Can You Be a Feminist and Drink Milk?

Posted on January 10, 2015 by Exposing the Big Game

http://www.peta2.com/blog/feminism-dairy-milk/?utm_campaign=0115%20Bi-Weekly%20Recap%20EA&utm_source=peta2%20E-Mail&utm_medium=Alert

December 16, 2014 by Liz Weske

Listen up, ladies (and men who care about women’s rights, duh!), because this one’s for you:

As an animal rights activist AND a feminist, I’ve always felt that it’s important for us women and girls to recognize the connection between feminism and the treatment of cows used by the dairy industry. While this may sound like a stretch at first, here’s why:

All cows who are used for their milk are female—in case ya didn’t already know that!

Cows and Calf We animals

Female cows don’t need to be milked. Female cows produce milk for the same reason that human women do: to feed THEIR babies. On factory farms, calves are torn away from their mothers so that the momma cow’s milk can be saved for human consumption (we’re the ONLY species that drinks another species’ milk regularly—so weird!). This is what it looks like:

Cows produce milk only after they’ve been pregnant. In order to get cows pregnant, farmers forcibly impregnate them on what the industry calls a “rape rack.” Uhhhhh … read that again. A rape rack. That’s literally what it’s called. Can you really consider yourself someone who stands up for all females if you condone farmers’ use of RAPE RACKS to impregnate cows—just so they can DRAG their babies away and repeat the whole thing again?

Jo-Anne McArthur | Jo-Anne McArthur

Female cows in the dairy industry are treated as nothing more than baby- and milk-making machines—with no regard for their emotional lives. If they were allowed to do so, mother cows would spend months with their young, teaching, nurturing, and bonding with them. On factory farms, all they can do is cry out for their babies as they’re violently dragged away. For the milk to make it to grocery-store shelves, cows are hooked up to milking machines for most of their lives. No “old MacDonald’s farm” here. When their milk production decreases and the cows are no longer profitable, they’re sent to slaughter.

Jo-Anne McArthur | We Animals

If you still aren’t getting the connection, let me break it down for you: Women and girls EVERYWHERE are being used and abused. Many of us have grown up in male-dominated societies that tell us what to do with our bodies and how they should be used, and sadly, we’re often seen as nothing more than objects. Many women and girls are forced into situations where they lose control over their bodies—and far too often, other people think that they deserve this control. That’s what’s happening to cows on dairy farms every single day—all for a totally unnecessary and disgusting product.

No moms want to be hooked up to a rape rack, be forcibly impregnated, and have their baby taken away from them. It’s up to us to exercise our “girl power” (the best kind of power there is!) and say enough is enough!

We Animals | Jo-Anne McArthur

You know that this is wrong, but the good news is that it’s SO easy to help. All you have to do is stick to dairy-free alternatives to milk and cheese, which is easier than ever!

Learn more about dairy products and how you can help cows:

1. Check this page out for tips on ditching dairy.

2. Get the scoop on vegan cheese here!

3. Take action here for cows used for their milk, then share this page by clicking the buttons below.

59 Billion Farmed Animals Serve an Insatiable Human World

Posted on December 9, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

There are 59 billion animals alive at any one time, farmed for their meat. The world’s domestic cattle weigh 16 times as much as all the wild animals on the planet put together. 60% of the globe’s agricultural land is used for beef production, from growing grain to raising cows. Since the early-20th century, industrial farming and global capitalism have worked hand-in-hand to provide meat at an ever cheaper price. And our appetites, so tempted, have led us to consume more and more animals. In the US, each citizen eats on average 120kg of meat per year. And that’s not even the number one spot. Our insatiable desire for meat has defined how we use our planet. But cheap meat comes at a price. Planet Carnivore gets under the skin of the health problems that over-consumption brings; of modern farming’s destructive use of resources; and of the stretched and strained farms and abattoirs that lead to horsemeat in beef burgers and challenging moral questions about our relationship with our food. Alex Renton’s brilliantly researched, utterly compelling Guardian Short serves up the grisly stories, and also looks at how we are beginning to try and pay the cheap meat bill, from innovative twists on current techniques to cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. – See more at: http://guardianshorts.co.uk/planetcarnivore/#sthash.oURzZciG.dpuf

