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.

Ordinance Changes are a Bad Idea

The changes to Tulsa's animal ordinances proposed by City Councilor Jim Mautino are step in the wrong direction. In essence, the proposal would make it harder to rescue animals, while at the same time making it easier for breeders to dump intact animals into Tulsa.

While I am not a big fan of animal protection advocates spending a lot of time and effort on rescue, we ought not be making it harder for them to do so.

On the other hand, we can, and should, make it harder for breeders to continue to pump intact animals into the system. There is no secret to creating a no-kill city, or state. There are now many examples of cities and states that have brought their companion animal populations under control and have essentially ended the practice of killing otherwise healthy animals merely because there are not enough homes for them. There is no reason we can not do this in Tulsa or Oklahoma, except that we do not currently have politicians with the political will necessary to push through the measures to make no-kill a reality.

Full fledged support of spay-neuter(including subsidized spay-neuter for low income people), spay-neuter enforcement, and clamping down on unregulated breeding are all ideas we know work to reduce the number of unwanted animals, and that save money in the animal control budget in the long run. Councilor Mautino's proposals, if enacted, are going to end up costing Tulsa taxpayers, who will foot the bill for fixing the problems caused by additional intact animals.

Again, this is a solvable problem, rescue groups need to get out of their narrow boxes and begin to devote resources to a planned and sustained campaign in the political arena if they hope to make progress towards a no-kill future.

The Only Reason to Blame Bush is Because It Is His Fault

We've all seen the movie a thousand times. A scream is heard, the hero rushes to the rescue, meanwhile the killer runs out the door. The hero runs into the room, and seeing the bloody body on the floor, bends down to see what can be done, just then the police rush in, reaching the inevitable conclusion that the hero is the killer.

It's a great plot for a movie, but unfortunately it is also the plotline for our current economic situation. When President Clinton left office, our country was in an unparalleled time of peace of prosperity, and we even had a budget surplus. After Clinton, we had a President that slashed taxes for the wealthy, for many down to zero. On top of that he started two wars, at least one of which was completely unnecessary. He also pushed through the “too big to fail” bailouts that left taxpayers holding the bag for the mistakes of billionare bankers. All of this costs a great deal of money, and is especially difficult to pay for when the most well-off in our country don't contribute their fair share.

Now President Obama has rushed into the room and is trying to revive the bloodied corpse that Bush left behind, and the media and the Republicans seem to have shown up to the picture late. Here's a clue for those of you who can't follow the plotline: Obama didn't do it. But there is no way he will get out of taking responsibility for Bush's mistakes, if you want to know why just read To Kill a Mockingbird.

Chickens Come Home to Poop

The reported problems with Oklahoma's lakes and the blue-green algae come as no surprise to those of us who have been following the events of the last few years revolving around the chicken industry and the issue of poultry litter. The current CAFO system of producing chickens that has been put in place in Oklahoma and surrounding states is completely unsustainable and has inevitably produced the serious pollution problems we are seeing now.

There was an opportunity to fix the problem when Oklahoma's former Attorney General, Drew Edmondson, decided to file suit against the poultry industry in order to hold them accountable for the pollution they are creating. Unfortunately, the judge in the case took the side of the poultry industry in almost every ruling, even after the AG presented evidence that the pollution could be a threat to human health.

Now we are faced with a situation where recreation facilities that belong to all of us in Oklahoma are becoming unusable. Add to this the economic devastation that is being caused to the businesses that depend on the lakes to attract their customers. In essence, the poultry companies have been permitted to engage in a theft worth hundreds-of-millions, if not billions, of dollars.

The people of Oklahoma should be angry, the poultry industry has taken the rivers and lakes that are the property of the people of Oklahoma and turned them into their own personal chicken toilets. How long will we let this continue before we decide that cheap chicken isn't worth the price?

Not Eggzactly Good News

I'm skeptical that today's news regarding the agreement of industry group United Egg Producers and HSUS is really the great step forward that it is claimed to be.

