UPDATE: Unfortunately, Kelly won his re-election bid in Philly. But his narrow victory should send a message: The public does not want to be bullied around their own dinner tables!
On Tuesday, two of foie gras' legislative enemies were up for re-election. Barring any recount changes, both legislators lost.
Michael Panter, a New Jersey Democrat, lost his bid for re-election as Assemblyman for the 12th District. Panter introduced legislation a year ago which would have banned the production, distribution, and sale of foie gras in New Jersey.
This would have hit the area, including New York City, quite hard - in the wallet and in the mouth. New Jersey is home to D'Artagnan, one of the nation's premier sellers of foie gras and other high-end foods. Panter's bill could have put the 120-employee, New Jersey-based D'Artagnan out of business. Such a move would have outraged chefs, food lovers, and consumer choice advocates across the tri-state area and beyond.
Jack Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, lost his bid for re-election as a Philadelphia City Councilor. Kelly planned to introduce a bill to ban the sale of foie gras next year. This sparked a raging controversy including media wars, injunctions, and lots of screaming. At the time of this posting, this election is extremely close and while it appears Kelly has lost his seat, absentee ballots will be added in and official results could take as long as two weeks to be announced. (Cross your fingers.)
For now, they're gone.
Of course, I can't say for sure that the legislators' silly ideas on banning food became their downfalls, but I can speculate. I am proud of the people of New Jersey and Philadelphia for taking a stand against an activist minority and supporting the freedom of choice.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity...and Foie!
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Fire at Hudson Valley Foie Gras
Late in the evening of October 30, a tragic fire raged through a barn at Hudson Valley Foie Gras.
The barn housed 11,000 breeder ducks, all of which perished in the fire. Thankfully, no humans were hurt.
Both PETA and Farm Sanctuary have swooped like vultures, releasing statements full of misinformation and propaganda. One criticism is that there were too many ducks confined in too small a space. This is absolutely untrue. I'd like to print Michael Ginor's refutation of this claim (made originally here):
"As a co-owner and co-founder of Hudson Valley Foie Gras I would like to thank Mr. Ruhlman for his well wishes and for placing his sympathy with the ducks, where they belong. We are very saddened by the fact that birds, that we so carefully and attentively care for, perished in this fire. These ducks were in a carefully maintained breeding barn and not a "storage facility" as has been somehow misreported. This was a relatively large barn, approximately 60,000 square feet in size. A "factory farming" type of operation would squeeze 40,000 ducks into such a space. "Humane" growing guidelines suggest 3 square feet per duck, allowing for about 20,000 ducks in such a coop. Hudson Valley utilized the space for 11,000 ducks allowing about twice the suggested space per bird. I am profoundly confused by the allegation of any inhumanity involved with this unfortunate event or the suggestion that these ducks were unkindly treated in any way."
So clearly, the ducks were living better than do animals in any other poultry rearing operation I know of.
My deepest sympathies go out to the farmers. Those who cared for these ducks will feel their loss most deeply.
Thankfully, it appears the business and the quality of the foie gras will not be affected, due to an alternative supplier of eggs.
The barn housed 11,000 breeder ducks, all of which perished in the fire. Thankfully, no humans were hurt.
Both PETA and Farm Sanctuary have swooped like vultures, releasing statements full of misinformation and propaganda. One criticism is that there were too many ducks confined in too small a space. This is absolutely untrue. I'd like to print Michael Ginor's refutation of this claim (made originally here):
"As a co-owner and co-founder of Hudson Valley Foie Gras I would like to thank Mr. Ruhlman for his well wishes and for placing his sympathy with the ducks, where they belong. We are very saddened by the fact that birds, that we so carefully and attentively care for, perished in this fire. These ducks were in a carefully maintained breeding barn and not a "storage facility" as has been somehow misreported. This was a relatively large barn, approximately 60,000 square feet in size. A "factory farming" type of operation would squeeze 40,000 ducks into such a space. "Humane" growing guidelines suggest 3 square feet per duck, allowing for about 20,000 ducks in such a coop. Hudson Valley utilized the space for 11,000 ducks allowing about twice the suggested space per bird. I am profoundly confused by the allegation of any inhumanity involved with this unfortunate event or the suggestion that these ducks were unkindly treated in any way."
So clearly, the ducks were living better than do animals in any other poultry rearing operation I know of.
My deepest sympathies go out to the farmers. Those who cared for these ducks will feel their loss most deeply.
Thankfully, it appears the business and the quality of the foie gras will not be affected, due to an alternative supplier of eggs.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?
