Tell Congress to Close Loopholes on Cruel Shark Finning

 
Every year, the world’s fishermen hack all the fins off of more than 100 million living sharks and dump their dismembered bodies back into the sea, leaving these massive fish to suffer an agonizing death that can take days. Some die from starvation, while others are slowly devoured by various predators, or simply suffocate because they cannot swim and sharks must remain in constant motion to keep oxygenated water flowing through their gills.

The driving force behind this aquatic atrocity is the growing global appetite for shark fin soup, a high-priced delicacy that is most popular in China, Japan and other far-east Asian nations. Shark fins fetch about $200 per pound, while shark meat only sells for less than one-tenth that price. So it is economically profitable for fishing companies to simply chop sharks’ fins off and throw their mutilated bodies overboard because ships can only fit so much flesh in their refrigerated holds on long journeys out at sea.

The impact of this inhumane practice has been devastating to fragile oceanic ecosystems. Coupled with other slash-and-burn methods like long-line fishing, shark finning has caused a 90 percent decline in worldwide shark populations over the last half century. And because sharks are the top apex predators of the deep, their dramatic disappearance has led to radically increased numbers of rays and skates, which devour shellfish at an unsustainable rate.

Fortunately, some people are taking effective action to counter the seafood industry’s wave of wanton destruction. When the Goldman Environmental Prize (widely considered the “Nobel” of environmental awards) recently recognized sea turtle biologist Randall Arauz, founder of the non-profit organization Pretoma, for his successful efforts to end shark finning in Costa Rica, the campaign against this abominable animal abuse achieved new levels of international awareness. His undercover video documentation of a vessel killing 30,000 sharks for 33 tons of shark fins ultimately led to the banning of shark finning in his native country, formerly the third largest exporter of shark meat, and the development in 2006 of legalese that has become the standard guideline for countries around the world to follow. A short Goldman Prize documentary about Arauz rightly proclaims that he “has taken Costa Rica from being a leader in shark finning to being a global leader in shark preservation.”

Momentum to prohibit shark finning by the U.S. fishing fleet is proceeding apace here, as well. Congress banned shark finning in 2000, but ships in the Pacific Ocean are still allowed to bring shark fins to market as long as they weigh less than five percent of sharks’ “dressed” weight (i.e., the carcass minus its head and innards). In March 2009, the House of Representatives passed a bill to make Pacific fisheries comply with the same rules as those operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, and passage of a Senate companion bill entitled the Shark Conservation Act (S. 850) is all that’s needed to make it the law of the land (and sea).

Call your two U.S. Senators and politely ask them to support and co-sponsor the Shark Conservation Act, then use the Action Alert provided by the Humane Society of the United States to send them a follow up email. For maximum effectiveness, customize the subject line and message body to ensure your memo stands out.

Also call and write President Obama urging him to aggressively promote an international shark finning ban, as only 33 of the world’s nearly 200 countries have instituted regulations against shark finning, and enhanced enforcement around the world is needed to stop sharks’ downward spiral toward extinction.

Preposterous: The Presidential Turkey Pardon

The perverse absurdity of a reverse animal sacrifice

Every Thanksgiving, at a White House ceremony punctuated by much media fanfare, the President of the United States symbolically “pardons” a single turkey — just one day before he joins the rest of America in devouring 45 million others. Legend has it that Abraham Lincoln started the custom one Thanksgiving day in the 1860s by sparing his son Tad’s “pet” turkey from the axe, but the pardon only became an official American tradition in the late 1980s when George H.W. Bush* occupied the Oval Office. Lincoln’s gesture of historical kindness has since evolved into a bizarre ritual in which the country lightheartedly hails saving the life of one turkey in order to displace the unconscious collective guilt for killing millions more.

This year, the farce of this reverse animal sacrifice reached new heights of ridiculousness with White House videographer Arun Chaudhary’s YouTube video parody preview. In this short spoof (of what exactly, I’m not sure), 2009’s chosen turkey (named Courage) “does the slow walk right through the gates outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, past ‘Pebble Beach’ where reporters do stand-up television shots, through the West Wing and Oval Office into the Rose Garden.” So rather than solemnly acknowledging all the millions of birds who are summarily slaughtered for this bloated holiday buffet, we treat their deaths like a big joke — ha ha, industrialized mass murder is just so inherently hilarious, right?!

In an attempt to further salve society’s buried remorse for all the many tons of bird blood spilled throughout November at friendly neighborhood abattoirs, Courage gets to live out the rest of his natural days at Disneyland. But animal advocacy organization Farm Sanctuary** says the “Frontierland” exhibit of this Southern California theme park is not the “The Happiest Place on Earth” for turkeys, and that courage and his alternate*** should be moved to one of their shelters for safekeeping. In a press release, the group charged that “The Walt Disney Company…has shown that it lacks the ability to provide (adequate) care” because they feed the birds “a high-calorie, high-fat diet formulated for rapid weight gain, a likely cause of (their) premature deaths.” The way we treat our “rescued” Thanksgiving turkeys is a representation of what this holiday means to us, and begs a necessary question: Is dying young from obesity-related causes at the world’s most corporatized amusement park really the kind of freedom our pilgrim forebears had in mind when they shared their first harvest meal with the local natives?

A Real “Indian” Pre-Thanksgiving

Just yesterday, the Obamas held their first official state dinner at the White House honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a vegetarian world leader. While (contrary to media reports) not all the food served was strictly vegetarian****, the menu showed some small awareness on the President’s part that meat doesn’t have to be the centerpiece of a fulfilling meal — or our diets. And yet, come tomorrow, he and the rest of the First Family will be digesting a customary turkey flesh feast, so I guess Obama really didn’t learn all that much from Mr. Singh’s ethical example.

