't look good for him. He was very shaky and had a difficult time staying upright...his balance was very poor and he evinced ongoing tremors. It was apparent he had some sort of neurological or motoric problems and we were very concerned about him. But...he was a poster child for the word exuberant. He would run and fall and immediately spring back up and keep on going. If he was still (which was not very often) and tried to scratch or wash his face...he would often fall over...but it sure didn't seem to bother him. There was no way to watch Howard without breaking into a big smile.

The pinkish skin and reddish tint of his eyes are typical in his "breed" because there is a strong element of albinism in these sort of bunny folk...albinism makes it easier to test cosmetics and chemicals in their eyes and on their skin...the damage done can be more easily seen and the tissue is more sensitive. What a bunch of creeps we human animals are...disgusting. Howard though, is anything but disgusting...he is a special special being.

Over time, and he's been with us for around a year now, his shakiness and wobbling has diminished considerably. He still tremors and falls sometimes but not much and not very often anymore. He's too busy...and busy is the perfect word for this fellow when he has a crack at running around the rescue property. He is either going full speed or he is lounging somewhere resting as hard as he runs. Or...he's looking for women...Howard is a lover and a runner and nobody knows which he prefers...both are primary considerations for him. He is adept at climbing out of enclosures, breaking into enclosures and generally going where he isn't supposed to go. All these things he does with gusto and joy and (I secretly think) a big bunny smile...

 Now, due to the hugeness of his personality, he has been tagged with some interesting names by the bunny slaves at Heartland. Mr. Wobbles is one name that is applied to him sometimes but the name that causes the most laughter and pleasure is that of Mr. Naughtytrousers...because it so aptly describes him and because that name is so unusual sounding to us in America. The name was borrowed from a bunny who resides at Big Ears Animal Sanctuary in northern Tasmania. The folks who operate the sanctuary recently took on 300 rabbits rescued from a "meat farm" and I can only marvel at their energy and excellence in attempting such a huge undertaking. A big thanks to them and a big Hooray for them!

Howard is unusual in some other ways...in addition to his large helping of personality and lebensfreude...he is a rag doll bunny.  He hardly ever flinches or tenses up if he is picked up by a human...he usually just relaxes. Totally. Which is not often seen in bunny folk. He enjoys being petted and groomed and will even allow...with absolutely no indication of discomfort...grooming of and even pulling gently on his tail. Most rabbits get rather excited or irritated if any sort of touching on their tail goes on...not Mr. Naughtytrousers...he calmly and majestically endures and enjoys any and all sorts of petting or grooming. He's a treasure and a wonder. And some human discarded him like an empty tin can...

But Howard doesn't hold a grudge...he just runs and runs or sometimes he digs.

And when it all becomes too much and too tiring and there's a convenient human around...Howard just lays back and naps. When he's in that state he's much like those little dolls that were played with by little girls many years ago...you know those that had the eyelids that closed when you put them on their back...that's Howard. Pick him up and lay him on his back in your arms and his eyelids slowly close...and poof...he's gone off to napland.

It is getting to spend time around phenoms like Howard that helps keep me going. Howard possesses a restorative spirit and is as generous with it as it is possible to be. Thank you Howard...thank you, thank you.

Support your local animal rescues, support anyplace that might provide a safe and forever home to wonderful beings like Howard. We need all the Howard spirit in the world that we can get.

Ethical veganism is a way of living that embodies and expresses respect and caring for all living beings (including ourselves) and for Mother Earth.  Sadly, any other way of living implements destruction and death and suffering and horror...inevitably and inexorably. So...knock it off if you haven't already.

Letter to the editor...

I was poking around on the United Poultry Concerns website and came across some information about a letter to the editor of the New York Times Magazine concerning a challenge they were having that encouraged people to write an essay about why it is ethical to eat meat. The 'contest' has resulted in six selected entries and a "winner" will be announced soon.

Now the letter itself is rather good but to me the most remarkable part of the letter is the number of and the credentials of those signing the letter. Philosophy professor John Sanbonmatsu of Worcester Polytechnic Institute wrote the letter and I am going to insert a copy of it. Read it and then take a look at those who signed on to it.

April 1, 2012
Editor, The New York Times Magazine
Dear Editor,

We are a diverse group of scholars, researchers, and artists from such disciplines as philosophy, women's studies, sociology, law, political theory, psychology, and literary studies, writing to take sharp issue with the Magazine's decision to run a "Defending Your Dinner" contest.

Do ethical vegetarians, a growing but still quite small percentage of the population, pose such a "threat" to the meat and dairy industries that the Times Magazine must now invite its millions of readers to shout them down? Is the point of this contest really to open up honest debate about the meat industry, or is the point, rather, to close it down?

We find it disturbing that the Magazine would organize such a one-sided contest, and moreover that Ariel Kaminer should introduce it with such frivolity. "Ethically speaking, vegetables get all the glory," Kaminer writes, caricaturing vegans as members of a "hard-core inner circle" who have "dominated the discussion." With her very breeziness ("Bon appetit!"), Kaminer seems intent on trivializing the warrant for ethical veganism. A more serious-minded critic would have given at least cursory attention to the empirical basis of the position, namely, the known facts about animal cognition and the unspeakable suffering that farmed animals endure so that they can end up as meat on our plates.

