Mitt's "Family" Trip

Mitt Romney's family trip, where he famously strapped the family dog to the roof of the car, has resurfaced as an issue as his campaign has progressed. As animal activists, this is an opportunity that we can not allow to pass us by. The way a candidate treats animals is a character issue. While the correlation may not be one-hundred percent, I think there is little doubt that when we look at those politicians who have the most callous views towards animals, they also tend to have the most callous views towards human rights, and the least tolerance and acceptance for those people who may be different from them.

We also need to begin to think about this as claiming the political power that is rightfully ours. Over the last decade the animal movement has grown by leaps and bounds. The number of vegans, vegetarians, and animal advocates continues to grow at a phenomenal pace. Meanwhile, hunting has become a dying “sport” whose adherents are desperately attempting, and failing, to attract new converts. Unfortunately, the pro-animal side has not been adept at working in the political system. Part of this is historical in nature – we are simply used to the idea that we operate through organizational structures, such as the 501(c)3, that limit our ability to function in the political arena. On the other hand, hunters and others are used to working the political system; they know that being loud and persistent is far more important than being right.

Our votes matter, and there are now more pro-animal advocates than there are anti-animal advocates, as has been shown by successful ballot measures in the past few years. But the truth is, we should not have to resort to ballot measures; politicians should be actively courting our votes. In order to bring this about, we need to make it absolutely clear to politicians; if they take actions in direct opposition to the humane treatment animals are entitled to, it will become a highly visible campaign issue, and it will cost them votes.

If we do not view the treatment of animals important enough to influence our votes, we can not expect politicians to view it as important either.  Please click here and join the Super Pack fighting Mitt.

It's a Character Issue

Recently Governor Mary Fallin went on a canned hunt, shooting an elk inside a fenced area, then proudly posing for a picture with the animal's carcass. I don't view the Governor's actions as a bit of benign amusement, but instead as an indication of deep character flaws.

Consider what exactly is involved in the “sport” of hunting; an innocent animal with almost no way to defend itself is shot down in cold blood by a “sportsman.” The animal's only chance to “win” the contest is to run away, and hopefully avoid being shot at another day. (Of course, in this case even that opportunity was eliminated through the use of a fence.) It really only takes two things to be a hunter; a finger strong enough to pull a trigger, and an absolute absence of any ability to comprehend the principles of justice and compassion.

If you think this doesn't matter to the governance of our state, consider this recent insurance rule change approved by Governor Fallin. What it does, in short, is allow insurance companies to avoid the automatic enrollment of newborn babies until the next open enrollment period. So if you have a child in January, and your enrollment period is in December, the insurance company can leave your child without adequate health coverage for nearly a year.

The point of all this is that we shouldn't be surprised when someone who lacks the moral compass to prevent her from attacking and destroying innocent lives in one arena goes on to attack and destroy innocent lives in another arena.

Hunting is a character destroying activity. It encourages those who engage in it to suppress any feelings of justice and compassion they may feel. It always an activity that is completely one-sided, whereby those with weapons attack those who have absolutely no way to defend themselves. When we see a politician who engages in this activity we should take every opportunity we can to get them out of office and keep them out of office.

Zanesville, Ohio

I think we all agree that what happened in Zanesville was an unmitigated tragedy. This tragedy occurred as a result of both an underlying belief and an overlying lack of regulation caused by that underlying belief.

I think with hindsight everyone can agree that having private ownership of exotic animals is a bad idea. There was a distinct lack of regulation of the facilities, especially considering the person responsible for these animals had been in trouble previously for his lack of proper care. But how exactly did a facility that posed such an obvious threat skate by with so little regulation?

The real culprit in this tragedy is the entire concept of ownership of animals. Had these animals been transported to a canned hunt to be mercilessly gunned down, we probably never would have even heard about them. Under current law, almost all animals share their status with a mailbox, and are no more than pieces of property to be disposed of at their “owner's” whim. As long as that underlying belief is maintained any regulation of what can be done with animals will be superficial and nearly impossible to enforce.

If we are to really change things and prevent these types of tragedies from occurring in the future, we will need to rethink the status of animals in our society. Only by recognizing that animals are living and breathing creatures that can feel pain and suffer, or feel joy and contentment, and basing our laws and regulations on this fact, will we be able to move beyond the current system of horrendous abuse, whether by factory farm or the type of exotic animal park that existed in Zanesville. It is time for us to move beyond the old belief of an animal as a piece of property, and to recognize that these are living, thinking and feeling creatures worthy of our respect, and not so different from us.

A More Acceptable Vaccine

As many vegans know, current flu vaccines are produced using eggs, as they have been for over fifty years, even though for many years the technology has existed to produce vaccines through the use of cell cultures. The egg industry is forcing those who want to take a basic preventative healthcare measure to support their industry, while at the same time actually harming our ability to deal with a flu pandemic.

The use of cell cultures, already approved in Europe, is more efficient over the long run, and actually produces a vaccine that is more efficacious. It also eliminates a modification step necessary to grow the virus in chicken eggs, and production can be ramped up much more quickly, meaning a much quicker response time if a pandemic involving a novel strain occurs. It also eliminates reactions that occur in a significant portion of the population due to hypersensitivity to egg products.

So why isn't an egg-free vaccine available in the U.S.? This is mainly due to lobbying efforts by both the vaccine and egg industries. The initial switchover will be expensive, and the vaccine industry is unwilling to invest in the equipment necessary for the new production methods. Once the superiority of cell-based production is proven, it will be impossible for them not to switch to the new method. Therefor, by preventing the new method from being used at all, they prevent comparisons from taking place, and can stick with their antiquated methods.

