MoJo Audio: PETA Co-Founder and President Ingrid Newkirk

Interview: The leader of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals discusses her new book, feminism, and Christian values.

By Jen Phillips

October 15, 2008

TOOLS E-mail article Print article BACKTALK E-mail the editor

This is a Mother Jones podcast. Ingrid Newkirk is the president and co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA], the world's largest animal rights organization. The English-born Newkirk has shepherded PETA for two decades, penning multiple books and promoting the organization with controversial publicity campaigns featuring naked models. Mother Jones editor Jen Phillips talks with Newkirk about her newest book, and about the feminists who have a beef with PETA's ads.

Mother Jones: Thank you so much for taking time out to speak with Mother Jones.

Ingrid Newkirk: It's my pleasure.

MJ: So we're going to be talking about your book, One Can Make a Difference, and you have dozens of essays from people from all different walks of life. How did you go about gathering these?

IN: Well, it was a wealth of choices, may I say that. I started out about a year ago thinking that I would put together a book that contained stories—because I hear so many—of people who have set out to help animals in one way or the other. So I started compiling those essays and I began running into so many inspiring people that I began to expand upon it and so now it's people who have helped in absolutely any way. They might have cleaned up, in one case, the path going up to Everest which is littered with trash and all sorts of hazardous waste. Or somebody who invented a medical device, but they're all kind people who have really made something of their lives. At PETA we've always made the point that the most important thing you can do in life is to be kind. And so all these people are kind in one way or the other.

MJ: What are you hoping readers will take away from this book, or what are you hoping it will prompt them to do in their daily lives?

IN: I start the book with, I have a little saying: whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it because boldness has genius power and magic in it. I do believe, as I travel around talking to people about PETA, about our work to stop cruelty to animals, people raise their hands and they commonly say, But what can I do to stop that? And of course everybody can do something to stop that. You can stop eating animals and you can stop wearing fur. But the same is true, wherever I go, people might have other interests too. They might think that there should be an after-school reading program for children. Or they might think that the Special Olympics needs help. You can get involved and you can do something. I believe you have a finite time on earth and who knows how long you're going to live? I think movies like The Bucket List are extremely annoying because it says if you find out that you only have, say, six months to live, you should go out and do frivolous things whereas I think you should look at your life as possibilities that you could leave your mark in wonderful ways. Don't think you can't. You have enormous power, whoever you are.

MJ: The values that you're talking about in this book, just being kind and thinking consciously, and making the world a better place, sound to me like very Christian values. I was wondering if PETA has ever gone after the Christian demographic or done a partnership with any local churches?

IN: Yes, and of course and especially with battered women's shelters and with family homes for distressed people. We also work with a Christian mission, cooking vegetarian hot dogs for people because the last thing I think a homeless person wants is heart disease, atherosclerosis, cancer, and the meat-related diseases. We work, of course, with all sorts of religious organizations who do overseas aid. For example, people give us their fur coats because they've had a change of heart, and we then have used them for everything from wildlife bedding to giving them to religious charities who work overseas who go into regions in remote areas of the globe and we cut the fur coats up and make them into coats for children who don't have the option of going to a store and buying something to keep them warm.

MJ: I've just got the strangest image in my head of someone in the Himalayas schleping around in a Saks Fifth Avenue mink coat.

IN: Oh, it's true, it's absolutely true, in fact I got some photographs this week. We've sent them to Serbia, we've sent them to, you name it for the winter. I've got a picture of some herders the children wrapped up in obviously some fur coats that were once bought in a ritzy store in Manhattan.

MJ: One question I did have. I really do appreciate the work PETA has done but it has gotten a lot of criticism for using women in some of its ads. A lot of times in bikinis, or scantily clad, I think there was a striptease campaign that came online recently. What do you say to people who criticize PETA and say that it's not women-friendly, that it denigrates women?

