Animal Writes

Animal Representation in Literature

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha Pergadia) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:58:00 +0000

For those of you interested in academic activism, I've started a blog related to independent work I'm doing on animal representation in Toni Morrison's Beloved. While literary analysis may seem the furthest thing from grassroots animal rights activism, I propose that conventions of animal invisibility in certain texts shed light on the process through which animal oppression emerges in broader contexts. My independent work will explore how Morrison deliberately renders animals invisible in an attempt to perform the way institutional oppression is silenced and normalized. I will also look at the rise of American dairying and the contribution these breeding/taxonomic practices had on slave treatment.

It's a work in progress, so if you are interested in Beloved or animal studies, I would love your feedback. Read more here: http://belovedbeasts.wordpress.com/

An Ancient Prohibition On the Dangers of Animals in Entertainment (Part One?)

noreply@blogger.com (Jonah Rank) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:50:00 +0000

My usual warning about my posts: I tend to blog about things I come across in Judaism that fascinate me. I am sure that I have preachy tendencies in my writing. If you're not interested in the preachiness, then feel free to read those tidbits that do remain.

Two weekends ago, at a study session coordinated by the Jewish Theological Seminary and led by Jon Adam Ross, I was introduced to one text which I was shocked to have never encountered before in my studies of Judaism (and I am thankful to have finally been introduced to it).

In the 3rd century CE, Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi, discouraging Jews from participating in a culture of Roman theater which the Rabbis associated with violence (as exhibited in gladiator matches) or idolatry (such as the dramas of Greek gods) recorded a law in the Mishnah (in Avodah Zarah 1:7) that begins with the following:

אין מוכרין להם דובין ואריות וכל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים.

It is forbidden to sell them bears, lions or anything that has the potential to injure the public.

These words, read in their traditional context, don't sound necessarily like the words of animal rights activists. But, this statement--when read in the context of what we know about the inherent abuses and dangers in using animals in entertainment--is certainly compassionate towards animals.

The passage is concerned with the well-being of these animals. Our passage lists bears and lions specifically, but the passage doesn't identify those potential customers to whom we can't sell these animals! (Of course, we presume that the Rabbinic ban is on selling animals to entertainers, to businesspeople with stadiums and to any people who make it their business to put animals on stages.) Not only are Jews so discouraged in the Mishnah from participating in a culture that utilizes animals in violent means, but Jews are forbidden from making money from and from reaping the benefits of a culture that endorses this literally inhumane practice.

When it comes to that dangerous subject of animals in entertainment, this brief dictum is unwavering in the graveness of the sin: not only are Jews forbidden from supporting animals in entertainment, Jews are forbidden from being supported by animals in entertainment.

Although I usually like to have more to say on a subject, I am writing this blog post now because I did not want to forget this source. I hope to study this topic more in the near future and to have then a few more insights into the subject.

Also, for just a few mild introductory thoughts about the use of animals in entertainment, feel free to examine this site or this page.

Veganmofo: Vegan Brunch!

noreply@blogger.com (B.A.D.) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:11:00 +0000

What better way to start the weekend? Pancakes, Sausage and homefries! All vegan of course.

Brunch is just one of those things you look forward to like fall and cozy sweaters.

Today brunch features, Banana pancakes from Vegan Brunch! By Isa Chandra M. , followed my rosemary roasted garlic potatoes also taken from Vegan Brunch (sort of) and to round it out we ate some yves sausage rounds.

Yum!

Adam's plate

What are you eating for brunch?

Natalie Portman on "Eating Animals"

BenjiDavidow@gmail.com (Ben_D) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:12:00 +0000

Check out Natalie Portman's glowing review of Jonathan Safran Foer's

just released book, Eating Animals. And while we're on the topic of

vegan celebrities, Alicia Silverstone just came out with a veg

cookbook/diet book, The Kind Diet. Also, Oprah's former personal

chef just released a vegan cookbook, The Conscious Cook.

Now here's the amazing part: all three of these books are on the top 100

bestselling list on Amazon! I would bet that this is the first time in

the history of the universe that two, let alone three vegan books have

been simultaneous bestsellers. Veganism is finally coming into the

mainstream.

The Cove Gains Publicity

noreply@blogger.com (Marina) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:09:00 +0000

Yesterday's Times published an article about The Cove, a documentary film uncovering the mass slaughter of dolphins off the coast of Taiji, Japan. The film's first public screening in Japan was held on Wednesday at the Tokyo International Film Festival.

The film and article make it clear that a vast majority of Japanese citizens know nothing of the brutal hunt, nor of the high mercury readings in the dolphin meat. Before seeing the film, I knew very little about this issue, and was glad to have expanded my knowledge of animal cruelty past the context of the American meat industry. That being said, I felt a bit powerless after watching the film, unable to take comfort in the fact that I could cast my vote as a consumer. My sentiments were somewhat lifted after reading this article in light of the fact that many of Tokyo's viewers were outraged by what they saw. They by no means see national identity as a reason to continue this brutal hunt, and are eager to help.