Adult Onset Hedonism

Posted on December 7, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

Practically everywhere you look lately are signs of a growing backlash against the progressive vegan movement. It seems people, many who’ve never tried going a day without eating animal products, are tired of being told vegetarian is healthier than flesh-eating and veganism is better still—its carbon footprint being only a fraction of the gargantuan impact of the standard American diet. Plus, vegans have the benefit of a clearer conscience than a person who contributes to animal suffering on a daily basis (assuming said person cares at all about animals). But many are comfortable with their meat addiction and don’t see any reason to ever change. And though they’re still the vast majority and therefore have nothing to fear from the efforts of outnumbered do-gooders, they see it as an attack on their right to be as hedonistic as they so desire and have begun a collective counterattack, just to show ‘em.

A prime example is the subject of a December 4, 2014, article in UT-San Diego. The piece by Michele Parente, cleverly entitled, “Meat trend has some seeing red,”

As in other major cities across the country, San Diego’s current mania for all things meat defies that other growing trend of eating only plant-based food. “I ordered double sausage out of spite,” one diner posted on Facebook, along with a photo of people eating at sidewalk tables, inches away from picketers. “For every animal you don’t eat, I’m going to eat three,” posted another.

Parente started the article out (glibly),

Meat is all the rage in San Diego right now and that’s got some people broiling.

A proliferation of pork-centric places has sprung up all over the county, along with eateries serving up all manner of beef, game, organ and exotic meats. Hungry for a meatier experience? How about a pre-dinner demonstration on how to butcher a whole animal or even the opportunity to slaughter your entrée yourself? And while the current carnivore craze is sating foodies…

What?! Wait a minute. Slow down there and let us un-hipsters catch up; just what the hell is a “foodie,” anyway? It sounds like some kind of baby talk to me. Well, I looked it up and as it turns out that’s not far off. According the Urban Dictionary’s first two definitions, a “foodie” is,

Foodie: A douchebag who likes food.

Douchebag – “I’m a big foodie.”

Non-doucher – “Really? I like food too, but I’m not a tool.”

Foodie: A dumbed-down term used by corporate marketing forces to infantilize and increase consumerism in an increasingly simple-minded American magazine reading audience. The addition of the long “e” sound on the end of a common word is used to create the sensation of being part of a group in isolationist urban society, while also feminizing the term to subconsciously foster submission to ever-present market sources.

Though the terms “gastronome” and “epicure” define the same thing, i.e. a person who enjoys food for pleasure, these words are perceived by the modern American consumer as elitist due to their Latin root forms and polysyllabic pronunciation

If you’ve ever heard the postpartum cries of a newborn unwillingly evicted from the warmth of a watery womb, or witnessed the incessant tantrum of a terrible two-year old, you know that babies can be a bit self-centered. They don’t really seem to care about others around them; they just want whatever they don’t have, and you’d better figure out what that is—and fast. Meanwhile, in a similarly self-absorbed manner, “foodies” believe they are entitled to make the art of stuffing their gullet an “adventure,” eating whatever they want—or whomever they want—the rights or interests of the victims of their carnivorous quests be damned.

Popular pulp among narcissistic “locavores” is new book touting the alleged virtues of “adult onset hunting.” At the height of hedonism, these nouveau-savage self-actualizers not only find fulfillment in consuming wild animals but also in all forms of related carnage, including (but not limited to) stalking, shooting, snuffing out, dismembering and butchering them first.

Parente’s article continues,

…a small group of animal-rights activists holding “Meat is Murder” signs has been picketing S&M Sausage & Meat each week since it opened in Hillcrest about a month ago.

A recent DIY butchery event, provocatively called Death For Food, was canceled after an online campaign launched by lawyer and seal defender Bryan Pease attracted about 2,500 protesters and threats of a potential boycott against Suzie’s Farm, where the farm-to-guillotine-to-table dinner was scheduled to be held.

The restaurant, whose logo is a hog on its back, feet in the air and apple in the mouth, is an unabashed haven for adventurous meat eaters, offering everything from kangaroo hotlinks to alligator-antelope Andouille sausage and fried pig ears. “Anything we can find that used to be breathing… Its customers are equally unapologetic.

“The audience is quite frankly demanding and wants to be part of the experience,” Freeman said. “They want the thrill and adventure of dining they get with whole-animal (butchery).” “…it gives you an experience.”

