Applying Critical Thinking Skills to Arguments about Veganism

The first time my child came home and told me he had a class called Critical Thinking, I was quite surprised. That certainly wasn't a subject we'd covered in my elementary school! However, I quickly recognized the reason and the benefit. In an age when access to information is at its peak, access to misinformation is also at an all-time high. Today, we are bombarded with false messages from marketers, advertisers, media, politicians, special interest groups, and chain emails from our well-meaning grandmothers.

In Critical Thinking classes, children are being taught to look at the credibility and logic of messages they receive. There are many different techniques for teaching this, but the basic steps are:

1. Identify the argument being made in the message.
2. Assess your own knowledge on the subject, and use that knowledge as a base for evaluation.
3. Identify what opposing points of view may exist.
4. Evaluate the evidence in favor of either position.
5. Look for unwarranted and/or unfair assumptions.
6. Identify techniques and devices used to 'sell' a position, such as false logic, manipulations, etc.
7. Draw conclusions based on the reliable evidence and common sense assumptions. 

This sounds more complex than it is. Put simply, critical thinking can be summed up by the old axiom, "Question everything."

It struck me recently that so many of the arguments that we routinely hear against veganism don't even stand up to the most basic of questioning. I'm speaking specifically of a few arguments that have reached meme status (by which I mean that they are a cultural contagion, not that someone has made them into an animated .gif - although come to think of it, they probably have). I'd like to explore just a few of these notions.

1. "You only eat plants? But where do you get your protein?"

Step one in critical thinking is to identify the message. What is the message here? The message conveyed is that protein comes solely from animal products: meat, dairy, and eggs. Is this message true?

Step two is to assess your own knowledge on the subject. What is protein? If you took middle school biology, this was likely your automatic answer to that question: "Proteins are the building blocks of life." Yes, proteins are molecules found in all living organisms. That includes plants. Where does the cow you're eating get its protein? From plants.

So why do many of us think of protein as something that only comes from animal products? Well, does this look familiar? 

You'll notice that the food pyramid that so many of us grew up with has a level often referred to as 'proteins' that contains mainly animal products. Even this, the 2005 USDA version only gives a discreet nod to plant proteins by including "dry beans" and nuts. (Dry beans? Really?) 

But is this based in science? Steps 5 and 6 (evaluating assumptions and looking for the 'sell') come into play. Googling tells us that the initial food pyramid was developed with little or no regard for nutritional science. It was developed in Sweden to promote cheap nutrition sources. What began as a cooperation between the government and a chain grocery became a marketing tool when the government agency backed off the pyramid concept but the grocery continued to push it. The idea soon spread. 

Now, 40 years later, the concepts it conveyed persist, even though it's considered outdated and wrong. The USDA now acknowledges that vegetarian/vegan diets can meet all your protein needs. Granted, they're still incorrectly suggesting you that you need to rely on beans and nuts to do so. For the record, broccoli contains more protein than beef. 

So step 7, drawing conclusions... we've been erroneously led to believe that plants don't contain protein. They do. You can get your protein from plants.

2. "If we all stopped eating meat, cows would take over the Earth." 

The first time I heard this, I thought it was a joke. But I soon learned that this was an accepted belief for many people - they heard it asserted somewhere and thereafter accepted it to be true. The thinking goes that, since we currently have enough cattle on the planet to satisfy the number of meat eaters, if everyone stopped eating meat, those animals would reproduce and overpopulate, thus draining our natural resources. Let's think critically about this message.

Immediately obvious should be the false logic of this message: it is based on the idea that "everyone" would stop eating meat simultaneously. It's certainly true that if everyone on the planet stopped eating meat today and no measures were taken to control the natural reproduction of cows currently housed for future use as meat, the population might become unsustainable. However, I've yet to meet a vegan that expects a moment of glorious global epiphany to occur in which all mankind suddenly realize the superiority of veganism and swear off meat in an instant. Asking you to reduce or eliminate your meat intake is not the same as expecting a spontaneous universal abstinence.

So let's reduce that absurd argument to a more logical question. If meat consumption continues to decrease (as it has yearly for about a decade), will we face overpopulation of cattle? Assessing our personal store of knowledge (step 2), we can recognize that wild animals can become overpopulated in a given area. Is this how cattle currently reproduce?

No. Cattle are not wild animals, but commodity animals. As a commodity, they are subject to the laws of supply and demand. They are warehoused like other commodities, and their production (in this case, reproduction) is strictly controlled. Livestock producers create only enough new product to meet the demand. Less demand, less product. (Lest you think I'm attempting to cast the beef industry in a bad light be referring to living animals as 'products', please see this fact sheet from the beef industry itself, entitled Modern Beef Production.) Were this not the case, after ten years of declining demand, would we not already be overpopulated?

But what if everyone did eventually give up meat? To avoid extinction, some cows would have to be released into the wild, right? Released into their natural habitats, cows would face the same perils and predators they faced prior to domestication. Nature strikes a balance.

Drawing a final conclusion, we're in no danger of a cow coup. Don't bother making banners to welcome your bovine overlords.

3. "Drinking milk is good for cows. Cows have to be milked, or they'll die."

The message here is that cows naturally produce milk and we're doing them a favor by milking them.

Drawing on our own knowledge, we know that cows are mammals. A key characteristic of mammals is that they nurse their young. (This is why the milk-producing organs these animals possess are called "mammary glands.") So do cows naturally produce milk? Only in response to pregnancy. Just like humans and other mammals, a cow must become pregnant before milk production begins.

Are cows somehow different from other mammals, where once triggered their milk production continues ad infinitum? No. Over time, a cow will 'dry up' like any other mammal. This is true when a cow's calf naturally weans, and it's also true of dairy cows, who are separated from their calves hours after birth so that they can be milked for human use. According to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, dairy cows are milked for 10 months, dry up, then they are re-impregnated to start the process over again.

Where does the belief that a cow will die without being milked come from? From rare circumstances where high-producing dairy cows developed infections  as a result of not being milked. So to be clear, the cows died, not from something that happens naturally, but from something that happened as a result of our unnatural method of warehousing nursing cows without their calves so we can take their milk for humans. We are creating that problem, and then asserting that we're solving it by perpetuating it. Doesn't it seem logical that a better solution is not to create the problem in the first place?

From this critical examination, we can draw the conclusion that under natural circumstances, cows do not need to be milked by humans.

What's the Point?

Combining some elementary school or middle school science and some quick internet searches with a few critical thinking skills, we've managed to very easily debunk a few basic concerns people may have about veganism. The point I'm making is that many times we hear and accept arguments as true without actually examining them. If you are a person who has heard things about this healthy, compassionate lifestyle that concern you, make sure you've thought them through or done the necessary research to get at the truth. In fact, that's probably a good policy for any topic in your life... think it through, learn the truth. Words, I think, to live by.

The lesson here? Vegan food is never as hard as we make it.

For the celebration of my 20th anniversary working for the MSF, I had requested that all the food be cruelty-free. It was important to me, and even though it was going to be an added stress for the staff who were doing the planning, I figured I could be excused considering the occasion. I gave them the information for some vegan caterers and bakeries.

Yesterday at the party, after what I'm sure was extensive planning, we had a fabulous vegan meal. The menu was:

Spring green salad

Penne aglio e olio with broccoli
Grilled vegetable wraps
Cheese-free pizza with grilled vegetables
Garlic rolls
Fruit salad
A sorbet station with sprinkles and marshmallows
Thin mint cookies
Chocolate cake

It was marvelous... and it wasn't from a vegan restaurant at all. It was just from the gang's favorite Italian joint across the street and from Whole Foods and Publix.

The ladies had gone through all the options, trying to work within the budget (which, since we're a charity, is rightly minimal - we're super conscientious about what we spend) and were just having the hardest time, from what I heard. But that's because I had unnecessarily made it harder on them by steering them towards vegan restaurants.

The fact is that most restaurants today can and will accommodate vegans. Vegan food does not have to be outside the mainstream. It doesn't have to be difficult. And it doesn't have to be more expensive, either, despite the fact that many of us are used to paying more at all-vegan restaurants. Sometimes it's just as simple as the chef agreeing to leave off the cheese.

