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.