IN: Well, it's rubbish because the organization is run by a woman, who is me. I marched in the earliest of rallies, I am an adamant feminist, but I'm not a prude and I think you can go to the beach and see people who are in less than you can in a PETA ad. Our people are all volunteers, no one has asked a woman to take off her clothes. I've done it myself, we've all marched naked if we want to, and I think that it's very restrictive and in fact wrong. I would expect someone in, say, Iran to tell us that we should cover up, but I don't expect women or men in this country to criticize women who wish to use their bodies in a form of political statement, to tell them, you need to cover yourself up. There's this idea of 'naughty bits' and I just think it's funny more than anything else. It's not sexist, it may be sexual, but no. No woman has ever been paid to strip. She has decided to use her body as a political instrument. That's her prerogative and I think it is anti-feminist to dare to tell her that she needs to put her clothes back on.

MJ: I guess I just feel that there are so many more women who are vegetarians than male and I don't know if these campaigns are to raise general awareness or appeal to heterosexual males. What do these campaigns bring for PETA?

IN: It's a biological fact, isn't it, that people are drawn to breasts and whathaveyou, it's just a biological fact. Maybe if everyone walked around naked it wouldn't be so appealing. But it does, for example, when Alicia Silverstone did a very beautiful, tasteful, 'naked' TV spot for us it went everywhere because everyone wanted to take a look. But when people came to the web site, after they saw her commercial, they then were confronted with the facts about why she's a vegetarian. So when people come to the web site to gawk, they actually get an education. And that's extremely effective. Because if you just say to people, 'Hello, would you like to see a slaughterhouse video?' people are going to say 'No' and run in the other direction. But if you say would you like to see Alicia Silverstone without her clothes, most people go, 'Good Lord, yes. Let's have a look at that.'

MJ: One thing I saw recently that made me think of you and of PETA is a movie that's coming out called Beverly Hills Chihuahua. And I was just wondering what your response is to that, whether it's helping people empathize with animals or it's kind of exploiting the animal actors in the film.

IN: Well, you know it's a mixed bag. And we have several campaigns related to this at the moment. I wrote a book, just before this one, called Let's Have a Dog Party.

MJ: I have that book.

IN: It's a very fun book, I hope you agree.

MJ: I do.

IN: And I wrote it because Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, these people are terrible role models in that they acquire little dogs like the Beverly Hills Chihuahua as arm candy. One of the lessons is please don't ever get a dog no matter how small or cute if you don't have the time. It's like having a baby. You can't sleep in late, you have to get up and take them out, you can't stay out all night, they need things. I do think that Beverly Hills Chihuahua is going to cause a run on people getting small dogs and that's bad because that's what happened with the 101 Dalmatians movie.

MJ: PETA has so many different campaigns, how do you guys gauge your success? How do you determine whether or not you as an organization have made progress? Do you do it in terms of revenue, or web site visits?

IN: We do do it in a number of ways. For example, our web sites. We have more than a million visitors to PETA.org every month. So we know that's a success. And then of course we have victories, for example, if you see maniquins in a television car commercial please know that it was PETA who got rid of the car crash tests on baboons and pigs. We stopped NASA from sending monkeys into space. We have persuaded over 600 cosmetic and household products companies not to test on animals. We have, we're always doing something that makes a tangible difference. But to me, it's hearts and minds and it's making activists.

MJ: Ingrid, thank you again for speaking with us.

IN: Again, my pleasure

Jen Phillips is an assistant editor at Mother Jones.

Post a Comment
Your Name:
Your Comment:
	Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting. All HTML formatting is removed from comments. Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

Someone needs to tell this woman that having a vagina is NOT a get-out-of-sexism-free card. She and her org consistently compare (usually nude or close to it) women to animals -- but almost never men. I don't care what kind of dangly bits are under her pants. That is sexist; period, the end.

Also, that if she thinks people don't like watching "slaughterhouse videos", she hasn't been going to the theatres much lately. Saw? Hostel? Hello?

Posted by:JoanneOctober 15, 2008 1:10:09 PMRespond ^

I don't think I have ever heard a single person criticize peta's ads because they thought the models should "cover up". Newkirk needs to listen a little more closely and get off the defense...peta used to be a great organization. instead of paying for airbrushing, they gave out free copies of animal liberation by peter singer!

and also, if anyone is interested in the subject of using women to sexualize meat (and vice versa) there is an awesome book called "the pornography of meat" by carol j. adams.

