Log in

Columbus Ohio Animal Rights Community's Journal [entries|friends|calendar]
Columbus Ohio Animal Rights Community

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

On the menu: Monkey steaks, tiger burgers, eagle roast [01 Dec 2009|06:43pm]

You've heard that tired old thing about all the cows going extinct if we don't eat them, right? Well, now some farmers and conservationsists are arguing that we should raise, kill, and eat endangered animals in order to save them. "Do we have a shortage of chickens? No, because we eat them."

Want to save the tigers? Farm them. Elephants? Kill them to harvest ivory and then render them into burgers. Orang-utans? No need to stop unsustainable palm production and deforestation, just add the apes to the farm yard where they can be gorown, slaughtered, and sold as monkey steak.

The evidence that this would be a good move is that we have been banning endangered animal trade for decades and yet, their numbers are still declining. If people can own such animals, they would have a vested interest in "protecting" them. Apparently, no one is interested in protection unless there is money to be made.

It is blatant commodification and something that many environmentalists support overall. If we can marketize natural "resources," place upon them a price, and confer ownership of them to individuals, we provide economic rationale to the capitalist. Otherwise, we fall victim to the Tragedy of the Commons.

John Stossel supports it, so it must be a good idea, right?

Ban on Wild Tiger Sales 'a Complete Failure'?
Tas farmers claim eating animals may save them from extinction
Endangered Breeds

What it all comes down to is providing support to the ethically challenged. Meat eaters can feel good about themselves for "saving the animals" just like they already do for buying "humane" meat. It doesn't really challenge the status quo at all. Although most people probably would not want to eat apes, elephants, predatory cats, wild canids, or bald eagles, there would still be a market out there for it. In fact there already is. We already know that poachers are providing illegal flesh to consumers all over the world. But zoos have been known to be part of the black market trade in "exotic meats," allowing wealthy assholes to buy the animal of their choosing to be slaughtered and consumed. Newer culinary niche markets are forming around the idea of eating exotic animals. I am sure Anthony Bourdain will be leading the way on that movement in America.

Top 10 Most Edible Endangered Animals
post comment

Constitutionalized animal abuse-- coming to your state [04 Nov 2009|12:01pm]

Yesterday signaled a big loss for animals and those of us who care about them.

Issue 2, the proposed amendment to the Ohio state constitution to create a Livestock Standards Care Board, passed 65-35.

This board would consist almost entirely or entirely of indivudals sympathetic to industrial agriculture. Already names have been thrown around and none of them is on the side of animals. The board would create and enforce practices regarding farmed animals and other "livestock" such as horses and pets in the breeding industry.

The issue was framed as a food safety and animal welfare issue-- the tagline: "Safe local foods, excellent animal care." As a result, many well-intentioned people supported it, not knowing the true evil behind it.

It is, admittedly, a preemptive strike against animal welfare reform for Big Agriculture. The industry is running scared, after animal successes in states like California, which passed legislation to eliminate and reduce many common cruel animal husbandry practices. The Farm Bureau, one of the most powerful and insidious lobby groups in the world, led the movement. And, despite the claims of ensuring LOCAL food viability, the largest portion of financial support for Issue 2 came from out of state sources.

You should be very worried. This sweeping success will surely lead to similar movements in other states, just as the successful stripping of gay rights in California last spring played out again in Maine this November.
post comment

Ohio Constitutional Hijack- Big Ag Wins, Animals Lose [28 Oct 2009|08:13pm]

So, I have been meaning to write about this for some time, but haven't had the time to do it. I know most of you are not in Ohio, but beware that this could soon apply to you as well...

All over the country, constitutional abuses are taking place. We can clearly see this in the many amendments that have already successfully stripped the queer community of the basic right to marry. Constitutional amendments meant to systematically disadvantage various groups are the next big thing.

Ohio already passed an anti-gay amendment in 2004 and is now trying to pass two others that stand to take power away from the people.

