and so it goes...

• Life on the farm


• Should schools cut animal dissections?


• Meeting, then eating, the goat


• Harvard Crimson: Atrocities


• New Virus, Old Tale: Animals Share Bugs With Us


• Why freeing Willy was the wrong thing to do


• Boycott Turkey - hell for animals!


• Good reasons to eat your dog


• Your fave environmental org and animal testing


• Whalin' Palin


• Is Foie Gras Torture?


• Do we all have the capacity for inhuman cruelty?


• Palin continues to promote aerial killing of wolves


• (US) Top ten worst zoos for elephants


• I'm Not Sorry, I'm Vegan


• An ALF interview


• Scientist: stem cells could end animal testing


• No China rabbits on runway


• EPA Issues Exemptions for Hazardous Waste, Factory Farms


• Video: A turkey "harvesting" facility

---

Once upon a time there was a man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work. One day he was walking along the shore.

As he looked down the beach, he saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself to think of someone who would dance to the day. So he began to walk faster to catch up.

As he got closer, he saw that it was a young man and the young man wasn't dancing, but instead he was reaching down to the shore, picking up something and very gently throwing it into the ocean.

As he got closer he called out, "What are you doing?"

The young man paused, looked up and said, "Throwing starfish in the ocean." Replied the man, "I guess I should have asked, why are you throwing starfish in the ocean?" "The sun is up, and the tide is going out, and if I don't throw them in they'll die."

"But, young man, don't you realize that there are miles and miles of beach, and starfish all along it. You can't possibly make a difference!"

The young man listened politely. Then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves and said, "It made a difference for that one."

There is something very special in each and every one of us. We have all been gifted with the ability to make a difference, and if we can become aware of that gift, we gain through the strength of our visions the power to shape the future.

We must each find our starfish. And if we throw our stars wisely and well, the world will be blessed.

The Longest Struggle by Norm Phelps

People who are interested in the progress, philosophies and practical activism of the animal advocacy movement in America and around the world will be rewarded by reading both of these books. Two highly respected animal activist authors - Norm Phelps and Mark Hawthorne - illuminate the struggle and strategies of people toiling to bring compassion and justice to the animals who share our world.

The Longest Struggle by Norm Phelps is dedicated to "the millions of animal advocates and caregivers around the world who labor in anonymity to relieve the suffering of the most defenseless of those who live at the mercy of our merciless societies." Striking at the Roots by Mark Hawthorne - written in memory of "a certain cow in India, who showed me a kinder way of living" - brings together activists who explain, in their own compelling words, why their chosen models of activism have succeeded, and how others can sharpen their own activist skills.

Invoking Ralph Ellison's aphorism of racism - "I am an invisible man . . . I am invisible, understand, because people simply refuse to see me" - The Longest Struggle traces through history the evil of "invisibility" as it applies to animals: "we do not see the animals as they are: sensitive, intelligent, living beings who suffer and die at our hands with no hope of relief." Yet the challenge of animal activism - books written, organizations formed, arguments made, protests held, rescues undertaken, jail time served - is precisely to bring hope of relief and, beyond just hope of relief, Relief.

The Longest Struggle presents the historical struggle for animal protection and liberation through stages that are vividly evoked, starting with a philosophical or theological position held by a cluster of ancient thinkers - Pythagoras, Buddha, Hosea, and others - and moving towards a social consensus that "enforces compliance by custom and law." Western societies are now more or less in the consensus stage, though in most of the world, including ours, animals are as invisible - serving as mere reflectors of human appetites, desires and fears - as ever. Yet there is progress, despite the long, long road to go.

To help clarify the nature of the struggle, Phelps explains the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Welfare advocates are concerned with our treatment of animals, whereas Rights advocates are concerned with our use of animals. Animal Welfare regards humans as superior to other animals and does not challenge our right to exploit animals, as long as we enslave, mutilate, and murder them "humanely." By contrast, Animal Rights/Liberation "challenges our right to use animals at all, arguing that animal exploitation is unjust and oppressive in the same way and for the same reasons that human exploitation is unjust and oppressive." Animal Rights/Liberation tends to reject the hierarchical model of human superiority and entitlement in favor of an egalitarian perspective. "Welfare," if accepted, is regarded as a means towards achieving animal liberation, an interim compromise, never the ultimate goal or solution.

Phelps, an ethical vegan, supports advancing animals' rights through a combination of incremental welfare reforms to reduce animal suffering in the here and now, such as banning cages in favor of cage-free confinement of hens used for egg production ("Cage free isn't cruelty free. But it is a lot better."), and abolitionist approaches, like banning outright the production of foie gras, in which ducks and geese are forcibly tube fed to fatten their livers to a diseased condition for gourmet appetizers.