First, there has been an explosion of scientific research in recent decades showing beyond any doubt that many other species besides our own are emotionally and cognitively complex. Farmed animals are capable of a wide range of feelings and experiences, including empathy and the ability to intuit the interior states of others. The evidence suggests that they experience violence and trauma to their bodies as agonizingly as we do.

Second, most people are now aware of the horrific cruelty and violence that goes on behind the locked doors of the meat industry. Billions of cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys, geese, ducks, and aquaculture fish suffer each year in abominable conditions, then are brutally slaughtered, many of them while they are still fully or partially conscious. Such so-called factory farming accounts for 99% of the meat consumed in our society. The mass slaughter of oceanic fish, meanwhile, is so catastrophic to marine life that even the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia (the academic arm of the Canadian fishing industry) has frankly compared today's commercial fishing campaigns to "wars of extermination."

These and other facts have led a majority of contemporary moral philosophers who have studied the question to conclude that killing animals in order to eat them is not a morally defensible human interest, certainly not in a society such as ours, where vegan alternatives are widely available.

Even on purely prudential grounds, i.e. human self-interest, meat finds no rational justification. Numerous studies have shown meat-based diets to be associated with myriad negative health outcomes, including higher risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer (to name but two). Meanwhile, animal agriculture has proven to be an ecological and public health catastrophe, poisoning human water supplies, destroying vast tracts of the rainforests of Latin America, causing soil erosion, and creating dangerous new pathogens like Avian Flu and Mad Cow Disease. Animal agriculture is also one of the leading sources of global warming gas emissions.
Given these and many other facts demonstrating the nightmarish consequences of the meat industry for humans and nonhumans alike, why has the Magazine invited its readers to defend that industry, their essays to be judged chiefly by proponents of "humane" meat eating?

Kaminer implies that she has assembled the most judicious and meat-averse line-up of judges, a "murderer's row" that will be hard to persuade of the case for eating meat. But is that true? Michael Pollan promotes Joel Salatin and other organic meat producers. Mark Bittman publishes meat recipes. Peter Singer has consistently defended, in principle, the killing of nonhuman beings for human purposes (provided that it be done "painlessly"). Jonathan Safran Foer, in his otherwise admirable book "Eating Animals," defends small animal farms and backs away from open advocacy of vegetarianism. Only Andrew Light seems to hold a position that finds no ethical justification for meat eating.

So the contest's overt bias ("Tell Us Why It's Ethical to Eat Meat") is compounded by its pretense with respect to the judging. Kaminer might instead have tapped any of dozens if not hundreds of prominent scholars, writers, critics, and well-informed activists who unequivocally oppose meat production for ethical reasons. The fact that she did not tells us everything we need to know about how seriously Kaminer takes the "ethical" issues at stake in this debate.

Kaminer's lack of balance reveals itself further in her having stocked her bench solely with men, when there are so many prominent feminist theorists and writers available to provide a critique of our society's masculine penchant for organized violence against vulnerable populations, whether against women and girls, foreign peoples, or other species.

There is an important debate to be had about the ethics of killing and eating animals. But this is not the way to have it. Honest ethical inquiry begins with the question, "How should we live?" or "What should I or we do about 'X'?" It does not begin with a predetermined conclusion, then work backwards for justification. To throw down a rhetorical gauntlet--"Defend X as a practice"-- is not to open up an ethical conversation; it is to build closure into the inquiry, and to stack the deck from the outset.