Issue 2 is a proposed constitutional amendment to create a 13 member "Livestock Advisory Board" to oversee animal agriculture in Ohio. Proponents include The Ohio Farm Bureau and various commodity groups. The tag line is "Safe Local Food, Excellent Animal Care." Supposedly the board will be a "bipartisan" panel of "experts" that will evaluate, formulate, and enforce animal welfare policies for agriculture. People are already being tapped to be members of this board and so far none of them represent bipartisan interests. Several representatives of the Farm Bureau will be on the board, as will reps from several different commodity groups, and the dean of the Ohio State College of Agriculture. One position is held for a member of the "humane community" and two are intended for "consumer" representatives.

Now, given the history of the FB and the various commodity groups, it is no stretch of the imagination that the board will be dominated by BigAg interests. Classic case of, as they say, "the fox minding the henhouse." How can people whose business it is to exploit animals and consumers alike be trusted to regulate themselves?

They can't.

Furthermore, proponents claim this is also about "educating" people about farming. Not sure how that would be accomplished. But it doesn't even matter because I assure you, as someone with personal experience in dealing with these people, that they have NO desire to educate the public about agriculture. They rely on ignorance in order to perpetrate the various abuses they inflict upon animals, on people, and on local communities. If people had a CLUE what really goes on, there would be significantly fewer meat eaters-- exactly what animal agriculturalists fear.

Unfortunately most people are totally unaware of the evils of BigAg and on the surface this looks like a move toward animal welfare. Many well-intentioned consumers are supporting this measure, believing that they are helping animals. Studies show, time and again, that consumers are concerned about the treatment of farmed animals and this is playing up to that concern.

In fact, proponents of Issue 2 admit that this is a preemptive strike meant to squelch future animal welfare measures, such as those recently put into place in California and Michigan. These successes for animals and consumers have scared the pants off BigAg so they are in attack mode. If they succeed in Ohio, rest assured they will try their luck in other states in the near future.

Please, Ohio citizens, vote NO on Issue 2. Non-citizens, encourage your Ohio friends and acquaintances to vote NO. Let them know this is NOT FOR ANIMALS, it is for BigAg!
post comment

Agri-tainment and the compassionate factory farm [14 Oct 2009|06:23pm]


Farmers are so nice. That is what this 32,000 cow dairy contends, at least. They say that agriculture is compatible with animal welfare and with the environment. These are two of their three intended messages inparted to visitors of this agri-musement park. The third? "Milk is good for you."

post comment

The HAPPY Bill [14 Oct 2009|06:21pm]

The Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act was introduced to the House in July. The act would allow for tax deductions for qualified pet expenses. So far there are no co-sponsors for the bill and it is likely that it will suffer the fate of so many other proposals--simply to be tabled and fade into oblivion without serious consideration. Still, this does not keep people from being outraged.

As you might imagine, people find it ridiculous to consider a tax deduction for pets, despite the fat that nearly 70% of Americans "own" pets and that mountains of research delineate the many positive consequences of living with and interacting with non-human animal companions.

One argument is that pets are "optional." Well, so are children, yet people think nothing of getting special deductions for them. Another relies on the illogic of descent-- tax breaks for pets will lead to tax breaks for houseplants and who knows what else. Simply ridiculous.

I see such legislation as a move toward citizenship status for non-human animals. And this is exactly why, consciously or not, people are opposed to the idea. For Americans and most of the world, animals are not citizens and not worthy of any legal benefits. While the HAPPY Act would not directly provide citizenship benefits to animals, it could encourage more responsible pet stewardship which could indirectly serve to increase the status of non-humans.

Here is the original bill.
1 comment|post comment

Petition against the UP cat killer [05 May 2009|04:54pm]


Justice for Tengteng

Target: Faculty of the University of the Philippines, Diliman
Sponsored by: Ted Teodoro

There are over half a million stray animals in the Philippines, and this is the story of just one of them. Tengteng was a month-old stray kitten who lived precariously on the grounds of the University of the Philippines at Diliman. Those who knew her spoke of a kitten who benefited from random acts of kindness including handouts of food, water, even a new collar to make herself look pretty. She enjoyed fleeting but happy moments with students who gave her a scratch or two, a tummy rub, and  pats on her head. The only known photograghs of Tengten are the ones you see on this site. One can say that Tengteng was not as hard up as other strays in the Philippines, but she was without a regular source of food,  a home and a family to protect her.