Posted by:MirandaOctober 15, 2008 5:17:28 PMRespond ^

7 Things You Didn't Know About PeTA

1. PeTA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no hunting, no farming, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines.
2. PeTA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals.
3. PeTA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to violent animal-rights groups called SHAC and ALF.
4. PeTA has used their contributors tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front and the Animal Liberation Front, FBI-certified domestic terrorist groups responsible for fire bombs and death threats.
5. PeTA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda. They are totally opposed to traditional farming methods.
6. PeTA spends less than one percent of its $13 million budget actually caring for animals. PeTA kills animals.
7. PeTA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases.
source: www.consumerfreedom.com
www.petakillsanimals.com
www.animalscam.com
www.naiaonline.org

Posted by:ElizabethOctober 15, 2008 8:19:20 PMRespond ^

Why is MoJo giving credibility to PETA? They are nuts.

Posted by:Chiro ChiroOctober 16, 2008 6:32:44 AMRespond ^

As an animal-rights activist, I don't always support everything PETA does, but I'm grateful they exist. If one doesn't like PETA's exploits, please don't dislike all animal rights. There are plenty of other AR organizations to get involved with.

Posted by:TracyOctober 17, 2008 11:37:39 AMRespond ^

I'm surprised that Ms. Phillips failed to ask about PETA's silence in relation to the presidential campaign. For an organization that constantly chastises public figures (and private citizens) for wearing fur and eating meat, they have not made any public statement that I know of about Palin with her moose-hunting and her office filled with stuffed dead animals and animal skins. There is something very odd and unsettling about this to me.

Posted by:NicoleOctober 17, 2008 11:51:42 AMRespond ^

On what basis have we arbitrarily decreed that only humans can have rights and other animals cannot? Is it because most members of the human species possess a higher level of intelligence than most animals? Then why do we protect mentally defective humans? Isn’t this a personal, or rather, an anthropomorphic prejudice?

In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, writes:

"It does seem somewhat disingenuous for Christians to speak so solidly for human rights and then query the appropriateness of rights language when it comes to animals. The most consistent position is that of Raymond Frey, who opposes all claims for rights from a philosophical perspective, or that of Christians who consistently refrain from all such language."

According to Reverend Linzey:

"Raymond Frey, that dedicated opponent of rights theory, has sadly to conclude that ‘we cannot, without the appeal to benefit, justify (painful) animal experiments without justifying (painful) human experiments.’

"Frey accepts this even though he justifies experimentation on animals. Again, ‘The case for anti-vivisectionism, I think, is far stronger than most people allow,’ he writes. Alas, Frey does not seem to regard it as sufficiently strong to oppose experiments on animals OR humans."

"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a life!’

"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience and, in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and non-violence."

Kathleen Marquardt, founded Putting People First, an anti-animal rights group. In her 1993 book, Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, she says:

"The real agenda of this movement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people—to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medications or die." Identical assertions could have been made about the abolition of human slavery, the crusade to end child labor, the liberation of concentration camp prisoners from Nazi physicians or an end to the experimentation upon black humans by white humans.

Marquardt writes that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) "now encourages vegetarianism, the banning of fur, and the eventual end to all animal research, not just ‘cruel’ animal research." Marquardt writes that the Humane Society now supports vegetarianism.

According to Marquardt, "The typical animal rights activist is a white woman making about $30,000 a year. She is most likely a schoolteacher, nurse, or government worker. She usually has a college degree or even an advanced degree, is in her thirties or forties, and lives in a city."

Marquardt cites studies indicating that animal rights activists tend to identify with liberal causes such as feminism and environmentalism. "Every year," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so." It is not surprising, therefore, that Marquardt reports that "Most activists share a bias against Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundations."

According to Marquardt, the "political clout" of the animal rights movement "is surprisingly bipartisan. But most of the leading politicians working with the animal rights movement are liberal Democrats." Marquardt makes mention of Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Nevada Congressman Jim Bilbray, Charlie Rose of North Carolina, Tom Lantos and Gerry Studds.

Marquardt admits, however, that "some Republicans are animal rightists, too. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas often supports animal rights causes—except, of course, those pertaining to cattle, a major business in Kansas. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire was a founder of the Congressional Friends of Animals. Bob Dornan of California, one of the most conservative House members, is an animal rights advocate—he cosponsored legislation banning the use of animals in testing cosmetics and received a PETA award. And Manhattan Congressman Bill Green promoted legislation that would have shut down over 90 million acres of federal land to hunting, fishing, and trapping."