I'm really grateful that my colleagues figured that out, and I'm so grateful that they cared enough to make this happen for me. To me, watching that cheese-free pizza disappear and hearing people say about the cake, "But... it just tastes like cake!" was one of the best things that happened all day. Because the lesson they taught me with their solution to the catering problem is the same lesson I was trying to teach everyone there: eating vegan is never as hard as we make it out to be!

"Self-Radicalization" and the Vegan View on Violence

Since the Boston Marathon bombings, the term "self-radicalization" has entered the common lexicon. It refers to someone who became radical without face-to-face interaction with those holding extremist views, basically someone who developed radical beliefs through viewing extremist material on the Internet. Frankly, the phrase is kind of silly. 

First of all, viewing extremist material on the internet is still being influenced by others. There is no Big Byte Bang happening where this content explodes into digital existence from nothingness; someone developed and posted it. So for starters, we can take the 'self' out of 'self-radicalization.' 

Second, 'radicalization' is something of a misnomer. One can hold radical beliefs without being a violent extremist. What does being 'radical' mean, after all? It simply means believing that drastic change is necessary in some element of society, be it political, social, financial, or environmental. The Founding Fathers of the United States were radicals in their rejection of the British monarchy, for example. Furthermore, to some degree being radical depends on your circumstances. While a person with communist views was considered radical in America in 1950, a person with democratic views would've been considered a radical in Russia. So clearly, (1) it's something of a subjective term and (2) there is nothing inherently wrong with being radical. 

Ethical vegans are, by definition, radicals. We believe that a drastic change must take place in our society for the sake of animals, the environment, and human health. Most of us are, by the silly definition, 'self-radicalized,' having adopted this belief through reading books and viewing material on the internet, rather than indoctrination. Again, nothing inherently wrong.

So where does the real problem lie? Not in radical thinking, but in violent thinking. Not in believing drastic change is necessary, but in believing that violence is justified to create that change. When an individual begins to believe committing violent acts is justified, they cross the line from radical to extremist; when they actually commit those acts, they cross the line from extremist to terrorist.

Unfortunately, there are certainly dark corners of the vegan world where this extremism exists. I was tremendously disappointed to learn that the oft-quoted, oft-promoted Gary Yourofsky (he of the "Best Speech You Will Ever Hear" viral video) actually publicly endorses violence, up to and including murder of vivisectionists. (I will not link to his essay here because I oppose violence, but a simple Google search will turn it up.) 

While I object to the term 'self-radicalization' to describe the process that led two young men to kill and maim in Boston, there clearly was a process that led them to become extremists, and then terrorists. It was a process that involved (1) finding people to blame, (2) finding validation of that blame and anger from a community of others - in this case, an online community, (3) feeding that negativity until it boiled over into hatred and violence.

And I suppose that's my point for my vegan friends: what are we feeding in ourselves? Hatred or compassion? 

A reporter who decided to investigate extremist groups online described the violent imagery they share as a sort of  pornography. 'Hate porn', if you will. In Muslim extremist groups, he found hate porn of children killed by Western military action. Had he examined vegan extremist groups, he would've found graphic images of slaughtered and abused animals. 

I'm not suggesting there isn't a place for these images. Yes, it's important to help others understand the inherent violence of a non-vegan diet. Yes, it's important for us to know what's really going on in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations, or factory farms). Yes, it's important to document and educate about animal abuse. But the constant viewing of these types of images is a red flag that you may be headed towards extremism. Logically, if you are a vegan who understands the truths these images represent, how often do you need to see them? How does it benefit you to see them again and again? You have to ask yourself, at what point does this only serve to feed my anger?

If you follow the so-called self-radicalization process and (1) find people to blame - in this case, non-vegans, (2) find validation of that blame and anger from a community of others who are equally angry and (3) continue to feed it with hate porn, the natural outcome is a justification of violence. The natural outcome is extremism at best and terrorism at worst.

So I think we have to beware. Beware of blaming, beware of hatred, beware of justifications of violence. Beware of feeding the negative. If you find yourself anywhere along that dangerous path that's being mistakenly called 'self-radicalization' - the path that goes from blame, to hatred, to justification of violence, to violent acts - just turn back. Feed compassion, understanding, and empathy instead.

The heart of veganism, the very essence of it, is a belief in the right of all creatures to live, free from unnecessary suffering. Violence toward any living creature is inconsistent with vegan tenets. That's a simple truth. Remember that veganism is, in it's refusal to kill or harm animals, radical nonviolence. That's a kind of self-radicalization that no one can condemn.

Are there fat vegans? Yes. And you can be one too.

It's been nearly eleven months since I started this blog. Thinking about where I intend to go with it in the next year led me to carefully examine my site statistics. What I found made me realize that there was an important question that I needed to answer.

You see, what I found was that the most popular article on this blog, accounting for a whopping 14% of total traffic over the past year, was Fat Vegans: Why We Matter. It has 3.5 times as many reads as the next most popular article. 

Of course, that could theoretically have been because it was linked to by at least one prominent vegan author. So I took a closer look at the search terms leading people to my blog. Here's what that showed:

Top 5 Keyword Searches for IAVM

5. fat vegan
4. roasted beet kale salad
3. are there fat vegans
2. chocolate cherry dump cake
1. fat vegans

Yes, three of the top five terms leading to this site seem to be from people wondering if this elusive creature actually exists. Is there really such a thing? Or is this the vegetarian community's version of Big Foot?

So, Curious Googlers, this post is for you! Here is the answer to the question you're pondering: Yes, there are fat vegans. That's a real thing. And yes, you can be one too. 

Up until now, you may've believed that all vegans were skinny and that the vegan community would judge you and harangue you if you tried to join their ranks. Be comforted! The reports of our militant requirements for "membership" are grossly exaggerated. The only requirement you have to meet to be welcomed into the vegan community is to stop eating or using animal products. Aside from that, you can be fat, thin, tall, short, quiet, loud, or anything else you are and no one will care.

Well, not "no one." I won't lie to you. I once got into an argument with a fellow vegan online who was offended that I didn't think my fatness made me a bad person who needed to be ashamed. And PCRM did make those ridiculous ads. But by and large (no pun intended), we fat folk are made welcome in the vegan community! Yes, I get the occasional look of surprise when I meet new vegan friends, but then they hug me and we sit down to talk about how much we love otters or what the best vegan mayo is and they immediately forget that I didn't look like they expected me to look.

See, here's the thing: the vegan community is built on compassion. It's what we're all about. So if you're thinking about trying out this vegan thing, don't let the relative size of your body determine the relative amount of your love for all living things. Just go for it - be a big, fat vegan with a big, fat vegan heart!

UNA 2012 Advocacy Award acceptance speech

Last weekend, I was presented with the United Nations Association - Broward Chapter's 2012 UNA Advocacy Award for my work with multiple sclerosis, homelessness, and eco-vegan advocacy.

My aunt asked me to post a copy of my acceptance speech. To be honest, it was extemporaneous, but I remember roughly what I said. This is an approximation, minus the obligatory corny joke and the thank yous..

In nearly twenty years with the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, I've learned something very important: You do not have to be wealthy to help others; you do not have to have high connections. The only thing you need to make a difference in someone's life is the desire to do so. All you need to be an advocate is your voice - a willingness to speak out when you see someone in need. 

At the MSF, we often see people use unexpected skills or interests to raise funds or awareness. One couple who enjoys riding motorcycles organized a charity Harley ride. A woman who enjoys sewing and quilting organized a charity quilt show. Artists have donated their work for auction or arranged for exhibitions to raise awareness. People are taking whatever talents they have and putting them to positive use. 

That was the philosophy I was operating under when I started The Humble Stitch Project, a project for knitters and crocheters to make cold weather items for the homeless here in South Florida. Unlike other areas of the country, we don't have coat donation programs - you all know that your coats sit in your closets for years and years, never used frequently enough to wear out. And if you're a knitter or have a knitter in your family, you know there are only so many scarves you can make your relatives. So I had a hobby, others had a need. And I also had a voice, to ask others for their help. Today, hundreds of people from around the country participate. 