Now, I’m just an average guy, nothing particularly special or extraordinary about me (for instance, I haven’t won a Nobel Peace Prize). Even so, I’ll be non-violently “pardoning” a turkey for real this Thanksgiving***** by not eating one — just the same way I’ve been pardoning turkeys every day of my life for the last 14½ years. Meanwhile, President Obama (like other U.S. Commander in Chiefs before him) is making a public show of offering amnesty to one turkey while simultaneously ordering another to be killed for his table — a behavioral contradiction that seems rather shallow and hypocritical. I mean, it’s not like either of these turkeys deserved to die, and yet one is given the full celebrity treatment while the other is condemned like a convicted criminal on Death Row, forever nameless, along with millions of his kind.

The penitentiary metaphor is perfectly apt here, for turkeys are indeed incarcerated for their entire lives on factory farms, helplessly awaiting execution in their dark, dirty prisons — despite the fact that they have committed no crimes (unless being born a member of their particular avian species can be considered a punishable offense). Ironically, humankind has complicitly committed unspeakably unnatural atrocities against turkeys for generations in government-certified factory farms and slaughterhouses. But we wouldn’t want to bring any of that up, because it might ruin someone’s appetite for slow-roasted wings, breasts and “drumsticks”!

Turkeys are affectionate, intelligent animals who deserve compassion, not torture. They are innocent victims who love life and deserve to live as much as anyone else. In that sense, a supposed “pardon” granted by our nation’s leader to a single turkey appears not as an act of mercy, but rather a disingenuous attempt to officially sanctify senseless slaughter in the name of commercialized gluttony.


* I originally wrote that John F. Kennedy was the first President to pardon a turkey for Thanksgiving, but later found out that Bush Sr. was the first to officially perform the pardoning ceremony, a custom which all subsequent Presidents have followed.
** In the interest of full disclosure, Farm Sanctuary was my employer from 2008-2009.
*** A Vice Turkey has also been appointed to take command should Courage for some reason be rendered unable to perform the duties associated with his post.
**** Along with a wide selection of both vegetarian and vegan options, the executive chefs prepared Green Curry Prawns for guests.
***** For the first time in many a year, I’ll be the sole vegetarian dining with an extended family of committed carnivores.

White Housebroken

First Family finally adopts a First Dog

More than five months after being elected President of the United States, Barack Obama has finally delivered on one of his most highly-publicized campaign promises: to get a dog for daughters Sasha and Malia.

Bo is an adorable six-month-old Portuguese water dog with both a purebred bloodline and a dynastic pedigree: that is, his original guardian was Senator Ted Kennedy, whose professional animal trainers had provided etiquette lessons “at a secret, undisclosed location outside Washington.” All this canine charm schooling paid off when Bo met the Obama girls at the executive mansion, where he reportedly followed them around, didn’t chew on any furniture, and avoided any potty faux pas.

The announcement has already rankled animal rescue advocates who wanted the Obamas to choose a mixed-breed dog from a shelter, maintaining that this would have set a positive example for the nation and the world that would ultimately save millions of homeless animals’ lives. President Obama had expressed interest in adopting a mutt last year, and an Associated Press poll conducted in January showed that more than two-thirds of Americans wanted the First Dog to be a mutt. However, in the end the Obamas decided to go with a porty because 10-year-old Malia is allergic to dogs, and this particular breed has been genetically selected to be hypoallergenic.

Purebred puppy proponents, on the other hand, maintain that the choice of a porty reflects the Obama family’s needs, and that they should be commended for doing the research necessary to ensuring their daughter’s health. “It's long past time to stop apologizing for owning purebred dogs,” wrote a dog trainer called Gaelen on her blog, Life Out Loud! “Dog ownership advocates, let's help the Obamas by supporting their choice. Let's put animal rights activists – who do little for the welfare of domesticated animals, and are primarily focused on their own anti-pet-owning agendas* – on notice: owning purebred dogs is a choice of which the Obamas, and everyone else who owns a purbred (sic) dog, can be proud.”

Symbolism and squabbling aside, here’s hoping the First Family is happy with their newest four-legged member. Neither Barack nor Michelle Obama have ever had dogs, and this will be Sasha and Malia’s first companion animal, so the experience may well open them all to a new way of relating to non-human species. Now that the doggy decision has been made, perhaps the nation will move on to weightier matters…although Bo is so cute, he may wind up stealing some of the President’s spotlight for many years to come!

* Click on the "Comments" below to read my response to this false accusation.

Help Animals by Submitting "Ideas for Change in America"

Maybe you've already heard about this new project called "Ideas for Change in America" sponsored by Change.org. Inspired by President-Elect Obama's call for change, they're gathering ideas from citizens for what his Administration should focus on to change America. There's an animal rights section that currently includes 23 ideas you can vote for: you can also submit your own ideas, as I did. I hope you'll vote for my call to Enact a Moratorium on Building & Expanding CAFOs and ask your friends to do the same.

The 10 ideas that get the most votes are going to be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day. Following the inauguration, the campaign will be supported by a national lobbying effort run by Change.org, MySpace, and more than a dozen nonprofits. So each idea has a real chance at becoming policy. Hopefully, at least one of these ideas will focus on helping animals.

Transcendence

The election is finally over, and...WE WON!

Tuesday, November 4th saw two major victories for animals: the passage of Proposition 2 (the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) in California, and the election of President Barack Obama, both of which garnered a wide margin of voter support.

I sit now in my personal power spot, atop a hill in Golden Gate Park from which I try to survey on high the brand new world that formed overnight while I slept, still carrying a hangover from election celebrations—as well as the psychic battering of the last eight years. Our long national nightmare of Bush-rule is coming to a close, but we will be reeling from the repercussions for a long time to come. Thankfully, the historic landslide sweep of “transcendent” multi-racial President-elect Obama is a significant sign that the United States of America has repudiated un-Constitutional unilateral arrogance, as well as hateful prejudices, and renewed its sacred promise to freedom and liberty for all—including, in my view, our animal kin.

