HSUS finances even less...

... of animal shelters than ever before. HumaneWatch is both my best friend this week and minorly ticking me off. I posted a comment on their blog about the most recent IRS report they discussed, and instead of putting my full, non-offensive comment on their page, they edited it down. Of course, editing it for just space purposes would make sense, but they left plenty of long, useless comments on there. Instead, they edited mine and changed the words to say something different. Shame on you, HumaneWatch, and yet I'm not sure I expected anything different. They obviously have a very strong, agenda driven organization so they want to keep a strong grip on what's going on their site to make sure it doesn't hurt their progress towards an end goal. Fight one evil with a lesser of the two, I guess.

General trends to highlight: 1) HSUS increased executive compensation including their head honcho who'll take home plenty of potential spay/neuter donations gathered from emotional extortion with sad puppy pictures on TV. 2) HSUS decreased contribution to shelters. You would think that if they were being called out for not contributing to shelters, they might increase it to dismay the naysayers, but not so. They must have something up their sleeve because they don't seem concerned about the IRS at all. 3) Fundraising increased - props (if you want to call them that) to HSUS for squeezing ever increasing numbers of dollars from ever poorer by sympathetic and misguided people.

Humane Misconceptions

My third blog this week will merely consist of my commentary on a blog I saw late last week. I've been meaning to write about and address this blog, but there is so much in the body of it that I know I will never have time. Instead, here are some notes I made in my comment. Honestly, I appreciated the author's comments about misnomers and false claims within the recently budding humane market. But he still missed on so many points.

"Mike,

"I have to say that you made a good compilation of all the propaganda out there on factory farming, mixed with some accurate facts. Especially accurate in my own opinion is your criticism of organic as a falsely humane production method. Also very accurate is the plight of "cage-free" hens which is a poorer condition for them than the original "battery cages". If "cage-free" was better, then HSUS wouldn't have just signed a deal with UEP for enhanced cages in family groups rather than "cage-free" systems. However, the list of misconceptions in your post is surprising given how much research it appears you conducted into these matters.

"I'll highlight just a few glaring misconceptions.

"1) Chipotle is a skilled advertiser and marketer and they are killing profits in a tough economic environment. They do that by advertising humanely raised product and then by only sourcing a percentage of their food from these sites. Look into it.

"2) Don't you find it ironic that EatWild.com will cite every single article that mentions health benefits of components of animal products, but in the same webpage fails to cite any articles that flaunt these increased CLAs in pasture or increased omega-3s in pasture? If they could link proof, wouldn't they have?

"3) The dairy cow is one of the most pampered creatures in farming today. They do not reside in feedlots, and instead each have a mattress for resting in well-ventilated and twice daily cleaned barns. They have a personal "doctor" (veterinarian) who inspects them regularly and the slightest discomfort to them during the day or undetected illness results in huge drops in production. By no means are they housed similarly to beef cattle, which are bred to be hardier - the only similarity between the two is the care and observation given to both throughout the day.

"4) Pigs and chickens are naturally cannibalistic. True, this behavior can be accentuated through close quarters, but this behavior is equally observed in pastured pigs and chickens as well. However, under less close observation by caretakers, the infections and death from this cannibalism can be worse in pasture-type systems.

"5) Pigs are housed in highly climate-controlled barns because they are not naturally inclined to reside in the cold and drafty outdoor environment. They are thus healthier inside in these scientifically proven and specialized barns than are their outdoor, lean-to-sheltered counterparts.

"I'm not saying that a market driven compromise isn't possible or a good thing to aim for. Welfare of animals is definitely new in the 10,000 year scheme of animal domestication, but it's important to not advocate for systems or products which are deceiving. Some systems you supported are equally detrimental or worse for animals in different ways than the systems you so harshly criticized.

"Food for thought."

HSUS and UEP egg deal

Frankly I don’t even have time to weigh in on this little chicken legislature bill endorsed by both HSUS and UEP. I know these notes are a couple weeks old, but I’ve been tied up in a lot of other stuff, including my project starting yesterday. I have a few thoughts to share, but they’re disjointed so plow through them, read the articles for yourself and make up your own mind.

