Posts tagged ‘abuse’

July 16, 2009

– Of Blindness and Hypocrisy.

Our minds are over saturated with “global warming” warnings and promises. Many websites offer “green tips” in an attempt to help save “our” miserable planet. These user friendly tips are usually the kind you can and should do in your everyday life, such as switching off the light when not in use, etc. Not many sites, however, tell people to stop eating animals as the single, most efficient way to stop polluting. Greenpeace are a superb example of hypocrisy, not caring to mention “don’t eat animals” in their “what to do” section. When a search is placed for “meat“, it’s all pretty much about whales. Interestingly enough, the word “beef” brings out quite a few articles on the subject.

One article, talks about the damages of farming, in general, as the main polluter, omitting the fact that most grains produced are used to feed animals, so people can then eat these animals:

“It is not only these direct effects that contribute to climate change. Cutting down forests and other natural cover to make way for agricultural land for grazing, growing animal feed and other crops, removes vital carbon sinks so increasing global warming.”

The article states that “(…)The second biggest direct emitter is animals. Cattle and sheep in particular, produce large amounts of the potent greenhouse gas methane when digesting; levels are increasing as a result of the growing demand for meat.”



1: domesticated quadrupeds held as property or raised for use.

The word “beef” in used to describe cows as a product, as the apple dictionary defines it:

beef |bēf|
1 the flesh of a cow, bull, or ox, used as food.
beef 1
• ( pl. beeves |bēvz|) Farming a cow, bull, or ox fattened for its meat. has really outdone the apple one:

1: the flesh of an adult domestic bovine (as a steer or cow) used as food2 a: an ox, cow, or bull in a full-grown or nearly full-grown state ; especially : a steer or cow fattened for food <quality Texas beeves> <a herd of good beef>

“Cattle” = “beef” –> cows –> animals. Aren’t animals a part of the planet that the fellows in Greenpeace work so hard to protect? I would be the first to say that cows should not exist at all. But they are here, and they are here because of us.

I have seen this sort of phrasing around the media, implying that, seriously, it’s the animals’ fault, and using the words “beef” and “cattle”, allows people to forget that these are live beings who, by their nature, omit methane. Under the “what can be done” section, it is written that:

“By reducing the use of fertilisers*, protecting soil and biodiversity, improving rice production and cutting demand for meat, especially in developed countries, the devastating effects of agriculture on the climate can be reversed. (…) Reduction of methane produced by rice, one of the world’s staple foods, is vital. It can be achieved by using less water and fertiliser* without sacrificing yield. And slash demand for meat.”

* The spelling here is from the original, Greenpeace article.

The sentence “By cutting demand for meat” does not imply, in any way, that the good readers of Greenpeace should now, right now, stop consuming animals. This article does not call people to reduce, or to stop eating animals. All is written in a very careful, indirect way. ‘We’re only mentioning this, not suggesting. Yeah, a “slash demand for meat” would do some good, too. FYI’.

A search for the word “cow” on the Greenpeace site, shows much anger over GE soy beans that are grown “as animal feed” and are “sneaking in” to the “regular crops”. Treating the syndrome, instead of the problem, as usual. The first search results, btw, are about “sea cows”.

Vegan sites offer much information on the relation between raising animals for food and global warming. So there was a general feeling in my mind that most people are aware of these facts and are just too stubborn in their habits to discontinue this madness, but a facebook message I got a couple of days ago reminded me that it is not so. The person wrote that he has “taken a look” at my blog and that his own personal site might interest me. The site, in Hebrew, is filled with ‘green goodies‘, suggesting canvas bags, instead of these evil plastic ones, creating art from old materials etc. etc. you get the idea. Don’t get me wrong – cleaning with vinegar is one of my favorites, but even if I’d commit myself to each and every tip on their website, it wouldn’t even begin to have the affect that simply not eating meat would. And you know what? forgetting my “organic market” basket at home and carrying everything in my overflowing bag is much more annoying than just not eating animals. Not eating meat is easy and passive. Recycling is much harder.