I've been taking an informal poll.
I'm asking everyone I know, "Do you support animal rights?"
Everyone wavers a bit at first - unsure of where I'm going.
They want to know, "What do you mean?"
I respond with, "You know, animal rights."
"Well, yes," they all say.
Wrong answer.
Too many of us do not know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. My surveyed friends, all wool-wearing, meat-eating, leather-sporting, zoo-going, pet-owning animal lovers, thought I was talking about animal welfare. The difference between rights and welfare may seem frivolously semantic, but I assure you, it is not. The difference is so important because organizations like Farm Sanctuary (FS), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are counting on a majority of their contributors and supporters to be ignorant of that difference. FS and HSUS do not want you to know what "animals rights" really means.
Those who believe that animals can contribute to human welfare (by providing food, fiber, work, companionship, entertainment, or by serving for biomedical research or education) believe that humans have moral obligations to protect the welfare or provide for the well-being of animals.
Animal rights philosophy is diametrically opposed to the concept of animal welfare. The animal rights philosophy is opposed to any use of animals, holding that animals should have the same "rights" as humans.
Despite the public's rejection of animal rights as determined by evaluating its own use of animals, animal rights philosophy is a dominant factor in popular culture. This disconnect is caused in part because many people, like the friends I surveyed, don't understand the true beliefs and goals of the animal rights movement.
Rights
The animal rights philosophy is radical, abolitionist, emotional, and uninformed.
The philosophy argues that there is no morally relevant difference between humans and other animals. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA, "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Michael Fox, of HSUS has said, "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect." (Okay, I'm feeling sorry for this man's poor kid.)
Proponents of animal rights reject all animal use, all traditional relationships with animals, no matter how humane. They support laws and regulations which prohibit the the use of animals as in the raising of livestock for food and clothing, petting zoos, hunting, life saving medical research, circuses, pet-ownership, rodeos, and even in disability assistance like the use of seeing-eye dogs.
When the interests of humans and animals come in conflict, animal rights advocates put animals first. PETA founder, Newkirk said, "Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." (It bears noting here that advances in human medicine arrived at through animal research usually carry an equivalent benefit to veterinary medicine. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and other animal welfare groups monitor conditions in laboratories and support legislation for humane conditions, but do not call for an end to laboratory research on animals.)
Animal rights supporters believe that violence, misinformation, and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals. Arson, vandalism, and assault are common tactics used by underground animal rights groups to further the cause. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which have been classified as terrorist by the FBI, routinely use criminal activities.
Welfare
Animal welfare philosophy is moderate, revisionist, reasoned, and informed.
Because we recognize that some animals are capable of having interests or suffering, we have evolved culturally to respect those interests. Those who love, respect, use and raise animals believe that humans can and should interact with animals in a variety of ways, but that the interaction should include provisions for the proper care for all animals involved.
Animal welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) describes animal welfare as a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia. Animal welfare also means that animals experience no unnecessary suffering in providing for human needs.
Animal welfare groups use scientific evidence (see my sidebar links on animal welfare aspects of foie gras production) in which to base animal care and handling guidelines.
Animal welfare makes sense for animal raisers. Farm animals are raised in an environment that reduces stress and recognizes the science-based behavioral, physiological, and psychological needs of each species. An animal held in an environment that creates undue stress will not thrive, reducing productivity for the farmer. Farmers know that cared-for livestock animals produce more and better products. The same is true for biomedical work, disability services, and animal entertainment.
A Shared Earth
The animal welfare philosophy recognizes the interdependence of life between animals, humans, and our shared environment. Its belief in stewardship of species and individual animals embraces a human connection to the Earth through interaction with animals.
The animal rights philosophy separates the destiny of humans from the destiny of animals while the movement shows it cares nothing for the Earth. Barbara Biel, animal rights activist, said, "The animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos, and circuses."
The rest of us don't strive to save endangered species, wilderness preserves, or coral reefs because they have rights. Rather, we place value in these rare systems because our own moral laws teach us to protect our environment.
Animal welfare supporters work to enrich and celebrate human/animal interactions in an atmosphere of concern for animal well-being; animal rights proponents work for the day when human life will be impoverished because we can no longer enjoy the company of non-human animals.
For more information, read:
Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare
Animal Rights, Animal Welfare: Which Is It?
I'm asking everyone I know, "Do you support animal rights?"
Everyone wavers a bit at first - unsure of where I'm going.
They want to know, "What do you mean?"
I respond with, "You know, animal rights."
"Well, yes," they all say.
Wrong answer.