Andy Vance wrote one of the more hostile articles of his that I’ve read in a while. I feel that hostility when I see deals like this go down after all the hard work that went into Issue 2 here in Ohio. We put a lot of effort, sweat and good faith into that bill and were in the perfect position to start a new trend. Instead, the new thing is deals. Everyone’s working out deals instead of standing up for what they really believed or claimed to believe was the best way to raise animals. If we felt so strongly about our methods, we shouldn’t be willing to compromise them regardless of what threatens. We should cling to them, fight for them and not give them up.

Here's some other links to read on the issue as well: 1, 2, and 3.

I’m not saying that this change to enriched pens is really that bad. Enriched housing is one of the best options there is right now, in my minimally educated opinion, for chicken housing and I hope that we will see it improved bird welfare over the next few decades. More importantly, I want us to stick to something that is truly right, to find the agricultural practices that are worth defending and that producers and their “representatives” will not back out on at the last minute. If I believed that this would be the last compromise or that these compromises were leading to a better working relationship between these lobbying interest groups, then I would be just fine with this decision because it promises to be a good alternative to barren housing.

And why should we even have to legislate this in the first place? It’s absurd to legislate for animals because this then assumes that these animals deserve rights. Are they able to vote or are they even think about what is truly best for them? Or is this legislation part of a business that requires the government to step in and control? If so, then by lobbying and legislating this protection of animals, the HSUS themselves is admitting that these animals are just a material possession instead of a life which deserves respect.

HSUS targets Domino's

I’d pay extra money to the first company that slammed the door in HSUS’s face. It’s not that I don’t believe in taking good care of animals which eventually provide us food. It’s more that I don’t believe they even care in the first place about helping animals but more in just forcing their radical beliefs about vegetarianism on everyone else. However what bothers me the most is the method by which this change is pursued, the deceit, the lies, the propaganda to push their agenda over the edge.

They were at it again with their announcement of victory in the defeat of the ag bill in Florida to protect farmers from undercover investigators. And who wouldn’t want protection from the people who are willing to abuse animals in order to capture film. Mercy for Animals even publicly acknowledged that their investigator was one of the abusers on the video. Obviously this farm was doing some things wrong, and it’s great that these things will now be corrected with harsh fines, but there is no justification in this for the voluntary abuse of animals by a Mercy for Animals employee. And Mercy for Animals isn’t the only one lying about these things; they’re just the featured offender today. Defeat of this bill isn't a victory for anyone except those who plan to evade the law in an effort to make millions distorting the truth to the general public. Enjoy my link to this video, remembering that it is both tragic and a violation of animal welfare committed by an animal rights employee.

Dominos is one of HSUS’s targets these days, and it’d be a true shame for a company with such quality turnaround in their products (due in part to their new partnership with American dairy farmers) to change up the strategy and to focus on supporting highly controversial and scientifically unacceptable methods of animal housing. I like Domino's, and if they want me to keep supporting them, they should stand up for true animal care and discourage any semblance of a deal with HSUS.

Mitch and Emotional Arguments

My thanks as always to MSU students and one of my favorites this time for sharing an article with from the State News. A couple of years ago you could've fooled me into thinking that the State News had some semblance of objectivity, but their position on the highly controversial issue of animal rights the past couple years has made it clear that they care for nothing except propagating their own liberal viewpoints and forcing it on the students at MSU. If I was an alumni subscriber, I'd be pretty disappointed in the impression they're making on the general public; it's even gotten worse than the OSU Lantern.

Well, this latest argument from Mitch is so highly charged with emotion and non-factual statements that I finally lost my cool and started typing up a response:

"Mitch, your uninformed, emotional arguments prove exactly why it's so far taken you 5 years to graduate with a bachelors' degree. Glad to see you learned how to photoshop masculinity into your submission picture. If only people knew you were about 4 feet tall and looked more like an enormous squirrel than a college student..."

Yeah, cross that out. This is when I realized I needed to scratch out and start over:

"Mitch (and friends), you probably don't remember your rude treatment of me a couple of years ago at a PETA2 rally, but it seems the only thing that's changed is finally you found a masculine picture to fool the papers. Your attitude towards animal agriculture is a cover up for the fact that you are shamefully unable to accept the facts in this world. There is life, and there is death. University of Michigan has even found that plants have feelings, so I hope in your quest for preservation of all sensitive beings you finally figure out your only option to avoid the death of living, feeling beings is starvation. Good luck with that."