The same principle drives my vegan advocacy efforts. When I learned of the positive impact our food choices can make on the environment and world hunger, I used my love of cooking and baking - working with groups like Compassion Barn - to share delicious vegan meals with others. At the eco-vegan news site This Dish is Veg and through my blog, I used my skills as a writer to try to help others understand that what we choose to eat is a global issue that affects more than just our own health and well-being. 

Each of you here today has the same opportunity to make a difference. Take stock; think about your skills, your talents, your hobbies, you interests... Maybe you like riding motorcycles, or quilting, or maybe you're a knitter like me. Or maybe for you it's volleyball or singing. Maybe you're good at organizing, or decorating, or just good at following directions. Whatever you're good at, whatever you love to do, there is a way to do it for the greater good.  

Whether it's something material, or your skills or hobbies, or simply lending your own two hands, you do have something to give - to help others and make the world a better place.  

Why I'm Caffeine-Free

Let me tell you about the worst, most abusive and dependent relationship I ever suffered through - my love affair with caffeine.

We met when I was very young, through our mutual friends Tab and Diet Coke. We had an on-again, off-again thing for a few years, but then it became serious. By the time I was fourteen, we were living together full-time.

I was drinking a 12-pack of Diet Coke a day, at least. Interestingly, around that time I was first diagnosed with migraines and cluster headaches. The doctor prescribed Cafergot (a medicine that includes a dose of caffeine) without ever asking how my caffeine relationship was. (I also started to show strong symptoms of what would later be diagnosed as fibromyalgia. Recent research has connected over-consumption of caffeine with an increase in fibromyalgia pain.)

For the next several years, I struggled through a cycle of getting headaches if I had too little caffeine, treating that with caffeine, then feeling crummy from having too much caffeine. It was a constant struggle to find a balance in our relationship. Finally, I decided I'd had enough. I decided it was time for us to break-up.

I won't kid you: that was the worst two weeks of my life. I have never been sicker (and this is from a woman with two autoimmune diseases). The headaches, fatigue, and all-over aching I felt were miserable. I thought I might die.

But I got through it. You can guess what happened next - the headaches disappeared. No more cluster headaches, fewer migraines. More energy, less fatigue and general malaise. So there's my happy ending, right? I moved on to healthier relationships and never messed around with caffeine again? Hardly.

Caffeine is as addictive as any other drug, but here's the dangerous thing about drugs: even breaking the physical addiction is not enough.You have to be convinced that it's poison for you. If you think there's anything redeeming about it, you'll go back. It only took one bad enough day with too little sleep the night before and I would run right back.

I've been off the stuff for several years now, because I finally realized that it is a drug and it is poison for me. Here are some things you may or may not know about caffeine:

• According to the Mayo Clinic, caffeine has interactions with certain common antibiotics (such as Cipro) and herbal supplements (echinacea). In the years of caffeine addiction, I certainly used both of those and was never told this by my doctor or pharmacist. Were you?
• Are you one of those people who says "caffeine doesn't affect my sleep" just because you don't have a problem falling asleep? Caffeine can also affect the quality of your sleep, or because of its diuretic properties, cause interrupted sleep.
• For women, caffeine has been linked to a higher risk of 1st trimester miscarriage. There is also some reason to believe it may have an effect on endometriosis and fibrocystic breast pain.
• Caffeine can compound the symptoms of many common health conditions, such as acid reflux, high blood pressure, irritable bowels, anxiety, and (surprise!) headaches and fibromyalgia.
• Important for vegans and those with anemia or bone density issues, caffeine can inhibit the absorption of iron and calcium from your food.

This isn't to say that caffeine doesn't have any positives. For example, it's been shown to have a positive effect on asthma. But of course, it makes sense that there would be genuine medical benefits... since it's a drug. Drugs do have uses in the treatment of disease. But what's the difference between a drug and a poison? Very often, the only difference is when you use it and how much. If you're using caffeine for something other than the treatment of a condition it's known to help, how is that different from prescription drug abuse?

I'm sure there are people out there with appropriate caffeine intake (generally defined by the medical community as 1-2 doses per day) who can experience the benefits without any significant consequences. Just  like there are people who can have a glass of red wine every day for the health benefits and not become alcoholics. But just because some people can use these drugs responsibly doesn't mean there's not a risk for the rest of us. If you're a caffeine addict - a person who just can't manage to limit themselves to 1-2 doses a day - consider whether you need to go in for a lifetime of 'caffeine sobriety.'   

Q.) What are vegans allowed to eat? A.) Anything.

There is a particular thing that non-vegans sometimes say that drives me crazy. I know it's innocently meant, but it just pushes my buttons. It comes up at work fairly frequently, and it goes like this:

"There's [insert name of food here] in the kitchen. Are you allowed to eat that?"

Allowed? Allowed by whom?

I'll have patience with it the first time, maybe even the second. Though I always answer the exact same way, the answer comes out a little bit snippier each time I have to repeat it to the same individual. Because it seems no matter how many times I explain it, the question keeps coming back. And the answer is this:

"I am allowed to eat anything I want. I choose not to eat anything that contains animal products."

There is no Dr. John Q. Veganizer, M.D. writing a book to specify what I'm 'allowed' to eat. Saying something is 'allowed' implies that there are consequences if one does that which isn't allowed. There are no personal consequences here. There cannot be, because I make this choice not for reasons of my personal health, nor from societal pressure to conform in my personal appearance, but for the benefit of other living creatures.

It's important to understand that veganism is not a diet. People who choose to stop eating animals for health or appearance are following a plant-based diet - strictly speaking, they are not vegans. The word vegan applies to those whose decisions are based on ethics and go beyond just food, including also clothing, toiletries, medicines, and entertainment that exploits animals. Veganism comes from a totally different root than following a diet.The act of dieting is rooted in a concern for self. Certainly that can be a good and right concern - I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with it. The point I'm making is that veganism is rooted in the concern for others, and no one can 'allow' you to put others before yourself. That's a choice only you can make, so to say "allowed" becomes subtle downplaying of a person's agency in making this choice.

If someone tells you they're following the South Beach Diet, or Atkins, or even a doctor-recommended meal plan for a certain health condition, asking what they are 'allowed' to eat makes sense to some degree. These diets were essentially thrust upon them, either by a healthcare professional, a personal health concern, or by society, in the form of a belief that they must meet a certain weight standard. They still made the choice to stick that diet, yes, but probably not because they really wanted to do so. Ask anyone who is on a diet for health or weight reasons, and they're pretty likely to tell you they wish they could eat the things they did before. 

No so with vegans. (Or at least, not so with those of us whose convictions are firm and habits are set - I admit, it can be tough when you're making the transition from the old way of doing things.) Veganism is a conscious decision based on ethics; the underlying motivation is different. I want to be a vegan, and I want to be a vegan for life. I have no wish to return to the way I ate before.

When it comes down to it, veganism is simply not restrictive. You do not miss doing something that you don't want to do. I made a choice not to eat animals, and that choice brings me peace and contentment, not a sense of deprivation. To ask me what I'm "allowed" to eat demeans that choice.

So for the record, non-vegan friends, the appropriate question is this:

"Is that something you'll eat?"

Feeding the hungry while caring for the animals.

There was a conversation recently in the Livejournal community Veganpeople that I found truly disturbing and indicative of an ongoing problem in a segment of the vegan community -- a lack of respect and compassion for non-vegan people. (Please understand, I do not suggest that this is characteristic of the vegan community as a whole, but I'm referring to the folks who give the rest of us a bad name.)

The question was raised whether it was ethical for a vegan to give money to a homeless person, knowing they may spend it to buy a hamburger. This is a valid question, of course, but it unleashed a good deal of privilege, stigmatic language, and apathy. I'm used to that in conversations about the homeless, but I suppose I just hoped that as a compassion-focused group, our vegan community would rise above.

Homeless kids, facing away to respect
their privacy, showing off the gifts they
received through The Humble Stitch Project
while the weather was still warm.

Depending on how you came to be reading this blog, you may know that I'm the founder of The Humble Stitch Project. In two winters, we've managed to make and distribute nearly 1,000 cold weather clothing items (handmade scarves, hats, and gloves) to the homeless of South Florida. We've accomplished this by relying on the compassion of individuals all over the world who have donated their time, their handiwork, and their supplies to make this happen.