Tengteng, like all animals, was God's child. But her life came to an abrupt end when on April 13th a second year physics student named Joseph Carlo Candare took her life and bragged about it on the web. On his blog entry for that day, Mr. Candare mockingly called Tengteng's death " an accidental Crime." However, by other accounts, Tengteng's killing was a deliberate and blood-thirsty attack fueled by Mr. Candare's visceral and sadistic hatred of cats.

How much hate, you might ask?

Mr. Candare was described as taking a running start, leaping into the air, and then landing on Tengteng with the full force of his weight and momentum. Tengteng, who could not have weighed more than two pounds, was crushed under the grown man's weight. This was a conscious act, and Mr. Candare had ample opportunities to change his mind. Whatever life was left in Tengteng's body, the last few ounces of strength she had, enabled her to seek shelter in a hovel where she ultimately died moments later, alone.  The imagery is horrifying, but we have been spared the deathly sounds that must have been blood-curdling. The agonizing scream of a kitten, the crushing of her bones, the taunting of the victor over the vanquished, it was a triumphant moment for one but unnecessarily tragic for another.

Why should we care?

Some have argued that we care too much about a kitten who did not belong to anyone. Some said tha there are many strays; why care about this one? All animals deserve respect. When we disrespect an animal, that says more about us than the animal. It is not how many animals are abused, but it is the knowledge that a most heinous crime was committed on a defenseless and sentient being that behooves us to act. Such acts, however singular, offends our sense of decency and righteousness. If there is one abused animal, then that is one too many. When we are confronted by cruelty, we must address it. Acts of abject cruelty towards animals, like Tengteng's killing, are simply unacceptable.  It is up to the enlightened and the compassionate to stand up and speak in behalf of those on the receiving end of humankind's brute  force.

Why take my word for it?

You do not have to. I am reproducing Mr. Candare's blog entry for your perusal. Here, you can read his own words, his self-confession as a serial killer of cats, his disingenuous pang of conscience, and his not-so-veiled threat to kill more in a month ( English translation in brackets) :

"An Accidental Crime. First day sa supercon. Lunch time came. On our way out of old NIP I saw the cat I almost killed last Tuesday. Now everyone knows I hate cats. It's an unexplainable feeling towards them. Like some internal hatred. Hindi ko talaga alam kung bakit pero anumang pagpipigil sa sarili ay hindi sapat upang mapangibabawan ang panggigil ko sa mga pusa. [ I don't really know why my self-control is not enough to overcome my hatred of cats ]  I pulled it on its tail and threw it. Then like some pro wrestler I jumped on it and my feet landed on it's torso. Slam! Felt good! But the cat didn't die, well not yet. It ran for its life and just as I was about to catch up on it somebody yelled: " Pwede bang pabayaan mo yung pusa?!" [ Can you leave the cat alone? ]. It was instant and involuntary. I stopped on my tracks. Nobody ever stopped me when assaulting cats. Well I guess there's always a first time for everything. The cat got away. Or at least that's what i thought. So we went to lunch Mel, Jayson, Tracy and me. After lunch, balik na sa kung anumang naiwang gawain [ we went back to whatever unfinished work we had ]. Then Tracy and Mel told me " Hui Jc napatay mo yung pusa" [ Hey, JC, you killed that cat ]. Hours later, habang abala sa XRD [ while busy at XRD ], a guy came in. Tanong niya: " Sinong pumatay dun sa pusa?" [ He asked, who killed that cat? ] Bang! Dat was me boi. Guilty as charged. I didn't see it die pero sabi ni Myles [ but Myles said ] it coughed up blood or at least something like that daw. Didn't realize I gave it a fatal hit. This isn't the first time I've killed a cat but this time it's different. It didn't occur to me back then that the cat had a leash. So I think somebody owns it. Well it's very well loved in NIP from what I heard and I just ended it's life. So there you go I'm sorry. And I wont be striking another one for maybe about a month. It feels good when your beating it(a cat) up but you suddenly feel something strange when it turns off permanently. That's how I feel right now. And maybe for the next days. Dang, am I a cat serial killer? "

To Whom Should We Appeal?