Scratch out again. Geez this guy has me fired up. Well, that's what they try to do to you. They get you all fired up, ruffle your feathers, and once you're angry you spout off something stuttery, unintelligent, then you look like an angry idiot and give farmers everywhere a bad reputation. That's the idea folks and this provocation works. It gets us to say the wrong things at the wrong times and then they misquote you over and over again until you wish you'd never cared.

So I erased again, and here's where we stand:

"Mitch, and friends,

"The incoherency in your argument shames animal rights groups worldwide. Rather, you obviously can't make up your mind whether you're speaking on vivisection, or if you want to go on a diatribe against animal agriculture and MSU Animal Science students (your more common MO). Most of the animal research you cited in your opening isn't even linked to Anthony Hall or the Animal Science Department. Despite your claims of what is in Anthony Hall, you still seem to have no clue what really happens there at all. The same is true of your ignorant statements about mink and Dr. Bursian but others have already elaborated that in previous comments. What is true is that the mink released by your fellow activists suffered horribly from the "freedom" forced upon them during an illegal mass release. Would you like to comment on that incident at all?

"Citing Carol Adams adds no strength to your argument in the least. She demeans women everywhere by even equating the women's rights movement with animal rights. Capable of their own cognition and responsible for their actions, women bravely campaigned for many decades in a persistent effort to receive equal consideration for jobs, legal rights and representation. The women's rights movement in the US is decades old and while there are still places in the world where women suffer inexplicable discrimination, it is certainly not beneath the gaze of the Euro-American male. Truth is that you used this article as just one more opportunity to agitate people against animal agriculture and the faculty/students who research in this field.

"As a former MSU student, I learned much beyond my own field of study or simple classes; among the life skills further developed in my undergraduate career was critical thinking - something your arguments lack. Open up your "arrogant eyes" a little and step back for the big picture. I think you'll find your "male gaze" has become a little clouded with denial of the truth. Life feeds life and recent reports indicate that plants feel pain and stress, and can detect relatives in the soil around them. You can either eat and survive, accepting that all life can serve a purpose through a well cared for life, or you can starve. The choice is all yours."

Have a nice day, y'all, and check out other great comments on that site as well.

Katy Perry supporting HSUS

I hinted earlier that this was coming and it was top on my list since the Mercy for Animals video is getting lots of other input from well-spoken farmers who care about their animals. Katy Perry announced that she will be donating proceeds from her ticket sales to 3 different charities, one of them being HSUS. It pains me to say that I will be boycotting her just like I do Carrie Underwood until further notice. But just like I argue that veganism - people should instead vote with their dollar for welfare standards they support if they are so opinionated - is an unintelligent way to enact change, my boycotting isn't enough. Instead, I decided I would write a letter. If for no other benefit, it gives me the opportunity to express what I'm thinking and form it into concrete words. So included below is my letter; I encourage comments on its improvement as I do intend to send it. Thanks!

"Dear Mrs. Katy Perry,

"As a fan of your music, I cannot fully express how disappointed I am by your announcement to donate a portion of the proceeds of your tour to the Animal Rights Activist group, the “Humane Society of the United States”. I know I speak for many of Americans when I say that this contribution on your part to such an ill-intending and malicious organization leaves doubt in my mind as to your support of the hard work of American farmers who produce the food that feeds this great nation.

"The Humane Society of the United States is actually a vocal activist and lobbying organization that uses nearly its entire budget to campaign for the rights of animals and their protection from alleged wrong-doing by people responsible for the care and well-being. A misnomer which was intentionally chosen to steal funding from local shelters, the HSUS claims to spend their money on animal rescue but in truth audits of their budgets by the policing organizations have shown that they actually pocketed the money collected from fundraisers during great disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the earthquakes in Haiti. Instead of using this money to rescue and care for animals, they used this money to campaign for their own personal agendas in states across the nation, weakening the economy with uninformed and unreasonable demands on agriculture livestock farmers that quickly moves them out of business or out of the country. According to Charity Navigator, HSUS rates even lower than the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals even though they have the larger budget. Local humane shelters also suffer from the fundraising of the HSUS because they no longer receive the contributions that they need in order to provide legitimate care to animals such as the more than six million dogs and cats that are in need every year.