The otherwise nauseating article does include a good quote from Stephanie Shaw, a PETA spokeswoman, that sums up the vegan message in a nutshell.

“Any restaurant that serves meat, whether it’s farm to table, whole-animal butchers or McDonald’s … is supporting the violent and untimely or unnecessary death of an animal that wanted to live,” Shaw said. “With every meal, we have the opportunity to choose cruelty or kindness.”

Chris Christie turns his back on his fellow pigs by veto-ing controversial cage bill

Posted on November 28, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

As an FB friend so eloquently put it:

“How I hate that gross, gluttonous, obese fuck! Someone put his lard ass in a gestation crate, the ugly, greedy, heartless bastard!!!”

New Jersey governor Chris Christie vetoes controversial pig cage bill

Chris Christie has vetoed a bill that called for restrictive pig cages to be banned in the state, a move seen by many as a gauge of his presidential ambitions

Christie sets up 2016 bid with big victory

pig cages chris christie — Animal rights advocates demonstrating in favor of legislation that would see certain pig cages banned in New Jersey. Governor Chris Christie has vetoed the bill. Photograph: Mel Evans/AP

New Jersey Republican governor Chris Christie has vetoed a politically-charged bill that would have banned the use of certain pig cages in the state.

The potential 2016 presidential contender called the bill a “solution in search of a problem” on Friday.

The bill would have banned pig farmers from using gestation crates, which are so small that they prevent pregnant pigs from turning around.

While the contraptions are rarely used on New Jersey’s 300 pig farms, they are widespread in states like Iowa.

Many farmers are opposed to the idea of the government telling them how to raise their livestock.

Animal rights advocates say the practice is cruel.

Christie’s response to the bill is seen as a gauge of his presidential ambitions.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/28/new-jersey-chris-christie-pig-bill

Also: Jon Stewart rips Chris Christie on ‘The Daily Show’ over controversial pig crate bill (VIDEO)http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/chris_christie_puts_nj_first_with_obvious_exceptions_of_bridges_and_pigs_stewart_says.htmlttp://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/chris_christie_puts_nj_first_with_obvious_exceptions_of_bridges_and_pigs_stewart_says.html

Big Mayo Blows It; Bullying Tactic Backfires

Posted on November 14, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

Unilever’s Bullying Backfires, Boosts Hampton Creek ‏


	Fri 11/14/14

http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2014/11/13/unilevers-bullying-backfires-boosts-hampton-creek/

Negative media coverage of Big Mayo lawsuit goes viral in case study of PR blunder

Business schools love a good case study, especially when a big corporation blows it. Now they can add Unilever’s colossal public relations mistake to their list. Wall Street Journal tech columnist Christopher Mims summed it up with this tweet: “Giant Corporation Generates Huge Quantities of Free Advertising and Brand Equity For Tiny Rival by Suing It”.

As I predicted earlier this week in my post about the maker of Hellmann’s suing start-up Hampton Creek over egg-free mayonnaise, the press and social media firestorm in just the past few days has already given Unilever a black eye, while the Just Mayo brand enjoys free positive PR. Almost all of the stories (of more than 200) I saw online were in Hampton Creek’s favor, framing the lawsuit as a classic David versus Goliath fight, at times mocking Unilever.

The Washington Post was perplexed, running the headline, “Big Food’s weird war over the meaning of mayonnaise” and calling the case “a strangely defensive stance for Unilever, a Big Food titan that made more than $64 billion last year selling foodstuffs in nearly 200 countries (including I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!, a spread that is not butter”).

Here are a few more examples of media hits:

· The subtitle of the Fortune coverage was “Owner of Hellmann’s lashes out at a startup that is taking market share from the giant”

· Forbes reported that “A big guy is suing the little guy, and someone is going to end up with egg on their face”

· Time.com’s subhead read “In a David vs. Goliath battle over sandwich spread labeling, things could get messy”

· The Politico headline read “Food Startup Battles ‘Big Mayo’ Amid Policy Push” and called Hampton Creek a “tiny Silicon Valley startup” (actually San Francisco)

· The Los Angeles Times started its story with “Big Tobacco, Big Oil, now Big Mayo?”