We are appealing to the high officials of the University of the Philippines at Diliman (U.P.) namely Dr. Sergio Cao, Chancellor of UP, Dr. Arnel Salvador, Director of the National Institute of Physics at UP, and to Dr. Caesar Saloma, Dean of the College of Science UP.

These gentlemen, in their respective capacities, have the authority to set things right at the university. They can condemn, reject, and punish those who practice animal cruelty within the ranks of the university. They are gatekeepers to the long and illustrious history of the university. The conduct and safety of the student body are under their purview. We, therefore, are calling upon these gentlemen to apply the only just and appropriate punishment for Mr. Candare which is immediate expulsion from the university and to assist in seeking proper medical attention for Mr. Candare

I am asking for one thousand signatures. If you agree with the spirit of this petition, please sign it and offer your opinion for the benefit of these learned gentlemen. I will post updates when new developments occur. I thank you for helping engender a more compassionate Filipino society.

Addenda: There were questions about criminal charges. The Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) is in the process of gathering affidavits from eye-witnesses. Yes, Mr. Candare violated the provisions of the Philippine Animal Welfare Act, Republic Act 8485. PAWS' volunteer lawyer will be mapping our their legal case against Mr. Candare.

05/02/09 I had Mr. Candare's name as John C. Candare in the initial post because he presented himself as such on another blog, but someone corrected me. His real name is Joseph Carlo Candare.

05/02/09 You may express your outrage but please no personal threats against Mr. Candare. I have to submit this petition to UP officials, and I want it fair and clean. Substantive comments will greatly help the impact of this petition. Thanks.


Tengteng at play

post comment

VegiTerranean coming to Columbus [27 Feb 2008|09:49pm]

Singer Chrissie Hynde plans to expand vegan concept here
post comment

NYT Article [29 Jan 2008|09:33am]

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
by Mark Bittman, The New York Times
2 comments|post comment

Coke~ It's the Cruel Thing [07 Dec 2007|06:44am]

This is really rich. Coke claims that it does not sponsor rodeos or other events in which animals are likely to be physically harmed. Clearly, however, their logo is plastered all over these rodeos:

Hmmmm...... What could be the reason for this inconsistency?

Coke claims it is their bottlers who are sponsoring such events, not them. Come one people! Does anyone really believe in this day and age of corporate personhood and institutional control that any gigantic corporation would allow an unauthorized use of their image? Duh!

Just another reason Coca~Cola is pure evil.

Additionally, some people believe rodeos to be rather "harmless" forms of "entertainment," as the animals are not killed, merely terrified. If you think rodeos are entertainment, then you need to watch this video, as it is far better than words:

Notice the calves' terror as they are chased down and dragged. Notice how some of the horses are desperately trying to get out of their holding pens. Notice the injuries inflicted upon these animals. But not to worry, the animals are protected under "...one of the most comprehensive animal welfare programs in the United States" (says Coca~Cola). Take a look at the Professional Rodeo Cowboy's Association animal welfare policy. Like Coke's claim that it does not sponsor rodeos, it must be a joke!

I urge everyone to call out Coke on this hypocrisy. I also urge you to actively speak out against rodeos whenever and wherever you can. SHARK focuses their efforts on this.
post comment

OSU and Animal Testing [16 May 2007|12:17pm]

Research on dogs at OSU protested
Saturday, May 12, 2007 3:28 AM
By Charlie Boss

The arguments haven't changed.

Scientists at Ohio State University say the use of animals in research saves lives. Critics argue that the research is inhumane and unnecessary. The number of animals used in research at Ohio State has more than tripled since 1989. Most are rats and mice. The number of cats and dogs has fluctuated since 2000, but the use of pigs reached a record high last year.