"An example of HSUS’s political agenda is the banning of horse slaughter in the United States. Funded by money taken from well-intentioned donors, HSUS pushed national legislators through their well-funded lobbying to ban the slaughter of horses in the United States. This ban on the slaughter of horses in the United States led to millions of horses with nowhere to go after their careers in racing and lifetimes of foaling on the farms were done. Without the finances to feed these horses into old age, many horse owners sold the horses to Mexico for slaughter where Dr. Temple Grandin has documented even worse conditions for the horses and extended suffering during their final days. HSUS then pushed for a ban on transport to Mexico, which has led to mass horse abandonment. These horses which would have previously been mercifully killed at the end of a useful life (and provided jobs to Americans) now suffer needlessly because of the legislation endorsed by the personal agenda headquartered within the offices of the HSUS. This is not true interest in the care of animals and is only one example of the false front exhibited by HSUS in an effort to dupe well-intentioned individuals like you into funding their causes.

"Livestock farmers uphold a high standard for the care of their animals and they ensure provision of a good life for them. There is no person more personally, ethically or financially invested in the well-being of their animals as the farmers themselves. These farmers have also been active in supporting research that leads to the improvements in animal care and health and this research is ongoing. Until research can show better ways to care for animals, we need organizations like HSUS to stop pushing through legislature that later turns out to be more harmful for animals than previous care that was given to them. Otherwise we will find ourselves in even more situations in the future that closely resemble the horse slaughter debacle that HSUS created and has yet to try and fix.

"I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position on contributions to the HSUS and find a more reputable charity to accept your money lest it be wasted on radical personal agenda.

"Thanks,

"Benjamin Wenner"

Alaska's Rocking Congressman

A much longer set of posts are coming in the very near future, related to Katy Perry's uninformed donations to HSUS, the most recent Mercy for Animals video release, Trent Loos's visit to OSU, my reiterated thoughts on hormones and other such things, but for now I just want to put out props for two people/groups for their stance on animal care without bending to the ridiculous emotional propaganda of the HSUS.

First is the Washington State Veterinary Medical Association. Caught between the calls for outrageous, unproven and even legally undefined cage legislation, and the impending need for producers to also step up and continue meeting their ethical obligations for egg production and chicken care, the WSVMA took a stance againsthttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif caging legislation that was obviously not going to be beneficial to the chickens in question. They also made some good comments about the caging debate, so read away.



Second, and more outstanding in my own personal opinion is the rejection of HSUS by an Alaska Congressman. Representative Young rejected an award HSUS planned to give him, stating that he didn't want to look like he supported their radical movement. He also commented on the parasitism which provides HSUS with funding and deprives the local shelters and mentioned the difference between species preservation and nature conservation. Preservation of species isn't even endorsed by Tom Regan himself, and the Representative Young seems much more concerned with conserving the wild Alaska for generations to come. But cheers to him for not playing HSUS's game.

Factful writing

Unbelievable as it may seem, I read something honest on HSUS's website today. Maybe that was because they cut it short? Or more likely they copy and pasted it onto their site from something else. Don't get used to it, in fact I just learned today that they also have a faith outreach division. Can you imagine your guest speakers at services being a couple of farmer hating vegans? But as the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board finally came to their senses after a brief hiatus and a busy public comment session, I can once again breathe a sigh of relief. There was talk that the deal struck with HSUS last year would be off after the Standards Board discussed allowing veal crates to continue. Of course, this is nonsense in the first place sense even the American Veal Association plans to phase out these crates, but that's what worried me most about the potential reversal by the board. Glad to hear that it didn't end up that way.

As Ohio continues to lead the picture with their Care Standards Board, Massachusetts has now begun the formation of their own board similar in design and intent. Hopefully there will be strength in numbers and an increase in momentum towards something more reasonable than uninformed and rash legislation. This board idea still makes me nervous because it keeps giving the impression of flying South, but thus far it has provided a lot of confidence and industry stability.

As a final thought, I also found this on their site, highlighting a kid's antibiotic project. I doubt. I doubt because even the one statistic in the write-up is incorrect. It's impossible to get 15% of samples from 22. And if you can't report that straight, what's the truth behind the rest?