Too many of us do not know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. My surveyed friends, all wool-wearing, meat-eating, leather-sporting, zoo-going, pet-owning animal lovers, thought I was talking about animal welfare. The difference between rights and welfare may seem frivolously semantic, but I assure you, it is not. The difference is so important because organizations like Farm Sanctuary (FS), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are counting on a majority of their contributors and supporters to be ignorant of that difference. FS and HSUS do not want you to know what "animals rights" really means.
Those who believe that animals can contribute to human welfare (by providing food, fiber, work, companionship, entertainment, or by serving for biomedical research or education) believe that humans have moral obligations to protect the welfare or provide for the well-being of animals.
Animal rights philosophy is diametrically opposed to the concept of animal welfare. The animal rights philosophy is opposed to any use of animals, holding that animals should have the same "rights" as humans.
Despite the public's rejection of animal rights as determined by evaluating its own use of animals, animal rights philosophy is a dominant factor in popular culture. This disconnect is caused in part because many people, like the friends I surveyed, don't understand the true beliefs and goals of the animal rights movement.
Rights
The animal rights philosophy is radical, abolitionist, emotional, and uninformed.
The philosophy argues that there is no morally relevant difference between humans and other animals. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA, "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Michael Fox, of HSUS has said, "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect." (Okay, I'm feeling sorry for this man's poor kid.)
Proponents of animal rights reject all animal use, all traditional relationships with animals, no matter how humane. They support laws and regulations which prohibit the the use of animals as in the raising of livestock for food and clothing, petting zoos, hunting, life saving medical research, circuses, pet-ownership, rodeos, and even in disability assistance like the use of seeing-eye dogs.
When the interests of humans and animals come in conflict, animal rights advocates put animals first. PETA founder, Newkirk said, "Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." (It bears noting here that advances in human medicine arrived at through animal research usually carry an equivalent benefit to veterinary medicine. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and other animal welfare groups monitor conditions in laboratories and support legislation for humane conditions, but do not call for an end to laboratory research on animals.)
Animal rights supporters believe that violence, misinformation, and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals. Arson, vandalism, and assault are common tactics used by underground animal rights groups to further the cause. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which have been classified as terrorist by the FBI, routinely use criminal activities.
Welfare
Animal welfare philosophy is moderate, revisionist, reasoned, and informed.
Because we recognize that some animals are capable of having interests or suffering, we have evolved culturally to respect those interests. Those who love, respect, use and raise animals believe that humans can and should interact with animals in a variety of ways, but that the interaction should include provisions for the proper care for all animals involved.
Animal welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) describes animal welfare as a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia. Animal welfare also means that animals experience no unnecessary suffering in providing for human needs.
Animal welfare groups use scientific evidence (see my sidebar links on animal welfare aspects of foie gras production) in which to base animal care and handling guidelines.
Animal welfare makes sense for animal raisers. Farm animals are raised in an environment that reduces stress and recognizes the science-based behavioral, physiological, and psychological needs of each species. An animal held in an environment that creates undue stress will not thrive, reducing productivity for the farmer. Farmers know that cared-for livestock animals produce more and better products. The same is true for biomedical work, disability services, and animal entertainment.
A Shared Earth
The animal welfare philosophy recognizes the interdependence of life between animals, humans, and our shared environment. Its belief in stewardship of species and individual animals embraces a human connection to the Earth through interaction with animals.
The animal rights philosophy separates the destiny of humans from the destiny of animals while the movement shows it cares nothing for the Earth. Barbara Biel, animal rights activist, said, "The animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos, and circuses."
The rest of us don't strive to save endangered species, wilderness preserves, or coral reefs because they have rights. Rather, we place value in these rare systems because our own moral laws teach us to protect our environment.
Animal welfare supporters work to enrich and celebrate human/animal interactions in an atmosphere of concern for animal well-being; animal rights proponents work for the day when human life will be impoverished because we can no longer enjoy the company of non-human animals.
For more information, read:
Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare
Animal Rights, Animal Welfare: Which Is It?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Foie Gras Videos: Staged and Cruel
A few weeks ago, I was shocked to see the latest video from Farm Sanctuary detailing the alleged animal abuse at Aux Champs D'Elise, Palmex, and Elevages Perigord, three of Canada's largest foie gras producers. As an animal lover, I was sickened when I saw the footage. I thought: How is this possible? I have seen poultry farms, including a foie gras farm, and I've never seen anything like this.