Proposition 2

The fact that Prop 2 passed at the same time that Obama won the Presidency seems in itself momentous, showing unparalleled growth in the public’s awareness of and concern for farm animals. California is now the first state to ban battery cages for egg-laying hens (along with gestation crates for pregnant pigs and veal crates for calves). It’s a really big deal, and is being hailed as the the most significant advance in the history of the animal protection movement, at least as far as the number of animals affected is concerned.

Today I called my friend Paul Shapiro, the Director of Factory Farm Campaigns over at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), to congratulate him on Prop 2’s passage. The initiative was co-sponsored by HSUS and Farm Sanctuary (my employer), so for us and the multitude of others who worked on the initiative, as paid staff or volunteers, this has been a day to take pride in our collective accomplishment. After more than a year and a half of work, our movement’s efforts came to sweet fruition.

Paul and I shared our mutual excitement over the win, and talked some about what it might mean not only in California, but for the nation as well. “Seeing the largest agricultural state in the country ban battery cages is a dream come true for me, and for animal activists everywhere, because it will help more animals than any other voter decision in history,” Paul told me. “There’s never been anything like this, which shows just how far the farm animal protection movement has come in just a few short years. And my greatest delight today comes from knowing that we finally won a decisive victory for chickens.”

As Paul says, egg-laying hens are arguably the most cruelly-abused and long-suffering creatures on the planet. Chickens represent about 90% of the farm animals slaughtered for food every year, so of the 10 billion or so killed in the U.S. on an annual basis, about 9 billion are chickens. Most of these are “broilers” specifically raised for meat, but this number also includes “spent” hens who spend their entire lives packed with five or six others in battery cages where there isn’t even enough room for them to lift their wings. Prop 2 will require farmers to provide the nearly 20 million egg-laying hens raised in California every year with enough space to stand up, lie down, turn around, and spread their wings: which will probably necessitate a gradual transition to cage-free husbandry methods.

Paul says he's confident that California is just the beginning, and that other states are going to follow suit in the near future. “The opposition, funded mainly by the factory farms themselves, spent $9 million trying to defeat Prop 2, which was much more than the industry has spent to fight any other reform initiative targeting farm animals. This failure is going to force the industry to face the undeniable fact that they can’t win these battles against public opinion on animal abuse—no matter how much they spend. Maybe the next time we introduce a state ballot initiative, the industry will invest their money in helping farmers transition to cage-free systems instead of wasting it on misleading and unconvincing propaganda.”

President Barack Obama!

Over the last two months, I posted blog entries examining Obama's and John McCain's records on animal and environmental issues, and concluded, based on the compiled evidence, that an Obama Administration would be the better choice on both fronts. From farm animals to endangered species, Obama is likely to take a far different and more sensitive approach to these important issues than we have seen during Bush's two terms (the second of which is still 76 days away from ending).

Obviously, animal protection is not at the top of Obama's agenda right now, as he plans his transition into the White House—nor should it be. Our country faces devastatingly serious problems at the moment, mostly centered on the failing economy and an expensive war, that need urgent attention, and Obama must prioritize some affairs of state above others in order to be an effective leader. Nevertheless, I see good things happening for animals in the next four years.

I say this because Obama is a progressive politician who is clearly committed to tackling serious environmental issues and creating a greener culture and economy. For one, we will have a leader who takes the global warming threat seriously, so we will see new policies on climate change that represent a clean break with Bush era stalling and denial. Obama also has a vision for achieving energy independence through the development of alternative fuels that will be less harmful to us and the planet than burning petroleum. Plus, he wants to foster initiatives that will bring millions of green jobs to the United States, and make us the world leader in this emerging industry.

The kind of responsible environmental stewardship Obama proposes is essential to protecting animals whose habitats have been under constant siege by blatantly destructive mining, building and farming practices for far too long. This exploitive approach is designed to generate maximum profits for giant corporations and a wealthy few at the expense of the environment and animals' lives. While this insatiably omnivorous system is likely to remain functionally intact for many years to come, at least the extreme business-first rules of the Bush years will be tempered by much-needed reforms and regulations under an Obama Administration.

Universal healthcare is another important goal that Obama will pursue as President. As a candidate, Obama made statements about the need to make fresh fruits and vegetables more easily available to children in school cafeterias, showing he is aware of the close connection between a plant-based diet and healthy living. Central to his position on healthcare is personal responsibility and preventive care, so we may see an accelerated emphasis on eating better (i.e., less meat and dairy) as his program evolves.

What we eat (especially the type of food made available to us) is closely related to the issue of farm subsidies. Historically and currently, an overwhelming amount of the agricultural subsidies handed out to farmers has been intended to effectively offset the costs of raising animals for food to keep meat, dairy and eggs artificially cheap. Government support also favors large agribusiness corporations over smaller family farms, creating an uneven playing field that has all but obliterated traditional rural culture. Obama's stated stance on subsidies is that they should go to the farmers that need them the most; specifically, independent entrepreneurs pioneering innovative ways of producing food in the most economical, ecological ways. Of course, it goes without saying that the energy conversion ratio of growing food for people is much more sustainable, in terms of the amount of resources used and pollution created, than feeding animals so we can eat their flesh; whether Obama will acknowledge and act on this principle remains to be seen.

And finally (but not incidentally), Obama quipped during his exhilarating acceptance speech that his two young daughters were smiling because now that the election is over, they can finally adopt a puppy. I'm so glad that Malia Ann and Natasha’s wish for a dog will be granted not only because they (and the rescued dog) deserve it, but also for the great example it sets for other families. Obama's mention—in the crowning speech of his political career—of a puppy for his daughters shows that he cares deeply about their happiness and respects the special emotional bonds that often develop between children and animal companions.