· The UK’s Daily Mail’s coverage began “It is a classic David and Goliath Fight”

Even business-friendly television outlets favored Hampton Creek over Unilever, including Morning Joe and CNBC’s Closing Bell, where the lawsuit was mocked by a host noting how the Mayo Clinic does not have egg in it either, so maybe Unilever will go after them next. While CEO Josh Tetick was explaining his company’s mission, the program ran background footage of cute children spreading Just Mayo on sandwiches.

Several stories also went out of their way to beat up on Unilever for poor economic performance. For example, the international business paper, Financial Times explained how Unilever’s food division “experienced a fall in sales in the first six months of the year.” The Wall Street Journal painted a contrast of the success of Hampton Creek with the decline of Unilever:

In less than a year, Just Mayo has landed shelf space in major retailers such as Whole Foods Market and Wal-Mart Stores, responding to consumer demand for foods perceived as healthier with simpler ingredients and better for animal welfare and the environment. The company expects Just Mayo to be sold in 39,000 locations by start of next year.

This paragraph was immediately followed by:

Unilever’s food business, which accounts for about 27% of its revenue, has struggled in recent years as it has focused on higher-margin personal-care products that appeal in emerging markets. In the last two years, the company has sold underperforming food brands including Skippy peanut butter and Ragu pasta source. In its most recent quarter, food was the only one of Unilever’s four divisions to have slower sales growth.

Just Mayo images splashed everywhere

Every story I saw also spoke glowingly of Hampton Creek’s financial backing and fast rise to success. Adding insult to injury for Unilever, almost every media outlet used pictures such as those above of the Just Mayo product or an image of the photogenic CEO Josh Tetrick alongside his Just Mayo brand, as did even the Wall Street Journal.

And this local San Francisco area TV news report shows lots of energetic activity at the startup’s facility. A story atBBC.com uses the subheads of “Horse and buggy definition” to describe FDA’s recipe for mayonnaise that Unilever relies on, and describes Hampton Creek’s response to the lawsuit: “Antiquated thinking won’t feed the world or strengthen the planet.” The article also shows this image from Hampton Creek’s website.

In more free advertising, Business Insider used this image for its story.

Further aiding Hampton Creek’s cause, many articles ended with a reference to the Change.org petition started by celebrity chef Andrew Zimmern, and several included the petition’s title, “Stop Bullying Sustainable Food Companies”. (The number of signatures now tops 24,000.)

A small company like Hampton Creek can’t pay for the positive press this lawsuit has generated. And according to their Twitter feed, they received 51,000 messages of support and most importantly, sales were higher than they’ve ever been. (Hampton Creek tweeted this picture of what looks like a Costco shelf showing Just Mayo almost sold out, right next to a full pallet of Best Foods mayonnaise.)

On my own blog post and on Twitter, several people responded by saying they had never heard of Just Mayo, but would now try it, some out of sheer spite. For example one said, “Because of a frivolous lawsuit I now have Just Mayo on my radar. Look forward to trying it.” And another, “Thanks Unilever. I had never heard of this Mayo, now I can’t wait to try it.”

Unilever’s media team MIA

Unilever compounded how much Hampton Creek owned the media by going radio silent. According to several news outlets and two reporters I spoke to, Unilever was non-responsive. See for example, the New York Times(“Unilever did not immediately respond Monday to requests for comment”), Forbes (“Officials at Unilever who were contacted by email did not respond to requests for comment”), and Fortune (“Unilever has not responded to requests for comment”).

On Monday, the Washington Post said “messages were not returned”, but then on Tuesday the paper added this emailed statement from a nameless and faceless Unilever spokesperson: “Our concern here is not about innovation, it is about misleading labelling. We simply wish to protect both consumers from being misled and also our brand.”

A pretty tepid response for the world’s second largest consumer packaged corporation. And it was too late.

The Washington Post also noted that “The suit comes at a touchy time for Unilever, which just launched an ad campaign promoting itself as devoted to sustainability.” Indeed, this week Unilever launched its “Project Sunlight”, which appears to be about child hunger, but I can’t tell what Unilever is doing about it except creating a nicewebsite and ad campaign touting its previous donations. Talk about bad timing. A Google news search for “Unilever” results in only eight articles about Project Sunlight, compared to 265 mostly unflattering articles about the Big Mayo lawsuit.