The footage includes ducks being stomped, beaten, and thrown. Of course the world is shocked upon seeing these types of videos. Even I, who credit myself as being fairly educated about the techniques of foie gras farming, was confused. What's the deal? I asked myself: How could this video possibly be real?
First of all, Farm Sanctuary is not above using deceptive campaigning and illegal tactics. The organization is known for hiding its vegan agenda in order to gain small but insidious legislative victories from voters who would not support such an agenda. The organization was also convicted for 210 counts of campaign finance fraud. Obviously, one should be wary of any information one gathers from such an organization. Immediately, we should know that something's fishy about these videos.
But before completely discounting these videos as fakes (which I'm about to do) let's give Farm Sanctuary the benefit of the doubt. Let's pretend the abuse we saw in the videos was not staged in some way. Let's pretend this is really an expose... Anyone who truly cared for animals, and was not simply convinced by a zealot-ridden cause, would have thrown down their camera and saved the animals being abused. In fact, all the farmers I know would have done just that. Every farmer I know is an animal lover. They have to be. Its their job. These supposed documentarians seem to have betrayed their own ideology by watching the abuse go on and doing nothing. Of course, we know that animal rights organizations are not above sacrificing a few animals along the way.
But forget all that. I do not believe in the veracity of these highly edited videos. Clearly, the abuse was staged. Not only are there clues in the new video which lead me to believe this, but there is a long history of animal rights advocates faking these films.
First, the clues:
1. Faces of the animal abusers are blurred out. Why? Wouldn't you think Farm Sanctuary would want to expose everyone connected with these crimes? Or perhaps the abusers are also animal rights advocates, hired, along with the camera holder, under false pretenses.
2. There are actually moments in the video where the animal abusers seem to pose for the camera. I speak specifically of a moment where a duck is killed in an inapropriate way and after tearing out its organs, the worker clearly pauses and holds them directly in front of the camera. Hmmmm... How'd he know about that camera?
3. There is no sound in the video, aside from the overly emotional musical soundtrack. I can just imagine the camera holder goading and taunting the workers, "Show me how you kill a duck! Ha ha ha! Yeah!" Or, "Let's stomp 'em!" Or "Act natural! Show me the blood!" I could go on. We don't hear the sound because we are not supposed to hear the director's directions.
4. We know nothing of the film crew and nothing of the workers in the video. This video would actually be credible if the names of the film crew were released, along with the names of all those who abused the animals. The animal abuse in the video is illegal - wouldn't an animal rights advocate want those perpetrators to be prosecuted? Not if they were the ones abusing the animals. We also know very little about the times and dates these events took place. A true documentary shows facts, not propaganda. The secrecy leads me to suspect a hoax.
Second, the precedent has been set:
1. Ever been to Universal Studios or Disney World? If so, you'd probably understand how easily we can be fooled by a camera. The documentary style of the video certainly makes the images look real and not staged. Unfortunately, this type of film making is easily manipulated for political reasons. Presenting images out of context or simply faking them can be quite easy and quite lucrative.
2. The history of these animal snuff films is extensive. The following examples have resulted in legal action against the filmmakers, including some convictions.
The hoaxes date all the way back to 1964 when the International Fund for Animal Welfare paid a man to torment and skin a baby seal in front of photographers.
In 1972, The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping caught animals in the wild and released them into traps in order to film them dying.
In the mid-1980's Greenpeace Australia's film crew paid two men to mutilate live kangaroos.
In 1996, a film crew staged the brutal murder of a dolphin in Venezuela in order to raise money and generate public support for embargoes against Venezuela's two exports, oil and tuna fish.
There are countless other examples including tricks of the camera, misinformation, and outright lies.
Third, independent veterenarians have visited the foie gras farms and have reported seeing no animal abuse. One Dr. Robert P. Gordon, New Jersey delegate to the American Veterinary Medical Association, visited a New York farm and said, "Afert being on the premises, my position changed dramatically. I did not see animals I would consider distressed, and I didn't see pain and suffering."
What can we do?
We can call on Farm Sanctuary (and anyone else who releases such videos) to do the following:
1. Provide the full, uncut film footage, with sound. Anyone unwilling to do so is probably hiding something.
2. Call for the people on the video to be identified by name.
3. Require sworn statements from the filmmaker and crew in the case of footage of illegal activities, attesting to the time, place, and other circumstances relating to the illegal activities.
We should look at these films not as news, not as undercover stings, but as hoaxes, clearly perpetrated by advocates who have betrayed their own ideology. Chances are, Farm Sanctuary will remain silent, except for the continued documentation of their own cruel torture of animals.