Signed*,
Karla Armbruster, Ph.D., Professor of English, Webster University
Anurima Banerji, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of World Arts and Cultures, UCLA
George Bates, DVM, Associate Professor of Veterinary Medical Technology at Wilson College
Kimberly Benston, Ph.D., Francis B. Gummere Professor of English, Haverford College
Susan Benston, M.D., Visiting Assistant Professor of Writing, Haverford College
Chris Bobel, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Women's Studies, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Carl Boggs, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, National University
G.A. Bradshaw, Ph.D., Director of the Kerulos Center & President of the Trans-Species Institute
Thomas Brody, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Matthew Calarco, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, California State University, Fullerton
Jodey Castricano, Ph.D., Associate Professor Critical Studies, University of British Columbia (Okanagan Campus)
Elizabeth Cherry, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Sociology, Manhattanville College
Sue Coe, Artist (represented by Galerie St. Etienne, New York City)
Susana Cook, Playwright (New York City)
Ellen F. Crain, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
William Crain, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, The City College of New York
Karen Davis, Ph.D., President of United Poultry Concerns
Maneesha Deckha, LL.M., Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria (Canada)
Margo De Mello, Ph.D., Lecturer, Central New Mexico Community College
Josephine Donovan, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of English, University of Maine
George Eastman, Ed.D., Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Berklee College of Music
Stephen F. Eisenman, Ph.D., Professor of Art History, Northwestern University
Barbara Epstein, Ph.D., Professor, History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz
Amy Fitzgerald, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology, University of Windsor (UK)
Gary L. Francione, J.D., Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers University Law School-Newark
Carol Gigliotti, Ph.D., Faculty, Emily Carr University, Vancouver, BC (Canada)
Elizabeth A. Gordon, M.F.A., Instructor of English, Fitchburg State University
Roger Gottlieb, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Michelle Graham, M.A., Lecturer, Department of Writing, Literature & Publishing, Emerson College
Kathy Hessler, J.D., LL.M., Clinical Professor & Director, Animal Law Clinic, Center for Animal Law Studies, Lewis & Clark Law School
Laura Janara, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia (Canada)
Victoria Johnson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Missouri
Melanie Joy, Ph.D., Professor, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Joseph J. Lynch, Ph.D., Professor, Philosophy Department, California Polytechnic State University
John T. Maher, Adjunct Professor of Animal Law, Touro Law Center
Bill Martin, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, DePaul University
Atsuko Matsuoka, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Social Work, York University (Canada)
Timothy M. McDonald, M.F.A., Assistant Professor of Art, Framingham State University
Jennifer McWeeny, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, John Carroll University
James McWilliams, Ph.D., Associate Professor, History, Texas State University
Helena Pedersen, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Faculty of Education and Society, Malmö University (Sweden)
Steven Rayshick, Ph.D., Professor of English and Humanities, Quinsigamond Community College
Carrie Rohman, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of English, Lafayette College
John Sanbonmatsu, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Kira Sanbonmatsu, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University
Richard H. Schwartz, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Mathematics, College of Staten Island
Michael Selig, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Emerson College
Jonathan Singer, Doctoral Student, DePaul University
John Sorenson, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology, Brock University (Canada)
H. Peter Steeves, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, DePaul University
Gary Steiner, Ph.D., John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy, Bucknell University
Marcus Stern, M.F.A., Lecturer in Dramatic Arts, Harvard University
Deborah Tanzer, Ph.D., Psychologist and Author
Susan Thomas, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Gender and Women's Studies, and Political Science, Hollins University
Gray Tuttle, Ph.D., Leila Hadley Luce Assistant Professor of Modern Tibetan Studies, Columbia University
Richard Twine, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, Lancaster University (UK)
Zipporah Weisberg, Doctoral Candidate, Programme in Social and Political Thought, York University (Canada)
Tony Weis, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Geography, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)
Richard York, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies, Director of Graduate Studies for Sociology, University of Oregon

I was very pleasantly surprised at the support for the content of the letter. Wow. Pretty good.

There is no defense for harming other living beings who aren't trying to harm you...period. You don't even need an essay to understand that....and the only way to not harm others is to live your life as an ethical vegan.

Meet the beaver...

Exquisite...

Wildcare is gearing up for one of the two times during the year that the public is invited to tour the facilites. In the spring they host their annual Babyshower and allow folks to become familiar with their operations, focusing on their springtime busyness of saving baby animals that are injured or orphaned (or kidnapped...lots of babies thought abandoned really aren't...but well meaning humans try to 'rescue' them anyway...unless there's imminent danger to the baby don't move them until talking to a wildlife care operation).

Yesterday I was there helping with sprucing up the place in preparation for the Baby Shower scheduled from 2 to 5pm on April 28th of this year. Rondi (the director) came strolling out holding the little one pictured above. She (or he...I didn't pay attention to which sex the baby is afflicted by) is melt you into a puddle gorgeous. There are really no words to describe the impact she has...you might be able to see her on a video here. I say 'might' because I'm unsure of how well linking to facebook videos works out. If you can't get there with the link you can go to WildcareOklahoma on facebook and see the video which was posted on April 16th, 2012.

If you are in the vicinity of Norman Oklahoma I would urge you to go out and attend the Wildcare Baby Shower, the human animals do a great job and the other animals are even niftier.

When I was looking at the baby beaver I was thinking...how...how can we harm such beautiful beings...how? I can't wrap my mind around it. It is mind boggling how absolutely exquisite and beautiful babies are...and we murder them by the billions.

We recently released some baby cottontails out at Heartland...you can see one of them in the pic below (thanks to Christina at Rabid Tidbits for the photo...more pics of them over at her blog).

Baby Cottontail (maybe 'Dirty Harry').

We gave them some play time outside prior to release, to get them familiar with running around and such....and when playtime was over....herding 4 baby cotties into a crate is an interesting bit of work. One of them in particular ended up being called "Dirty Harry" in honor of the fact that if you placed your hand in his/her path in an attempt to guide her/him s(he) simply would give you a good smack with her/his hands (front paws). Each of the little ones were (and are) a wonderful delight and so amazingly beautiful...beyond description. And yet...