Was Honest Abe an animal rights advocate?

adamhoffman5@gmail.com (Adam Hoffman) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:30:00 +0000

Many sources have made the claim that Abraham Lincoln supported animal rights and/or practiced vegetarianism, often citing the following alleged quotation: "I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."

Environmentalist, animal rights advocate and author Mike Hudak has scoured the evidence on the topic -- it looks like Lincoln may not have been a kindred spirit after all. Shucks.

Abraham Lincoln: Vegetarian and Animal Rights Advocate?—A Review of the Evidence
by Mike Hudak

Rescue Ink: Tough guys for the animals

adamhoffman5@gmail.com (Adam Hoffman) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:57:00 +0000

Check out Rescue Ink: a tough, tattooed band of bikers who don't take no for an answer when it comes to helping abused animsl.

New York Times article: Heaven's Angels

Quick Piece from The Onion

noreply@blogger.com (Jonah Rank) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:03:00 +0000

I figured I'd pass along this piece from The Onion on God inventing a new bird.

Nothing too heavy in the article... but I think it's a good laugh for people who like animals and/or religion.

Ham and Eggonomics on "The Pollan-Singer Travesty"

BenjiDavidow@gmail.com (Ben_D) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:15:00 +0000

Check out this quick post from "Ham and Eggonomics" (a great blog!) by Bailey Norwood, an ag economist at Oklahoma State University. It's interesting to see a pro-animal welfare critique of Pollan from a non-veg perspective. And If you haven't read Jim Mason and Peter Singer's The Way We Eat, it's really worth it. They talk about everything from freeganism and lab-grown meat to GMOs and fair-trade coffee .

Vegan Month of Food 3.0!

noreply@blogger.com (B.A.D.) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:12:00 +0000

Just a heads up blog-o-sphere that veganmofo (that's vegan month of food!) is back! And better then ever, over 200 bloggers have signed on so don't miss out!

Find all the round-ups-info-and-sign-ups here!

And follow all the handy dandy actions, including your's truly on this bloglines feed.

"Dominion" by Matthew Scully

adamhoffman5@gmail.com (Adam Hoffman) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:29:00 +0000

I recently read Dominion by Matthew Scully, and was impressed by the author's eloquence and merciful compassion. Scully is not your stereotypical animal rights advocate: he is a prominent conservative, and has worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Robert P. Casey and Sarah Palin. The book should provide a refreshing perspective for anyone already familiar with standard animal rights philosophy, and would be a great recommendation for a more conservative skeptic.

An excerpt:

"Walking around a place like Farm 2149, I do not need some utilitarian philosopher to do the moral math for me, adding up and subtracting the suffering of the world to determine which lives have value and which do not. I do not need a contractualist philosopher to define for me an "appropriate object of sympathy." I do not need behavioral scientists or cognitive theorists to distinguish which pains are "real" pains and which are not. I do not need experts in evolutionary ecology or some other faddish field of the day to explain the hard and remorseless demands of natural selection. I require no advice from theologians on where mercy may be granted and where withheld. Confronted with this wholesale disregard and destruction of life, all attempts to justify it strike me as vain talk, miserable excuses that cannot cover the iniquity, the ungodly presumption of it, the scale and sorrow of it.

Only effete "urbanites," we are admonished, care about such things because we are so estranged from nature's harsh realities. But these particular realities are not of nature's design, and in every corner of our factory farms one finds the most casual disregard for the nature of the animals themselves. Nature has its own hardships, but its own kindnesses, too, like straw and room to sleep and the care of a mother for her young. When we take even those away, we are smothering the inmost yearnings of these creatures and the charity in our own hearts."

Dunkin' Cruelty Exposed

BenjiDavidow@gmail.com (Ben_D) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:07:00 +0000

Compassion Over Killing (COK) just released an investigative video of an egg farm owned by Michael Foods, a supplier of Dunkin' Donuts. As you may know, COK is waging a campaign for Dunkin' Donuts to stop using eggs and dairy and convert to vegan doughnuts. If you haven't yet, take a moment to send a letter asking Dunkin' Donuts to stop supporting animal cruelty.

Interview with Nathan Runkle

BenjiDavidow@gmail.com (Ben_D) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:41:00 +0000

Check out this podcast interview of Nathan Runkle by Erik Marcus of vegan.com. They discuss the recently-released investigation of Iowa's Hy-Line Hatchery, the largest egg-laying breed hatchery in the world. They also talk about Twitter and how activists can harness the powers of new social networking technologies to become more effective.