The impetus for starting The Humble Stitch was to help restore the dignity of our homeless neighbors. We could have done a drive to collect used clothing, or a fundraiser for the local homeless outreach programs. Why handmade? Because a handmade item does more than keep the recipient warm; it shows them that someone cares. Someone chose to give them a gift, not just charity. (With a gift, the giver and the recipient can be equals. With charity, one is held above the other.) By giving a gift, by treating them as equals, we grant them the dignity that all living beings deserve.

Similarly, by allowing people to make their own decisions we treat them as equals. By taking that decision away from them, we diminish them. So while The Humble Stitch website FAQs state a preference for vegan fibers, we won't reject any item that's received. Why? It's not our right to make that decision for someone else. Who am I to decide for someone else whether they would rather wear wool or risk exposure?

The same principle applies to food. It is not for me to dictate to any person what they can or cannot eat, as though they were my child. It's patronizing and demeaning to do so, and simply foolish to suppose that doing so when you have someone over a barrel has any significant impact. As I pointed out in the Livejournal discussion, even if I were to accompany the person to a nearby store and purchase them something vegan to eat, what is stopping the store owner from using the profits from my purchase to restock the beef jerky? And what's to stop the person in need from going to buy that burger with the next dollar he or she receives? Focusing on that one meal is "straining out the gnat, but gulping down the camel." As advocates, we have bigger targets for which to aim. We need to worry about the food system that feeds a cow unnatural amounts of grain, or force-feeds fowl until their livers are about to burst, but starves the hungry and thirsty children of the planet.

But, my vegan friends may ask, how do I justify giving money that I know may contribute to animal exploitation? Unless your landlord is a vegan, and your dentist, and your hairstylist, you're unfortunately already in that situation. The money that you pay them feeds their families, does it not? Last year, a wise vegan friend said to me, in reference to giving money to the homeless, "Whether I give it to them is between me and God; what they do with it once I do is between them and God." Just as we have no right to make choices for others, we are not responsible for the choices they make.

Certainly no one is obligated to give money to every person in need who asks. But if you choose to do so, do so from compassion. Give it as a gift, not just charity. Afford the person the dignity of making their own decisions, and focus your energy where it can do real good - convincing others of the vital reasons to re-evaluate their food choices.

The change that vegan advocates wish to see starts in the mouths of men and women - not just with what we eat, but with what we say. This is why it's vitally important that we demonstrate compassion, not just for animals, not just for the disadvantaged, but for every person we speak to about veganism. If others feel diminished by our discourse, they will never benefit from it. We must recognize their right to make this decision for themselves, while we help them to see what the best decision is.

Wherein I Pledge to Elevate the Discourse

I have a formal policy of treating others with respect. I address it in the notes on my About Me post.I talk at length about in my post Kasey's Rules for World Peace. But now I'm taking it one step further and asking you to sign on to this policy, and to spread the idea to others.

Like me, are you tired of all the name-calling? Whether the topic is politics, religion, animal rights, or which side of the bread you should butter, what does it accomplish to call the other side of an argument "jerks", "morons", or worse? You're not bringing anyone around to your point of view by insulting them. You're only making the disagreement more acrimonious.

Our goals in any disagreement should be to convey our beliefs and learn the other person's, then to use reason, logic, education and/or empathy to persuade. When we disrespect the person on the other side of the divide, we alienate them and lose any chance we may have had to ever reach accord.

So here it is:

I pledge to elevate the discourse when I enter a debate. I pledge to show understanding and tolerance of different points of view, and not make assumptions about people's intelligence or worth on the basis of a difference of opinion from mine. I pledge to discuss, not disrespect.

Will you take the pledge too?

Not dingoes, just birds: a tale of defending babies

Last week while I was out photographing the hatchlings, something happened that made me very sad. But in telling the story to my husband, I learned to look at it differently. I wanted to share that story with you, dear reader.

I was sitting on the boardwalk with my camera poised to snap a baby blackbird when its mother came back to the nest to feed it.

All through the mudflats behind the nest, black-necked stilts and gallinules were watching over their chicks as they wandered about, testing their little legs, pecking at bugs.

Mama stilt and her chicks

Mama gallinule and her ugly little babies

Suddenly, there was a ruckus. All the mamas were screeching - gallinule and stilt. I figured that a gallinule had wandered too close to a stilt's nest, because even though they are nesting in the same area, they battle each other back if they get too close. But when I looked up, it turned out that wasn't it at all.

This part isn't pictured because it all happened too fast, and I was just stunned. An egret was on the flats, stalking for prey. The egret zipped into a gallinule's nest and grabbed a tiny newborn in its beak, then took off in flight. The gallinules tried to pursue it, but they aren't swift birds. There was no hope they would catch the egret.

The stilts, even though they are constantly fighting over territory with the gallinules, took off in defense of the baby gallinule. Three of them left their own chicks behind to give chase. They dive-bombed the egret, trying to get it to drop the baby.

Soon they were out of sight, and I can only assume they failed to stop the egret. I was so shaken, so upset at the savagery of nature as I left the park. But later, as I relayed the story to my husband, I realized how amazing it was to see the maternal instinct cross those territorial barriers. How marvelous it was to watch those stilts - tiny, adorable birds, easily only a quarter of the egret's size - turn into bold fighters in defense of another species' chick.

Almost all animals have that in common - we love our children. Many will recognize and protect children of other species as well. In the end, all of this serves to make me glad that I am no longer an 'egret'  eating other species children, but a 'stilt' working to protect them!

Five Vegan Alternatives I Love

While faux-meats and processed vegan foods should have a very limited place in a healthy vegan diet, every once in awhile, we all get nostalgic for the tastes we grew up with. Consumed in moderation, a veggie burger or vegan ‘ice cream’ can satisfy those cravings and help you maintain your vegan lifestyle.

Here are some vegan alternatives to the classic junk food that I loved growing up; maybe they’ll tickle your tastebuds too.

1. Silk Dark Chocolate Almond Milk - I’ve tried several versions of non-dairy chocolate milk, and Silk’s dark chocolate almond milk is the hands down winner for rich chocolatey taste and creamy texture. And at 100 calories and 5 grams of fat less than a serving of chocolate milk made from whole dairy milk, you can feel pretty good about indulging.

2. Primal Strips Vegan Seitan Jerky - When I first heard of the existence of vegan jerky in an online camping community, I was dubious. How closely could it really capture the taste and texture of meat jerky? Really closely, as it turns out! Plus it’s fairly healthy and, of course, cholesterol-free. Now, I’m totally addicted to the teriyaki flavor, and my omnivore husband swears the lime mesquite flavor is the best jerky he’s ever tasted.

3. Earth Balance Mindful Mayo with Olive Oil - The first time I tried Mindful Mayo, I emailed the company to thank them for giving me back the gift of the classic Southern staple - the tomato sandwich. I’ve tried the other brands of vegan mayo, and to me, none really capture the taste and texture like Mindful Mayo. Challenge your omnivore friends to see if they can tell the difference!

4. Koyo Lemongrass & Ginger Ramen - Half the calories of conventional ramen, made with organic ingredients, lower in sodium, and vegan too? I was sold before I even tasted it! Thankfully, it’s truly tasty too!

5. Amy’s Organic Brown Rice, Black-Eyed Peas, and Veggie Bowl - One of my earliest food memories is unwrapping the aluminum foil from my Swanson TV dinner while watching television with my older sister. Frozen food has always been comfort food for me. But for someone who is not only vegan but soy-sensitive, good frozen food options are hard to come by. This Amy’s Organic bowl is hearty, delicious, and definitely comfort food. When I make it for lunch at work, people always stop by to find out what smells so wonderful!

Messing with the maternal instinct: a new dairy cruelty

This is one of my most painful memories: I woke up from general anesthesia after an emergency C-section and immediately pressed the call button for the nurse. "Where is my baby?" I demanded.

"He's fine," the nurse assured me. "He's in the nursery; they're giving him a bottle."

"But I'm going to breastfeed. I want my baby."

The nurse patiently explained that because I'd been out for so long, they'd had to feed my son formula and they would bring him to me as soon as I was moved to a room.

After that, I was in an out of consciousness for a while, but pervading every waking minute was a sense of desperation. Every time I saw a nurse, I asked what was taking so long. When my husband was allowed into the recovery, I begged him for information. He assured me he'd been to the nursery and our baby was fine, but it made no difference to me. The maternal instinct demanded that I see my child.