And on Unilever’s Facebook page, Project Sunlight’s warm and fuzzy posts about child hunger are getting drowned out by angry comments reacting to the lawsuit. One suggests a better use of resources:

Unilever is stifling innovation and competition by suing a small smart-up which has developed a more affordable, sustainable Mayo than Hellmann’s. If Unilever were truly committed to causes like ending child hunger, perhaps they would have redirected the costs of this lawsuit that way rather than in pursuit of this frivolous claim.

Numerous commenters say they will no longer buy Unilever products. Here is one example:

If this lawsuit story is indeed accurate, I will purge my entire household of any Unilever product, make it a priority to never buy anything made by Unilever again, and tell every single person I know why. Petty is a fitting word to describe such a lawsuit.

In another sign the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, Hampton Creek CEO Josh Tetrick shared an email with Fortune that he received from Unilever’s Global VP of marketing just days after the suit was filed. It read: “Love what you are doing…Very much in line with our Unilever Project Sunlight #brightfuture philosophy.”

Unilever’s future is not looking so bright right now.

Failure to communicate

How did this happen? How did a huge company that decided to go on the offensive and file a lawsuit get caught unprepared by the resulting media firestorm, while a startup being accused of alleged wrongdoing was happy to talk to the press, ran with it, and came out looking like a hero?

The first rule of public relations is get out in front of the story to control the message. Unilever didn’t even bother to try. Perhaps the legal department filed the lawsuit and figured it would stay quiet, or just never even thought to run it by communications. The company’s lawyers filed the case in New Jersey federal court on October 31. That’s when the press release should have gone out, to tell their story first. Instead, Unilever let their target, who they claim is in the wrong, garner all of the media sympathy. And when asked for comment, Unilever still couldn’t be found, and when they finally did respond, it was weak. That’s failing public relations in three different ways: not being proactive, the dreaded refusal to comment, and then offering an ineffective response.

Perhaps it’s a sign of a corporation so huge that the right people don’t even talk to each other anymore. That nobody at Unilever anticipated this media reaction is also a troubling sign of being out of touch. Unilever executives should take a hard look inward. Time will tell if the company is able to recover from this massive PR blunder. Meanwhile, Hampton Creek can enjoy the bump, courtesy of Unilever. Self-inflicted wounds hurt the most.

Western Australian feedlot vandalised and truck set alight by anti live export ‘radicals’

Posted on November 13, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/animal-rights-radicals-attack-feedlot-burn-truck-in-wa/5885244

ABC Rural

By Tara de Landgrafft , Babs McHugh and Geoff Hutchison

Western Australian police are investigating an arson attack on a truck and trailer at a cattle feedlot overnight by anti live export activists.

It is the third time the feedlot at Mundijong, 40 kilometres south of Perth, has been attacked in the last 18 months.

The vandals also sprayed ‘stop live exports’ across a shed on the property.

Audio: West Australian Senator Chris Back talks about an arson attack at a feedlot in Mundijong (ABC Rural)

The feedlot is owned by Rural Exports and Trading, but the truck and trailer belong to a private manure carting contractor

General manager Mike Gordon has condemned the actions of what he calls ‘radicals’.

Audio: Mike Gordon, general manager of Rural Export and Trading talks about the arson attack at his feedlot in Mundijong (ABC Rural)

Mr Gordon says there’s a role for animal welfare activists, but says he feels the argument often gets out of balance.

“Animal welfare activists claim the moral high ground when often they don’t have that right.

“I certainly don’t put everyone in the same category. These radical elements are fringe but they do exist.

“But some of the activity that goes on in protest against the trade is illegal, dangerous and criminal.”

Mr Gordon says the attacks on his and other companies, like Wellard Rural Exports, have been subject to are obviously acts of sabotage.

“We’ve previously had a tractor quite severely damaged, and at the same time, ironically, parts were taken from our firefighting unit and thrown into the bush.

“But I don’t think there is any animal welfare group that would condone this sort of activity.

“At least, not publically.”

Wellard Rural Exports also targetted by criminal activists

At Easter time earlier this year, Wellard Rural Exports was also targetted by vandals who broke into its nearby feedlot at Baldivis.

The activists cut hydraulic and brake lines on trucks, forklifts, tractors and trailers and cut 50 electrical cords.

General manager Fred Troncone says if the staff hadn’t noticed the damage immediately, the results could have been serious.