Humane/Cruelty: Race, Class, Prison, Liberation

T373X737T@aol.com (Adam) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:56:00 +0000

Introduction
[Oppressions are ideologies—]“a set of socially shared beliefs that legitmates an existing or desired social order. Prejudice, on the other hand, is an individual predisposition to devalue a group of others… seciesism is also an ideology—that is, a set of widely held, socially inherited beliefs… When the psychological and moral (or immoral) bases of oppression are accentuated, social structural forces are downplayed or overlooked entirely… they tend to stifle any realization of the need for social change.” –David Nibert[*]

The discourse of vegetarian and vegan advocates is saturated with personal choice. When the individual person is not totally responsible for the suffering of each individual animal, it is because vegetarianism is too inconvenient and the law is too permissive of cruelty. Thus the irony of the dominant discourse is that animal liberation is possible so long as humans become more rational and less self-interested; but, so long as people are self-interested, we ought to make vegetarianism as convenient and non-threatening as possible and make animal cruelty as inconvenient and punishable as possible.

In this post I will lay-out the myriad of ways the most popular forms of animal advocacy (at least in the USA) privileges a white, middle-class audience at the expense of including people of color and people of low-income. Drawing on the vast, original works over at The Vegan Ideal [TVI], I wish to demonstrate 1) how focusing on punishing, shaming, and dehumanizing individual animal exploiters a) draws attention away from the institutional oppression (i.e. speciesism) in favor of vice (i.e. cruelty) as well as b) how such punishment is often part of ethnocentric and nationalist projects, and finally, c) how such projects merely seek to substitute animal cages for human cages.

SYMPTOM vs SYSTEM
One general misallocation of resources is for the legislation of stiffer penalties for "animal cruelty." Aside from the unjust material consequences of these laws, the discourse of "humane" is a conceptual red herring just begging to be appropriated.

In his latest essay, "Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change," Derrick Jensen argues that

[This liberal perspective] incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself.

In other words, the liberal perspective focuses on litigating personal acts and scapegoating marginalized people (often those with low-income, people of color, and Other cultures--but more on this later) rather than the powerful institutions/systems that are either at the root of the violence or a more significant actor whose violence is so profound it has become invisible or is assumed to be “natural.” The same is true of animal liberationists, explains David Nibert in Animal Rights/Human Rights: advocates have a “tendency to overlook or minimize the social structural basis of oppression” by over-emphasizing “overcoming prejudice and immoral reasoning” without analyzing the underlying societal causes.

Just as the symbolic language obscures rather than clarifies the source of the oppression of animal others, so to do the actual rhetoric of "cruelty," "inhumane," and "barbaric," and the punishments such rhetoric encourages us to distribute misdirect our attention toward the symptoms and not the political pathology of oppression. Take for instance poultry plant workers who are fired for “cruelty to animals” after an investigation in which the violence of the slaughterhouse becomes invisible and the corporation shifts its accountability for the institutional cruelty onto desparate, malaised workers. Or, how certain men are imprisoned for dog-fighting and cock-fighting, a means to demonstrating one’s masculinity-—an institution which is responsible for militarism and a rape culture. In both cases, the actual systems of species and gender privilege as well as class inequality that drive such behavior are absent from discussion.

HUMANE/CRUELTY
The rhetoric of "cruelty" substitutes recognizing the cultural and ideological underpinnings of such material acts for an unreflective communitarian presupposition that when the law is not broken, when things are going all according to plan and design, then "cruelty" does not exist. Animal abuse is thus framed as "personal" and not "political" since it is based in prejudice, ignorance, and callousness, not a political orientation. Here, education and/or reform are what are needed to solve the problem, not a cultural rethinking/transformation. As is noted at TVI,

[The] talk about "cruelty" and "humane treatment" is basically a way of depoliticizing oppression...these terms fail to address the oppressive power relations under which harm and suffering occurs... If cruelty to animals is "regarded as a pattern of socially and culturally unacceptable behavior," then speciesism – the very system of nonhuman oppression – is outside the limits "animal cruelty"... So cruelty is the exception that proves that speciesism rules

Rather than being useful to the political discourse on human-animal relations, "cruelty" and "(in)humane" actually obscure the radical political philosophy that is animal liberation. Rather than being opposing terms, "'humane treatment' and 'cruelty' are really paired terms, with the former suggested as the remedy to the latter."

Despite the popular sway of the ROH, the effectiveness of the ROH is counterproductive to the liberation movements because it actually reinforces prejudices (speciesism, racism, classist) while also centering the moral issue with the identity and character of individual agents rather than those who are exploited by them and the systemic nature of the immoral consequences. The ROH ought to be abandoned because 1) it is preconceived in a speciesist language/world; 2) its definition varies to the degree which one is speciesist/humanist; 3) it is ultimately more about the consumer than the nonhuman animal and the human-animal relationship--appealing to a virtue/self-esteem...