Another point that got on my nerves was the following sentence (translated here from Hebrew): “Every housewife will tell you…” hmmm, how 50’s.

I wrote back, suggesting he would take a better look at my articles, that his site is missing the most important information and I even sent him a few links. I haven’t heard back from him yet.

The employees of Greenpeace, who stand in the street asking for signatures or money or who knows what, are appalled when I ask them if they are vegetarian. They don’t make the connection.

It makes me wonder why must these facts stay so confidential.”With the world on the brink of runaway climate change,” they write, “millions are anxious about the effects that a warmer globe will have on our everyday lives.”

Here are the ‘Take Action’ ideas posted on the Greenpeace site:
+Become a Cyberactivist

+ Be Part of the Solar Generation

+ Volunteer in your country

+ Save energy and save the climate

+ Donate to Greenpeace

If someone would be kind enough as to send me a link to a section in the Greenpeace site, offering real information about how we can help save our planet, I’d be most delighted to post it here. I just don’t think it needs to be so hard to find.

animals, not food.

animals, not food.


March 15, 2009

– Of how disconnected people are from the reality of the meat industry –

This weekend, an article in the ‘Globes’, an Israeli economical newspaper, gave an account of the veterinarian authority’s state under the subject of “public health”.
The article describes the usual illegal actions of the meat industry, not from an animal view, obviously, but from a financial one.
One of the points were about  “importers” (great word for describing a transfer of live creature) who brought over calves, which were younger than the Australian “humane act” allows, so they won’t be needing vaccinations. The math is simple:
70 US$ a “head” x 9,000 “heads” per boat x 8 boats per year x 3 years = 15 million US dollars “saved” by the importers for not vaccinating the calves. At 70$ a “head”, the profit margin is immense. Though many of the calves die on board, never getting the chance to arrive in the holy land and get slaughtered in the cruel kosher way, the money attraction is a great one. The article makes a case from how some of the shipments of calves (the word used was, naturally, “veal”, but on the euphemism of the meat industry there is much more to write about) get stopped at the border, causing the farmers a loss of money, but never taking into account the animals on board, waiting in conditions which disgraces even the hypocritical “humane act”.
This article is not much different from many others written in Israeli newspapers, which fall under scary red titles of “fraud investigations” etc. demanding the reader’s attention. Only in this case, the numbers are actual live beings, who feel pain and fear, just like we do.

While only two weeks ago people were outraged to find that an Israeli fashion chain was selling fake fur, which turned out to be dog fur, not many people would read this article and be moved by the fact that calves are brought over all the way from Australia, in conditions more terrible than could be imagined, only to lie down next to some overly cooked greens and mashed potatoes.
Again the question arises, why people would be so shaken, deciding to boycott a chain selling dog fur, but then head on out to the nearest Murder King? Small images of cows, pigs and horses, standing docile, with titles of diseases written all over. During the disaster of the bird flu, a while back, certain “actions” were taken to overcome the problem. Meaning that many animals were gassed, chocked, mass murdered. We produce them, for our pleasure, we keep them confined in tiny spaces, preventing them their most basic rights. These methods we use today were “developed” back in the 50’s, when farmers wanted to produce more for less. They didn’t take into account that these were live animals, not products made out of plastic, and once forced to survive under certain conditions, will become sick and later on a danger. Though the irony here might be sweet, the ones getting fucked over are, again, the animals. How many people heard the radio  reports about chickens being gassed by the millions and felt sorry for them? I bet that most people were just happy to get rid of the “problem”,  so they can safely feast on dead animals and their “products”. We are the problem, we are the reason for this never ending holocaust. We, who choose not to give up our nuggets and omlets and sushi and spare ribs. We who take money from our little pockets and keep this mad industry running. If it wasn’t for our flesh greediness, none of this would have happened in the first place.

April 5, 2008

– Humans are not Humane.