The footage includes ducks being stomped, beaten, and thrown. Of course the world is shocked upon seeing these types of videos. Even I, who credit myself as being fairly educated about the techniques of foie gras farming, was confused. What's the deal? I asked myself: How could this video possibly be real?
First of all, Farm Sanctuary is not above using deceptive campaigning and illegal tactics. The organization is known for hiding its vegan agenda in order to gain small but insidious legislative victories from voters who would not support such an agenda. The organization was also convicted for 210 counts of campaign finance fraud. Obviously, one should be wary of any information one gathers from such an organization. Immediately, we should know that something's fishy about these videos.
But before completely discounting these videos as fakes (which I'm about to do) let's give Farm Sanctuary the benefit of the doubt. Let's pretend the abuse we saw in the videos was not staged in some way. Let's pretend this is really an expose... Anyone who truly cared for animals, and was not simply convinced by a zealot-ridden cause, would have thrown down their camera and saved the animals being abused. In fact, all the farmers I know would have done just that. Every farmer I know is an animal lover. They have to be. Its their job. These supposed documentarians seem to have betrayed their own ideology by watching the abuse go on and doing nothing. Of course, we know that animal rights organizations are not above sacrificing a few animals along the way.
But forget all that. I do not believe in the veracity of these highly edited videos. Clearly, the abuse was staged. Not only are there clues in the new video which lead me to believe this, but there is a long history of animal rights advocates faking these films.
First, the clues:
1. Faces of the animal abusers are blurred out. Why? Wouldn't you think Farm Sanctuary would want to expose everyone connected with these crimes? Or perhaps the abusers are also animal rights advocates, hired, along with the camera holder, under false pretenses.
2. There are actually moments in the video where the animal abusers seem to pose for the camera. I speak specifically of a moment where a duck is killed in an inapropriate way and after tearing out its organs, the worker clearly pauses and holds them directly in front of the camera. Hmmmm... How'd he know about that camera?
3. There is no sound in the video, aside from the overly emotional musical soundtrack. I can just imagine the camera holder goading and taunting the workers, "Show me how you kill a duck! Ha ha ha! Yeah!" Or, "Let's stomp 'em!" Or "Act natural! Show me the blood!" I could go on. We don't hear the sound because we are not supposed to hear the director's directions.
4. We know nothing of the film crew and nothing of the workers in the video. This video would actually be credible if the names of the film crew were released, along with the names of all those who abused the animals. The animal abuse in the video is illegal - wouldn't an animal rights advocate want those perpetrators to be prosecuted? Not if they were the ones abusing the animals. We also know very little about the times and dates these events took place. A true documentary shows facts, not propaganda. The secrecy leads me to suspect a hoax.
Second, the precedent has been set:
1. Ever been to Universal Studios or Disney World? If so, you'd probably understand how easily we can be fooled by a camera. The documentary style of the video certainly makes the images look real and not staged. Unfortunately, this type of film making is easily manipulated for political reasons. Presenting images out of context or simply faking them can be quite easy and quite lucrative.
2. The history of these animal snuff films is extensive. The following examples have resulted in legal action against the filmmakers, including some convictions.
The hoaxes date all the way back to 1964 when the International Fund for Animal Welfare paid a man to torment and skin a baby seal in front of photographers.
In 1972, The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping caught animals in the wild and released them into traps in order to film them dying.
In the mid-1980's Greenpeace Australia's film crew paid two men to mutilate live kangaroos.
In 1996, a film crew staged the brutal murder of a dolphin in Venezuela in order to raise money and generate public support for embargoes against Venezuela's two exports, oil and tuna fish.
There are countless other examples including tricks of the camera, misinformation, and outright lies.
Third, independent veterenarians have visited the foie gras farms and have reported seeing no animal abuse. One Dr. Robert P. Gordon, New Jersey delegate to the American Veterinary Medical Association, visited a New York farm and said, "Afert being on the premises, my position changed dramatically. I did not see animals I would consider distressed, and I didn't see pain and suffering."
What can we do?
We can call on Farm Sanctuary (and anyone else who releases such videos) to do the following:
1. Provide the full, uncut film footage, with sound. Anyone unwilling to do so is probably hiding something.
2. Call for the people on the video to be identified by name.
3. Require sworn statements from the filmmaker and crew in the case of footage of illegal activities, attesting to the time, place, and other circumstances relating to the illegal activities.