First, the idea of "humane" suggest human exceptionalism in compassion, or at the very least, that it distinguishes the human species over others as a compassionate one (which seems to be quite the opposite case if you look at our history). Theoreticians from Adam Smith to David Hume to Charles Darwin have all argued that our morality, contrary to theologians, comes from our animality, not "humanity" (as in Reason). Recent studies, especially by cognitive ethologists like Marc Bekoff, have proved that such is more than probably the case given the extended evidence of moral systems in many mammalian species. So not only is the equation of the human(e) with moral-goodness factually incorrect, it is also speciesist because it privileges H. sapiens as superior to all other species based on this factual inaccuracy.

Furthermore, what we mean by "humane" is less about the act and more about the actor. When one says something is "humane" they cease discussing the nature of the act and rather turn the focus inward to the nature of the actor. Indeed, to proclaim an act is humane is to proclaim the actor as human and good (while those who do alternatively are less human and less good). When one labels something as humane, what they are really doing is identifying themselves as practicing "humanity," something that is privileged as superior to other forms of being and identity (such as animality). So when one says so-and-so is "humane" they are prescribing that act as something we ought to do (perhaps because it is something divine).

Take for example an article by Frank Rosci, in which it is asked, "Is agribusiness forgetting its humanity when treating animals destined for dinner?" The discourse of Rabbi Bradley Bleefeld is demonstrative of the humanism/speciesism of "humane" discourse whereby human and animal become ontologically independent of one another through kosher law. Bleefeld explains that kosher slaughter

is based on preserving our humanity...a prayer is said every time, with every animal, to remind the slaughterer that he is a human being and not an indiscriminate killer -- animals do what they want, but we can't

The killing of animals as done by Jewish people is suggested to be signatory of humanity, moral beings, as opposed to "animals." Because killing is ritualized by rite of law and thus not "indiscriminate," it can be justified against those who are not human, moral beings. But, as we will see, this very Jewish-exceptionalist logic is part of the anthropogenic machine that is always already ethnocentric.

RACE, CLASS, SPECIES
Since human identity has been one of the most important and contentious questions/topics in Western history, the use of "humane" can become a particularly violent tool for legitimizing one's own contentious actions simultaneously as establishing one's own preformed identity in opposition to another who is "inhumane" and "unethical." The humane proclamation is really nothing more than a performative apology for one's actions as a means to console ourselves with the sense that we are human and thereby good, abjecting the presence of the "monstrosity" of our actions and thereby the monsters that we all are. In locating the human inside us and the monster without, we buffer the anxiety surrounding the threatening idea that we sometimes are satisfied performing unethical actions.

This is where things get interesting, or as Royce Drake writes, complicated. Speciesism does not exist within a cultural vacuum; it is never a single-issue. Speciesism is always already situated within a network of other systems of oppression particular to each culture. As such, certain types of cruelty are accepted as others are not, and out from this ethnocentric moral system arises a means through which other oppressions can be expressed.

Through ethnocentrism and selective speciesism, concern over animal rights and welfare have often been used as arguments for the inferiority and expulsion of Other people. Royce explains this well at Vegans of Color:

The way we see, and judge speciesism is shaped by our own socio-cultural contexts... Racism, classism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, (and on and on) color our perceptions of animal oppression: Our families don’t whale, they don’t dog fight, they don’t experiment on apes... Our families may eat cows and chickens (Happy meat? Even better) and go to zoos, but that is something everyone does, and it isn’t as barbaric as something that those people do

So while many animal advocates may consider bull-fights and whaling the pinnacle of barbarism, parallel animal exploitation such as breaking in riding horses and fishing are less so, more “normal” because they are not a part of our culture, our being-in-the-world, our humanity. Those outside of our culture, outside our human-animal rites, are also outside our definition of humanity (or at least, they correspond with it less than we ourselves do).

It is not surprising then that the animal welfare movement has so often "dehumanized" human Others as "barbaric," "inhumane," and "savage"--a process inseparable from the socio-political institution of colonization. As others and myself have written on previously, vegans are not exempt from this criticism because they are opposed to all forms of animal exploitation[Korean dog-eating, Japanese dolphin slaughter, Cherokee bear pit, Makah Whaling, Non-white pet traders, etc]. Indeed, the rhetoric of barbaric, inhumane, and savage all have xenophobic and/or colonial histories. Even throughout the last century, they have been deployed to oppose non-Secular/Christian human-animal relations such as Kosher and Halal slaughter in Nazi Germany and Britain.

In the US and many other countries, animal welfare laws continue to be used to imprison and punish people from disadvantaged ethnic groups and classes as it has been since the first wave of the movement in the 19th century. As was the case then, acceptable human-animal conduct is informed by the norms and (human) identity of upper/middle-class Anglo-Saxons and declared through a discourse of character reform.