About Freaking Time

I know this post is nothing but timely, seeing as how this news sat in my inbox for the last two weeks, but that's just a sign that I'm finally doing work around the office and at home. But this piece of news was still worth the sharing, so I thought I'd put it up here for those who haven't heard.

Iowa now joins the charge in prosecuting the activists responsible for infiltrating farms under false names or employment intentions and then staging videos of animal abuse in efforts to defame farmers nationwide. This bill is years late, but props to Representative Sweeney for bringing this issue to legislative action. It's a shame that we have to legislate respect and honesty, but animal rights activists have no limit to their moral depravity as they pursue fame and their personal agenda. Hopefully, Iowa is next in a long line of states proposing this type of legislative action against the true animal abusers behind most of the videos. Ohio sure could've used this in the Conklin case with Mercy for Animals.

... As a side note, a day later, it's funny to read Gene Baur's blog on this issue, complaining about being prosecuted for telling the truth. If there was truth to what he told, it wouldn't be in agreement with HSUS and PETA.

Mass Media...

... is the sole difference between agricultural corporations/commodity groups and the HSUS. Of course, many people have realized this already as concerned "agvocacy" groups and individuals scramble to educate people on the appropriate and effective use of social media outlets to spread the truth about animal care on America's farms today. And don't get me wrong, this is very important and will lead to better communication on the part of farmers in the future, but this doesn't solve the problem of now. It doesn't help get out the word to counter the lies which spread like weeds on MiracleGro.

Back in the winter (and yes, it's March and 50F outside so I can say that today), Feedstuffs ran a series of articles written by a reporter who got on farm after the chicken footage was released. His articles served as a powerful expose to the creative artwork that went into fabricating the "footage" used to accuse the farm of animal neglect and abuse. Like so many other videos that HSUS, PETA and Mercy for Animals are using to build up their tsunami of uninformed, but extremely concerned consumers, the release turned out to be framed. And after the media hype about the video release had passed and it was found to be posed, who was left to report the truth?



One reporter, as previously mentioned, did a real good job of covering facts and telling the truth and for that he ought to be commended. The same is true for the Smithfield video release back in December, and if you have any interest in reading facts about what happened, follow the link to read some true reporting. The unfortunate thing is that in the end, how far will this article really get? The media has lost the thread on this story long ago. Heck, look how long Egypt stayed on the news and how quickly they trailed off again, eclipsed by some new and unknown TV airtime and advertisement opportunity. Read this if you care about the truth, and then share it. If you want more people to read and to know, you'll have to share it yourself, face-to-face, or wallpost-to-wallpost, or however word gets passed along these days.

(credit to cartoonstock.com for the picture)

On it goes...

Barilla pasta became the first big pasta-maker to join the cage-free egg movement. Whether or not they were pressured into it or bought out by HSUS, we'll probably never know. But what I do know is that they represent just one in a huge wave of propaganda conquests by HSUS as they buy, force or lie their way into the forefront of animal rights idiocracy. I think it's great that Barilla cares so much about the welfare of chickens, but maybe before they force more of the market production to convert to cage-free production, they might've wanted to ask whether or not cage-free is really a better system for the bird. For further reading on the matter, check out this OSU compilation on the welfare of birds in both systems. You might just be surprised.

While we're at the old grind of trying to spread facts to the few who care to elevate about media-hyped fiction, try out this sow housing fact sheet released by the USDA and ARS. I found it to be a more honest and unbiased evaluation of the current situation and research. In class today, we discussed the highly controversial issues surrounding the care and euthanasia of pigs. I understand the concern with animal welfare. As long as there are people beating animals, we have not done enough. But what frustrates me is the momentum from video releases which are used to push for irrational methods of caring for animals, such as untested swine housing, lack of castration, castration with anesthetics which are more detrimental to the piglet than the surgery, and utopic descriptions of how a pig should be allowed to act to exhibit "normal" behavior. For those of you who haven't seen pigs, don't watch their normal behavior - it will make a bad impression (ever seen Old Yeller?).

Finally, I have just two topics that border gross for me. First is the suspected live burial of pigs during the spread of foot and mouth disease in Korea. Foot and mouth disease is a horrible disease which spreads much faster than the vaccine would be able to work. While Compassion advocates the vaccine, you need to understand that the animals in question were obviously already afflicted with the disease. They should obviously have been euthanized prior to burial but they were not going to be saved one way or another.