When I was moved to a room, I was so relieved. I waited eagerly for them to bring my baby. And waited. And waited. The desperation grew, not because I believed anything was wrong - I knew my son was healthy and in capable hands. No, because of the biological imperative, the primal instinct, of a mother to care for her child. I have honestly never known a stronger drive in my life - no mere emotional response compares. I was just about to try to get out of bed and drag myself to the nursery - giant incision, morphine drip, and all - when they finally brought him to me.

My son will have his 20th birthday in 2012, and the pain and rage over those hours he was withheld from me after his birth are still as real to me as they were in 1992. Maternal instinct is, quite literally, a force of nature.

My friend Peter from Ready for Plan B pointed out an article to me today. From the ironically named Progressive Dairy site, the relevant point was this:

Q: What is one unique thing you’ve tried?
A: Calf sounds.

"We are playing hungry baby cow sounds in the robot stall," said Jones. "It releases oxytocin in their brain and we had some research done by a high school student that it increased milk production by a pound at first and causes them to release their milk faster."

What fresh horror is this?

We know that cows have a maternal instinct. Regardless of whether you believe they can think or feel, this much is known: a defining trait of mammals is that the females nurse their young; therefore, that they have a maternal instinct is self-evident. (If they didn't, they'd abandon their young and the species would die out.) Simply put, a cow's instinct demands she care for her baby, the same as my instinct demanded I care for mine. The dairy industry robs her of the ability to act on that instinct, which is cruel enough. But then to prolong the suffering indefinitely by piping in the sound of her baby's cries?

Imagine being a mother whose child is taken away from her, yet every day, someone plays you a recording of your child crying out for you. Setting aside the emotional aspect, how long do you think it would take for that maternal imperative to fade? How long until your child's cries no longer make you want to react? And you are able to process the child's absence intellectually and choose to tamp down your instinctual reaction. Though I do think they're intelligent creatures, I doubt cows are able to rationalize on that level. No, they're just in a perpetual state of biological drive, with no outlet for that instinct, and the only end in sight is when their milk dries up. After that they're forcibly impregnated and the whole cycle starts again.

To twist and misuse the maternal instinct this way is an affront to nature, and to all mothers everywhere.

Tim Hortons' animal welfare video is insulting your intelligence

In response to pressure from The Humane Society of the US about animal welfare in their supply chain, Canadian mega-chain Tim Hortons released this video to address concerns. The HSUS and others have termed this response greenwashing, but I think it's worse than that. I think they are counting on the fact that you aren't smart enough to see through some pretty blatant manipulation.

In the video, images of clean floors, sparkly factory equipment, pristine white eggs, and uninjured birds are set to placid music and speeches delivered by warm feminine voices. Only girl-next-door pretty, soft-spoken female employees are introduced, or even shown. Touchy-feely dialogue talks about how much they care about the animals, how interesting it is to watch them change and grow.

Now... watch it without the sound on.

What you'll notice is rows upon rows of adult birds crammed in tiny cages. What you'll notice is that they are living cogs in a giant machine. What you'll notice is imagery similar to The Matrix - a dystopia, where life is subjugated to technology. What you'll notice is that these birds will never see the sun, will never care for their own chicks, will never get out of those cages until they die. What you'll notice is that, no matter what nonsense they spew about animal welfare, what they're showing is a factory, not a farm.

It's also interesting to note that while the issue raised by HSUS was the treatment of pigs, the chain chose to focus their response on egg-laying chickens. Why? Because they're banking on the public misconception that animals aren't killed in egg production, they're diverting your attention to a less charged subject. They don't want to show you the rows and rows of pigs crammed into gestation crates without even enough room to turn around, not because the chickens are really any better off, but because that's an image you might connect to death. There are no pretty white eggs to show you, and if they show you bacon, you might make the connection that it's the pig's flesh.

Tim Hortons is insulting your intelligence, but I think you're smarter than that. Whether you eat meat and eggs or whether you don't, I think you know that this company is paying lip service to HSUS's concerns and trying to fool you into thinking that they're actually doing something about it. If you agree, please go click the Dislike button underneath the video, and let Tim Hortons know their ploy isn't working.

Fat Vegans: Why We Matter

Well, PCRM is at it again, this time with a more subtle form of body-shaming in their latest ad campaign. In their newest campaign, targeted at an airline, they suggest a surcharge to sit next to a vegan -- who is of course portrayed as a thin, beautiful blonde woman. It's lovely that they can piggyback off of the airline industry's own record of fat-shaming and play on people's fears that others will be unhappy to share a seat with them or that they will be forced to pay for a second seat. How efficient. (For anyone who may have missed this as an issue, let me assure you, it's one of the most commonly asked questions in the popular Fatshionista community: "How will the airline I'll be taking treat me?". There are also horror stories of very public humiliations.)

Since my initial post about PCRM's body-shaming anti-cheese campaign, I've been engaged in a lot of discussion with folks about obesity and the dangers thereof, nutrition, junk-food, and stigma. I've spoken to people who are as upset by it as I was, people who respectfully disagreed (including PCRM's president himself), and one very angry fellow vegan who told me to "go have another doughnut" because my lack of sudden and startling weight-loss upon changing my diet surely meant I was a "junk-food vegan." (That's exactly the response I expected PCRM's ad to elicit towards fat folks, by the way. No surprise there.)  What no one is talking about is the very heart of PCRM's campaign, similar campaigns from PETA, and the obesity "epidemic" itself: fear and shame.

Virtually every person in this country falls into one of two categories:
1. those who live in fear of being fat
2. those who are ashamed because they are fat.

Stop and think about it for a second. Isn't that sad? Where are the people who are happy with their bodies, exercising because they love the feeling of being active, enjoying food without worry, and making rational eating decisions on the basis of health rather than weight? I know they exist, but how few and far between they are! Most of us are watching every bite with anxiety, looking for ways to cram in another thirty thoroughly repetitive minutes at the gym, and still not liking what we see in the mirror.

Why is there so much fear and shame associated with weight? The medical community will tell you it's because obesity is unhealthy. Sociologists disagree, since the cultural shift in thinking about weight pre-dates most research on the related health issues. But whatever the reason, the most important thing to understand is that it's counterproductive.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the tone of our discussions about obesity and health. The proof? The majority of research about weight and health has come out in the last 30 years. What has happened to global obesity levels in that time period? Global obesity levels have doubled in that time frame, according to a 2011 study in the Lancet. The more afraid we become, the fatter we are.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that's the reason behind the weight gain. Contrary to what PCRM's cheese = obesity ad campaign suggests, obesity is a multi-factor problem. They're right that the increase in average cheese (and meat) intake are probably big reasons. But dozens of things have happened in the last three decades that have an impact on waistlines - for example, the rapid decrease in families with the luxury of a stay-at-home parent to do the cooking, the increase in availability and affordability of unhealthy 'convenience' foods, and the decrease in levels of physical activity.

What I'm saying is that in addition to the weight we've gained as a society, we've gained the knowledge to know it has associated dangers. So why, armed with this knowledge, do we not manage to win the fight against obesity? Because fear and shame are paralyzing feelings, not empowering ones.

And that, right there, is why fat vegans matter. Our very existence is empowering to others considering taking the vegan plunge. It obliterates the gaunt-and-sickly vegan stereotype. It shows that people of any size can live on a plant-based diet without feeling like they're starving. It makes people feel that there are others still on the journey to health who can understand them. It lets them know they can be vegan without being ashamed of not being their "ideal" weight.

I'm not saying that being obese is the healthiest state of being. But isn't being a fat vegan healthier than being a fat carnist? Of course it is.

I'm proud of the positive steps I've taken for my health, and I don't make weight the measure of my success in those attempts. Veganism has given life-changing health benefits to me. I've gone from very ill to very healthy. I'd hate to think of anyone being denied that kind of improvement in their health because they felt ashamed, afraid, feared being judged, or felt that they wouldn't be accepted. So if you, like PCRM, are concerned about other people's weight issues, empower and encourage them; don't shame them.

Lest we forget, veganism is about so much more than weight and health. No matter what I weigh, my conscience is light as a feather!