PRISON
As is explained by TVI, it is a lot easier for those with privilege to prosecute and imprison those with less privilege for acts of animal exploitation and abuse than those with equal or more privilege. If one were to

harassed a rich white man, say one who owns a meat packing plant that exploits both workers and nonhuman animals, the volunteer might end up in jail. However, by targeting people of color working on the street the same volunteer has all the support of the institutional racism and classism, including the LAPD

This of course was a major criticism of the crusade of animal protectionists to prosecute Michael Vick (an effort that is by no means racially-neutral within a white supremacist society wherein up to one-third of young black men are imprisoned). This is one reason why litigation is not only minimally effective, but also ultimately futile in bringing about real social change. If sending people to prison is primarily a measure to deter crime, but only the most vulnerable people in society who are the least responsible from animal exploitation ever go to prison, then prison only treats the symptom and not the disease. And as was mentioned in the citation above, attempting to bring justice to those who are both privileged and responsible for animal abuse may result in one ending up in prison themselves.

TVI also notes that while many vegans decry the contemporary witch hunts of animal activists—“green in the new red”--

"animal activists" promote more police suppression than they receive. As a general group, most "animal activists" are more "critical to the maintenance of state power" than they are "subversive"... activists are manufacturing increased police suppression that targets oppressed groups by actively promoting stiffer sentencing for anti-cruelty laws, and specifically criminalizing "animal cruelty" identified with poor people and people of color (i.e., dog fighting and cock fighting)

TVI continues its analysis elsewhere:

Not only does the concept of animal cruelty fail to address the oppression of other animals, it actually expands oppression in the form of the Prison Industrial Complex... That this approach centers a reliance on police, prisons, and the court system is itself problematic

To summarize TVI, not only is the legal system as it is setup now (i.e. The Prison Industrial Complex) incompetent, it actually produces violence upon which it was established to eliminate.

Therefore, by relying upon the law as a tool to outlaw animal "cruelty" so as to punish the "inhumane" through imprisonment, the animal protection movement, in contradiction to vegan principles, fills cages with some beings whereby it seeks to empty cages of others. This is why TVI illuminates the parallels

between veganism and prison abolition. Both call out the political relations of oppressions that are usually masked and depoliticized with similar terms. That is, both reject the calls for more "humane treatment" under the existing system

If vegans are to be consistent and fair in their theory and action, they thus ought to honor "the efforts of all who are striving for the emancipation of humans and of other animals" which includes supporting prison abolition.

This essay is an abridged verion of a previous post at HEALTH. Click here to read the full version.

The Sounds of God's Roars In Speechless Nature

noreply@blogger.com (Jonah Rank) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:44:00 +0000

Foreward: I wrote up this blog post a few weeks ago for my own personal blog. As a blogger and a religious Jew, I often blog about teachings I feel are not emphasized enough in traditional Jewish circles. And as a vegetarian and someone concerned about nature, I am especially interested in sympathy towards animals in traditional Jewish texts.

Knowing that Judaism is a religion that says that humans are Godly, I often wonder why Judaism less frequently teaches that animals can, like humans, have a divine spark. In this blog post, I argue that traditional Judaism actually sees Godliness in animals too.

For the mathematically inclined: if a religion teaches that humans are like God, and if a religion teaches that animals are like God; then, according to the transitive property, the religion is also teaching us that animals are like humans.

In trying to recall the times at night when the Priests in the Temple in Jerusalem would perform different Temple rites, the Rabbis of Massekhet Berakhot 3a debated how nighttime is divided up¹: should nighttime's 12 hours be divided into 3 night-watches of 4 hours each, or 4 night-watches of 3 hours each?

Amidst the arguments, the Talmud examines Rabbi Eliezer's position:

לעולם קסבר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה

Rabbi Eliezer has forever held that there are three watches in the night!

והא קמ"ל דאיכא משמרות ברקיע ואיכא משמרות בארעא

And he teaches us that there are watches in Heaven and watches on Earth.

דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקב"ה ושואג כארי

For it is taught: Rabbi Eliezer says, "There are three watches in the night, and at each watch, the Holy Blessed One sits and roars like a lion...

שנאמר (ירמיהו כה) ה' ממרום ישאג וממעון קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג על נוהו

As it mentions (3 roars!²) in Jeremiah 25:30, 'God, from upon high, will roar and, from the base of God's holiness, will project God's roaring voice. God will roar over God's glory!'"

Rabbi Eliezer continues in his explanation:

וסימן לדבר

"God's roaring here is a symbolic matter:

משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער

At the first watch, a donkey brays...

שניה כלבים צועקים

At the second watch, dogs bark....

שלישית תינוק יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה.