And then there's the Dutch guy who thinks we should eat bugs. What do animal rights activists think about this? What a tasty alternative to bacon, eh?

Farewell from Strickland

I have to say that I'm going to miss having a governor who made such efforts to take care of animal agriculture in the state of Ohio and to respect the deals he brokered to protect them. Check out this effort of his to follow-through on his work with OFBF and HSUS...

Welfare updates

My gateway email took me to some interesting animal welfare links but I'm going have to wait to share them with you until the website is working correctly again. I understand it's a great project that they are tasking themselves with, to combine and share the world's animal welfare news, but somedays the site is so ineffective and slow that I can't do anything with it. Today it didn't even load.

On December 15th, HSUS released another "undercover" movie for which another "undercover" reporter was not prosecuted despite the fact that he/she witnessed animal abuse and neglected to correct or report it. Smithfield however has been very active in handling the issue and I think all is well in hand there.

This leads directly into the 3rd in a series by a reporter who toured a farm that was victimized by the HSUS and their cronies. He further contends that it is inaccurate portrayal in the videos based on what he saw there. If you haven't read his previous posts, you can find them in my previous blog entries in the last couple of weeks. He does a great job of unbiased reporting - something that many reporters could take a few lessons in.

No honesty

I could've probably labeled this post "HSUS" since it would've been a synonymous title, but who really would've wanted to read a post with that title? Let's talk for a few minutes about the past couple of weeks worth of reports and commentary stemming from the ADSA e-newsletter I receive. Feedstuffs does a really great job of combining relevant articles and attracting attention to critical issues in their assistance to this e-newsletter and the last couple of weeks have been especially good so I'm just going to have time to share briefly the best of the lot, because I think that these all link together nicely.

It wasn't too long ago that HSUS released yet another video of a bunch of alleged poultry abuse and neglect on a farm in Texas. Well, the UEP invited reporters to visit this same farm on an unguarded tour of the whole facility. They were free to ask any question, take any picture and record any video. Of course, HSUS didn't solicit any of this media for their own benefit, but I think this reporter would argue that's because it all turned out to be a lie. (And in case you think it's possible to clean up a farm's act in that short of time, let me just say it can't happen. It would've been easier to just go out of business and restart than to clean up a bad act that fast).

I recommend you to read both parts of this farm visit, starting with an introduction and then more of the specific critiques in the second one. The reporter's best statement in the entire thing might be near the beginning when he says that he felt betrayed by HSUS for having been giving such faulty media for release and coverage. So it seems that nobody really likes being played, not even the media.

Of course, while we're in the habit of discrediting HSUS and their claims, we probably ought to also examine the new reports about foodborne illness incidence in the US. With new reports just released, indicating significantly lower illness occurrence than previously cited, that takes just one more bite out of the dog.

Finally, let's take a look at HSUS's past work. Prop 2 in California still sits as a relatively useless piece of legislation that is more of a legal excuse to neglect animals than it is a regulation for improved care of animals. And this is why a farm in California has petitioned for a true ruling on what this law means. If they'd have had a Care Standards Board, these things might've been more clearly defined by experts in the industry who care about animal care, rather than self-obsessed activists with little regard for the animals they steal money on behalf of. For a video feed on the chicken farm who petitioned for this clearer legialation, click here.

Share this...

... with anyone interested in reading what an objective personality had to say about their tour at one of the largest meat packing companies in the world. She really got in and saw the whole process and wrote what I would consider a stark contrast to the lies spread around by the HSUS and other scamming organizations. But don't hear it from me. Read what this dietitian and "Food Network" host had to say.

The end of a boycott

I knew this was coming, but it still feels a bit weird for me to say that today I went back to Chipotle and ate a huge burrito with some fantastic chips. I've been craving and when Amanda suggested it today, I finally made the leap and returned to the light. Let's be honest, the food there is delicious.

For those of you still holding out, you might call me a traitor. However, I did some reading on my own over the past few months and while Chipotle's own intentions are not clear besides the obvious desire to sell product and make money, it is clear that they have limited intentions in supporting HSUS. Of course, since Chipotle doesn't in fact support HSUS, I have little bone to pick with them and thus I was able to justify breaking the fast and consuming their good food today.

