Dating: A Vegan's Omnivore Dilemma
Published January 29, 2010 @ 11:45AM PT
"Wow," he said. "I would never date you." This was the response of one beefy blond guy when he learned I was a vegan. Flabbergasted, I told him that I would never date him either. I wasn’t romantically interested in him because he was obnoxious, rude, and well, just not that cute. But shouldn’t I be the one ruling him out as a potential significant other because of his diet?
To many omnivores, vegans are self-righteous, preachy, and impossible to take out to dinner. As a vegan, I don’t agree with an omnivore’s choice to support the violent and cruel factory farm industry. Can you date someone who doesn’t share your strongly-held moral belief?
I’ve dated two guys that were vegetarians. Did their compassionate diet add to their initial sex appeal? Yes, without a doubt. But I also had a boyfriend who ate ketchup and baloney sandwiches before bed (yes, really) and another who practically lived on steak tips. The omnivore guys I’ve dated made me laugh, were considerate and kind, and shared my enthusiasm for good books and music. For the most part, I ignored their dietary choices and they ignored mine.
So what’s a single vegan to do? There are vegetarian dating websites, but I’m not keen employing a rigid screening process based solely on diet. But I have found is that my veganism helps me sort out the good omnivores from the bad, closed-minded ones. This was proved when my most recent love interest learned that I wouldn’t eat octopus when in Japan not because the dish looked slimy and grotesque (it did) but because octopi are highly sociable, intelligent creatures.
"Wow," he said, "You must have a big heart." I don't think I'm ready to give up dating omnivores just yet.
Photo Credit: flickr user adactio
More Radiation for Space Monkeys
Published January 29, 2010 @ 08:00AM PT
It's not the first time monkeys have been exposed to radiation. So many studies have documented the painful and disturbing effects of exposure, that there's no reason for further animal research. But NASA doesn't see it that way.
The Humane Society of the United States reported earlier this week that NASA is standing by its $1.75 million research budget to expose male squirrel monkeys to high doses of radiation. The space program claims they need to know how humans in space might react to long-term exposure to low levels of radiation.
There are obvious flaws to this research: 1) High doses of radiation are not the same as low levels of radiation. 2) Squirrel monkeys are not the same as humans. 3) The dangers of radiation are not a secret.
And, of course, the fact that animals will suffer needlessly. The double standard of animal researchers has always amazed me -- if you're expecting that the results of your tests will translate to humans, then you better believe the pain is comparable, too.
NASA needs to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and start showing some compassion if they want to stay relevant in the 21st Century.
Photo credit: Just chaos
China to Ban Eating Dogs and Cats?
Published January 28, 2010 @ 11:45AM PT
According to a headline in the January 26 issue of the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, Chinese legal experts are calling for a ban on eating cats and dogs. ""We are proposing that all dog and cat eating should be banned because it is causing many social problems," said Chang Jiwen, a law professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
While the Chinese have a long history of consuming dogs and cats, China's growing middle-class has qualms about eating the animals they increasingly see as pets. The Guardian reports that online petitions to outlaw the eating of dogs and cats can draw tens of thousands of signatures.
The proposed law would establish fines and possible jail time for violators. According to China Daily, "people caught eating dog or cat meat will be detained for no more than 15 days with a fine of 5,000 yuan ($732). Any unit or group found violating the rule will be fined between 10,000 yuan ($1,464) to 500,000 yuan ($73,239)."
Bulldozers For Good (For Once)
Published January 28, 2010 @ 10:41AM PT
Folks who are passionate about protecting animals often find themselves beset on all sides with opposition -- from people who are well-meaning but underinformed, from industry-funded groups with deep pockets and a loose concept of facts, sometimes from within our own government. Of course, a primary source of opposition to our work is that nebulous thing called "industry." There are far too many stories about that.
This isn't one of those stories. This time, the private sector got it right, and, as a result, a bunch of freshwater aquatic species that most of us have never heard of are getting a new lease on life.
Meet the Dillsboro Dam, located in western North Carolina. Or actually, don't, because a good chunk of it isn't there anymore. Instead, meet the sicklefin redhorse, a migratory fish that hasn't seen the upstream side of the Tuckasegee River for about a century or so. Thanks to responsible action from Duke Energy, with an assist from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the sicklefin redhorse is going to have quite a few more miles of habitat in which to thrive.
They started bulldozing the dam recently, with appropriate protections for the aquatic animals in the river. It's a win for habitat, a win for animal welfare, and a win for the human beings who live nearby as well. It's also a win for Duke Energy, because it makes their downstream dams more efficient.
Duke Energy may not get it right all the time, and it would be disingenuous to say they don't have motives beyond sicklefin redhorses, but here's the victory. One more cog in that vast machine we call "industry" got it right. That's one more example that you can be a private sector business, competing for profit, and still do right by animals. More importantly, it's one more example that we get to cite when more reluctant businesses treat profits versus protection as an either/or proposition.
Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Cost of Freedom for Dogs in Afghanistan
Published January 28, 2010 @ 08:00AM PT
More troops in Afghanistan means more military dogs being sent overseas, and all those German Shepherds, Dutch Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, and Labrador soldiers need food. Not just any food -- special diets high in protein and nutrients to keep up with the demands of their job.
Although the dogs have become important members of their teams -- in just the last month in southern Afghanistan, they sniffed out 20 finds of unexploded devices, weapon caches and other materiel -- feeding them is low priority for the logistics planners shipping out supplies.
The U.S. has more military dogs -- about 2,800 -- than any other country in the world. Considering that each dog costs around $40,000 per year and that they're only sent out on missions when they've healthy, you'd think their needs would be high priority. But their food gets loaded on the trucks with about the same urgency as Coke and potato chips for the human soldiers.
Afghanis also have dogs of war: Dog fighting has seen a resurgence in Afghanistan in recent years, and it's an issue many are hesitant to take on. Unlike in Western countries, dog fighting is well above ground, with fights taking place out in the open and employing Afghanistan police for crowd control.
Bad for Cows, Bad for People
Published January 27, 2010 @ 04:32PM PT
Although Change.org has our causes listed separately, part of what makes progressivism so powerful is that the causes are connected. Factory farming isn't just cruel to animals; it's also bad for the environment — and, in most cases, for humans. After all, we all share the planetary ecosystem.
In a post that could just as easily have appeared on this blog, Sustainable Food writer Tara Lohan talks about the cruelties dairy cows are subjected to and tells you how to be a better consumer so you don't put money in the pockets of unethical farmers.
Oreo's Law, Round Two
Published January 27, 2010 @ 03:00PM PT
When Oreo's Law was first proposed, I had a number of concerns about it. Despite accusations that I was advocating for killing animals, my article laid out several suggestions for improving the law to ensure it would protect the animals it was intending to help, and I'm pleased to report that New York State Assembly Member Micah Kellner, co-author of Oreo's Law, has been working on amendments to the bill.
We need to protect animals no matter what type of organization they end up in. Animals should be protected from suffering, whether it's a death sentence for healthy animals in a shelter or a life of stress or neglect at an unqualified rescue organization. When both things are possible, there's no reason to accept a law that addresses one and not the other.
Now it looks like we may not have to.