I have not come across any mention in my researches of whether Obama has ever had animal companions, either growing up or as an adult, but now he will be welcoming a member of another species into his family. If he has never had the opportunity to experience canine friendship, Obama will now be able to see how much joy a dog brings his girls and perhaps come to more deeply understand and appreciate the intelligence of this furry friend—and, by extension, other non-humans as a whole.

I say that because Obama just seems like the kind of guy who's open to new experiences and seeing the world from different perspectives. This is the main reason I believe our new President will be a potentially transformative ally for the animal protection movement. If we do our job right by clearly communicating our concerns and worldview in a way that interconnects animal interests with his call for change, Obama is likely to incorporate this knowledge into his vision for a renewed America and form policies that reflect this.

Am I being too idealistic here? Am I just so overwhelmed by exhausted elation, sudden relief and irrational exuberance that my perceptions are rosily distorted? Maybe, but what's the harm in that? We should all savor this moment by letting our imaginations soar to new heights while keeping our feet firmly planted in the ground of a rapidly-shifting reality. And anyway, I don't think my expectations are unrealistic. A new day is dawning, and with it the chance to see with eyes wide open what possibilities the sprawling future may hold.

Electoral Funtime! Check out these humorous video clips:

The Simpsons - Treehouse of Horror XIX: Homer's voting machine nightmare

The Colbert Report - Threatdown: Prop 2

The Daily Show - Road to the Dog House: Obama's victory promise to daughters
.

Obama vs. McCain on Animals & the Environment: Round 2

Senator John McCain - Republican candidate for President of the United States of America

In September, I posted an entry on Senator Barack Obama's position vis-à-vis animals and the environment. This second installment in that two-part series examines Senator John McCain's record on these important issues. Those who've read Round 1 know that I've already personally endorsed Obama/Biden as the ticket most likely to result in positive outcomes for animals and the environment: here is a more comprehensive explanation for that choice.

Animal Issues: A Chequered Record

There have been notable instances in Senator McCain's career when he stood up for animals. For instance, he voted against a $2 million subsidy for the fur industry, co-sponsored the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, and supported bills to stop interstate trafficking of birds for cockfighting and the killing of bears harvested for their organs. Even so, his record on animal issues is inconsistent and sometimes nonexistent.

To begin with, McCain has yet to issue any public statements on animal protection issues, according to the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF). He also neglected to fill out the HSLF's presidential questionnaire, which seeks to tabulate the candidates' positions on a variety of animal welfare legislation proposals currently before Congress. In contrast, Senator Obama not only responded to the questionnaire, but pledged support for virtually every pending pro-animal bill.

The HSLF also claims that Senator McCain “has been largely absent on other issues, and has failed to support a large number of priority bills or sign onto animal protection letters that have broad support in the Senate.” When a groundbreaking Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) video investigation brought the issue of downed farm animals into the presidential debates earlier this year, Obama stated that “the mistreatment of downed cows is unacceptable and poses a serious threat to public health,” but McCain remained conspicuously silent. McCain also recently delivered the keynote address at a rally for the US Sportsmen's Alliance, an organization that actively promotes trophy hunting of threatened species and canned hunting of animals in fenced enclosures from which they cannot escape. Online research has not enabled me to determine whether or not McCain himself actually hunts animals: if anyone has a citation with the answer, please post a comment here. However, he goes fishing on the artificial lake on his property (at least for PR purposes).

McCain's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate convinced the HSLF to issue their first-ever endorsement of a presidential candidate – for Barack Obama. The HSLF is urging animal advocates to vote Democrat not only because “McCain's positions on animal protection have been lukewarm,” but primarily because “(Palin's) record is so extreme that she has perhaps done more harm to animals than any current governor in the United States.” The organization also asserts that “If Palin is put in a position to succeed McCain, it could mean rolling back decades of progress on animals issues,” an assessment that mirrors what I posted about Palin here in this blog soon after she was nominated.

The Pet Vote: McCain Wins Paws Down

According to an AP-Yahoo! News poll, “pet owners favor McCain over Obama 42 percent to 37 percent, with dog owners particularly in McCain's corner.” And really, given the number of companion animals he and his wife Cindy have, it's no wonder. “There’s no denying John McCain is an animal lover,” writes a dog blogger named Jenna. “With fourteen dogs, six cats, two turtles, three birds, fourteen fish and a ferret, he far surpasses the average number of pets per household.”

Wow, that's a lot of animals! I assume the family has staff who do the majority of caretaking, because the Senator and his wife are obviously very busy people who spend a lot of time on the road (and have at least seven houses around the country). Even so, I sincerely hope that the McCain's truly love and appreciate every one of the animals in their various homes. I also hope that that they adopted their animals rather than purchasing them from breeders, because millions of homeless animals are put to death in shelters every year, but I cannot find the answer to this question online.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned in Round 1, the Obama family doesn't yet have any pets: they plan to adopt a dog (at the behest of their two young daughters) after the election is done. Does this mean McCain likes animals more than Obama does? I have no idea. However, let's remember that it's not the number of animals a person has that really matters, but the attitude he/she has towards them. That is, animal lovers fundamentally respect members of other species as sentient beings capable of thought and deep emotional connection (even though many seem to think dogs somehow differ from, say, cows in this regard). It would be interesting and perhaps enlightening to find out how both McCain and Obama view animals.

Agricultural Subsidies 

According to a May 19, 2008 McCain campaign press release, the Arizona Senator has “vowed to aid small farmers by targeting agricultural tariffs and subsidies doled out to agribusiness”: “If I am elected president,” he told members of National Restaurant Association in Chicago, “I will seek an end to all agricultural tariffs, and to all farm subsidies that are not based on clear need. I will veto any bill containing special-interest favors and corporate welfare in any form.” Regarding “the billions of dollars in subsidies served up every five years to corporate farmers,” McCain said “The original idea was to provide a buffer to small farmers in tough times and to assure a stable supply of food for our country. But nowadays, the small farmers have been forgotten, and instead the Congress sends a steady supply of subsidies to agribusiness.”