And yet...every year we murder 9 or 10 billion babies and youngsters (and some adult) animals either for unhealthy food or for fun?...every year some 12 or 13 million human animals in the U.S. go out with guns and bows and traps and probably bazookas (if they could get their hands on one) and kill and kill and kill and call it "sport" and call it "recreation" and call it "fun" and call it "conservation". And every year the rest of us (except those living as ethical vegans) pay somebody to inflict suffering and misery and death...out of the range of our sight, smell or hearing preferably.

We need a keeper. Somebody needs to grab us by the back of our necks, give us a shake and tell us to straighten up....and then kick us in the caboose if we don't do it. If you don't want to live like you need a keeper, live as an ethical vegan...please.

Also...do come on out to Wildcare's Baby Shower...I'll be there somewhere helping park cars or guarding the baby deer or whatever they need me to do. :-)

Apologies...

Dear Animals,

We’re sorry we hurt you.
We’re sorry we torture you.
We’re sorry we burn you for fun.
We’re sorry we poke you.
We’re sorry we prod you.
We’re sorry we subject you to a lifetime of pain so we can eat you.
We’re sorry we kick you just to feel better about ourselves.
We’re sorry we rip the skin off your bones while you’re still alive.
We’re sorry we sell you in pet shops and then abandon you when we’ve had enough.
We’re sorry we leave you in garbage cans.
We’re sorry we shove hormones down your throat.
We’re sorry we steal your babies from you.
We’re sorry we throw you off of bridges.
We’re sorry we chain you up all day and all night.
We’re sorry we drown you.
We’re sorry we force you to do unnatural tricks for our entertainment.
We’re sorry we forget to feed you or give you water.
We’re sorry our disgruntled slaughterhouse workers take out all their aggressions on you.
We’re sorry we force you to fight each other.
We’re sorry we force you to fight us.
We’re sorry we use you for transportation.
We’re sorry we sacrifice your life so we can have another leather couch, car seat, belt or pair of shoes.
We’re sorry we make you scream in pain and then put a picture of a smiling chicken on the box.
We’re sorry we make you feel like you are part of the family and then forget about you when the baby comes.
We’re sorry we drag you behind our cars.
We’re sorry we keep you in dark, crowded, horrid living conditions.
We’re sorry we force feed you to make you fatter.
We’re sorry we burn your front paws in order to make you stand on two feet so our children can laugh.
We’re sorry we sexually abuse you for our fetishes.
We’re sorry we trap you.
We’re sorry we hunt you.
We’re sorry our shelters still use inhumane methods of killing you.
We’re sorry we subject you to a lifetime of terrorizing experiments so we can have yet another shampoo.
We’re sorry we don’t report our neighbors who are mistreating you to the authorities.
We’re sorry we poison you in the middle of the night.
We’re sorry we humiliate you.
We’re sorry we keep you alone indoors all day long and then get too lazy to take you for walks.
We’re sorry we choke you and suffocate you.
We’re sorry we yell at you.
We’re sorry we leave you out in the cold rain and in the hot sun.
We’re sorry we forget you in boiling hot cars with no open windows.
We’re sorry we intimidate you so we can feel powerful.
We’re sorry we dump you when you’re old and sick.
We’re sorry we sacrifice you for our beliefs and religions.
We’re sorry we starve you as a form of “art”.
We’re sorry we expose you to explosions and gunshots so we can film another movie.
We’re sorry we trap you in zoos so we can watch you suffer.
We’re sorry we treat you like objects that can be exploited for our own selfish purposes.
And most of all: We’re sorry we don’t recognize you for the amazing, intelligent, glorious, magnificent creatures that you are.

Sincerely,

We human animals (source: Melissa Vegan MacDonald)

Obviously, not enough of us are regretful...or we would stop making the planet we share with our fellow animals into a grotesque horror show. The only way to stop this is for we human animals to quit lending support to the despicable notion that living beings are property and to live as ethical vegans.

A year with a house bunny...

Hard to believe, but Nessie Rae has been living here since February of 2011. On the other hand it sort of seems like she has been here always. For those of you that live with rabbits, you know how it is...if you don't live with rabbits...it really isn't describable. She is her own being with her unique set of needs, wants, fears, joys, perceptions and abilities. We are still learning about her and will continue to do so.

Nessie sleeping hard.

The previous photo was taken two months or so after she arrived, her trust level had reached a security rating that allowed her to sprawl out in the living room and visit dreamland with all her might.

Bobby Ray and Nessie practice their sleeping skills.

Above she is engaging in a sleep 'duet' with Bobby Ray. She has been partial to him since arriving but he remains rather cautious around her. Some of his caution, I think, occurs because of her habit of moving toward him very quickly. Fast movement bothers him and cat body language and rabbit body language are different enough that he generally is rather tentative around her.

This final photo below was taken during the only snow we had this year, it fell in February and was not very heavy. Nessie moseyed out, made a small circle to investigate and decided that was enough for her and came back in the house. Being an arctic bunny is not to her taste.

She came, she saw snow, she went back inside.