It took a while for everything to come out of the wash on this issue, and I think there are still a lot of people in the dark, but it was really when I started going back through the compiled readings I did for my previous blog post and then the outlandish claims by Humane Watch on the issue that I realized some points had truly been pushed too far. So let me put it plain and you can do your own reading and make up your own mind.

Last year when HSUS was campaigning heavily (and often sub-legally) for their ballot initiative which disregarded the people of Ohio's opinion, Chipotle was named as one of their campaign contributors. In the backlash that ensued, I became one of the boycotters, despite claims by Chipotle themselves that they didn't financially support HSUS. However, I can now understand where Chipotle's own views did come into play with their donation to HSUS's campaign. While they don't support the organization, they do and have for a while now supported the use of higher standards of food production than are standard in the industry right now. I can respect this because it is a company choice, and frankly, the consumers are paying for it. Further, Chipotle's food prices aren't unreasonable and so I am willing to pay for it as well from a "I like their food and flavor" standpoint. Chipotle supporting the HSUS campaign was just their way of saying that they stand by their viewpoint on animal production and they wanted to put a financial backing on an issue which supported their viewpoint.

Where Chipotle went wrong is that they have assumed many things that aren't necessarily true. They assumed that the ballot was really as well-intended as HSUS proposed it was. They assumed that the ballot would really effective improve animal welfare. They assumed that the lies that HSUS was pushing around about the ineffectiveness of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board were true. They assumed that the methods of livestock care supported by HSUS truly improve animal welfare. None of these things are true or have been shown to be true, and some quite to the contrary. But I can't fault a company for good intentions and they differ from a company like Yellow Tail because their contributions were for different reasons.

And so I ate Chipotle today...

Praise from the Secretary

I think it's really wonderful to be involved in the industry that USDA Secretary Vilsack cited as "leading this country's recovery". Everyone needs and deserves to be able to eat and America's farmers should be proud to have that responsibility. Those numbers don't look too bad either.

Also, for a really great read building on that blatantly erroneous (no wonder they struggle to stay in business) New York Times cheese article, read this...

It's nice to see that HSUS is doing great things with its money. Especially seeing as how they just won that community refresh funding from Pepsi for saving cats and dogs.

And that's all for today. I hope it's a great one for you!

This is why I blog

Sometimes I blog because I want to share thoughts, but then other times, this same blog can serve as an outlet for my inner monologue, those thoughts that I want to shout out but better judgment helps me retain.

Such is the case today as I read the Farm Sanctuary's latest post. Frankly, I don't mind linking you to their posts because I think that their compassion for animals is admirable, and their efforts are almost reasonable enough that I would frankly rather them get the attention than other less deserving organizations. But what I do detest is the active use of a plethora of emotional words in their blog in order to blind the public from considering the rational truth of a topic.

Yes, there are farmers that fail to care for their animals in the way in which they should. But this aggravates the rest of the farming population as much or more than it does the people who complain to the media about it. And these same aggravated farmers are the ones who continue to care for their animals in the best way that they can, and the best way that science has shown them to, while they actively pursue the weeding out of those few bad egg farmers in the batch. Nobody wants to do business with a bad farmer, but just the same, none of us want to have a bunch of activists trying to cram lies down the throats of the public, which is why we'd rather fix the consumer concerns ourselves with proper self-regulation and research-proven techniques for better animal care.

Deceitful propaganda didn't end up serving the needs of it proponents in the past nor will it end with the success that animal activists are wishing for. In the end, the truth will be known for what it is, and it's best for animal activists to stop exaggerating their lies beyond reason.

But for today, I had this blog for my out-channel of frustration so I have included below what I decided not to post in a comment box:

"Merciless and violent slaughter? Your use of emotional words proves your inability to accurately, rationally and logically assess a situation, and/or it demonstrates your willingness to blow fact into the wind to drive readers toward your venomous embrace."

As an after-thought, I'm not sure I would actually even want to have a merciful employee on the slaughter line. If they were merciful, does that also mean they would be prone to regret and not do a proper job, thus leading to a more painful and incorrectly performed kill?