Marquardt states further that "Although he’s not an elected official, a conservative political figure who, surprisingly, is on the other side is G. Gordon Liddy, author Will and a key figure in the 1972 Watergate uproar. When I went on Liddy’s radio show, he and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk greeted each other with hugs and kisses and lots of warm words.

"With allies in both political parties and across the ideological spectrum," concludes Marquardt, "the animal rights movement has been able to score some great successes, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill."

According to Kathleen Marquardt, "We value the life of any human being—let alone that of a loved one—more than that of a dog, pig, or baboon." Isn’t this merely an anthropomorphic prejudice? Membership in the human species as a criterion for personhood is comparable to racism or sexism—discrimination.

Kathleen Marquardt unsuccessfully tries to equate animal rights with Nazism in Animal Scam. She claims that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, and that he suffered from depression, mood swings, irritability, and agitation, all of which are symptoms of a vitamin B-12 deficiency, and that animal products are the only dietary source of vitamin B-12.

According to Carol Orsag, in Irving Wallace and David Wallechinsky’s The People’s Almanac (1975), however, Adolf Hitler consumed animal products in the form of eggs and dairy products, and enjoyed eggs "prepared 101 different ways by the best chef in Germany." He "became vegetarian because of stomach problems" rather than out of compassion for animals, and "was criticized for eating pig’s knuckles."

In a 1996 article, "Nazis and Animals: Debunking the Myths," Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights states that Hitler "had a special fondness for sausages and caviar, and sometimes ham," as well as "liver dumplings." Kalechofsky states further that the Nazis experimented on animals as well as humans in the concentration camps:

"The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In The Dark Face of Science, author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly: ‘The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of, or complementary to, experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme.’"

According to Marquardt: "Having equated animals with man, the Nazis proceeded to treat men as animals." Marquardt wants to have it both ways. She wants to show that the Nazis’ "respect for life" somehow led to a devaluation of human life. But would not a genuine reverence for life—elevating animal rights to the level of human rights—have had the opposite effect? Compassion for every living creature? There is no evidence that vegetarianism (for health or ethics) will make people saints or give them Gandhian compassion, but neither is there any evidence that it will make people Nazis.

Professor Henry Bigelow observed: "There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."

Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human "dominion" over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, lesbian and gay rights, and perhaps every kind of social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.

Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.

Posted by:Vasu MurtiOctober 17, 2008 12:29:16 PMRespond ^

Great interview.

Posted by:LeenaOctober 17, 2008 12:34:13 PMRespond ^

"Feminist" is not a synonym for "woman." There are male feminists, and there are female anti-feminists. The patriarchy already uses female sexuality and women's bodies as commodities. PETA is not doing anything "liberated" or "revolutionary." You want to be revolutionary? Use men's bodies the way you use women's. [deleted], at least it'd give us women something different to look at for once.

I think vegetarianism is nonsense anyway, and veganism even more so. They take all these mistaken, industrial-food-industry-generated ideas about health and nutrition and concentrate them in one ideology and you know what? It's killing people. The unhealthiest people in the world are the ones with either (1) access to way too much dietary sugar and starch or (2) the least animal food in their diets.

I hate industrial foodmaking, and would gladly support local, humane, and artisanal enterprises if they were more widely available and more affordable. Heck, if I could raise my own chickens and goats I think I'd be in heaven. But we're animals just like they are. Even cows eat bugs sometimes, and they certainly digest the protozoa in their GI tracts. And if human beings didn't bury our dead we'd be eaten by animals a lot more than we are currently. There's no reason we need to pretend that our eating animals is so much worse than when they do it. Death comes to us all, and somebody is going to eat somebody in the end.

I'm obese, and guess what? I gained the last fifty pounds of my overweight while on a vegetarian and sometimes vegan diet. I suspect that the little bit of health benefit people have found from it came from their increase in vegetable and fruit consumption. Meanwhile you have people like Steve Pavlina (a personal growth blogger) going on raw-food vegan diets for a month to the point the skin on their hands is cracked and bleeding and incredibly, they claim it makes them healthy. Yeah, OK. Get back to me in ten years when you're in a mental ward, dude. Personally, I'm a lot saner and healthier when I cut back the grains, eliminate the soy and eat more critters.