We should look at these films not as news, not as undercover stings, but as hoaxes, clearly perpetrated by advocates who have betrayed their own ideology. Chances are, Farm Sanctuary will remain silent, except for the continued documentation of their own cruel torture of animals.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Nazi Germany and Foie Gras
Hitler and his Nazi government banned foie gras production in 1933, shortly after coming to power, historically becoming the first nation to ban production. Hitler, a vegetarian, and his Nazis, even used their respect for the rights of animals to justify the oppression of the Jewish people.
Before I continue, I'd like to note that I am not calling animal rights advocates Nazis. But I would like to point out some of the thought provoking parallels I encountered between the two groups during my research. I'd also like to draw attention to the little talked about idea that kindness to animals doesn't lead to kindness to humans. Testimony to this idea lies not only in the history of Nazi Germany, but also in the present day treatment by animal rights advocates of farmers, restauranteurs, and researchers.
We know that cruelty to animals may lead to cruelty to people. It is a known predictor in children of anti-social personality disorder, or sociopathy, a mental illness which causes people to value others only as objects. Most serial killers tortured animals as children.
However, we often assume that kindness to animals will equal kindness to humans. Unfortunately, there is no connection between the two. In fact, as discussed in my previous post, a preoccupation with animals may lead a person to treat people worse. This is because the animals rights advocates' morals are so skewed as to allow for the equation of genocide not only with foie gras but with eggs, hamburgers, cheese, etc. As also noted in a previous post, many animal rights advocates value human quality of life so little that they will systematically torture humans.
I have noted three interesting parallels between Nazis, the first to outlaw foie gras, and contemporary animal rights advocates. This is not to say that there are no differences between the two groups, as there certainly are many. Still, I'd like to explore three parallels.
Parallel 1. Claims of Ethical Superiority
Nazis clamied a moral high ground not only when attempting to exterminate the Jews, but also when insisting upon the rights of animals. This is also a characteristic of the contemporary animal rights movement. The preoccupation with "cruelty" and using "cruelty-free" methods and products implies that non-advocates or non-adherents are cruel.
Parallel 2. Propoganda
The Nazis are well-known for their propoganda maneuvers. This includes a statement issued by Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propoganda: "The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable." That many of the Nazi animal protection laws were not fully instituted or complied with lead one to assume that the laws were, in part, propoganda maneuvers.
Similarly, animal rights organizations are famous for their propoganda campaigns. In one example, PETA spent larege sums of money in a fruitless attempt to gain custody of the 17 well-known Silver Spring Monekys. Meanwhile, the organization killed 32 "liberated" rabbits and roosters at an animal "sanctuary" because of "overcrowding." It is clear that PETA would rather spend money on hot topics and publicity than on providing suitable housing for animals in its care.
Parallel 3. Hypocrisy
PETA has killed over 14,000 animals. An organization that seeks "total animal liberation" and then kills the animals it "liberates" is clearly duplicitous and misleading. And of course, while Nazis touted rights for animals, they sent millions of humans to their deaths. While they outlawed vivisection, they conducted terrible medical experiments on humans. While they outlawed the force-feeding of fowl, they starved millions of people.
Finally, from Martin Hulsey in The Implications of Nazi Animal Protection:
"Whenever animal activists argue today that giving rights to animals will produce a kinder, gentle society, it is perfectly apprpriate to point out that the only modern civilization to embrace a philosophy of animal rights did not turn out to be more kind or more gentle."
Before I continue, I'd like to note that I am not calling animal rights advocates Nazis. But I would like to point out some of the thought provoking parallels I encountered between the two groups during my research. I'd also like to draw attention to the little talked about idea that kindness to animals doesn't lead to kindness to humans. Testimony to this idea lies not only in the history of Nazi Germany, but also in the present day treatment by animal rights advocates of farmers, restauranteurs, and researchers.
We know that cruelty to animals may lead to cruelty to people. It is a known predictor in children of anti-social personality disorder, or sociopathy, a mental illness which causes people to value others only as objects. Most serial killers tortured animals as children.
However, we often assume that kindness to animals will equal kindness to humans. Unfortunately, there is no connection between the two. In fact, as discussed in my previous post, a preoccupation with animals may lead a person to treat people worse. This is because the animals rights advocates' morals are so skewed as to allow for the equation of genocide not only with foie gras but with eggs, hamburgers, cheese, etc. As also noted in a previous post, many animal rights advocates value human quality of life so little that they will systematically torture humans.
I have noted three interesting parallels between Nazis, the first to outlaw foie gras, and contemporary animal rights advocates. This is not to say that there are no differences between the two groups, as there certainly are many. Still, I'd like to explore three parallels.