Aspects of the conservative approach favored by Phelps, who condemns the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) - named for targeting the stockholders and employees of the notorious vivisection laboratory, Huntington Life Sciences - are debatable considering, for instance, that the violence of what he calls "a tiny, if very noisy, minority of animal activists" targets inanimate property and includes shame tactics like protesting at the homes of animal abusers, not physically assaulting them, whereas the conservative approach often involves encouraging "humane" animal product consumerism, thereby creating whole new markets for animal products derived from, and concealing, pure violence.

If, as Phelps charges, SHAC and the ALF "are giving the animals' enemies a weapon with which to destroy the entire animal rights movement [government surveillance, arrests, imprisonment, 'terrorist' accusations]," it may be argued as well that encouraging the public to support "humanely-raised" animal products, courting chefs who cook animals and restaurants that serve them battered, seasoned, whipped, baked, breaded and fried, subverts the effort to promote the dignity and visibility of animals, furthering the state of denial and prolonging the longest struggle.

In a letter to the Dalai Lama, in 2007, Phelps, who met with the Dalai Lama in 1998 to discuss a vegetarian diet as a Buddhist practice, expressed his deep disappointment in the Tibetan monk's relentless consumption of animal products at public events - braised calf's cheek, veal roast, stuffed pheasant breast, chicken soup, and other gluttonies - indeed, his refusal of vegetarian meals when they were offered to him. Phelps concludes his sorrowful and exasperated letter, "I am not going to ask you to change your behavior. I've been there, done that. We have a saying in America that 'Anybody can talk the talk. What matters is do you walk the walk.' You can talk the talk with the best of them. But after twenty years, I can no longer pretend that everything is fine while I wait for you to walk the walk."



Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism, by Mark Hawthorne

Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism, by Mark Hawthorne, is about walking the walk - and getting others to walk with you. The book, Hawthorne explains in his Introduction, is "intended for the person who agrees with the premise that animals are mistreated in our society, believes that the public has a moral obligation to speak out against this cruelty and who wants to be directly involved in opposing animal exploitation in its many forms." The book is "a guide to the most pragmatic opportunities available for speaking and acting on behalf of animals." Readers with busy lives are encouraged, "you can make a difference even if you limit your involvement to an hour a month."

Striking at the Roots shows how to become an effective leafleter, write publishable letters to the editor and opinion pieces, conduct successful protests and demonstrations, use vegan food to educate and win people over, engage in corporate campaigning, set up and run a sanctuary, shelter & rescue center, deal with the legal system, and engage in direct action - rescuing animals in order to experience directly and expose firsthand the atrocities they are forced to endure on commercial farms, in laboratories and other abominable places.

As for rescuing chickens from the filthy "broiler" sheds in which they are raised for meat, we're told that "nothing except firsthand experience could convey the utter despair a compassionate person feels at the sight of lame, feces-encrusted birds limping about and dead chickens, their ammonia-scalded breasts denuded of feathers, lying where they collapsed from inhumane breeding practices."

While most activists will not be directly involved in rescuing animals from factory farms and laboratories, Striking at the Roots shows the importance of keeping informed about these rescues and what they uncover, in order to provide credible and compelling content to one's letter writing and other advocacy on behalf of animals. Essential to being an effective activist are poise, self-confidence, knowledge, and persistence.

For example, I am quoted regarding rejected letters to editors and op-eds: "Over the years, I've published many guest columns about the plight - and delight - of chickens and turkeys. I've also written letters and op-eds that were turned down. Usually in such cases, I rework the piece and eventually submit it elsewhere with success. Also, it's good to establish a relationship with an editorial page editor. Not to ramble on and take up their valuable time, but a brief friendly phone call about your submission can increase your chance of being published, and you may be pleased to learn on occasion that the editorial page editor cares about animals and values your concerns."

Striking at the Roots stresses the importance of seizing opportunities to act and speak out locally - "don't overlook even the smallest neighborhood media outlets," activists urge. Local media want to know what is happening in their area. Often a protest demonstration is "a quite interesting and different story to what they normally may cover," stresses an Australian activist.

Striking at the Roots is not just for novices and the insecure. A good activist never reaches the point where ideas about activism are "preaching to the choir." Effective activism is about continuing education, not only of others, but of oneself. It's an essential part of the attitude that is needed to liberate animals and establish their rights.

Review by Karen Davis, PhD
http://www.upc-online.org/



HOW TO PROLONG INJUSTICE

by Tom Regan

As an Animal Rights Advocate, I look forward to the day when all the cages are empty. Still, every ARA knows that that day will not dawn anytime soon. All of us understand that it will take the dedicated efforts of ARAs, working collaboratively over time--the dedicated efforts of many hands, on many oars--to make our ideal a reality.