So, at least from what they say, it seems that the Republican and Democratic candidates have similar views on agricultural subsidies, with Obama actually taking a somewhat more moderate stance on the Farm Bill (which McCain said he would have vetoed) that has played well in critical rural swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana and Ohio. Both McCain and Obama have posted their plans to help family farmers on their websites, but Obama’s is by far the more in-depth (with McCain’s limited to just two paragraphs). The most notable difference between them on farming issues is that Obama strongly supports government investment in the development of renewable plant-based alternative fuels like ethanol, whereas McCain has set his shoulder squarely against this new industry (and has therefore been accused of shilling for Big Oil).

Ultimately, I don't know whether McCain or Obama would better serve the cause of animals on the issue of agricultural subsidization (though I do think we need to develop ethanol to some extent as a fuel source). I encourage readers who have additional insights to post their comments on this blog.

Environment

On the McCain website one can find the candidate’s statements on environmental stewardship and climate change. But based on the many discrepancies between his statements and fact throughout his political career and presidential campaign (more on that below), I don’t believe McCain can be taken at his word on anything. This impression is confirmed by many others who have already done the work of digging more deeply beneath the surface of McCain’s environmental resumé.

For instance, Green Piece Blog posted a very thorough and wide-ranging critique entitled “McCain vs. McCain on the Environment” that compares and contrasts the Senator’s past record on conservation with his positions as a presidential candidate. Their conclusion: “McCain has abandoned his past moderate environmental views and adopted the much less environmentally friendly platform of his party.” It seems pretty clear from this well-documented analysis that a McCain Administration would further despoil the planet and endanger those trying to live on it.

“The Reality-Based Community”

“…guys like you are in what we call the 'reality-based community.' ... But that's not the way the world really works now. We're an empire of sorts, and when we act, we create our own reality. ... We're history's actors, who are willing to do what's needed, and you can study what we do.”

- Anonymous Bush aide to journalist Ron Suskind in 2002

I provide this quote, as a proud citizen of the “reality-based community” (hello fellow residents!), because John McCain has been lying so much lately (and so knowingly, so repeatedly) that I find it hard to believe anything he says at all. Seriously, his libelous attack ads (orchestrated by Karl Rove’s protégé), along with the insulting doublespeak spouted by both he and Palin, transcend shamelessness and border on the treasonous. Because our country faces pressing problems (economic collapse, rising unemployment, mortgage foreclosures, the war, oil dependence, global warming, etc.) that threaten the nation’s very foundations, I submit that strategically reviving the Culture Wars to deliberately distract voters from the real issues is a traitorous betrayal of the American people, as well as America herself.

To us Americans living in the real world—where facts, knowledge and judgment actually mean something—McCain’s candidacy is looking sad: watching, listening to or reading about him is severely depressing. Having to see his face and hear his delusional crap for the next four years would drive me mad. Every night I'd have to go to bed wondering, what crazy catastrophe will I read about in tomorrow's news? And will the nightmare of President Palin actually come to life?

Now, that’s “only” my opinion, but it’s an informed opinion based on some amount of research, deliberation and soul-searching. I emphasize this because I had stated in Round 1 of this series my sincere intention to objectively evaluate the candidates. I firmly believe that, along with a review of McCain's record, incorporating some analysis of his willfully deceptive campaign tactics is absolutely essential to understanding the potentially devastating implications of a McCain presidency.

In Conclusion

Anyway, there's my two cents on the election. I hope these posts leave readers better informed than they were before about what is at stake for animals and the environment, as well as our country and the world. Choosing the next leader of our nation is a complex and multi-faceted decision, and I respect that many folks consider it a very personal matter. While I do not condone single-issue voting, I hope readers will carefully weigh these important facts when they enter polling booths in November, and ensure that family and friends know the difference between McCain and Obama on animals, the environment and other crucial issues before they cast their ballots.

Obama vs. McCain on Animals & the Environment: Round 1

Barack Obama: Democratic candidate for President of the United States of America

After my last post regarding Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's record on animals and the environment, I figured I should take a broader look at where the two Presidential candidates stand on animals and the environment, because of course the top of the ticket is really where it's at. Basically, I am concerned with whether Obama or McCain would better serve the interests of other species, from farm animals to wildlife, if elected. (In the interest of journalistic credulity, this is a good time to mention that I support Obama, but that I nevertheless strive to objectively convey my take on the available facts.)

I'm currently reading the recently-published Obama campaign book Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise, which is basically a blueprint for what he wants to do as President. Here's one excerpt that is worth the consideration of animal welfare advocates:

“Give Family Farmers the Stability They Need to Thrive"

"Barack Obama believes that our farm programs and supports should go to help family farmers—not large agricultural companies—survive and thrive. As President, he will fight for farm programs that are targeted directly at family farmers, giving them the stability and predictability they need to succeed. An Obama Administration will support an effective payment limitation of $250,000 so taxpayers aren't underwriting big agribusiness. Most important, it will close the loopholes that allow mega-farms to get around the limits by subdividing their operations into multiple paper corporations. Finally, an Obama Administration will make agriculture disaster assistance permanent.”

Helping small-scale family farms by withdrawing the unfair advantages that have allowed agribusiness conglomerates to dominate the marketplace for decades would likely lead to improved animal welfare, as much of the suffering on factory farms is due not only to their standard mechanized production methods, but also their size. That is, factory farms are not only more likely to use battery cages and gestation crates, for example, but their massive scale inherently devalues the lives of individual animals, who, for “practical” economic reasons, are therefore much less likely to receive veterinary care than those raised on smaller family-owned farms. Statistically speaking, factory farms are responsible for a lot more animal abuse, cruelty and suffering than family farms that, comparatively, at least remain rooted in some semblance of traditional animal husbandry.