One recently approved study that would use dogs has spurred action from a local animal-rights group. Members of Protect Our Earth's Treasures, or POET, met on campus this week to protest the use of dogs in heart studies.
The group is targeting George Billman, a physiology researcher who was approved to use as many as 120 dogs in his future research. Billman did not respond to phone or e-mail requests for an interview, but OSU spokesman Earle Holland said the researcher wants to investigate whether ingested omega-3 fatty acids protect against heart attacks. To test the theory, Billman wants to surgically create blockages in dogs' arteries and have them exercise on treadmills. The dogs that live through the heart attacks would be euthanized and their heart tissue studied. Billman previously studied injected omega-3 fatty acids.

In a paper published last year in Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Billman wrote that he has used 768 dogs in 25 years of research.

"We're going to work to make sure he's not doing that for another 25 years," said POET Director Rob Russell, who was one of eight protesters who held signs and passed out fliers outside Hamilton Hall on Wednesday. The group has protested a number of projects in the past, most notably one that involved former OSU researcher Michael Podell four years ago.

Podell led a project in which cats were infected with feline HIV and then given methamphetamines to see how the drugs affect the progression of the disease in the brain. Podell left the project and the university amid protests.

Like Protect Our Earth's Treasures, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has raised concerns over Billman's work as well as other projects at OSU, said PETA senior researcher Alka Chandna.

"It's really devastating," she said. "A lot of federal money is going to pointless devastation." She said PETA has sent protest letters to the university.

Russell said he is planning as many as four protests before the end of the school year against Billman's work. Cats and dogs make up less than 1 percent of the research animals used at Ohio State. And the numbers have dropped since 2001. Still, the total number of lab animals has increased annually. In fiscal year 2006, about 128,000 animals -- 84 percent were mice and rats -- were used in research. That's more than double the number in 2000.

Experts say researchers are veering from higher-order animals to rodents, especially transgenic mice whose genes have been manipulated to reflect specific diseases.

"Yes, there are more animals being used, but they are used in a different capacity and to study different problems," said Bruce Kennedy, president of the American Association for Animal Laboratory Science in Memphis, Tenn. Kennedy, who monitors human and animal studies at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona, said the current movement is to shift to tissue culture, worms, invertebrates and computer models.

But that isn't always the case. "We will always need animals," said James King, interim chairperson and professor of neuroscience at Ohio State. King said he mostly has used rats in his 35 years of research on how the human brain works.

"The computer can simulate the biology processes, but not to the degree with the questions we try to answer," he said.
1 comment|post comment

OSU offers new course on "Animals in Society" [09 May 2007|03:33pm]

Starting this fall, OSU is offering a new course that addresses human/animal relationships. The course is being billed as social science course. Unlike similarly named courses being offered at other universities, like Wittenberg, OU, and Michigan, this course is not taught by social scientists, nor is it really about "Animals in Society." This course is being offered in the Animal Science department and is not being taught by anyone qualified to teach social sciences. Furthermore, a cursory glance at the course description belies the true intention of the class:

A wide range of views about animals exist, often based on misinformation and poorly informed value-based judgments that have had direct implications for pet owners, science and medicine, and agriculture.

It is important that our community learn to integrate moral views with biological, social and cultural facts.

So, views of animals in opposition to big ag views of animals are misinformed and based on poor value judgements? Yes. Make no mistake. This IS the position of OSU agriculture. Now they have the perfect propaganda machine.
post comment

From the Horses' Mouths... [09 May 2007|02:42pm]

A friend of mine wrote to The Body Shop and Bath and Body Works to inquire about the vegan-friendliness of their products. Here are their responses:

From: CustomerCare@Bodyshop.com
Sent: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: Product Information/112283-08R

Dear Customer,

Thank you for your email. The Body Shop(r) is not a vegetarian or vegan
company. However the vast majority of our products contain no animal
derived ingredients.

We aim to avoid the use of animal-derived ingredients wherever possible
and specify non-animal ingredients whenever there is a choice. All our
soaps, for example, use a vegetable base rather than the commonly used
animal-fat base.