Learning From My Dog

This is Hashbrown.

Hashbrown is a darling one-year-old mutt that we picked up from our local animal rescue when he was twelve weeks old. He is, perhaps, the most pampered dog on the face of the planet, where "dog" is defined as an animal too large to fit in a purse.

You see, Hashbrown is treated as the baby of the family. He gets carried, coddled, and cuddled like a baby, particularly by my eldest son, in whose arms the dog can be found in about 23.7% of each day. Here is a story that may help you understand the degree to which this is true:

My husband and younger son were on the porch, watching Hashbrown chase butterflies in the backyard. Suddenly, Hashbrown yelped -- he'd run into a branch and hurt himself -- and raced over to where they were standing. As he sat there staring balefully up at them, my  son came to a sudden realization. "Dad, I think he wants you to kiss his boo-boo!"

"No, he doesn't," my husband replied, as though that was ridiculous. But as the dog continued to stare, he decided to give it a try. Sure enough, once he gave Hashbrown a kiss, off he went, back to happily chasing butterflies. You see? Hashbrown is so carefully loved and protected that he manifests learned behaviors normally only seen in three-year-old humans.

Baby of the family. I'm tellin' you.

Anyway, none of this has a thing to do with what I learned from Hashbrown. I just wanted to introduce you.

The other morning, I had an epiphany -- a realization that came from one of those moments of true empathy with an animal, where for that space in time you feel your similarities more acutely than your differences.

Is it just me, or is the routine act of petting an animal, and their tendency to constantly solicit it, generally considered part of their other-ness? Because petting them is soothing to us, we can tend to think of our companion animals as there for our purposes, rather than their own. Yes, we may realize that the act of soliciting petting is for their own sake, but since that's something we don't see ourselves as doing, it still seems other.

On Wednesday morning, I wasn't due into work until the afternoon, so I lazed around in bed watching Parks & Rec re-runs with my hubby. I cuddled up to him, watching with my head on his chest while he absently stroked my hair. Our eldest opened our bedroom door and Hashbrown came barreling in at full speed, promptly wedged himself in between us, and rolled over to have his belly scratched. I laughed and got up to change out of my pajamas.

I wondered to myself, what goes through Hashbrown's head? Why is he such a cuddle junkie? I walked past the mirror and noticed my hair, smoothed down from its normal morning madness on one side -- where my husband had been petting me. Suddenly, I realized that Hashbrown jumping up and licking me the second I walk through the front door is not really any different from me swooping in to give my hubby a hug and kiss when I first get home. Hash's blissed-out reaction to getting his belly rubbed is pretty much the same reaction I have to my husband's back rubs.

What's the difference, really, between a dog's desire to be petted and a human's desire for the comforting touch of a loved one? Not much. Human infants need to be soothed and pleased by touch as much as any companion animal does. The differences, as I see it, are only two: (1) As we age, we unconsciously perceive subtle, societally-imposed boundaries on human touch and reserve it for times that are "appropriate," and (2) because of the human ability to communicate verbally, we can become confident and secure in the love of our families and require less tactile reassurance, as well as communicating our own feelings without the use of touch.

This is interesting to me, because I come from a very non-tactile family. My origin family aren't huggers. They don't touch as a matter of course, or even generally in extraordinary circumstances. There's no hand on your arm, no pat on the back, no mussing up your hair. If hugs happen in my family, I'm virtually always the one to initiate them, and that really only began as a young adult. (None of this is to say they aren't loving, mind you, in their own way. And of course, it excludes my grandmother's rule of kissing everyone on the lips by way of greeting.)

So I've always known that what I deem socially-appropriate touch doesn't match up with what many other people believe to be appropriate. Over the years, I've had to learn not to be unsettled when a co-worker or a relatively new acquaintance hugs me or touches my arm. And I admit, it's still uncomfortable for me, sometimes even when I'm the one to initiate it. It makes me think about how much our early life shapes our perception of touch, and what is and isn't appropriate.

The thing is, touch is healthy. Anyone who has had a baby in the last twenty years has doubtless been exposed to articles and advice on infant massage, the bonding that occurs from the skin contact during feeding, the role of touch in cognitive development, etc. Most of us have probably also read articles about the health benefits and immune-stimulating effect of hugs and massages, such as this one from CNN.

In short, what I learned from Hashbrown is that we should all be indulging our inner puppy, giving and getting positive touch in whatever way is appropriate within our own personal boundaries. Unlike Hashbrown, I'm not going to be cuddling up to people I just met any time soon. On the other hand, I'm going to be a little less worried whether a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old feel it's uncool to get the occasional hug from Mom. And my poor hubby might risk hug overload. (Don't feel too sorry for him. I think he'll survive.)

Trump brothers under fire for hunting photos

Brothers Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump are under fire after photos surfaced of the brothers posing with animals they killed on a recent hunting trip to Zimbabwe. Surprisingly, the outcry is not coming just from animal rights advocates. The tone of the media coverage of the controversy is decidedly against the Trumps’ actions.

While most media outlets fall short of actually criticizing the brothers, the headlines and articles coming out about the issue are hardly neutral. Yahoo’s headline characterizes the photos as “brutal.” TMZ declared the controversy a “war over animal butchery.” New Zimbabwe called the photos “grizzly.” The Huffington post termed the hunt a “killing spree.” Other articles were outright critical, such as the Gawker article that slammed the brothers for “posing like jackasses” or the thoughtful Salon piece that examines the “grotesque hunting spree” in the context of race and wealth.

This negative reaction may be due to the photos themselves, which definitely earn the brutal, grizzly, and grotesque descriptors, but it may also be due to the brazen defense of their actions by the Trumps. Don Jr., in particular, has been brash and vitriolic in his response. He’s taken to his twitter account (@donaldjtrumpjr) to declare he’s proud of his actions, as well as bash and bully his critics - calling them “losers,” “eco nuts”, “weak,” and even resorting to school-yard insults about people’s intelligence or their profile pictures.

While these childish comments could be seen simply as a man heavily on the defensive, perhaps the truest glimpse into the mind of this unabashed animal killer was revealed when he replied to one Tweet, “the opinion of someone who has vegetarian in their bio as that defines them so profoundly means little to me.” (A quick look at Don Jr.’s Twitter profile reveals that, by this logic, what “defines” him is his job title.)

His ‘profoundly’ low opinion of people who identify as vegetarian, combined with his vociferous defense of his actions in Zimbabwe, paints a picture of a man entrenched in the belief that others - whether human or animal - are lesser and not deserving of respect. A picture of entitlement and self-centeredness. But how many will be surprised that a picture like that bears the name “Trump”?

For animal rights activists, there appears to be no opportunity to educate the Trump brothers, whose comments show they are not open to the criticism they’ve received. But the negative coverage from those outside the animal rights community demonstrates that attitudes and actions like theirs are rapidly becoming unacceptable in our society. As the brothers are discovering, it’s a new world - one where compassion trumps killing.

The Rudely Dubious Waiter & the Cheesewashing of America

Today I went to lunch with work pals, and this happened:

Me: I'll have the small roasted vegetable pizza, no cheese.
Waiter: No cheese?
Me: No cheese.
Waiter: *dubious face* You're sure about that?
Me: Yes, quite sure.
Waiter: I just don't get the point. I mean, it's pizza.
Me: *smiles patiently*
Waiter: I'm just saying, I couldn't eat it.
Me: I love it.
Waiter: Oh-kaaay...

As if this wasn't rude enough, when he came back to check on us while we were eating...

Waiter: Is everything okay?
Me: Terrific, thanks.
Waiter: If you say so! I guess maybe you're just used to it...
Me: It's delicious. You should try it some time.
Waiter: Uh... yeah. Maybe.

With the exception of one time that this happened to my husband with an extremely blunt waitress (whose objection seemed mostly about the spinach fettuccine on his plate), I've never seen this happen to a carnist. I've been out to dinner with colleagues who've ordered veal, bloody cuts of beef, organ meats, or with my Gran ordering tongue slathered with mayonnaise - things that many people would consider unappetizing, to say the least. And no matter how high-maintenance or unusual a request people have made, it's usually handled politely. But since going vegan, the dubiousness, if not always the blatant rudeness, is a regular occurrence for me.