Parallel 1. Claims of Ethical Superiority
Nazis clamied a moral high ground not only when attempting to exterminate the Jews, but also when insisting upon the rights of animals. This is also a characteristic of the contemporary animal rights movement. The preoccupation with "cruelty" and using "cruelty-free" methods and products implies that non-advocates or non-adherents are cruel.
Parallel 2. Propoganda
The Nazis are well-known for their propoganda maneuvers. This includes a statement issued by Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propoganda: "The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable." That many of the Nazi animal protection laws were not fully instituted or complied with lead one to assume that the laws were, in part, propoganda maneuvers.
Similarly, animal rights organizations are famous for their propoganda campaigns. In one example, PETA spent larege sums of money in a fruitless attempt to gain custody of the 17 well-known Silver Spring Monekys. Meanwhile, the organization killed 32 "liberated" rabbits and roosters at an animal "sanctuary" because of "overcrowding." It is clear that PETA would rather spend money on hot topics and publicity than on providing suitable housing for animals in its care.
Parallel 3. Hypocrisy
PETA has killed over 14,000 animals. An organization that seeks "total animal liberation" and then kills the animals it "liberates" is clearly duplicitous and misleading. And of course, while Nazis touted rights for animals, they sent millions of humans to their deaths. While they outlawed vivisection, they conducted terrible medical experiments on humans. While they outlawed the force-feeding of fowl, they starved millions of people.
Finally, from Martin Hulsey in The Implications of Nazi Animal Protection:
"Whenever animal activists argue today that giving rights to animals will produce a kinder, gentle society, it is perfectly apprpriate to point out that the only modern civilization to embrace a philosophy of animal rights did not turn out to be more kind or more gentle."
Sunday, October 21, 2007
You Should Know: Warped Morals of Animal Rights/Liberation Advocates
There are several important ideological differences between animal rights/liberation advocates (ARLs) and the rest of us. These are important to consider as we must understand those who are attacking our way of life. The more we understand, the better able to fight back we become.
The following information is taken from a bioethics article on animal rights activists and violence at The Discovery Institute.
We have to understand that ARLists do not share a common frame of moral reference with the rest of society. Whereas most of us believe that humans have the highest moral value, it is an article of faith among ARLists that no moral distinction exists between humans and animals; "a rat, is a dog, is a boy," in one animal liberationist's infamous assertion. Thus, while most of us believe that we have a positive moral duty to treat animals humanely and support punishing people that abuse them, ARL movement devotees believe — not metaphorically, but literally — that we have no right to use animals for any purpose, not even as seeing-eye dogs.
In this surreal moral prism, real evil is reduced to banality as advocates equate cattle ranching with human slavery, Mengele's notorious twin experiments with testing the safety of stem cells in rats, and the sending of Jews to the gas showers at Auschwitz with eating a steak. Lest you think I exaggerate, in its pro-vegetarian "Holocaust on Your Plate Campaign," People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) asserted, "The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps." What's worse: They meant every word.
ARList ideology is a frontal attack on human exceptionalism. In this sense, it is profoundly anti-human, both in its first principles and in consequential effects. This is undeniably subversive to the moral order. Believing that humans are unique and special is essential to promoting the ideal of universal human rights. After all, if we are just another species of animal in the forest, that is precisely how we will act.
The following information is taken from a bioethics article on animal rights activists and violence at The Discovery Institute.
We have to understand that ARLists do not share a common frame of moral reference with the rest of society. Whereas most of us believe that humans have the highest moral value, it is an article of faith among ARLists that no moral distinction exists between humans and animals; "a rat, is a dog, is a boy," in one animal liberationist's infamous assertion. Thus, while most of us believe that we have a positive moral duty to treat animals humanely and support punishing people that abuse them, ARL movement devotees believe — not metaphorically, but literally — that we have no right to use animals for any purpose, not even as seeing-eye dogs.
In this surreal moral prism, real evil is reduced to banality as advocates equate cattle ranching with human slavery, Mengele's notorious twin experiments with testing the safety of stem cells in rats, and the sending of Jews to the gas showers at Auschwitz with eating a steak. Lest you think I exaggerate, in its pro-vegetarian "Holocaust on Your Plate Campaign," People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) asserted, "The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps." What's worse: They meant every word.
ARList ideology is a frontal attack on human exceptionalism. In this sense, it is profoundly anti-human, both in its first principles and in consequential effects. This is undeniably subversive to the moral order. Believing that humans are unique and special is essential to promoting the ideal of universal human rights. After all, if we are just another species of animal in the forest, that is precisely how we will act.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Freedom...It's What's For Dinner
Hungry? Be careful...