Gelatin, beeswax, honey, milk, shellac and lanolin are the only product
ingredients knowingly used by The Body Shop(r) which do not comply with
the most current definition of Vegan. Where synthetic forms or
derivatives of these materials are available, such as lactic acid, these
are always specified for our formulations.

Please know that all product ingredients are posted online at
www.thebodyshop.com. Once you have clicked on the product you are
interested in, select the "All Ingredients" tab found below the product.

I hope you find the level of service provided to you via this
correspondence satisfactory. If you are not satisfied please feel free
to contact me at, 1-800-263-9746 ext 5667.



US Care Center Admin Team 

From: BBWCustomerRelations@bbw.com
Sent: Tue, 8 May 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: Case 1375628

Case # 1375628

Dear Customer,

We appreciate you taking the time to write us in regards to our policies, services and products. We value your inquiry and your interest in Bath & Body Works and The White Barn Candle Co.

Vegan & Kosher Statement:
None of our products are made to be classified as Vegan.  The customers can look up the ingredients to see if the products fit their interpretation of Vegan, because some are more strict than others, but the bottom line is that we don't specify to our vendors that any of our items need to be made to any definition of Vegan - same with Kosher.
Thanks again for contacting us. We hope you will continue to enjoy your favorites from Bath & Body Works and The White Barn Candle Co. If we can do anything else for you, please feel free to reply to this e-mail (please do not change the subject line) or call us at 1-800-395-1001.


Lu Ann Ray

Lu Ann Ray
Customer Relations Representative

I love how Bath and Body says, "We hope you will continue to enjoy your favorites from Bath & Body Works and The White Barn Candle Co."  If I am concerned about the contents of your products and you did not reassure me, do you really think I'll continue buying anything from you? Jeez...

post comment

Pet Food Recall [16 Mar 2007|06:18pm]


...Collapse ) A major manufacturer of dog and cat food sold under Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger and other store brands recalled 60 million containers of wet pet food Friday after reports of kidney failure and deaths.

An unknown number of cats and dogs suffered kidney failure and about 10 died after eating the affected pet food, Menu Foods said in announcing the North American recall. ...Collapse )

The recall covers the company's "cuts and gravy" style food, which consists of chunks of meat in gravy, sold in cans and small foil pouches between Dec. 3 and March 6. The pet food was sold by stores operated by the Kroger Company, Safeway Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and PetSmart Inc., among others, Henderson said. ...Collapse )
1 comment|post comment

Freakin' awesome! [10 Mar 2007|08:16pm]

I recently discovered a place in town where you can essentially get vegan take out!

Check out the website:
Wellness Forum Foods

They have prepared food on hand everyday that you can just walk in and purchase. Plus, they have a little market with all kinds of vegan mixes-- cake, baking, "meat"loaf, desert bar, pudding, soup, etc.

Del Sroufe is the chef and he is great-- I've enjoyed his work many times as part of his catering business (we use them frequently for our conferences and meetings).

I've picked up food at the Wellness Forum a few times now. It is just really nice to be able to get healthy vegan convenience food on the fly. But, you can also order anything in advance or have it catered. He'll do custom orders, too, so you are not beholden to their menu.
post comment

Farm Bureau Strikes Again-- More Propaganda From the Animal Agriculture Industry [06 Mar 2007|11:27pm]

More propaganda from the animal agriculture industry...

Animal Warfare: Coming to Your State Soon

Caring about animals is akin to WARfare? Preferring that animals not be treated like trash is WARfare? Again, the ag empire has shown its true colors. Now, rest assured that when the Farm Bureau and its ilk talk about the "war" that is being waged against them, they are not talking simply about us nutty animal rights activists. They are talking about the most benign of inquiries put forth by the "average" consumer; they are talking about a growing faction of their constituency-- the "ethical" meat eater.

Usually, the anti-animal terrorists (that is what I will call them since they LOVE to use this kind of language about pro-animal people), accuse the pro-animal side of the very same things they themselves engage in-- namely, propagandizing and emotional appeals. And the public eats it up. Despite what Mr. Stallman says about the millions of dollars that aniaml activists have to throw around, we know who has the real power and we know that it isn't us! Why is such a powerful lobby SO scared of us? Maybe we need to consider this in depth.