Leveling the playing field will also help family farms to compete successfully without being forced into adopting intensive factory farm methods by a fixed market system that rewards the biggest producers (simply because they can afford to hire lobbyists), a development that most animal protection advocates would support. However, some are uncomfortable choosing sides here because both of them are essentially exploiting animals for profit, even as many more animal protectionists have already aligned themselves with family farmers against some of factory farming's worst abuses. A prime example of this is Prop 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which is endorsed by numerous family farmers, and will be on the ballot in California this November.

Further on in the book, a section entitled Safeguard the Environment for Future Generations begins:

“Just as it's critical that we stop the planet from warming, it's also important that we protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil in which we plant our crops. Doing so is the basis of a sacred trust we must safeguard for our children and grandchildren; their health and their well-being depend on it. For too long, too many in Washington have sought to divide us over these issues, arguing that we could only either protect the environment or grow our economy. Barack Obama rejects that false choice.”

In addition to explaining how Obama plans to clean up America's air and water, this section addresses restoring wetlands, helping Western states meet water demands, reducing poisons like mercury and lead, holding polluters accountable, and environmental justice. Obama’s energy and environment plans are also laid out in detail on his website.

Killer Conservation

However, most animal advocates will be disappointed by the following section entitled “Honor Sportsmen and Protect the Great Outdoors,” which speaks of “the great conservation legacy of America's hunters and anglers.” The section goes on to support Second Amendment rights, expanding access for hunters and anglers to public lands, and preserving habitats for “sportsmen” – and animals, by proxy, so these self-styled “athletes” can have someone to “compete” against (i.e., kill).

OK, so Obama's not exactly the ideal animal protection candidate, but at the same time, realize that Obama has never himself gone hunting, and that not all hunters are the same: meaning—no matter how hard it may be for us animal advocates to accept—many hunters do genuinely care about conservation. At least these “moderate” hunting advocates enter the wilderness with some pretext of responsible stewardship – especially when compared with their much more extreme counterparts.

For example, the hunters Obama refers to are those who would ostensibly abhor the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska, canned hunts and the delisting of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. Aside from their penchant for shooting innocent wild animals, these hunters share some crucial common ground with animal advocates and environmentalists in that they want to preserve wildlands (even if it is, primarily, to satisfy their own violent recreational desires) and reject the worst excesses of those hunters who (like McCain’s running mate, for instance) glory in the most abjectly cruel types of animal slaughter.

Oil Under the Ice

Notably, as far as oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is concerned, Obama says he would consider "a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage." Many critics of oil drilling in ANWR argue that it won't lower gas prices but merely despoil one of America's greatest natural treasures at the behest of oil profiteers. Already, over 500 toxic spills occur in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil fields and pipelines each year: do we really want to expose one of the last remaining truly pristine places in the US to this?

Also notable is that Obama's position is actually the moderate one in this Presidential race. Considering the possibility of resource development in the ANWR is a world of difference from the unofficial slogan of the Republican National Convention, where chants of "Drill, baby, drill!" broke out amongst the crowd. Kinda ironic, actually, since, as of press time, McCain opposes drilling in the ANWR, but his VP pick who governs the state it's in wants to drill the hell out of it. What it basically comes down to for me is, I'm on the side of the polar bears, birds, caribou, and other animals living in the ANWR who obviously wouldn't want people and machines invading their habitat and leaving poisons in their wake.

Dog Due Do

When asked by a woman at a Las Vegan town hall meeting about his stance on animal rights, Obama quipped that he cares very much about them, and “not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog.” A flip answer, to be sure, on a serious topic that has never really been part of any election year dialogue, but at least he had a positive response and seems open minded about the concept. Even so, his reference to children and dogs also raises the question of whether Obama fully understands the true meaning and full implications of animal rights, and what his stance would be if he did.

Anyhow, the Obamas, displaying responsibility as parents and impending guardians, promised their daughters a dog after the campaigning is done. More than 42,000 people cast their votes for what breed they thought would be best for the family, and the poodle won. Whatever breed the Obamas do choose to adopt come November, the American Kennel Club has offered to “assist them in responsibly acquiring a puppy or adult rescue dog.”

Some animal advocates started campaigns to encourage the Obamas to adopt a mixed-breed, the biggest dog on the animal rights block to do so being PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. In a letter to the Obamas, she wrote that “This country is proud to be a melting pot, and there is something deeply wrong and elitist about wanting only a purebred dog." Obviously, she’s got a point there. After all, “Millions of Great American Mutts—the dog that should be our national dog—are set to die in our nation’s extremely overcrowded pounds and shelters for lack of good homes."

(On a side note, the Palin family also lacks a dog, so maybe someone will start a campaign recommending the breed that best fits her particular personality…ok, all you canine cosmetologists out there, I assume you know where I’m going with this, so I’m gonna stop now...)

Obama’s Other Animal Actions

According to the blog Vegan Soapbox, Obama “is considered a strong candidate on animal rights issues.” For example:

- As a US Senator, he co-sponsored legislation to stop horse slaughter, saying “I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.” He also voted to upgrade federal penalties for dogfighting and cockfighting, and to criminalize possession of fighting dogs as well as dogfight attendance.

- He signed a letter requesting increased funds for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, the Humane Slaughter Act and federal laws against animal fighting. He also wrote a letter to the National Zoo in Washington, DC expressing concern for the health of Toni, an elephant who was subsequently euthanized in 2006 at the age of 38 due to captivity-related causes.

- In his response to a questionnaire by the Humane Society Legislative Fund, Obama pledged support for almost every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and says he will collaborate with executive agencies like the USDA to make their policies more humane.