I don't have any grand insights from living with her this past year. The most significant thing I have noticed is that a rabbit is, compared to a cat or a dog, a quiet being. If a rabbit makes a loud noise they are either terrified or they are furious. Nessie doesn't cry out if she is hungry...she might nudge you with her nose or sit and stare at you but being quiet is her usual way of being. Not that a bunny doesn't make different sounds, it is just that they are subtle compared to the sounds of a cat or dog. You have to pay attention to hear the happy honking she does when she plays chase. You have to listen carefully to hear the humm/grunt she does when she is interested in something...but...you don't have to worry about hearing her growling if she is hacked off...nope...no worry about missing that.

This general quietness means that a human has to focus and concentrate and attend to her in a persistent and consistent manner to enter into much of her world....at least that is how Nessie operates. Different rabbits, like different dogs or different cats or different humans, have different styles. Some are boisterous and wild, some are quiet and calm. Nessie tends toward the calm and quiet...but....she has a major temper and doesn't flinch at letting you know when she is displeased. Having a bunny give you the squinty stink-eye is sort of intimidating, having a bunny rip out with a full loud growl when lunging toward you is startling and scary. Nope, she is not a shrinking violet...just a fairly quiet one. And we are honored (pretty much) that this quiet one graces us with her presence. :-)

Rabbits have, partially due to their quietness, come to occupy a curious position in the hodgepodge repository that passes for our collective minds. Many, if not most, people think they know something about rabbits and about caring for rabbits and about rabbit personalities. They might know they hop, they might know they have long ears and they might know they are pleasing to the eye and that they eat plants...but that's about it for most of us. I'm including myself in this collective indictment here. We're, most of us, guilty of that dangerous practice of having a tiny bit of knowledge (e.g. bunnies hop) and confusing that with "knowing about". Few things have been more damaging to rabbits and their position as "pets" than this superficial knowledge being confused for adequate understanding.

This is not the place for a "Rabbits for Dummies" screed, if you want to begin your own education about these beings you might start here. An extended attempt to interpret the lagomorph language can be seen at RabbitSpeak.

You will be way ahead of most of us if you'll simply be aware of the truth that just as soon as you think you "know" about rabbits...then you've exposed your ignorance. Rabbits, like all other sentient beings, are beautiful, smart, complex and worthy of respect and knowing. And knowing one bunny only means you know that bunny...each bunny being...like each human being...is an individual and is unique. But knowing takes time, interest, effort and the slow discovery that the quest for comprehension and understanding is probably unending.

Additional writings along with photos of Nessie can be found here, here, here and here.

Do remember, honoring all living beings (including rabbits) means living as an ethical vegan.

I believe....

I ran across this statement (credo) attributed to a fellow named John Aspinall recently and found it to be... well...thought provoking. I'm reproducing it here:

I believe a wildlifer must not expect to be rewarded with recognition or wordly approval. His work will be his recompense. Only in his own peace of mind and self-esteem will he find solace.

 I believe in Jus animalium, The Rights of Beasts, and Jus herbarum, The Rights of Plants. The right to exist as they have always existed, to live and let live. I believe in the Buddhist concept of Ahimsa -- justice for all animate things. I believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of species of fauna and flora that the Earth can sustain without resultant deterioration of habitat and depletion of natural resources.

 I believe in the sanctity of the life systems, not in the sanctity of human life alone. The concept of sanctity of human life is the most damaging sophism that philosophy has ever propagated -- it has rooted well. Its corollary -- a belief in the insanctity of species other than man -- is the cause of that damage. The destruction of this idea is a prerequisite for survival.

 I believe that wilderness is Earth's greatest treasure. Wilderness is the bank on which all cheques are drawn. I believe our debt to nature is total, our willingness to pay anything back on account barely discernible. I believe that unless we recognise this debt and renegotiate it we write our own epitaph.

 I believe that there is an outside chance to save the Earth and most of its tenants. This outside chance must be grasped with gambler's hands.

-- John Aspinall

Reading about this person on Wikipedia  and other sources suggests that he was a rather unusual individual. Regardless of anything else he did or said, the above statement is intriguing.

No intrigue is involved in living thoughtfully and kindly, such simply requires following the path of ethical veganism.

Remembering Hildy...

is the title of a video put together by the Farm Sanctuary in honor of one of their residents who died in January of this year. We are told that Hildy was 9 years old at the time of her death and that she was a good and steadfast friend to Rhonda, Feather and Kima. The video was made last fall and gives us a good look at Hildy. Hildy belonged to that group of folks we call turkeys...turkeys don't call themselves turkeys...that's a human thing...not a turkey thing.



She was quite a being, her sweetness and gentleness just shines through.

The human animal narrating is Susie Coston. It is interesting to watch her and hear her talk about the mutilation and damaging of a baby by human animals. Her being there by the victim, caring for her and interacting with her completes the other extreme of the range of behavior exhibited by us human animals.

We casually and mostly without thought or care oppress, harm, mutilate, enslave and snuff out the lives of billions and billions and billions of living beings. Living beings like Hildy...who have feelings, who are unique, who may be shy or sweet or friendly or angry or frightened or all of these things...we mutilate and kill and eat them with almost no thought or consideration at all. We steal them from their mothers, from their families...we mangle their bodies when they are babies, we imprison them and cram them into unnatural conditions and after a bit we kill them. For "profit".