In the particular case of farmed animal agriculture, ARAs want to see it ended. Our ideal world is a vegan world. The challenge we face is how to get there from where we are today.

This question has no easy answer; in fact, some answers divide more than they unite.

One divisive answer (I'll call it U) goes like this. The best way to realize our ideal is to work for reforms in farmed animal agricultural practices based on animal interests. For example, if decreasing density in battery cages is implicitly to count the hens' interest in having more space, this is a reform we should support.

The same is true of reforms in transportation and slaughter techniques. Any time we can increase the number of farmed animal interests that are taken into account, and any time we can have their interests counted equitably, U calls upon us to press for these reforms.

Suppose these reforms, each and every one of them, are implemented. What would be the result?

Well, arguably, things would have changed quite a lot. In place of the factory farms that scar the rural countryside today, we can imagine a plethora of farms modeled after Old McDonald's. In this gentle new word, it is true, there are many fewer farmed animals than there are today, but the quality of their life is much better. Who can be dissatisfied with so idyllic a world?

Well, Animal Rights Advocates, for one. Thousands of Old McDonald's farms inhabited by millions of happy animals is not the end we seek. The end we seek is the end of raising animals for their flesh and other products--a vegan world. Why, then, should ARAs work for the sorts of reforms I have described?

Considered superficially, the answer seems obvious. Since the animals are much better off because of the reforms, and since ARAs genuinely care about how animals are treated, surely ARAs should support and help implement the reforms.

Things are not this simple. From an ARA's perspective, farmed animal agriculture violates the rights of farmed animals; it treats them as our resources--indeed, as our renewable resources. The injustice of this practice cannot be eliminated by giving farmed animals a better quality of life while still continuing to treat them as our (renewable) resources. And this is how they will be treated if the system of their exploitation has been reformed in the ways we have imagined. No, to reform injustice is to prolong injustice.

Proponents of U might reply by saying that, over time, as first one, then another reform is implemented, the quality of farmed animal life is improved and people begin to change how they think about these animals. Once the general public understands that these animals have interests, and once they have supported the call to have their interests counted fairly, people will move away from their meat-eating ways. On this view, a day will dawn when, because of the reforms made, as well as the general public's support of making them, we awake to a vegan world.

This is a lovely story, but hardly credible. Why would human beings forego a leg of lamb or a brisket of beef if all the relevant reforms have been implemented? After all, with the reforms implemented, farmed animals could not have a better quality of life than the one they enjoy. In fact, this is precisely why (we are assuming) the public has supported implementing the reforms in the first place: to afford farmed animals with the best quality of life.

Why, then, having achieved the very purpose the reforms have sought, would these same people now turn around and say, "We were mistaken. Affording farmed animals the best quality of life is not enough." Proponents of U may think what they will but the real world in which we live is not a place where abracadabra rules.

Moreover (and this is hardly unimportant) surely the general public, accustomed to and supportive of the reforms, will be well disposed to making this same high quality life available to the next generation of cows and pigs, chickens and ducks. And the next generation after that one, a demand that, in the nature of the case, can only be met if the members of one generation are "humanely" slaughtered, to be replaced by another of their kind, and so on. Happy farmed animals. Happy consumers. Happiness all around.

The hard truth is, it is wishful thinking to believe that the successful implementation of reforms will give birth to a vegan world. It is far more likely that great numbers of people will continue to eat animal flesh, even after supporting reforms, only now with a clear conscience, a gift, paradoxically, given to them by well-intentioned reformers.

So let us ask again: Should ARAs work for all the reforms favored by U, given that the world U would bring into existence, wishful thinking aside, is not a vegan world? Why work to bring a world into existence that we don't want? Why, indeed?

Of course, ARAs who agree with me are not obliged to spend their time viscously attacking those who are working for reforms. Our more important work lies in crafting strategies and campaigns that move our culture towards acceptance of animal rights.

We take an important step down this path when we voice the ideal that even now many of us dare not speak: veganism. And though there are many ways to awaken the conscience of the general public, the three most important are now, always have been, and always will be: Educate. Educate. Educate.

Educate about nutrition. Educate about the moral rights of animals. Educate about the injustice of farmed animal agriculture. Educate. Educate. Educate.

Granted, this is not the end-all of animal rights activism, but it most certainly can be the begin-all.

Tom Regan is emeritus professor of philosophy at the North Carolina State University. He serves as president of the Culture and Animals Foundation. Among his books are:

The Case for Animal Rights, Defending Animal Rights, Empty Cages, Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights.

For additional information: www.tomregan-animalrights.com