In Conclusion

I still plan to write Round 2 of this entry – that is, an analysis of John McCain’s record on animals and the environment. Sorry to be a spoiler, but I’ve already absorbed quite a lot of information about the candidates (from partisan, bi-partisan and non-partisan sources, as well as the two competing campaigns), and feel confident in saying that the animal advocacy and environmental movements will be much better off with the Democrats in this election cycle. Legislative report cards based on the candidates’ records and positions seem to bear this assertion out:

- On the Humane Society Legislative Fund's most recent Humane Scorecard, Obama got a rating of 75 (as did Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden), whereas McCain got a 25.

- The League of Conservation Voters, on their 2007 Congressional Scorecard, gave McCain a score of zero for his voting record in the Senate on environmental issues, whereas Obama scored 67 out of 100.

- The Sierra Club strongly endorses Obama over McCain in the election, and released a Presidential Scorecard that provides a side-by-side comparison of the candidates on energy and the environment.

- The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund officially announced their endorsement of Obama/Biden with a scathing press release blasting McCain for picking "the notoriously anti-environmental Palin" as his running mate, and calling his conservation voting record "mediocre at best, often erratic, and clearly inferior to that of either Obama or Biden."

Across the board, actually—from the economy and the war in Iraq to foreign policy and civil liberties—Obama is the clear choice in this election for progressives (and anyone else who's still sane after two Bush terms) …unless, of course, you want to go third party (and hey, I readily admit, I’m a registered Green who voted for Nader/LaDuke in 2000). If you live in California (or any other sure-shot Blue State), your vote pretty much doesn’t count, given the Electoral College system, because (fortunately) Obama’s gonna kick ass in our little corner of Neverland. But if you or someone you know lives in one of the swing states, please—I beg of you!—vote or urge your friend to vote carefully in full consciousness of the consequences for the animals, America and the world.

Palin's "Polar Express"

To McCain’s rootin’ tootin’ VP pick, wildlife is for shootin’ and the planet is for pollutin’

Clearly, there’s something about Sarah Palin that places her a cut below even most other far-right-wing politicians when it comes to animals and the environment. An avid moose hunter and lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) who, as Governor of Alaska, actively promotes the aerial hunting of wolves because they prey on the big game that hunters like to shoot, Palin also filed a federal lawsuit last month to keep polar bears off the Endangered Species List because it would allegedly harm the state’s "oil and gas...development" prospects.

Even though a 2007 US Geological Survey report warned that two-thirds of all polar bears could be wiped out by 2050 if Arctic ice continues melting at the rate predicted by scientists, Palin sued the federal government for daring to protect this increasingly vulnerable species and their delicate habitat. The Bush Administration has been trying to neutralize the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for years, so it was probably no coincidence that, just one week after Palin filed her lawsuit, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne ran a new rule up the flagpole that would essentially allow the very federal agencies proposing and carrying out government-funded projects, rather than Fish and Wildlife Service scientists, to decide for themselves whether their development plans threaten the survival of endangered species. Such a change would essentially disable the ESA as the guiding force in US environmental policy that it has been for the last three and a half decades.

With approximately 30,000 species going extinct every year, never to exist again, the Earth cannot afford such narrow-minded, short-sighted policies, yet Kempthorne's proposal is expected to pass. The public comment period for the rule change expires on Monday, September 15, so if you care about polar bears and other threatened and endangered species, now is the time to let the US Fish & Wildlife Service know how you feel about this plan.

If the new rule is enacted, the next administration to take the White House could choose to reverse it and return things to the way they have been since the ESA became the law of the land in 1973. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama swiftly condemned the proposal when it was made public, so there is a good chance he will rescind it if elected. Republican nominee John McCain did not comment on the plan, but based on his choice of Palin as a running mate, it seems fairly certain that the rule would remain firmly in place under their watch.

Put some of the puzzle pieces together, and it isn’t too hard to see a disturbing pattern of violence, ignorance, intemperance, and just plain meanness emerging from the details of Palin’s life and politics. Blatantly disregarding overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus, she still doesn’t believe there’s a direct correlation between human activity and global warming (confirmed once again by her evasive answers to Charlie Gibson's questioning in yesterday's interview on ABC News), and consequently opposes protecting an irreplaceable apex species whose icy habitat is steadily melting. She kills free-living moose for fun and makes stew from their carcasses, and spent $400,000 in tax funds on a campaign to promote the unsportsmanlike practice of gunning down wolves from low-flying airplanes simply so she and her NRA buddies can have more living targets to shoot at on their lethal recreational outings. She wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (which happens to be in Alaska) to oil company drilling, exploitation and profits, despite the real and present danger this would pose to the fragile ecosystem and its native and migratory inhabitants, from polar bears to bowhead whales. She is also a religious fundamentalist who doesn't believe in evolution and wants public schools to teach creationism.

What we see from these examples (as well as many others comprising Governor Palin’s record) is that she is out of step with the great majority of Americans, who:

- Generally don’t hunt animals, and see the aerial hunting of wolves as viciously cruel;

- Overwhelmingly accept that human activity is the cause of global warming;

- Oppose oil drilling in the ANWR because it's ecologically reckless and won’t relieve our dependence on foreign suppliers;

- Recognize the scientific validity of evolutionary theory and that creationism is nothing more than a religiously-driven doctrine extrapolated from Biblical mythology; and

- Want strong protections for threatened species like polar bears under the ESA.