That's the horrid extreme of our behavior....regretfully that callousness and carelessness and ruthlessness and murderousness exemplifies the vast majority of the human animals.

Ms. Coston (and the Farm Sanctuary), on the other hand, exemplify the other extreme of human behavior. A human animal that is kind, accepting, caring and who is able to see and value the uniqueness and sweetness and valuableness that is someone like Hildy. Ms. Coston rejects the mutilation of babies, the crowded imprisoning of innocent beings, the prevention of the development and flourishing of each individual into the uniqueness that is gifted to each of us. She recognizes that Hildy's life actually belonged to Hildy and that much was stolen from this excellent bird being but once Hildy was given a chance...she flourished and shone.

Right now, human cultures reward the baby mutilators, the prison owners, the murderers...right now we make organizations like Farm Sanctuary and the other organizations that rescue and save all kinds of wounded and damaged and at-risk beings...we make those dispensing shelter and care and kindness go begging.

We subsidize "farms" with tax dollars, we pay mutilators and murderers with public funds and we force the kind ones, the compassionate ones to operate on the edge of despair...we make them hold bake sales and fund drives...we make them scrimp and scramble while multi-billion dollar fortunes are based on misery, suffering, mutilation and death.

We hurt and then kill and then gnaw on the bodies of millions of Hildys each year...just because we can and just because we want to....not because it is necessary...not because we "need" to...we do it only because we want to and we make the infliction of suffering "profitable".

We make the provision of care and compassion impoverishing. (what in hell is wrong with us?)

I tend to think that our capacity for caring and compassion and acceptance toward others is just as potent and strong as is our capacity for inflicting suffering and harm on others. The measure of one is the measure of the potential of the other. And just think...if we move toward mosty behaving as benevolently and life enhancingly as we currently do harmfully and destructively...well...

That movement will not be possible unless you begin to live as an ethical vegan.

Is the "wrong" inherent in the behavior or...

is "wrongness" determined by the recipient or outcome of the behavior? For example, is slavery ("institution based on a relationship of dominance and submission, whereby one person owns another and can exact from that person labor or other services.") wrong in and of itself or is slavery wrong depending on who the slave is or the consequence(s) of the slavery?

Is the unprovoked or deliberate killing (not in self-defense) of another living being wrong in and of itself or is such killing only deemed wrong depending on who is the victim or the consequence(s) of the killing?

Is the infliction of physical pain and/or injury (not in self-defense) on a living being wrong in and of itself or is such behavior only deemed wrong depending on who is the victim or the consequence(s) of the pain and/or injury?

These questions have to do with deontological vs consequentialist notions of morality.

Deontological theories of morality are frequently contrasted to consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism. While deontological moral theories typically hold that certain actions are either forbidden or wrong per se, consequentialist theories usually maintain that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the consequences of the act and hence on the circumstances in which it is performed.

As described by John Rawls, the distinction is between the right and the good: under deontology, what actions are right and what things are good are at least partially independent, whereas under consequentialism, an act is right if and only if it maximises the good....(source)

I don't know about you but I tend to go into a sort of mental/emotional 'vaporlock' if I dwell on these sorts of things too much. I have to be content with what I expressed previously in my post on fairness. Ethical veganism is much fairer (enacts greater justice) than any other way of living that I'm aware of.

Respect?

I am reproducing here (complete) a post written by Chris Poupart over on his blog Adventures of of a dad/vegan/anarchist. He writes very well about something I suspect many vegan folk encounter.

Sometimes I am asked to "respect" another's decision to cause harm because they "respect" my decision to not harm...actually it isn't stated that way....it is usually stated in such a way to imply that...oh well...it is just a difference of opinion. Well, not quite. Someone wanting their decision to harm others to be "respected" is a bit much for me....Mr. Poupart does a good job of explicating and elaborating about the intricacies of the language involved in this. (Mr. Poupart graciously gave his permission for this to be reproduced here).

As a vegan, I am often told that I should "respect [someone's] decision to eat animals". This can get problematic, because that is the antithesis of veganism as an ideal. I will elaborate, but first, lets look at what the word "respect" really means, because I think that often it is misused in this context. If the person truly understood what veganism was, and had a full understanding of the meaning of respect, then they might get why the two can not be used together that way.

From Google's Dictionary:

re·spect

verb /riˈspekt/

respected, past participle; respected, past tense; respecting, present participle; respects, 3rd person singular present

Admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements

she was respected by everyone she worked with

a respected academic

Have due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of

I respected his views

Avoid harming or interfering with

it is incumbent upon all boaters to respect the environment

Agree to recognize and abide by (a legal requirement)

he urged all foreign nationals to respect the laws of their country of residence

As you can see, it is likely that when people use "respect" in the context that I first provided that they are using it to mean 2, 3 or 4. But what they are failing to consider is that it also comes with the connotation of admiration, and that is where it gets problematic with regards to something that vegans obviously consider as wrong. After all, if we didn't think that using animals was wrong, we wouldn't have stopped doing it. Even if someone has a legal right to continue doing something traditional, if it is immoral and you believe that it is immoral, you can never respect it.