The full article here, in case the link doesn't workCollapse )
post comment

I am disappointed… [05 Mar 2007|05:27pm]

It has come to my attention that Amazon.com has been selling animal fighting materials. Some are apparently defending this as a First Amendment right, but such rights are null and void when the activities are illegal. Dog fighting has been banned in all states. Cock fighting is still legal, I believe, in Louisiana and New Mexico, although I thought this was to be changing?

Apparently Amazon, in response to pleas from the Humane Society of the United States, agreed to remove the dog fighting materials from their site, but refuses to remove the cockfighting stuff. Here you can see the materials for yourself.

I assume Amazon’s refusal to remove cock fighting materials is due to the fact that it is still legal in two states. However, it is still illegal to sell such materials to the other 48 states. Amazon can legally sell these items only to New Mexico, Louisiana, and other nations where cock fighting is legal. It is apparent that this is not the case, as there are, on Amazon’s website, testimonials to the “greatness” of the magazines from people all over the U.S.

Who can we contact about this?
post comment

Caring about animals is evil, immoral, and stupid [05 Mar 2007|03:35pm]

This is what we, as ethical vegetarians, are up against.

Vegetarians are Evil

It is important to know your enemy and know MORE than your enemy.

Vegetarians are often as guilty as accusatory carnivores when it comes to defending vegetarianism as a "lifestyle" choice. Vegetarainism is NOT simply a lifestyle choice. It is a political statement-- it has meaning that transcends individual action. If it did not, why would people be so damn angry about it?

Working out for 2 hours a day is a lifestyle choice. Do you really care if someone works out 2 hours a day? Does it offend you, piss you off? No. Because it is truly an individual choice. On the other hand, refusing to eat that which is deemed edible by your culture is a political statement and that is why it upsets people. They may take it truly peronally, but it is not personal. People get angry at vegetarians because we make them think about a reality that our culture has tried VERY hard to disguise. People choose ignorance, consciously or not, and being forced out of that ignorance is extremely uncomfortable.

So, they lash out at the messenger-- the vegetarian.

Why are vegetarians so angry? Because we have to deal with the anti-vegetarian onslaught EVERY SINGLE DAY and it gets REAL old! We are not trying to portray ourselves as morally superior; we are simply living in accordance with our beliefs-- something that is a challenge to many people-- and we reflect in our actions our moral processes.

So what is the solution to ending attracks from the veg-haters? Aside, I mean, from their greater incidence of disease, broken penises, infertility, and earlier deaths?
post comment

Humane Scorecard [17 Jan 2007|06:48pm]

Congressional Scorecard on Animal Welfare
post comment

Peter Singer [12 Dec 2006|08:58pm]

Check out Peter Singer on Stephen Colbert last night:

1 comment|post comment

Sad Day for Animals [14 Nov 2006|06:17pm]

Just as I suspected, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was passed by congress yesterday. This bill is an extension of the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act, which labels as terrorism any act that "intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise."

What is more disturbing about this bill is that it goes beyond property damage to include loss of profit. The concern of animal advocates all along has been that the bill's wording is so vague that it has the potential to threaten citizens' rights of political participation. Potentially, the bill could include acts that are considered legitmate forms of political expression, such as boycotts, protests, investigations, and other types of disagreement with "animal enterprises." Animal enterprises include farms, rodeos, pet shops, circuses, zoos, and any others who profit from the exploitation of animals.

To add insult to injury, this legislation was passed with only a few members in session.

Given the current political climate, my prediction is that this boon for the agricultural lobby will manifest in the criminalization of animal advocates in legitimate forms of political participation. Remember the "Oprah Incident" in the late 90s? Labeling animal protesters and boycotters as domestic terrorists ensures that, unlike Oprah, future "dissidents will suffer much greater consequences and will be effectively silenced.

If we do not speak for the animals, who will? Certainly not the animal agriculturalists. Certainly not the circuses or rodeos. There is too much money to be made in animal suffering.
post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]