And at the third watch, a baby nurses at the breasts of its mother as the woman speaks with her husband."

Of course, Jeremiah didn't give any direct acknowledgment of donkeys, dogs, or even humans in the excerpt Rabbi Eliezer quotes. But Rabbi Eliezer knows that, if he's going to take Jeremiah seriously, then he has to take Jeremiah metaphorically.

Rabbi Eliezer is listening for God's roar: God's promise of surveillance, of protection. Rabbi Eliezer tells us that, when he listens to the sounds of the night that surrounds him, he hears nature. He hears the bray of a donkey upon which he or a neighbor might ride to town or to the market. He hears the barking of dogs protecting their territory. And he hears a baby being raised by nurturing parents.

All these sounds that Rabbi Eliezer hears are wordless. Certainly the dog and the donkey have no words to share. And the baby does not even cry or produce a sound approaching the volume of a bark or a bray. The baby only feeds and gets the parents talking. It is only after that third night-watch has already begun though that nighttime has finally restored the words of life into women and men³.

That wordless donkey--assuring transportation and economic access to the market--and those inarticulate dogs--determined to safeguard the residential stability of home--work in tandem with the muted baby who promises us the future of human life.

Rabbi Eliezer listens for God's three roars each night, and he finds them in the wordless cries of nature. But only by way of the sounds of the mute and the speechless, Rabbi Eliezer is able to listen to God. Rabbi Eliezer's point is simple: we can hear God's promise most pronounced in the wordlessness of nature.

NOTES:

1. The classic Jewish calendar divides a day into 12 equal "hours" of nighttime and 12 equal "hours" of daytime. Hypothetically, if a day were dark from 8 PM until 4 AM and light from 4 AM to 8 PM, then each Jewish nighttime "hour" would be 80 minutes long and the Jewish daytime "hours" would be 40 minutes each. Because sunrise and sunset change everyday of the Gregorian calendar, the Jewish "days" begin and end at different times everyday on the Gregorian clock.

2. Rashi notes this in his commentary to this section.

3. Judaism has often valued speech as an indicator of life or existence (for both God and God's humans were enabled to speak, as the humans were made in God's image). Also, one ancient Jewish belief states that the human soul leaves the human body when the body sleeps and returns when the body wakes up. This idea is reflected even today in modern classical Jewish nighttime and daytime prayers.

4. Special thanks to Emily Winograd for studying this Sugeya with me.

Must-See Investigative Footage

BenjiDavidow@gmail.com (Ben_D) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:50:00 +0000

Take a look at this just-released, must-see investigative footage from Mercy For Animals of the largest egg-laying hen hatchery in the world, showing the standard egg industry practice of grinding up newborn male chicks (the story has been picked up by hundreds of news outlets including the Washington Post and SF Chronicle). As many of you know, the egg industry has no use for male chicks since they don't grow fast enough to be used for meat. This goes for most free range/organic egg producers as well, who typically source chicks from the same hatcheries.

The practice of disposing chicks by the millions is emblematic of an industry that reduces feeling animals into units of production. Think about it: like any manufacturing industry, the meat, dairy and egg industries are interested in churning out product at the lowest cost and optimized efficiency. The key difference is that the commodities are themselves sentient individuals, capable of suffering. Today, billions of farm animals in the U.S. alone are severely confined, intensively bred, mutilated without anesthesia, routinely starved (in the case of breeder animals), and forced through many other inhumanities to boost efficiency and profit. To stress the immensity of these cruelties, if a large-scale farmer treated just a few cats or dogs how s/he regularly treats tens of thousands of pigs, cows, or chickens, s/he would likely face felony charges.

That said, I don't think it's fair or constructive to lay all the blame on the industry. The fact is that producers are meeting consumer demand and it is, for example, virtually impossible to economically produce eggs without killing off the males and definitely impossible to produce cheap eggs without extreme confinement. So this sort of video should prompt consumers to reflect on their food choices rather than point their fingers at somebody else. In "Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money," Erik Marcus makes a great case that eggs should be the first, not the last food to give up for animal welfare. And though it may be counterintuitive, there's significantly more slaughter in the egg industry than in the beef industry (all hens are 'expired' when their egg production declines). For those who eat eggs, there's no doubt that switching to locally-produced, free-range eggs (not the one's you'll find at the grocery) is a huge improvement for the animals. But still, corners are cut for efficiency, at the expense of welfare. As long as animals are commodified for food production, inhumane practices and unnecessary suffering are virtually inevitable.

Note: This video only skims the tip of iceberg of all that is inhumane with the egg industry. For a more detailed account check out this report from the Humane Society.