A better word for these situations, situations where you simply have to put aside your dislike of the other persons actions or beliefs, would be tolerance.

Google describes "tolerate" as such:

tol·er·ate

verb /ˈtäləˌrāt/

tolerated, past participle; tolerated, past tense; tolerates, 3rd person singular present; tolerating, present participle

Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference

a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent

Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance

how was it that she could tolerate such noise?

Be capable of continued subjection to (a drug, toxin, or environmental condition) without adverse reaction

lichens grow in conditions that no other plants tolerate

Tolerance may not have the same warm and fuzzy connotations that respect does, but it is at least honest.

I do not respect someone's decision to enslave, assault and kill others. But unfortunately, in this world I still have to tolerate it more often than not.

Excellently said...right now I may have to tolerate the exploiting, enslaving and murdering of my fellow animals...but sorry...no respect for such repugnant and despicable activities is available from me. In truth, I am astonished anyone would even believe respect for such horror is possible.

I can respect the personhood of another being without respecting their viewpoints and/or their behavior...if someone isn't living as an ethical vegan then I am in a position not of respecting their harmful behaviors but rather of having, at least for now, to tolerate such. I may respect and admire many qualities they have...but no way do I respect their behavior toward the animals they harm or cause to be harmed. Unfortunately and sadly and tragically for those on whom the suffering and misery is inflicted.

Some of the....

captioned images that have caught my eye recently. I hope they bring you some pleasure.

Remember, you can bring good feelings to a multitude of animals by living as an ethical vegan.

Life isn't fair....

at least that's what I've been told countless times. And I've probably passed on the same notion to others. I vividly remember being upset and crying numerous times when I was a child over some situation or another where I was devastated by the "unfairness" of something. Often it was a situation that didn't resolve itself in my favor or to my satisfaction, but not always.

Looking at some of what is written about the meaning of the word fair reveals:

fairness - n(oun).

Synonyms: fair(1), just(1), equitable, impartial, unprejudiced, unbiased, objective, dispassionate

These adjectives mean free from favoritism, self-interest, or preference in judgment. Fair is the most general: a fair referee; a fair deal.

Just stresses conformity with what is legally or ethically right or proper...

Looking back at the child I once was I can see that what I was likely protesting and what I was many times wounded by was the sense that whatever was happening was not equitable or unbiased...it wasn't a fair deal. Not that I thought that way or in those terms then, no...I felt pain and a sense of wrongness or being wronged and my way of expressing that hurtful feeling was with the phrase "no fair". I would suspect that anyone who had playmates has dealt with situations where "no fair" was invoked and either some adjustment was made or everyone went away feeling wronged or angry...or some left that way and others left flushed with the pleasure of winning. Shame on me for those times where I benefited from some unfairness.

Charles Dickens gives voice to this via his character Pip in Great Expectations:

"In the little world in which children have their existence there is nothing so finely perceived and finely felt as injustice." (p. 63 from the Penguin edition)

But, over time and with many repeats of "life's not fair" I submerged (many) of my notions of fair/unfair. Not all of them though, thankfully.

I can still remember seeing scenes on television of the furor and turmoil occurring in Little Rock, Arkansas when a number of African American school children started attending classes at a previously all white school. I began questioning my parents about the whats and whys of what was going on there and for the first time started to apprehend that massive and monstrous obvious 'unfairnesses' went on and on and often never ever changed.

Moreover, when anyone pointed out one of those unfairnesses and tried to change them, not only did denial of those unfairnesses happen...many supported the unfair situation and resisted....sometimes with serious and extreme violence...attempts to change them. We "Americans" murdered M. L. King because of his objections to unfairness. We "Americans" virtually wiped out the original human inhabitants of the Western hemisphere with only minimal or no references to any notions of fairness...simply because it benefited us. Throughout history objecting to unfairness or being in the path of those bent on benefiting themselves with no thought of fairness has been a risky and often dangerous proposition.

That's sort of interesting in a macabre and scary way when you think about it. One would naturally think that being unfair would be dangerous and/or unpopular, instead being the victim of or objecting to unfairness appears to be the risky and/or unpopular thing.

Thomas Paine wrote something interesting concerning this:

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."

It may be partially that our sense of injustice and unfairness is sharper and more sensitive when we're children because we don't have a long history of thinking about much of anything, much less whether something is fair or unfair, wrong or right. It's all new to us, and clear and fresh. It is only over the trail of living that we learn to develop long habits of "not thinking a thing wrong" or unfair even when it is...it is then that we become susceptible to the illusion of the "superficial appearance of being right" or fair.