A  beautiful person I know encouraged me to write. When I asked what about, the answer was: ‘You know, humanity and things like that. You should just write.’ I sat down to write, and realized that the term “humanity” is too positive of a term. It brings out associations from the word “humane”. Sadly enough, there’s not much “humane” about humans.

A better word to describe this human race of ours is simply: “people”. And in any case, it’s not humanity that concerns me so, but what it does to others.

There are number of questions, which are constantly on my mind: Why do people distinguish between wild animals they observe and photograph to those they hunt? Why do people use their religious beliefs to reaffirm themselves that using animals (whether it’s for food, sacrifice or any other form of murder) is indeed the word of god? And the question of the day is: why do people differentiate between “pets” to farm animals?

I would like to believe that the love for domesticated animals, as well as compassion for the farmed ones go hand in hand. Maybe it’s a good start: first learning that cats and dogs can feel pain, fear and love, and then relating these ‘attributes’ to other animals. Because isn’t this what it’s all about: people learning to empathize with animals, come to realize that they can also feel the same feelings that people can, and by that show some compassion?

The past week I have spent in Tel Aviv, which is where I was born, partially raised in, escaped from, returned to, left again, and now longing to come back to. Tel-Avivians are very helpful when it comes to cats and dogs. It is also true that vegetarianism and veganism is much more common in Israel than many other western countries (are we a “western” country? there’s another debate), definitely more than Berlin, which is where these words are being written in. However, Israel had and still has an acute strays situation and although there are barely any stray dogs to be seen roaming around Tel Aviv, there are many stray cats, feeding from trash bins, kittens dying from eye infections and very sadly: abuse. Still, I honestly can’t think of a single person or a family that does not have a dog, a cat or both living in their apartment.

My aunt is a perfect example. Living on a ground floor in a very nice area of Jerusalem she has been feeding, caring for and giving shelter to an endless amount of cats over the years. She has also started an organization for helping stray cats in Jerusalem; their main cause is to spay and neuter strays so they don’t reproduce. But meat she eats eagerly and wants nothing to do with my veganism talks.

A short stop by an animal shelter, somewhere in the middle of Scotland’s highlands, demonstrated to me, again, just how bizarre people are: The workers get dispatched and save animals that were neglected, lost or abused. They bring them in, take care of them and hopefully find them a good adoptive family. Only one girl from the team doesn’t eat animals. Sure, the job that these people are doing is not less than angelic, but again I lose connection to reality when faced with the question of why do people make that vicious distinction between different species? How can someone save animals 8 hours a day and then go home and have a steak dinner? Sadly, I know, that the question is how can one save humans all day, like a doctor and then go home and have a steak dinner. Why save one life and take another? But on the differentiation between humans and animals I will write later on. What is so illogical is still that ultimate question of saving one animal and killing another.

<First published on March 24th 2008>



qtl { position: absolute; border: 1px solid #cccccc; -moz-border-radius: 5px; opacity: 0.2; line-height: 100%; z-index: 999; direction: ltr; } qtl:hover, { opacity: 1; } qtl,qtlbar { height: 22px; } qtlbar { display: block; width: 100%; background-color: #cccccc; cursor: move; } qtlbar img { border: 0; padding: 3px; height: 16px; width: 16px; cursor: pointer; } qtlbar img:hover { background-color: #aaaaff; } qtl>iframe { border: 0; height: 0; width: 0; } { height: auto; }>iframe { height: 200px; width: 300px; }

qtl { position: absolute; border: 1px solid #cccccc; -moz-border-radius: 5px; opacity: 0.2; line-height: 100%; z-index: 999; direction: ltr; } qtl:hover, { opacity: 1; } qtl,qtlbar { height: 22px; } qtlbar { display: block; width: 100%; background-color: #cccccc; cursor: move; } qtlbar img { border: 0; padding: 3px; height: 16px; width: 16px; cursor: pointer; } qtlbar img:hover { background-color: #aaaaff; } qtl>iframe { border: 0; height: 0; width: 0; } { height: auto; }>iframe { height: 200px; width: 300px; }