Walk the Walk

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha Pergadia) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:41:00 +0000

Farm Sanctuary's annual Walk for Farm Animals will kick off during the early fall months. For over twenty years, the walk has raised money for farm animals and awareness about the treatment of factory farm animals. Find a walk near you and register to walk. The money goes to Farm Sanctuary's rescue missions, campaign efforts, and care for the sanctuary animals. Last year they raised $231,458 for farm animals.

If you don't see your city listed, volunteer to organize a walk. It's easy and rewarding.

Caged Animals...or Women?

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha Pergadia) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:17:00 +0000

Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment Of Women

Dunkin' Cruelty Vegtalk Interview

BenjiDavidow@gmail.com (Ben_D) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:43:00 +0000

Erik Marcus at vegan.com interviewed Erica Meier of Compassion Over Killing (COK) the other day about COK's new campaign targeting Dunkin' Donuts. Take a listen here.

Food Inc. Unpacked

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha Pergadia) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:43:00 +0000

In response to the cinematic success of Food Inc. - a documentary by Robert Kenner about industrial agriculture - Chipotle is sponsoring free screenings of the film across the country as a part of their Food With Integrity campaign. Their stated goal is to “start a discussion” about food production in America. I went to one such screening in Chicago with a fellow StAR blog contributor.

With animation and color as artificial as the tomatoes in a grocery store, Food Inc. peals back some of the layers of industrial food production, examining health concerns, workers’ rights abuse, animal exploitation and the dirty politics behind it all. In this film where corn is the villain and every head of federal food policy is in bed with Monsanto, an old-fashioned farmer emerges as the Beatrice in an inferno of food. His farm is the idyllic vision one imagines while reading Charlotte’s Web. The animals on his farm approach him when he enters the pen rather than run in fear at the sight of a human hand.

Veganism is by no means implied in the message of the film. Though there are somewhat graphic images of slaughterhouse production, the assumption of the film – and of Chipotle – is that there is such a thing as “naturally raised” or “humanely raised” meat. The takeaway message, then, is that we should buy local and vote with our dollars. This message seems on shaky ground after the film has depicted the dilemma of a financially-stifled Los Angeles family for whom it is an economically-wise decision to buy a $0.99 McDonalds burger rather than a head of lettuce. As my skeptical vegan friend pointed out, the ‘vote with your dollar’ slogan implies that some people get more votes than others. In the Al Gore documentary style, Food Inc. presents problems with only an afterthought to the solutions, which are given a few seconds preceding the end credits. One is left with a sense that they are not much freer in their food choices than the battery-cage hens.

Those who see the film courtesy of Chipotle may be left with the assumption that Chipotle’s food is the solution to this harrowing problem. A Chipotle representative provides an opening disclaimer to the film saying that they are “a pioneer in changing the way people think about and eat fast food,” and that they serve “nutritious ingredients from local and family farmers who are committed to sustainably raising antibiotic and hormone-free meats and organic vegetables.” Despite Chipotle’s claim that their Food with Integrity campaign is not “merely a marketing tool,” there is no doubt that this organization—whose foundations are built on funding from McDonald’s Inc.—is catering its menu and discourse to shifting consumer preferences that are concerned with the environmental and social impact of food. My primary “beef” with Chipotle’s marketing package—and of the film in general—is that there is no honest deconstruction of the many buzz words that have come to be nothing more than marketing ploys, such as “hormone-free,” “humane meat,” or “organic.” Instead, they continue to use these terms as shiny consumerist solutions to a problem inextricably linked to overconsumption, overproduction, and faulty demand signals.

Ask Michael Kors why he uses fur!

noreply@blogger.com (claire) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:37:00 +0000

Please take a moment of your time to submit questions for designer Michael Kors, asking him why he continues to use fur in his designs when he knows that fur requires animals to be tortured and barbarically killed. If this topic gets a lot of hits, the general ethical issues of fur will be in Time Magazine's "100 Questions for Michael Kors."

Here are some sample posts (feel free to copy/paste if you are busy):

“How can you call yourself an original designer when you steal fashion ideas from animals by using their fur?

“Why won’t you stop using fur, even when so many hyper-fashionable people, like Stella McCartney, Vivienne Westwood, Natalie Portman, and Tim Gunn have come out against it?”

“You recently dropped raccoon dog fur from your line—why not all fur? Why should raccoon dogs be spared, and not other sentient animals?”

“Why you such a bitch to animals boy?” haha

Dunkin' Donuts Cruelty: Quick Action for Animals

noreply@blogger.com (B.A.D.) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:32:00 +0000

As some of you may be aware, Compassion Over Killing (COK) has launched a new campaign aimed at Dunkin' Donuts to persuade them to offer vegan menu items free of the cruelties involved in the egg and dairy industries. Their new website is up and they are urging activists and consumers alike to make their voices heard and take a minute or two to call, snail mail or email the company, urging them to offer cruelty free options.