The egg industry uses this issue as the basis of one the most cynical public relations campaigns imaginable. While they lobby to keep an antiquated system that makes our nation's healthcare system more vulnerable to a flu pandemic, they then blame animal activists for “endangering” our vaccine supply by working to make egg production more humane.

The solution to this problem is simple, we need to work to make sure that the use of cell-based vaccines is approved here in the U.S., as it has been in Europe.

1/2 + 1/2 ≠ 1

It is easy for many of us to buy into the idea that we can achieve just as much by convincing people to eat less meat, as we can achieve by convincing what would be a smaller number of people to stop eating meat altogether. After all, as I've read and heard several times, and as Jonathan Safran Foer recently stated in an interview, if two people each eat half as much meat, than that is the same as one person not eating meat at all, and is presumably a much easier task to achieve. Upon examination, however, there are several problems with this theory.

Anyone who is eating half as much meat is still eating meat. They are still a paying customer of an industry that commits atrocities, which means that they are still providing a profit for the industry, and they are still providing an example to those around them of a person that continues to eat meat, and support an immoral industry.  When someone is a vegan, it makes an impression on those around them, and causes other people to rethink their own actions. Someone eating half as much meat simply does not have this impact.  Could you imagine if someone told you they were working to end sex trafficking by only visiting prostitutes half as much?  Is it any less absurd when someone says we can end factory farming by eating half as many animals?

Meat is also an addictive substance, and people who eat it usually crave more. In the U.S. most people are notoriously bad at estimating portion size, so the chances of someone who has “cut down” on meat actually eating a lot less is not as great as we would like to believe.

Meat is also unhealthy. If someone wants to really gain health benefits by cutting back on meat, they would need to cut back to one to two servings per week.  Both Dr. Ornish and Dr. Esselstyn report that a positive outcome is crucial in increasing adherence to their respective diets.  That is, the better a diet makes people feel, the more likely they are to stick with it.  Since most of those who cut back are not going to experience any health benefits, this makes continued adherence to a low meat regimen less likely over time. By encouraging people to only cut a little we are eliminating the chance of a positive outcome.  Jumping a stream in one leap may seem more difficult, but it is preferable to jumping halfway across, and saving the other half for later.

Vegan is the word most feared by factory farmers. It means they have lost a customer who will now be an example to others of the ability to live a healthy, fulfilling life without eating animal products. As the number of vegans increases, non-vegans will be exposed to more and more vegans, and more and more vegan products. As this happens, veganism will become far more “normal” and accepted, thus serving to increase the number of vegans even more. When I was young I used to make snowmen during the winter, and at first the snowball would be tiny, and you could roll and roll with only a small gain on each roll, but then, before you even realized it the ball would start growing exponentially, as its added weight caused it to put on a thicker and thicker layer of snow with each roll. I can absolutely foresee our country being fifty percent vegan within ten to twenty years, and if you can't, get out of the way of my f**kin' snowball.

A Distinct Lack of Respect and Class

Is anyone surprised at the recent outburst of Serena Williams? This is one of the unfortunate cases where someone is a great success in their chosen field and yet somehow manages to be a complete failure as a human being.

A look at her home reveals “[h]er closet has sections that keeps her fur-coats separate from another coat section . . .” If being cold is an issue, there are many modern technical fabrics that are lighter and actually do a better job of insulating than fur. But, of course, this is not the issue, considering the home is located in Florida. This is clearly a case of arrogance and stupidity. Serena's fur coats are meant to make a statement to the world, which is basically, “Look at me, I've got a ton of money and I don't give a shit about any other living thing on the face of the earth.”

Is it any surprise then, that she can't comport herself correctly at a tennis match? There is clearly one thing that is important to Serena, and that is Serena. Gandhi is reputed to have said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” I would suggest that in many cases we can use a similar measure when looking at individual people. When someone spends there life consistently ignoring even the most basic concerns when it comes to other living beings, it is easy to slip into that same attitude when dealing with other humans.

The Why and How of Getting to Ten Percent

Recent news has suggested a new level of collaboration between animal protection advocates and animal industry representatives. At the risk of being considered a heretic, I would like to ask two questions which I think are far from settled. 1) Are we really sure that the collaborative model is the best one in the long run? That is, are we really gaining more from these agreements than we are losing? And 2) In our democratic system, should one group, no matter how large, really be presuming to speak for everyone in the animal protection community?

I would suggest that the answers are No, No and No. If we really want to create long-term change in the system, the most important thing we can do is advocate on behalf of veganism. Only by creating an atmosphere in which a vegan lifestyle is considered a valid, mainstream choice, can we create the real change the animals so desperately need.

Here is one study that suggests that if we were to get to ten percent of the population, from there the concept of veganism could quickly spread to the rest of society. The reality is that people in the animal industry are far more afraid of the spread of veganism than they are of the negotiators from HSUS. Real change will only occur when people stop buying their products in large numbers, and that will only occur when we hit a tipping point that allows people who are considering veganism to feel comfortable with their choice.

A few off-the-cuff suggestions might be to encourage people you know to become vegan, encourage local stores and restaurants to make vegan alternatives available, use t-shirts, bumper stickers and other methods to spread the message, join groups and encourage them to make their events vegan friendly, the list is endless, but every time you talk to someone about veganism we are one step closer to bringing it into the mainstream.