MoJo, why don't you interview Sally Fallon and Mary Enig? More mainstream publications than you are have done so--they have a lot of compelling things to say about the human diet, and maybe it's time more of us listened to them.

Posted by:DanaOctober 17, 2008 1:20:47 PMRespond ^

And, by the way? I'm darned sure gonna favor my own species over any other. That's what EVERY OTHER species does. I'd be stupid if I didn't. Now, this doesn't mean I can't care about ecological concerns. I have to, if I want my species to survive. But I'm not going to give my species and all others equal weight. That's stupid.

I'd also like to point out that what we're talking about here isn't concern for species. Veg*nism is about concern for individuals. We are supposed to believe that the rights of the individual are more important than survival of species. Look into the field of paleopathology, though, and you see what happened when population groups gave up meat in favor of grains. They died sooner, they were sicker in life, and they didn't even reach their full potential in height.

The only way you can make veg*nism healthy is through the industrial food system. Period. You have to industrialize grains and beans to get anywhere near the nutritional benefit of animal foods. For instance, you have to produce yeast in larger than normal amounts to get B12 for vegans and it's not even as good a version of B12 as they'd get from, say, eggs. Ditto for protein. Don't even get me started on that.

And, well, industry is one of the things destroying the worldwide climate. Along with--wait for it--industrialized farming. I don't mean animals either. I mean the amount of forest we have to destroy to grow crops. I mean the number of animals we have to kill who want to eat the crops. (Yes! Veg*ns kill animals too!) Did you know you can raise cattle on lightly forested land? Did you know that this so-called "inefficient use of energy" involved in eating animals instead of eating their plant food directly, BENEFITS us when it comes to plants we *can't* eat? For example, goats can eat poison ivy, but we can't. But we can eat goats who've eaten poison ivy. So whatever nutrients were in the poison ivy that we couldn't have accessed because of the toxin, goats make those available to us. The same is true of most grasses and shrubs that are inedible to humans but can be eaten by ruminants.

Yeah. There's a lot they're not telling you. To be fair, I think there's a lot they don't *know.* Most First World veg*ns are urban and suburban inhabitants and don't actually know much about nature. Go figure.

Posted by:DanaOctober 17, 2008 1:30:10 PMRespond ^

Firstly, I have a lot of respect for PETA. I don't agree with the previous comments that they are against traditional "farming methods." They do, however, take a stand against the mistreatment of animals that is rampant in the American meat production industry. PETA also supports vegetarian and vegan lifestyles. Veganism is widely believed to be the healthiest choice for individuals, for the environment, and of course for animals. Denying this fact in favor of the convenience of eating meat and animal by-products is simply ignorant. If you stand behind your choice to eat meat, so be it, but it is not because it is ethical, healthy or humane to animals. (I am tempted to say 'duh' here.) I would also guess that the vast majority of PETA members have pets, so it is ridiculous to say that PETA is against people responsibly owning and adopting domesticated animals in need. As for irresponsible breeding and neglectful pet ownership, yeah, I guess they may be against that. They must be crazy. Also, seriously? We are all angry because they are using the female body to make a point about the disgusting nature of wearing another animal's skin to cover up? I really think we should start censoring artists too (lady justice and her super chic burka anyone?). Feminism is not the same as being a prude. I want to hear women up in arms about still, in 2008, making only a fraction of what your male counterparts are making. I do not want to hear that boobies are making you uncomfortable. Seriously?