Feminism and Veganism

Courtesy of Jackie, I have the chance to get just a little bit more vocal and opinionated today. MSU recently had author Carol Adams in to talk about how closely linked feminism and veganism are in the modern world. Of course it would make sense that the same people who are unwilling to accept that they have been more than equals in the US for a long time now (why else would I as a white male be a minority?) would be the same people who might want to align their efforts with another irrational underdog in the way of veganists and their avid animal activism. What they fail to realize is that while veganism and animal rights may be a current topic of debate, focusing on feminism merely degrades women in today's time since most women are functioning as equals in the modern world unless they try to make a big deal about being a woman. It's only once a woman advocates feminism that they actually degrade their value in the public's eyes, because it proves that they can't get out of the past and move on to accept the new status that they've been arguing for for decades.


Adams also talked about the pornography of meat. I would be lying if I told you I was attracted Lady Gaga in her photos of the meat dress (gag). Does that mean I don't like to eat meat? No, I love to eat meat, and have never before linked women and meat together in my life, and I doubt I'm in a minority here. But I can tell you one person who has Lady Gaga as his profile picture right now, for who knows what reason.


And then who better to represent MSU on the subject of Feminism and Veganism that SPAR and their very own Mitch Goldsmith (President of MSU SPAR). Of course, he's not actually a female, despite the fact he's pumped up on estrogen from high soy consumption as a result of his veganism, but since he thought he could get a word in on stopping meat consumption he stuck his face in the news this week and the liberal State News obliged as always.

Now, I had no doubt Mitch would eventually find himself in a leadership role in this radical organization. He's rude, inconsiderate, highly opinionated, unable to exhibit intelligence or debate intelligibly and has a major that could only result in his placement in a sub-standard organization campaigning for something unreasonable (animal rights). (Disclaimer - there is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights, I support greater welfare, but animals rights is a ridiculous concept in terms of economics, philosophy and general practicality).

The last time Mitch and I ran into each other wasn't exactly a positive interaction. I patiently waited for over a half hour as he continuously ignored me in my attempt to ask a question of the PETA VP. His mistake would in turn be costly as it gave me the time to formulate a much more pointed question which ended with the PETA VP Dan Matthews embarrassing himself at his own pep rally.

Veganism (as a form of activism as it was proposed by Carol Adams according to the State News) and feminism only have one thing in common. They are both supported by radicals who make little or nil logical sense in their attempts to propagate viewpoints that do nothing but insult their intelligence. Feminism had a place in this world once, but combining it with veganism only detracts from both causes. Feminism combined with veganism only portrays women as the weaker sex who refuse to accept the ultimate reality that it takes life to support life. Veganism (and animals rights) combined with feminism results in an even less legitimate concept in animal rights by joining forces with an outdated concept which no longer applies to the modern world (the only part of the world where veganism and animal rights can attract favor).

Catchy Titles (duplicate post)

In an effort to capture a larger readership, I have been trying to work on my ability to attract attention with just the blog title. Mind you, that still means I need to retain attention within the blog, but that will come next. First I just want to trick you into reading my ramblings. So I've been roaming the web looking for catchy titles so that I will learn how to better attract attention to my own blog.

None does a better job of this than the video I embed below. The title got me interested immediately and then the picture (people dressed as polar bears) made me click and listen to the movie. In the end, I actually want to make some notes about this movie and my thoughts that surround it. I think this is characteristic of many activist groups - they are much better at capturing the attention of the public and blinding their reasoning with wittiness and emotions. This all starts with a title.



First off, congratulations to the group for capturing my attention and getting your point across. While your point lacks originality, the costumes are definitely a nice change from the nude protesters that frequent my own industry. But then I have to ask you, what exactly makes this a peaceful protest? You have trespassed private property, stormed control of the companies machinery and then locked yourself to the equipment. Does this really mean the protest was peaceful, just because you didn't assault the workers?

And then the locks. Nothing quite like a New York City bike lock to imply you mean to stay hitched for a while. I don't think there is a cause in the world for which I would lock my neck in a grip like that to anything. It's not that there aren't causes that I firmly believe in, it's that there is no way you'll catch me willingly placing myself into a position of such weakness. And as a final thought, I offer this video as a counter-point to why Polar Bears are going extinct. Thanks Gail!