“I’ll be the first to say that animal rights activists have a right to express their opinion. They’ve got the right to demonstrate against the trade.

“That’s what Australia is about. We’re a free country with freedom of speech and people are allowed to protest.

“But I think we need to be careful that we draw the line when that activity turns criminal.

“They do not have a right to be criminals.

“The same people who were protesting against live exports on welfare grounds also turned off the water to the sheep troughs.”

Senator weighs in on attack

West Australian Senator Chris Back is currently pursuing an amendment to the criminal code, which would cover vandalism of this kind.

The private Senator’s bill would allow police to investigate and prosecute animal abuse more effectively and prosecute known offenders.

It would also allow police to prosecute a person or persons that threatens, intimidates, causes fear to any person associated with a legal operating enterprise, or if they vandalise, invade or trespass into properties such as farms and feedlots.

He says this most recent vandalism in Mundijong adds weight to his argument that changes need to be made.

“Nobody wants to stop the rightful, lawful activity of people who want to object to a trade,” he said.

“That happens openly, we will see it happen at the G20 and that is the right of people.

“But it is not the right of people to interfere in the lawful operations of others, to put businesses at risk and to put lives at risk.”

Open Letter To The Pope by Tom Regan

Posted on November 10, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

https://www.thedodo.com/community/TomRegan/an-open-letter-to-pope-francis-797769837.html

Open Letter To The Pope
By Tom Regan

As you move through the second year of your Papacy, all Christians pray fervently and hopefully for your good health and fortitude on behalf of justice, mercy and peace-both in the church and in the world.

As someone who shares your commitment to justice to all of God’s creatures, I was delighted by your choice of name: Francis.

Of all the many virtues your Namesake possessed, none is more synonymous with his name than his love of animals. He called them his “brothers” and “sisters,” and was famous for preaching to the birds – and even to the fish! On one occasion, he persuaded a wolf to stop attacking local farmers if the farmers agreed to feed the wolf. To turn a carnivore into a vegan? Nothing better represents the power of Saint Francis.

How did Saint Francis think his brothers and sisters in fur, feather and fin should be treated? He must have believed that what happens to them matters to them apart from any human interest. Why would he think in those terms? Because what happens to them makes a difference to the quality and duration of their life. Either they live a long and fruitful life, which Saint Francis preferred, or they suffered and died prematurely.

Of course, Pope Francis, like the rest of us, surely believes that ill-treatment to any of God’s creatures surely is against God’s will. Whether animals have rights or not, surely they deserve to be treated with mercy and kindness, gratitude and sympathy, respect and admiration. Who in their right mind can be against humane care and treatment of creatures

Well, evidently it depends.

Consider some examples of what happens to animals in research laboratories.

Cats, dogs, nonhuman primates, and other animals are drowned, suffocated, and starved to death.
They are burned, subjected to radiation, and used as “guinea pigs” in military research.
Their eyes are surgically removed and their hearing is destroyed.
They have their limbs severed and organs crushed.
Invasive means are used to give them heart attacks, ulcers, and seizures.
They are deprived of sleep, subjected to electric shock, and exposed to extremes of heat and cold.

Every one of these procedures and outcomes complies with every federal law everywhere. Each conforms with what federal inspectors count as “humane care and treatment.”

This same ideology applies to how farmed animals are treated.

It is standard procedure to have “veal” calves spend their entire life individually confined to narrow stalls too narrow for them to turn around in.
Laying hens live a year or more in cages the size of a filing drawer, seven or more per cage, after which they routinely are starved for two weeks to encourage another laying cycle.
Female hogs are housed for four or five years in individual barred enclosures (“gestation stalls”), barely wider than their bodies, where they are forced to birth litter after litter.
Until comparatively recently, due to the “Mad Cow” scare, beef and dairy cattle too weak to stand (“downers”) were dragged or pushed to their slaughter.
Geese and ducks are force-fed the human equivalent of thirty pounds of food per day to enlarge their liver, the better to meet the demand for foie gras.

All these conditions and procedures demonstrate the relevant industry’s commitment to mercy and kindness, compassion and sympathy.

And what might “humane” fur farming or trapping permit? Here are some examples.