Posted by:SarahOctober 17, 2008 2:01:10 PMRespond ^

I completely agree Dana, I read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes ( it was recommended on Dr. Weil's website) and it completely changed my approach to health and nutrition. I was a vegetarian for 10 years and a vegan for 2 of those eating what I thought was very "healthy" food, lots of grains, soy, low fat. I could never understand why my skin was so bad, I was overweight, tired all the time, bloated, heartburn, got sick frequently, etc. I then read the Protein Power Life Plan by Dr. Michael and Mary Dan Eades which explains the science and practical aspects of a low carb lifestyle in such a convincing, well researched, and evidence based way that 6 months ago I completely changed my diet and all the aforementioned health problems have almost completely disappeared. I recommend everyone take an impartial look at the science behind these Paleolithic type diets, because the evidence is extremely compelling. We humans are animals too, and like other animals must eat the way that evolution has designed us in order to be optimally healthy, there is nothing morally wrong with that in my opinion.
Good websites for more information:
Gary Taubes article in the New York Times-
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa ge.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63
http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm
http://www.proteinpower.com/ (Dr. Michael Eades blog is fantastic)
http://forum.lowcarber.org/
~Leah Richmond
http://www.myspace.com/honeybee_1980 ( I’m on facebook too)

Posted by:Leah RichmondOctober 17, 2008 2:15:56 PMRespond ^

Miranda,
There are plenty of people who are vegan/vegetarian, animal rights activists who do not support PeTA's Ads. You should check out this link.
http://www.postpunkkitchen.com/forum/index.php

Posted by:ElizabethOctober 17, 2008 3:34:26 PMRespond ^

This is a crazy dangerous [deleted]!

Posted by:Chris GilesOctober 17, 2008 6:09:49 PMRespond ^

I subscribe to Mother Jones and enjoy getting the MoJo Headlines via email. So I'm taking the time to say that I am very put off by your referring to
"being kind and thinking consciously, and making the world a better place, sound to me like very Christian values."

I was surprised by the comment and find it objectionable because it classifies such kindness and consciousness as "very Christian." What kinds of characteristics would you describe as Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist?

Posted by:AlexOctober 17, 2008 6:21:35 PMRespond ^

The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The world Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, hadock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

Posted by:Vasu MurtiOctober 17, 2008 7:40:50 PMRespond ^

Sarah, the issue isn't boobies. It's why PETA chooses to use sexualized images of women to try and promote its message. It doesn't use sexualized images of men; why not? Do they think that heterosexual women flock to PETA events to see boobies? Why not try to attract those women with hot naked men? And really, the "it can't be sexist because I'm a woman" argument is so much nonsense I can't believe Newkirk made it with a straight face. Phyllis Schafly is a woman.

Posted by:mythagoOctober 18, 2008 2:04:08 PMRespond ^

Theological ammunition for animal activists:

Most Christians argue they are no longer under Mosaic Law and the Old Testament (with its commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, dietary laws, etc.), because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8)

There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus, however, to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher" 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related Scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus began his ministry teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.

Sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28)

Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." (Mark 12:29) This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was Paul's theology. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really did come to abolish the Law and the prophets, Peter would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and that they were worried because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21).

None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets.

Paul said if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that include Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that include Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the laws demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)? Would that include Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that include Jesus who said that it's easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity". Bertrand Russell referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity.

I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."

Posted by:Vasu MurtiOctober 18, 2008 2:54:30 PMRespond ^

I'm sure PETA would objectify men in their ads if really really good looking ones volunteered to be objectified. Alecia, Pamela, and all the other beautiful naked women volunteered, remember? What beautiful man would volunteer to be naked for PETA? Find the man and I betcha Ingrid would be all over it.

Posted by:PiperNovember 27, 2008 12:30:06 PMRespond ^


Songs for the Mahdi Army Cats v. Dogs: Which Pet Is Greener? Greens Gone Wild Ecogeek Deathmatch: Ed Begley Jr. v. Bill Nye, Science Guy		A Glossary of Sustainability Your Top 20 Econundrums—Solved! The MoJo Interview: Frank Rich Why Somali Pirates Are Good For Obama

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com

Real Viagra, Cialis Levitra Deal
Dare to compare our competitive prices. Free overnight delivery to new patients in the US. No catch 22!

Bob's Red Mill Organic Flaxseed Meal
In addition to its great nutty flavor, our flaxseed meal is high in fiber and packed with essential Omega-3 Fatty Acids.

PEACEFUL HOLIDAY GIFTS
Items featuring the 1958 peace symbol shirts, buttons, hoodys, signs, stickers, pins...more.
union made • detroit peacebuttons.info

End the genocide in Darfur
Every day, Darfuris face rape, murder, and starvation. Be a Voice for Darfur: tell Obama to end the suffering.