Imagine this:
You and a business partner are planning to open a new store, providing a safe and legal commodity your public demands, foie gras.
Before you open it, a group targets you, your partner, your families, and your business with a carefully calculated terror campaign.
First, they spray-paint your home. They pour acid onto your car and windows. They glue shut your locks and your garage doors, trapping you inside your home. They damage a sacred religious statue in your yard.
You receive a videotape, shot from your own garden, showing you and your family relaxing inside your house. A letter accompanies it, warning you that you are being watched.
More letters follow warning you to "stop or be stopped."
You don't stop. This is your life. So they go to the soon-to-be-opened store. They plug the new plumbing with chucks of cement, spray-paint the walls and appliances, and turn on the water, causing a flood.
You lose close to $50,000 and your family is terrified.
Imagine this:
You own a restaurant, providing a safe and legal commodity your public demands, foie gras.
One day, your mother, several hundred miles away, calls you crying in a panic. Someone has called and threatened her. Someone has harassed your mother because of a product you sell. You must drop everything, temporarily close your restaurant, and go to comfort her. Not only do you lose money for having to close your business for a few days, but you bear guilt for the terror your own mother has faced for you.
At the same time, someone throws acid on the windows of your business. They cut your power. They spray paint the facade of your building. They break your windows and smear what appears to be blood on your door and sidewalk. They scream at you and your customers, nearly every day.
Why?
You have been targeted and terrorized for providing foie gras, food.
In this country, in this age, have we so little to worry about that we must worry about our dinner plates? Is there no other cause for which to fight with such zealotry? Why do these domestic terrorists (as they are considered by the FBI in many cases) want to take away your choices by violently attacking those who provide them to you?
We aren't talking about the war here. We're not talking about global warming, pollution, homelessness, corporate corruption, drugs, or homicide. We are talking about food.
Join me in my fight to preserve our rights to choose what is on our dinner tables.
Freedom...It's what's for dinner.
For more information about the real-life attacks above, please reference the following articles:
Restaurant Vandals
Foie Gras Foe Foiled!
Animal-rights vandals hit chef's home, shop
Animal rights group linked to bombs
Duck farm sues animal activists
Foie gras controversy ruffles local chefs' feathers
Foie gras debate triggers vandalism
Imagine this:
You and a business partner are planning to open a new store, providing a safe and legal commodity your public demands, foie gras.
Before you open it, a group targets you, your partner, your families, and your business with a carefully calculated terror campaign.
First, they spray-paint your home. They pour acid onto your car and windows. They glue shut your locks and your garage doors, trapping you inside your home. They damage a sacred religious statue in your yard.
You receive a videotape, shot from your own garden, showing you and your family relaxing inside your house. A letter accompanies it, warning you that you are being watched.
More letters follow warning you to "stop or be stopped."
You don't stop. This is your life. So they go to the soon-to-be-opened store. They plug the new plumbing with chucks of cement, spray-paint the walls and appliances, and turn on the water, causing a flood.
You lose close to $50,000 and your family is terrified.
Imagine this:
You own a restaurant, providing a safe and legal commodity your public demands, foie gras.
One day, your mother, several hundred miles away, calls you crying in a panic. Someone has called and threatened her. Someone has harassed your mother because of a product you sell. You must drop everything, temporarily close your restaurant, and go to comfort her. Not only do you lose money for having to close your business for a few days, but you bear guilt for the terror your own mother has faced for you.
At the same time, someone throws acid on the windows of your business. They cut your power. They spray paint the facade of your building. They break your windows and smear what appears to be blood on your door and sidewalk. They scream at you and your customers, nearly every day.
Why?
You have been targeted and terrorized for providing foie gras, food.
In this country, in this age, have we so little to worry about that we must worry about our dinner plates? Is there no other cause for which to fight with such zealotry? Why do these domestic terrorists (as they are considered by the FBI in many cases) want to take away your choices by violently attacking those who provide them to you?
We aren't talking about the war here. We're not talking about global warming, pollution, homelessness, corporate corruption, drugs, or homicide. We are talking about food.
Join me in my fight to preserve our rights to choose what is on our dinner tables.
Freedom...It's what's for dinner.
For more information about the real-life attacks above, please reference the following articles:
Restaurant Vandals
Foie Gras Foe Foiled!
Animal-rights vandals hit chef's home, shop
Animal rights group linked to bombs
Duck farm sues animal activists
Foie gras controversy ruffles local chefs' feathers
Foie gras debate triggers vandalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)