If Sarah Palin becomes the next Vice President (or, heaven forbid, President of the United States, should 72-year-old cancer patient McCain die in office), expect to see a radical shift in government policies towards anti-animal and anti-environmental extremism over the next four (or more) years—both Man and Woman against Nature—that will surpass even the Bush era's mighty excesses. I dearly hope, for the sake of our country and the world, that American voters who understand what is at stake—from animals and the environment to the economy, the Iraq war, foreign relations, and civil liberties—will not let that come to pass.

p.s. If (like me) you are somewhat flummoxed by Sarah Palin's appeal to voters, read this insightful essay by cognitive linguist and political analyst George Lakoff for an enlightening perspective on the importance of "emotional symbolism" in political campaigns.

p.p.s. Animal advocates may be greatly disappointed to learn that Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination was penned by none other than key Bush speech writer Matthew Scully, author of the bestseller Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. I find it hard to understand how Scully can reconcile the contradiction between the trigger-happy Palin and his righteous contempt for those who shoot innocent animals (as quoted from page nine of his book regarding hunters):

“And to me it has always seemed not only ungenerous and shabby but a kind of supreme snobbery to deal cavalierly with them (animals), as if their little share of the earth’s happiness and grief were inconsequential, meaningless, beneath a man’s attention, trumped by any and all designs he might have on them, however base, irrational or wicked.”

Preemptive Redemption

Confessions of a reverse-speiciesist

Elementally, undeniably, part of my personality conforms to the stereotype of the angry vegan who harbors a darkly cynical judgment of humanity as a class of beings who continually inflict a generally genocidal assault on our fellow planetarians. I always assume that anyone who carries the traumatic awareness of all the blood we humans spill, all the carnage and corpses we sweep aside in our pursuit of “progress,” also feels some form of this soul-penetrating outrage and shares my sense of encroaching doom. And, when writhing most bitterly in the throes of obsessive despair, it's typically not difficult to find a few friends of like mind who will readily agree that, yes, human beings do indeed suck – and hard.

But I must clarify that not all vegans have the same negative assessment of our species, and also that I recognize how unhealthy, futile, and counterproductive human-hating ultimately is. I am glad to say that I have met numerous animal rights advocates who temper their steely vision with a positive attitude of acceptance, and resolve to work for a more peaceful, compassionate world. It is their example of fortitude and effectiveness that makes me think I need to process my anger differently in order to change myself, and that only through such a spiritual transformation can I truly reach out to those who need to understand – and come to terms with my own existence as a member of the human species.

It's not like I don't already try, and readily admit to struggling every day to mediate between the warring factions of my psyche. I do sometimes experience brief moments or minutes of clarity when I feel an internal détente has been reached – an integrated state of calmly excited semi-transcendental awareness when distorted distinctions disappear and I can see myself and the world from a more balanced universal perspective. But such respite is temporary, for inevitably, the fierce drama and debate within reassert themselves anew, and I find myself once again a conscripted contortionist uncomfortably twisting in the gymnastics of confusion.

These days, I rarely raise the issue of humanity's inhumanity in polite society (i.e., among non-vegans). I've been told more than once in different ways that “humans are more important than animals, so people come first” – as though mechanically massacring animals were intrinsic to our species' survival. What most people don't seem to see is that human and animal suffering are directly interrelated (especially under modern industrialization), and that working for one liberation cause means you are also supporting other related causes.

Yet I remain silent because the chasm between our paradigms is just too wide to bridge, and to tell the truth, I've been too often disappointed by people who continue to place their pleasure and convenience ahead of animals' lives. When I first started writing about animal rights issues, I naively assumed that people would read my carefully-worded, impeccably-constructed arguments and have some sort of cosmic life-altering revelation (like I did upon reading John Robbins). In the intervening years, that has proved (very clearly) not to be the case, so I have come to sort of accept and expect that most others (even friends and family) will probably never take my writing seriously enough to end their participation in the slaughter – no matter how much or how well I write.

Part of my disillusionment as a vegan, activist, and writer is the apparently intractable way people think about their lives. This can often translate into anger with humanity in general for failing to make more compassionate and less harmful choices. I am reluctant to let that anger show much anymore because that only fosters resentment, while making it harder to have a positive effect on others. So I try to channel the energy of righteous fury into my work, but I also internalize a lot of guilt, turning the anger upon myself for supposedly not doing enough and engaging in self-destructive habits.

Reality can be painful to bear, and though my imagination encompasses a great deal of the inescapable horror that billions of beings must endure, I do not fully grasp the scale and extent of worldwide suffering. Unlike many, I have a high tolerance for images of violence – I can watch disturbing animal rights videos and still go on with my day – but I also want to turn away sometimes, and escape from the agony of empathy into mundane pursuits and daydreams. Yet I realize that hellish reality is always happening somewhere, every moment, and that even though my life is pretty comfy, I cannot really rest easy when there is so much bloodletting.

It is events of the current presidential race that made me want to write about preemptive redemption. With the candidates (especially Obama) facing criticism and controversy for their past associations and their characters, I feel a need to clarify where I stand vis-à-vis my human allegiance. There is also a parallel between this charge and that which is often leveled against “liberals” during the Bush Era: that we hate America merely because we disagree with the direction our leaders have taken us. That is, just as I fear and loathe liars like Bush but still love my country, rejecting humanity’s enslavement of animals does not mean I hate humans – in fact, I want us to better ourselves by respecting ourselves and other species.

And to call myself a “reverse-speciesist” implies that I put animals' interests ahead of humans', but that is something of a self-misrepresentation, as our interests are closely interdependent and for the most part mutually reconcilable. It would be more accurate to call myself an anti-speciesist, because I believe in fundamental rights for all animals – and because humans are actually animals (made, incidentally, of meat), it would be speciesist to condemn us on the basis of our species. Ideally, I strive to accord the same basic level of respect to human beings that I give so readily to non-human animal beings.

Despising humanity's murderous behavior is completely different from despising humanity – much like hating the sin, not the sinner. I abhor and condemn the mass-exploitation of animals and people that takes place constantly in our world, and will continue to write against the system that anthropocentrically markets atrocity. Those of you who interact with me personally may be relieved to know that, as I engage in this ongoing effort, I intend to find more potent ways of effecting change than incessantly complaining about how much humans suck.