I know that asking for no cheese on a pizza is an unusual request, and that people tend to view the cheese as the key ingredient. (Which is silly, by the way, because clearly the crust is the key ingredient. It's not a pizza without it - just a plate full of veggies with cheese on top.) But as restaurant requests go, isn't this one actually fairly low-maintenance? I'm just asking them to leave off one ingredient. One of my companions pointed out that for all the waiter knew, I might have a milk allergy. I'm quite sure that if I'd said so at the outset, he'd have accepted that and moved on.

It just got me thinking about how ingrained in our culture the use of cheese has become. So much so that, as I'm sure fellow vegans have experienced, oftentimes when you ask for something without cheese, you get the cheese anyway and have to send it back. It's as though the kitchen staff just can't wrap their heads around the request. Why would anyone want it with no cheese?


Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I can't help but connect the fact that the government subsidizes the cheese industry with the fact that American cheese intake has tripled in my lifetime. It's down to a sort of passive brainwashing - cheesewashing, if you will - that we seem to view it as essential to the taste of most foods.

The truth is that the powerful savory flavors of cheese drown out the other subtler flavors in your food. There is a whole range of flavors that people don't even know they're missing, and that's kind of sad, isn't it?

For the record, the cheese-free pizza was delicious, and not just because I'm used to it.

How to Be Kind on Purpose

Last week, I was waiting at a traffic light when I noticed the gas tank on the car in front of me was hanging open and the gas cap was hanging down. I popped out of my car to tell the driver and ask her if I could close it for her. (I didn't want to freak her out by just wandering up to the side of the car without explaining myself, but it was raining and there was no sense in two of us getting wet.) I got back in my car just as the light changed, and thought to myself, "Well, there's my random act of kindness for the day."

Suddenly I found myself laughing. Wait a second, I thought, what was random about it? I didn't do it by accident! That's when it hit me how silly a phrase that is. Random is defined as "done without method or conscious decision." I certainly made a conscious decision, and the method I employed is "see someone in need of help, assist them."

What exactly would a 'random' act of kindness be? I wondered. I ran through a dozen ideas trying to find a way to perform an act of kindness randomly. While I can see how you could perform an act of kindness without method (for example, handing the a random person who you pass on the street a five dollar bill), I cannot see a way that you can perform an act of kindness without conscious decision. Basically, the conclusion I came to is that all kindness is, to some degree, shown with intention.

That led me to question whether you should show kindness without method. Is it wise to hand that five dollar bill to just anyone when you could employ the "see someone in need of help, assist them" method? How will you feel about the kindness you've shown if the next person you pass on the street and give that five dollars to is wearing Armani, and as you walk away you see a homeless man?

Then I started to get a little ticked about the whole idea of kindness being random. Isn't a great big problem in our society that people think kindness is optional? That they think they have no social or moral obligation to be kind? BLERGH.

Yes, this was the point at which I reined myself in. There's no point in getting bent out of shape about it, but I do believe that "random acts of kindness" is a poorly-named initiative. The goal, according to the Random Acts of Kindness Foundation website, is inspiring people to practice kindness (which sounds conscious to me) and passing it on to others (which requires method). Unsurprisingly, most of their kindness ideas would require both.

That's great, because when kindness does have both method and consciousness, two people benefit - the recipient and the person who intentionally showed kindness. Research shows it is the consciousness of having performed a kindness that influences happiness. So if that's the case - if being kind brings on happiness - it makes sense that we should be trying to make it more conscious, more purposeful, not less.

All of this is my way of encouraging you to be kind on purpose. Here's a list of ten ways to add a little kindness to your life:

1. Smile. I'll never forget the time I looked up and smiled at a woman passing me in the store and she stopped to tell me that was the first time she'd seen anyone smile all day. You just never know who may really need to see a friendly face.

2. Volunteer. I work in the nonprofit field and I can tell you with certainty, there is a charity in your neighborhood that needs your skills, whatever those skills are.

3. Give a genuine compliment. So many messages that come at us each day tear us down; combat that by building someone up.

4. Be patient with someone who needs it. You know that guy at the office who just drives you crazy because you have to explain everything twice? Or that old lady in the drug store who holds up the line trying to sort out her coupons and dig the cash out of her giant purse? How many times a day do you think someone gets irritated with them? Be the one to cut them some slack today.

5. Say thank you to everyone who assists you. On a daily basis, we're served by others. Whether it's the cashier at the grocery store, the postal carrier, the administrative assistant, the bank teller, or (yes, even) the clerk at the DMV, stop to say thanks. Your life would be harder without them.

6. Listen to someone most people ignore. There are three groups of people who typically don't get listened to: children, the elderly, and annoying people. But all of these people have the same need to be heard that you do, the same longing for a voice. Depending on your level of tolerance, choose the group you can have the most patience with and give them your ear once in a while. I've seen time and time again that it can do amazing things for their self-esteem. And believe it or not, it can help the annoying folks to be less annoying, just knowing someone respects them enough to hear them out.

7. Clean out your closets. We live in a culture of abundance. I can 100% guarantee there's something in your house you will not use or do not need. Give it to someone who does, or to a charity thrift shop.

8. Forgive someone. I'm not talking about mending fences or rebuilding broken relationships - that's a whole other level. I'm just talking about showing kindness in the moment. When someone knows they screwed up and you're about to take it out on them, skip the chastising and move on to the forgiveness. You'll save both parties a lot of stress.

9. Consider a kinder diet. Surprise! Didn't see this coming did you? Yes, unless you got here from a random link and managed to miss the name of the blog, you knew this was in the list, I'm sure. Let's be frank: most people who eat meat, dairy, and other animal products are conflicted about their diet. We all know that suffering and death are inherent in an omnivorous diet, no matter how much we'd love to overlook it. If you're not ready to give it up, at least cut back. And if you're already eating a kind or kinder diet, there are probably still ways you can improve, such as avoiding palm oil (which results in the destruction of critical habitat for endangered species) or chocolate that isn't fair-trade (as conventional cocoa is plagued by child slavery).

10. Be kind to yourself. This is probably the most overlooked form of kindness. Giving yourself  a thank you, listening to your own needs, paying yourself a compliment, or being patient with yourself is just as helpful as it is to do those things for others.

I'd love to hear from anyone who reads this about what intentional acts of kindness you practice, and the effect you've observed. Any suggestions for more ways to incorporate kindness?

The Superbowl: Not so super from a compassion perspective

I refrained from posting this yesterday because I didn't want to rain on anyone's good time. But I was truly surprised to see how many vegan and/or Christian friends were stoked about the Superbowl. A few people were indifferent and one mentioned some negative feeling toward it, but by and large, people were in party mode.

Don't get me wrong: I understand the appeal of football. In the early 90s and 00s, any given Sunday you'd have found me in front of the game, pigging out on chili and screaming myself hoarse. Before NFL Sunday Ticket, I'd go to sports bars with my husband every weekend, even though I don't care to drink and the smoke made me ill. I shelled out hundreds of dollars to go sit in the stands in the sweltering 98 degree heat for a game I knew we were bound to lose. I never went so far as face painting, but I'd wear my team shirt and paint my nails team colors - even though I didn't root on the hometown team and was risking arguments with drunken idiots. And if an argument came, I wasn't backing down - I knew my stuff and I loved the game. On the Rabid Fan Scale, I'd have fallen just below "foaming at the mouth."

So what changed? I went to a pee-wee football game to support my neighbor's kid.

Stepping back a bit, for years my husband had been telling me about the conflicted feelings he had about football. He'd played from the time he was five until he was in his teens and had a real love for the game. But he'd quit after he crippled another boy during a game, accidentally breaking the opposing player's neck with an awkward tackle. For a long time after that, he didn't so much as watch football on TV. When he did start watching it again, the moral implications of supporting the game bothered him. Should we be paying young men to cripple themselves?

Make no mistake: that's what we're doing by supporting football. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Spinal injuries. Crippling arthritis. Pain-killer dependency. Dementia, sleep apnea, and Lord knows what else. (There's a fairly thorough study of self-reports of NFL retirees as compared to the general populous here, if you're the type who likes to read dozens of pages of stats. Of particular interest is the self-rated health status chart on page 28.) The NFL is aware of and trying to address these problems for its retirees, but by then the damage has already been done.