Well, it is true, in fact that "life" many times isn't fair. Awful things happen to innocent beings...again and again and again. Floods, storms, freezes, heat-waves, accidents, etc....notice however that these "unfairnesses" are the result of the behavior of non-living (or at least non sentient inso far as I can tell) systems or forces. Does the unfairness of these phenomena then give living beings license to behave unfairly? Do these elemental unfairnesses make unfair behavior by living beings unremarkable or acceptable? Do they remove fairness from consideration except as some sort of fantasy or dream? I think not.

Notice that, insofar as I know, earthquakes don't benefit from their destruction, nor do tornadoes or floods. They just are...with no thought of winning or achieving anything. They aren't motivated by greed or lust or ambition or hunger or fear or acquisition. They occur and then recede, they don't look around to see their results and repeat themselves if they aren't satisfied. "They" aren't a they in the sense of an agent.

But sentient beings are agents. We do things because of greed or lust or ambition or fear. We can also refrain from doing things because of these motives. We have a sense of fairness, of justice. We can behave in accordance with a sense of fairness....or not.

The Veil of Ignorance  (associated with the 'original position') is one of the more interesting ideas I've ever encountered regarding fairness or justice. It serves to express in rather precise terms the notion of behaving toward others like you would want to be treated. The Wikipedia entry rather precisely describes this:

It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society. The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society. As Rawls put it, "...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like."[5] The idea then, is to render moot those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation.

For example, in the imaginary society, one might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, the device forces the parties to consider society from the perspective of the worst off members.

While the Veil of Ignorance proposition is stated in terms applicable to human animals and their societies, there is little effort involved in expanding the question to all sentient beings, to the community of life itself.

In other words, in any particular situation, how would you want sentient beings to behave toward one another if you chose how they were to behave....but you had to choose these ways of behaving without knowing your own particular species membership.

For instance, would you see the killing and eating of sentient beings (when it is not necessary for survival) as fair or just or moral  if...you might be one of those killed and eaten?

Would you see the imprisoning and enslaving and exploiting of sentient beings as fair or just or moral...if you might be one of the sentient beings exploited?

Would you see the stealing of babies from their mothers and the selling of that mothers milk for profit if you might be one of the mothers or babies involved?

I think (hope) you get the point.

Ethical veganism isn't about "loving" animals. It is about fairness and justice for all animals...including the nonhuman and the human animals. It is an issue of morality...of what is right, of what is fair, of what is just. It is an issue of living as fairly and justly as we can.

We have for too long, in the words of Thomas Paine, been " not thinking a thing wrong"...that  "thing" being the exploiting, abusing, enslaving and killing sentient beings. And...as a result of that "not thinking a thing wrong" we have lazily fallen into superficially thinking it to be right or acceptable. Well it isn't.

We each can behave fairly or unfairly, justly or unjustly....we each can contribute to fairness in the world or to unfairness. We each can increase justice on our planet or we can behave unjustly. We can give what we ask for ourselves or we can ask for that which we are not willing to offer to others.

In large part, these sorts of doings or not-doings define who we are. We all have to decide and our decision is reflected in our behaviors....ethical veganism isn't a diet...it is a way of living that contributes to fairness and justice....to life and living....to peace and pleasure...to joy and happiness. Living any other way increases unnecessary misery, suffering, pain and death. Living any other way is truly...."no fair".

My thanks to Bea Elliott who wrote about justice on her blog Provoked around the same time I was turning over some thoughts about that topic. Her writing is an inspiration and she is a shining example of a human animal who increases the fairness and justice in this battered old world.

Words fail me....

Clever wordplay with imagery.

This poster for a vegan event knocked me out. I've seen a number of parody uses of 'tricky Dick' and his strange postures but this one left me speechless...and laughing.

Sue Coe...

is an artist whose book "Dead Meat" was one of the first 'veganized' books I purchased. Her images are haunting and powerful. Wikipedia writes:

Sue Coe (born 28 November 1951 in Tamworth, Staffordshire) is an English artist and illustrator working primarily in drawing and printmaking, often in the form of illustrated books and comics. She grew up close to a slaughterhouse and developed a passion to stop cruelty to animals. Coe studied at the Royal College of Art in London, lived in New York City from 1972 to 2001. She currently lives in upstate New York. Her work is highly political, often directed against capitalism and cruelty to animals.notes that:

I ran across this video over on Our Hen House (created and produced by them) and was delighted to be able to hear and see Ms. Coe talk about her art and her creative process. The analogy she made between witnessing the horror we are visiting upon our fellow animals and looking at the sun was just exquisite. Just like looking at the sun, these things we are doing are so glittering and penetrating in their awfulness we can only bear to look briefly...and then we have to turn away.

The horror cannot be borne....yet it is...by our victims...day in and day out....every second of every hour and no one does a better job of witnessing these atrocities than does Ms. Coe.


Sue Coe: Art of the Animal on Vimeo.

She also talks about the reality distortion and avoidance that we are all exposed to and damaged by and how moving into an ethical vegan lifestyle empowers us to "spit out" the "fodder" of oppression. Good stuff! I would love to have the opportunity to sit down and have a long and winding conversation with this talented and insightful human animal. Thank you Sue Coe.