On fur mills, mink, chinchilla, raccoon, lynx, foxes and other fur bearing animals are confined in wire-mesh cages for the duration of their life.
Waking hours are spent pacing back and forth, or rolling their heads, or jumping up the sides of their cages, or mutilating themselves, or cannibalizing their cage mates.
Death is caused by breaking their necks, or by asphyxiation (using carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide), or by shoving electric rods up their anus to “fry” them from the inside out.
Animals trapped in the wild take fifteen hours on average to die.
Trapped fur-bearers frequently chew themselves apart in their futile attempts to regain their freedom.
Despite it’s obvious cruelty, this is all perfectly legal.

Holy Father, all Christians implore you: Speak out about cruelty to God’s creatures, Billions annually are denied all that God intended for them, and they are treated neither with Christ’s mercy nor with God’s compassion. Among your other troubles and concerns, please honor St. Francis of Assisi and the call of the Catechism by raising your voice on behalf of God’s other animals.

_____________________________________________________________
Tom Regan is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, North Carolina State University. Among his major works is The Case for Animal Rights. The editors of Utne Reader have described Professor Regan as “the philosophical leader of the of animal rights movement” and named him, along with the Dalai Lama, as “one of fifty people who are changing the world.”

The ‘Cost of Doing Business?’

Posted on October 28, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

Animals Australia

It’s taken nine months for him to get to this moment. He’s bewildered, weak, and — like many newborns, completely vulnerable. The industry he was born into considers him a ‘waste product’, and soon he will be discarded. He is one of hundreds of thousands of dairy calves born every year to keep their mothers producing milk. They’re taken from their mums, and within days, will be on a truck on the way to slaughter. This is considered to be the ‘cost of doing business’ when it comes to the production of milk, cheese and yoghurt — but is that cost too high? Check out the Sydney Morning Herald’s article ‘The Downside of Dairy’ at www.bit.ly/1sLmZA5 — and discover how you can help calves today at www.AnimalsAustralia.org/dairy.

Comment from a friend off Facebook, where this originated: “I have met day-old calves at the (small, “family”) dairy farm less than five miles from my house. I fantasize about driving a semi in there and rescuing them ALL in the middle of the night. If they were women and their children, I’d be a HERO. However, since they are “only” animals (keeping in mind that of course humans are animals too) I’d be arrested for theft of “property”. :'(“

Vegan Power

Image

Please Don’t Read this Blog

Posted on September 15, 2014 by Exposing the Big Game

If you have ever been personally hurt by anything I’ve written here, I’m sorry, but please don’t read this blog.

Even if I’ve invited you or shared a post with you in the past, please don’t read this blog.

Unless you’re seeking information about the injustices of hunting or animal exploitation in general, please don’t read this blog.

If you’re so set in your ways that the things I write about animal rights seem like a personal attack on you, please don’t read this blog. It’ll just make you feel bad.

I have never set out to hurt or attack anyone personally (that’s why I don’t tend to name names). But like people who defend human rights, those who speak in defense of the rights of non-human animals and seek to expose the ongoing atrocities committed against them by human societies, I often have a hard time playing the diplomat.

It’s not that we’re un-American, but once you know what kind of animal suffering is behind the making of an all-meat hot dog, you can’t un-know it.

This blog is not for everyone. Those who are like-minded seem to enjoy it here; those who feel out of place might do better not reading it. (That’s why I don’t spend my time reading hunters’ or cattlemen’s blogs.) I’ve been accused of preaching to the choir. Fair enough, but even a choir of angels needs a pep talk once in a while to remind them that they’re not alone in what they’re going through.

A blog can be likened to a writer’s personal diary made public. Those close to the writer sometimes recognize themselves between the pages. My advice to folks who don’t like what they read here is, simply, stop reading. Speaking for myself, I never start off writing things with the intention of hurting anyone’s feelings. The only intention I ever have is adding my voice to the call to end animal suffering and abuse of the innocents.

Writing can be cathartic and when the words are flowing, I don’t have much control over their direction. They’re often a meditation on an issue that is really important to me. I find it works better than trying to debate with people over these emotional issues, because when things get heated, I tend to get overheated. My circuits fry, and my thoughts don’t flow; they go on overload. Afterward, I end up feeling like “I should have said this,” or “I should have answered to that. “

Unless you really care to know how I think or feel, please don’t read this blog.

Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Tag Archives: veganism