First, there is no phase out of battery cages, merely a phase in of larger space requirements. And the phase in time is fifteen years? Most of us know how acquiescent Congress is in delaying the implementation of new laws for industry. Mark my words, if this law goes into effect, the industry will go back to Congress time and again to complain how they can not keep up with timeline and get delays put into the legislation. It will be the next century before the size regulations actually take effect.

And second, I am suspicious of the coded language being used in regard to Supremacy Clause issues. Is there anyone who can state clearly whether or not this will prevent states from enacting more stringent requirements? As animal activists we should be cynical and push this issue. Almost all previous advancement in the area of farmed animal treatment has been due to ballot initiatives for a reason. While most citizens will vote for a ballot initiative that increases regulations, will the same person vote out a congressman because of a vote on an animal bill? Unlikely. In Oklahoma we had state legislators who were pro-cockfighting every step of the way. When the issue was put on the ballot, even districts that supported the anti-cockfighting initiative by large margins re-elected the pro-cockfighting legislators. When confronted with cruelty directly, voters will vote to support humane regulations, but these issues are not important enough to most people to vote out a congressman they otherwise would support. On puppy mills in Oklahoma much the same thing has happened, with legislation so weak that it is almost laughable, and yet most Oklahomans would support far stronger regulation. Are we setting ourselves up to compete in an arena where we are outmatched? The truth is, an industry with billions of dollars will be more than happy to move the fight into their lobbying/PAC/ influence peddling wheelhouse.

My last question is, how is this going to look to consumers? Are eggs, which are produced by first killing the baby male chicks (useless), then debeaking the female baby chicks, feeding them unnatural, usually drugged, food, depriving the birds of veterinary care until they are broken-down, worn-out useless animals useful for only McNuggets and soup, are these eggs going to carry an HSUS seal of approval?

Here is my thought, this industry wouldn't make this agreement unless they had to. They are running scared because the public now has access to a number of videos which show the truth about the egg industry. The score here is industry 1 (they get to move the debate to a forum they are experts at controlling) HSUS 1/2 (they get to take credit for a “the most important agreement in the history of animal activism, even if it effectually does nothing) Animals 0 (but of course they always lose.)

Today's New York Times contained a great editorial that hopefully will serve as a wake up call to many in the U.S. While factory farming seems cheap on the surface, hidden costs and subsidies abound.

Unfortunately, our legal and legislative systems have been used to protect corporate agricultural, especially those who deal in animal products, from having to pay the true costs of their actions. Thus, corporations can sell their products cheaply, while reaping huge profits. The NYT's editorial touches on only one of these costs, antibiotic resistance caused by the routine use of antibiotics as growth enhancers on factory farms. There is now strong evidence that this creates antibiotic resistant bacteria capable of infecting humans, increasing medical costs and worsening outcomes for all of us.

Add to this chronic diseases such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc., caused by consumption of the products, environmental damage, caused by the dumping of massive amounts of waste, grain and water shortages caused by the intensive need for these resources to operate the factory farming system, and you soon reach the conclusion that a one dollar cheeseburger should really cost about $20.

This system will not change until enough people get angry enough that they begin to vote their legislators out of office for supporting these ridiculous subsidies. It is time for all of us to organize and work to change this system.

Book Review - Farm Sanctuary : Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food

Last Friday I went to see Gene Baur speak, and while there I picked up a copy of his book, Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food.

The book has a loosely chronological structure that tells the story of how Farm Sanctuary came to be, while outlining the many battles they have fought through the years to bring about better treatment for animals that are caught up in the factory farming system. The tone of the book is very similar to Mr. Baur's speaking style, which is insistent without being confrontational, and factual without losing an emotional edge.

Many of us in the animal rights movement are used to those who take a hyper-rational tone, spewing fact after fact, or making step by step philosophical arguments, because we want to avoid at any cost sounding like someone who has watched Bambi too many times. Thankfully, Mr. Baur does not fall into that trap, and throughout the book we are reminded that animals are living creatures that are enough like us that it is possible to form an empathetic bond with them.