I rationalized it, as I imagine most fans do, by suggesting that the obscene wages pro football players make (a moral argument against football in itself) were offsetting the risk. Basically, my reasoning was that these men were being paid in advance for their future medical care, like hazard pay for soldiers. And it's true that retired football players are, on average, somewhat financially better off than the general population. But not as much as you might think, and a surprising number are dependent on family and friends for support. Yes, there are some retired players living like Trump, but there are also some living below the poverty level. (This is covered in the aforementioned ridiculously long study.)

But I don't think these are the things that bothered my husband. It wasn't as much what the game did to the players that troubled him, but what it did to us, the viewers. He saw football as essentially small-scale war for the entertainment of the masses - armored warriors engaging in hand-to-hand combat to gain or protect territory. And though removed from the action, we somehow consider ourselves participants. We cheer the crushing tackles with blood-lust. We rage at the refs, the opposing team, our own team for losing. I don't think anyone - player or spectator - considers football a peace-creating activity. But does the war-like energy extend past the game itself?

There's definitely something to this. One study showed that in cases of upset losses in football games, incidents of domestic violence rise. And what fan hasn't been in an argument with someone about the game, developed hard feelings towards a certain team or their fans, or been stressed out and angry just reading the sports pages? If we've "put away anger" (Col 3:8), why are we bringing it back out again every Sunday?

As Christian pacifists - those who've chosen to 'lay down our swords for plowshares and make war no more' - or as vegans who have committed to a life of compassion for all living beings, shouldn't all of this prick our consciences?  To object to violence and not object to people dishing out physical harm for pay seems illogical. To object to bullfighting and not object to sacking the quarterback makes little sense. (And this is saying nothing about the fact that 3,000+ cow hides are used each year to make the regulation footballs for the NFL.)

This was what convinced me: the boy next door - a friend of my son - asked us to come watch his first away game in a nearby city. We went out to support him. During the game, these 12- and 13-year-old boys who were playing their hearts out were constantly screamed at, belittled, and pushed by their own parents. The coaches received even worse treatment. I thought it was appalling, but what really got me was when a mother walked away from yelling at the coach with tears in her eyes and said to her companion, "If my boy doesn't make the NFL, I don't know what chance he'll have."

This mom, desperately worried about her child's future, wasn't fighting for his education, wasn't fighting for his safety... No, she was fighting for his medical bills to be paid for in advance, so after a few years of small-scale war, he could retire to a life of chronic pain and possible dementia. That's not what I wanted for that 12-year-old boy, or my neighbor, or any of the kids on that field. We can rationalize all we want and say these pro football players know what they're getting into, but do they really? When they first put on a youth football uniform at age 8 or 9, and begin pinning all their hopes and all their family's hopes on a future in the NFL, do they know a thing about chronic traumatic encephalopathy? Or do they only know they want to be a warrior on a televised battlefield, receiving the adulation of millions of fans if they're strong enough to pull out a win?

If our lives are about building peace, compassion, and harmony, it just seems to me that brutal sports like football are out of step with that practice.

Kasey's Rules for Achieving World Peace

Everyone wants to be open-minded. This trait, defined as "a receptiveness to new ideas or the opinions of others," is essential to discourse when people disagree - without the ability to receive new ideas, no understanding can be reached. Yet, it is one of the most misused, misunderstood terms in the English language. A mistaken belief that one is open-minded can be a profound hindrance to meaningful interaction with others, and is certainly damaging to advocacy efforts.

Having an open mind does not mean believing that another person's position may be equally valid with your own. If that were the case, being "open-minded" would be as good as having no convictions at all. If you don't confidently believe your position is the right one, then you should be doing the necessary research to find the facts of the matter. When I talk to someone about my religious belief, my vegan ideology, or the right way to make a cup of tea, I believe what I'm saying is correct because I've examined that belief and determined it to be so.

To be open-minded is not to adopt a "to each their own" mentality and refuse to engage in discourse. That benefits neither you, nor the person with whom you disagree, which is contrary to the point of advocacy and in some cases could be quite harmful. If people had said 'to each their own' about the harm caused by smoking cigarrettes, for example, how many more people would be dying from their harmful effects today?

So what is an open mind? Simply put, it is the ability to accept that not everyone sees as you see, feels as you feel, believes as you believe, and still treat them with respect. And perhaps more importantly, not to judge them on the basis of your differences. 

Belief is as individual as a fingerprint. Select two random people who share any belief system and question them, and you'll see the differences emerge. Perhaps what they believe is the same, but why they believe it, how they feel about it, how they approach it, what about it is most important to them, this may be different. All beliefs are unique to the person, because belief is universally informed by frame of reference. The great assemblage of circumstances that brought you to a given belief is yours and yours alone.

What this means in practice is that to be open-minded, you cannot judge a person by the things that they believe in, even if you believe those things are wrong. To be open-minded is to evaluate the person's frame of reference, learn why they believe as they do, and accept them as they are - whether or not you are able to convince them of their "error." To accept does not mean to like, approve, or agree - simply to acknowledge what is.

Unfortunately, many of the people who consider themselves open-minded, tolerant, liberal thinkers are as likely to make judgments based on belief as the people who do not. I can't even number the many times people have assumed, based on the fact that I'm Christian, that I'm uneducated, uninformed, anti-science, dogmatic, hate-mongering, or a host of other religious stereotypes. This is no different than the many times, based on the fact that I'm vegan, that people have assumed I'm judgmental, angry, off-kilter, and hungry. I'm not talking about jeering loudmouths on the street making these assumptions. I'm talking about the same rational, progressive-thinking groups of people who would be appalled by a racist or homophobic remark. I'm talking about people who pride themselves on being tolerant. So why do we not see this as intolerance?

The fact is, there are certain groups of people our society says its okay to judge, and often who those groups are depend on which side of the line you stand on. Christians openly judge non-believers; non-believers openly judge Christians. Carnists judge vegans; vegans judge carnists. We have seen how productive this sort of adversarial relationship is, which is to say not productive at all. To be open-minded is to refrain from judgement. To be open-minded is to view each person as an individual, and even if you abhor some belief of theirs, to recognize that their belief does not define the whole person.

Only in this way, by letting each person tell their own story of belief, by examining their frame of reference and motives, can we ever hope to create change.

All of this philosophizing is simply an introduction to Kasey's Rules.

Here are the things I won't do to you:

1. I won't trust other people's negative opinions of you. I'll find out for myself what you are like.
2. I won't judge you because I don't agree with your beliefs, or the choices you make, or your relationships.
3. If I don't care enough to really get to know you, I will be careful not to influence the way others view you.
4. I won't make up my mind about who you are and refuse to see you any differently. People grow.
5. I will not fill in the blanks about your life with worst-case scenarios or experiences I've had with others.
6. I won't let your flaws define my picture of you.
7. I won't look down on you, condescend to you, or scorn you - that would show I think too much of myself.
8. I won't ask you to live by my standards, only to live up to your own.
9. I won't stereotype, pigeonhole, or dismiss you based on the labels that are applied to you.
10. I will not allow differences in our values to devalue you as a person in my eyes.

And the things I will do:
1. I will try to understand your frame of reference, your standards, your priorities.
2. Whether I like you or dislike you, I will treat you with courtesy and kindness.
3. I will make allowances for your flaws, and praise your good qualities.
4. I will speak to you and of you with patience.
5. I will tactfully discuss my concerns with you, confronting things like an adult.
6. I will be open-minded and listen.
7. I will take you at your word, unless I have powerful reasons not to do so.
8. I will be honest with you about my feelings, but accept your right to make your own decisions, and either support you or step quietly aside.
9. I will accept that every person in a group will have a different view of a situation, and strive to make the complete picture out of the varying points of view, rather than accepting one as false and one as true.
10. I will apply these same principles in dealing with the people you love.

I've posted these rules in every blog I've had over the years, and shared them with many people individually. They define my approach to open-mindedness, tolerance, fairness, and compassion. I do my best to apply them in every circumstance, every personal interaction. I will apply them to you, any time you choose to interact with me - through comments, tweets, email, etc. I'd appreciate if you would try to reciprocate. Only with open-mindedness can we hope to achieve accord.