As every single donut on their current menu contains milk and eggs, COK is also urging them to offer menu items for those with allergies and health concerns.

Here's the short e-mail I sent:

To whom it may concern,

I recently learned that your company does not offer any products suitable for people who avoid consuming animal products such as dairy and eggs, which appear in all your donut menu items. As you are likely well aware, the number of individuals who avoid the cruelties and negative health effects of animal products are growing. With numerous consumers opting for healthier foods and cruelty-free goods our retail market is shifting. As a result we ask that businesses represent our needs and allow consumers to continue their support of companies such as yours. Without dairy and egg-free options, consumers will be forced to purchase elsewhere.

I would ask that you increase the availability of items without animal products or create vegan meal items to reflect your consumers' growing concerns, opening yourselves up to a larger market. New animal-free products would be marketed as healthier options and allow your company to tap into the growing concerns of the population for health foods and improved eating habits.

I would like to thank you for your time and again stress the need for vegan menu items to be added to your repertoire, allowing consumers the chance to purchase cruelty-free items from your establishment.

Thank you

To visit the campaign's web site click here: Dunkin' Cruelty

Fowl Play

BenjiDavidow@gmail.com (Ben_D) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 01:17:00 +0000

I recently got a chance to see Fowl Play, a great new film produced by Adam Durand and Mercy For Animals (MFA). It's an incredibly disturbing but equally inspiring documentary that is super well-done. Fowl Play is also pretty short (less than an hour), so it would be good for campus screenings with plenty of room for post-viewing discussion. The film takes a behind closed-doors look at the egg industry and tells the stories of rescued hens and their courageous rescuers while touching on broader farm animal and animal rights issues. Unfortunately, the DVD is not yet available, but it should be out soon. Don't miss it!

On a related note, Compassion Over Killing (COK) just launched a campaign to get Dunkin' Donuts to stop using dairy and eggs. Take 2 minutes to take action here.

My Trip to the Stockyard

noreply@blogger.com (Amy) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:26:00 +0000

I have just finished an internship at Farm Sanctuary in Upstate New York. Farm Sanctuary is the largest farm animal sanctuary, focusing on education, outreach, legislation, and animal rescue. I have learned so much at Farm Sanctuary, and recommend it so strongly for anyone interested in animal rights.

One part of the internship was a trip to a stockyard auction. I'd like to tell you about my experience.

The stockyard was in Bath and was very small. Steers, pigs, lambs, and goats in holding stalls waiting, bleating, bellowing, and snorting, to be auctioned off. They paced the dirty stalls where they could barely turn around. They tried to push their ways through the wooden planks to be free. They cried. They literally cried. But that wasn't the worst part.

When we got there, they were about to auction off the veal calves. They were all kept in a very small pen. They were still wobbly--one could barely walk. Their wet umbilical cords still hung from their bellies. They cried and cried, like babies. Anxious, confused, stepping on each other, bellowing so so loudly. The worst part was bending over the stall to pet them, to try to offer them a small bit of comfort before they were either slaughtered or chained to veal crate later that day. When they saw fingers, they desperately began to suckle them. One followed me around, suckling desperately on my entire hand. Whether they were hungry or not is not the point--though very sad if they were--but they were seeking their mother's udder. Comfort. Affection. Far too young to be away from her.

Children beat the calves with canes. The older ones taught the younger ones (some so small they probably could not yet read) how to beat them to make them move. Baby cows flinched with fear and pain. They were smacked into the auction room, pushed around by a man to show the customers how well they can move. They would be sold and beat into another small pen. This went on for eternity.

Some calves were to be slaughtered that day for what is called "bob veal." This is low-quality veal that is not pale in flesh, but is very cheap to buy and produce. Other calves were to be chained to veal crates for 6 weeks, fed a liquid diet deficient in iron and protein to create pale, tender, anemic flesh, so desired by veal connoisseurs. These calves are weak with atrophied muscles, 6 weeks in the dark, alone, unable to even stand. Starving. Dying before being murdered. Babies.

This was a very small stockyard with small-town friendly farmers and Amish people. This is the BEST it's going to get. My heart won't even allow me to imagine what bigger, factory farmed veal operations looked like.

I'm having trouble shaking the feeling of baby cows suckling on my hand. Images of babies hitting babies with canes. Hearing the crying calves. Smelling the awful stench. Please don't drink milk.

Summer Salad Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Marina) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:49:00 +0000

Mark Bittman recently published an article in the New York Times with summer salad ideas entitled 101 Simple Salads for the Season. Don't get too excited, all 101 recipes are not animal-friendly, but the first 36 are vegan as the subheading suggests. I will admit, I haven't tried any of these recipes out myself, but I was told they are top-notch. If you're looking for a creative vegan dish to bring to a potluck or summer BBQ, any of these recipes would make a great addition.