I especially enjoyed the “Profile” sections at the end of each chapter. Just like each one of us that make up the teeming mass of humanity, the profiles remind us that every animal is an individual with its own life story that can be good or bad.

The epilogue was especially heartening, and I heard the echoes of Thoreau's famous essay on Civil Disobedience in two sentences which are too good not to repeat:

Eating meat is a habit we choose, not an unwritten law to be blindly obeyed. In the face of factory farming's harsh and violent spirit, every one of us has the
power to say no and in doing so show the world there is a kinder way.

If you haven't yet read this book, I highly recommend it, even if you are a seasoned activist it will help you remember why you're in this movement.

Give Me an Inch, and I'll Take an Inch

I am probably as guilty as the next person in sometimes feeling that I don't accomplish enough in my advocacy efforts. Books, articles and other media bombard us with stories about how individual activists have changed the world through heroic efforts. Sometimes this is a good thing, as it inspires us to do more. Other times, it serves to depress us, as most of us do not have the time, energy or money to devote ourselves to activism full-time, and thus, can never accomplish those heroic feats.

Very often though, what appears to be a big jump is actually the accumulation of many small steps. When an ordinance passes, or a local school unveils a vegan friendly lunch menu, or a corporation agrees to stop testing on animals, we often view that as a discrete event and give credit to one or a few individuals. But these changes never take place in a vacuum, and we sometimes need to look at the big picture that made the change possible.

Social change almost always precedes by small steps. While we see the big changes, we often miss the details; the person who talked to his neighbor about why they should support a spay/neuter ordinance, the student who asked for a vegan lunch, or the person who stopped buying cosmetics from the corporation that tests on animals. It is these small steps that make what only appears to be the big jump possible.

People sometimes ask me how many people I expect to convert to veganism, and my standard response is, “just one.” Of course, there is always one more out there, and if we keep working on just that one, eventually we will get to everyone. To climb the mountain seems overwhelming, and it is the wrong place to focus. What most of us need to think about is what small step we can take today that will move us forward even an inch. Over time, all the inches that move will add-up. Looking back someday, we will see how that one conversation we started, that one e-mail we sent, or how that one pamphlet we handed out has moved us miles.

A Waste of Time and Money

A recent article in the New York Times highlights an issue that many of us who are animal protection advocates are familiar with; the continuing waste of time and money by the FBI in the pointless harassment of activists who are doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment Rights.

While the FBI's actions are in the most part harmless, rarely resulting in charges and prosecution, we should be working to end these abusive investigations.

The impetus for the use of the FBI to investigate animal protection advocates comes directly from the industries that abuse animals. Clearly, one of the goals of these abusive investigations is to create a climate in which innocent activists are afraid to exercise their free speech rights. The animal abuse industries do not have an argument to justify their treatment of animals. In the face of this, they have resorted to one of the oldest techniques in history; to paraphrase Cicero “When the facts and the law are against you, abuse the plaintiff.” Thus, they attempt to make innocent activists appear like demons, when all the activists are doing is telling the truth.

On another level, in an era of alleged fiscal crisis and across the board budget cuts, we should be upset as citizens that we are wasting millions of tax dollars to discover whether someone is ordering their noodles with chicken or tofu. While it may make for scintillating reading at the FBI office, I think a better idea would be to realize a huge cost savings by immediately terminating employment for all agents engaged in these pointless investigations.

Just Eats Tour Visits Tulsa

The Just Eats Tour recently made a two-stop in Tulsa, enjoying Oklahoma hospitality and eating at two of Tulsa's better restaurants, BeLe's and Cafe Samana.

While in town, Farm Sanctuary co-founder Gene Baur gave a well attended presentation, discussing a wide range of issues in a friendly and conversational manner. Gene is also promoting his new book, farm Sanctuary : Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food. ( I obtained a signed copy, and will be reviewing it here soon.)

Overall, it was a great visit to our town, and highlighted the growing interest in the vegan lifestyle in the Tulsa area.

Place the Blame on the Guilty

Recently, I was reading through the local paper's comment section on a letter regarding the cruelty of factory farming and I came across this comment:

The problem with letters like this is that it encourages people to be against
things like the regulation of puppy mills, using the argument that factory
farm-like breeding of dogs, which are intended to be companion animals, should
not be regulated because "then they'll come after those who are raising cows,
chickens and hogs for food."

This comment highlights one of the animal industry's big successes in its fight against the animal rights movement. Presently, many in what I would call the “animal welfare” movement are blaming animal rights activists for their own lack of progress. The reality is that someone who is opposed to puppy mill regulation will find an excuse to work against it. I've been down to the Capitol to talk to legislators about puppy mills, and I've heard a thousand different justifications as to why they can not vote for stronger regulation.

The reality is that, if we want stronger regulation of puppy mills there is only one solution: a large, well organized block of voters that is willing to punish opposing legislators at the polls.

There are a ton of points that could have been targeted by the commenter here: the puppy millers themselves, who are engaging in the cruelty; the paper that prints the classifieds allowing them to sell their “product”; the lack of federal regulation, allowing them to ship across state lines with no oversight; the people who actually buy the “purebred” dogs, allowing the system to perpetuate; the group that issues “purebred” papers, lending a cache to the purchase of these abused animals; etc. Instead, this person has decided to shoot those who are on the same side in the back, what a waste.

Here is an idea, if you belong to a humane group target the abusers. We know the majority of the public supports us, do the hard work of organizing them and getting them to vote their conscience. If you can't agree with those who support animal rights, you don't have to work with us, just ignore us. But don't waste your time shooting those on your own side in the back, that only helps the people who abuse animals.

Iowa Still Trying to Protect Animal Abusers

It appears that the Iowa legislature has not given up yet on trying to pass the “protect the criminal” bill currently pending.

The bill will have two main effects. The first effect is to protect those who are guilty of animal cruelty from being exposed. The reality of the situation is that animal cruelty is taking place. If it were not, the bill would be totally unnecessary.

The second purpose is to prevent the public from seeing how the industry actually operates. Members of the Iowa legislature have actually openly stated that this is a main goal of the legislation. If members of the public see how their food is produced, it will increase the likelihood that they will become vegan or vegetarian.

The Supreme Court has stated definitively that this is exactly what the First Amendment protects. Very often the advocacy of ideas involves presenting the public with images and descriptions that they find distasteful, and would probably rather not see, but that an informed decision requires they view. For instance, the infant technology of photography was used to show the brutality of slavery in the years before the Civil War. We all can rest smugly in our rejection of slavery today, but this is a view that once had to fight for acceptance.

In short, it is not the place of the Iowa Legislature to determine what they will allow people to see. A much better use of their time would be to enact measures to prevent the cruelty, rather than just trying to prevent the cruelty from being seen.

Rising Food Costs Caused by Standard American Diet

Rising food costs are becoming a worldwide problem, and a large part of the persistent run-up in food prices can be directly linked to the growing adoption of the SAD diet in other countries. The rising cost of food has been linked to many political upheavals in the past year, but very few commentators have been willing to state what many in the vegan community know to be an obvious fact, the SAD diet is simply too resource intensive to feed the world.

It not just unsustainable in the context of a diet that can feed the world, it is unsustainable in terms of our own country, and is in large part responsible for our need to import massive amounts of oil. If the true cost of producing food were considered, then the market should push consumers to choose more sustainable options, because they should cost less. Unfortunately, government subsidies create market distortions that create cheap prices for items that are expensive in terms of resources used.

We now live in a world where one-third of the population is overweight, while at the same time one-third of the world is starving. Encouraging the adoption of a plant-based diet can go a long way towards solving both of these problems.

The Battle Against Free Speech

Today's letter in the Tulsa World by Tristan Slepter did a great job of highlighting a growing problem for animal protection advocates. A series of intrusive laws coupled with overzealous law enforcement, has created an atmosphere where many of us are afraid to utilize the rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The idea of silencing unwanted speech is not a new one. The First Amendment was adopted in part as a reaction to the British Government's repression of speech. The history of the U.S. is riddled with stories of those who were persecuted for speaking the truth. Those who supported the abolition of slavery and woman suffrage were mercilessly persecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights. If anything, the current level of attention towards our cause should reassure us.

In the past we have seen events where Neo-Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan hold rallies or marches. Very often, there is a significant portion of the community that is quick to jump up and protect the free speech rights of these groups, and yet very few of these people jump in to protect the rights of animal advocates. Again, this should serve to reassure us.

Speech is most likely to be suppressed when it meets two criteria: one, it goes against a well entrenched status quo; and, two, it appears to be right. Galileo ended his life under house arrest not because the Church thought his statements were inaccurate, but because they feared the implications of those statements being correct. This is why so many people can defend the speech of Neo-Nazis, but become deafeningly silent when it comes to animal rights activists. It is easy to see that Neo-Nazis or the Klan are peddling fraudulent ideologies, and most people do not fear being taken in by their arguments.

On the other hand, the health, environmental and humane arguments in favor of veganism are persuasive and backed up by mountains of evidence. It is not hard to believe that on some level many people can see the truth and justice in our arguments. Most people, however, imagine the worst when they think of what life must be like as a vegan. Therefor, the status quo is maintained not by presenting arguments in favor of the way things are now being done, but instead by suppressing those ideas that are found inconvenient.

The answer to this whole problem is for us to work harder as activists. These laws suppressing speech are a signal to us that we are gaining traction and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The best argument now left to the other side is that it is not fair for us to present the truth to the public. We live live in a democracy where our speech rights are allegedly protected, and I would predict the arguments in favor of suppressing speech will not last long. Now is the time for us to redouble our efforts.

It's My Party, I'll Cry If I Want To

Last Saturday, May 14, was our State Democratic Convention. I have to say I was completely disappointed. Not by the way the voting took place, or any other issues which occurred on the floor, but by the lack of a vegan option for lunch. The lunched provided were of the box variety, containing either salads, sandwiches, enchiladas, etc., along with a bag of chips and a small dessert item. It would have easy enough to ensure that there were vegan options on hand.

Most surveys show that the number of vegans in the U.S. is approximately two percent. With nearly five hundred people in attendance, it would seem to make common sense to anticipate a need for vegan meals just from a statistical standpoint.

The Democratic Party views itself as a “big tent” party that prides itself on inclusiveness. Many people adopt vegan or vegetarian diets because of religious, as well as conscientious, beliefs. It makes sense to make everyone feel welcome, regardless of creed, but this is, unfortunately, does not seem to extend to meal planning at Democratic events.

Vegans tend to be better educated, make more money and volunteer more time to their communities on average. With the demographics of the vegan community, I would assume that the Democratic Party would be welcoming us with open arms, but for some reason that is not the case. I think it is past time for the officials of the Democratic Party in Oklahoma to do some soul searching and determine if they can continue to exclude this part of the community from the Democratic Party.

A Catastrophic Failure for Animal Protection in Oklahoma

The feeble attempt to regulate puppy mills in Oklahoma has hit a new low. With the amendments to the law approved by the legislature, and signed by Governor Fallin, the regulations have become nothing more than a process for obtaining an essentially pointless piece of paper that puts the State of Oklahoma's stamp of approval on inhumane and shoddy practices.

In weakening already weak regulations, the legislature has essentially eliminated any need for a puppy mill operator to make any concession to humane and sanitary practices. In addition to this, the legislature has eliminated the ability of any parties who are actually interested in enforcing the law to be involved in the process.

The only thing that remains for the legislature to do at this point is pass a bill that will help explain to the child that receives an abused and diseased puppy how, exactly, the issuance of a pointless piece of paper from state agency makes the experience of watching your puppy die a better one.

Chalk this up as a double loss for animal advocates in Oklahoma. Not only have we failed to create any meaningful regulation of puppy mills in Oklahoma, we have handed them a state "seal of approval" that they can point to in future debates over the issue.