The City That Ended Hunger

The City that Ended Hunger
A city in Brazil recruited local farmers to help do something U.S. cities have yet to do: end hunger.
by Frances Moore Lappé
posted Feb 13, 2009

“To search for solutions to hunger means to act within the principle that the status of a citizen surpasses that of a mere consumer.”
CITY OF BELO HORIZONTE, BRAZIL



More than 10 years ago, Brazil’s fourth-largest city, Belo Horizonte, declared that food was a right of citizenship and started working to make good food available to all. One of its programs puts local farm produce into school meals. This and other projects cost the city less than 2 percent of its budget.

In writing Diet for a Small Planet, I learned one simple truth: Hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food but a scarcity of democracy. But that realization was only the beginning, for then I had to ask: What does a democracy look like that enables citizens to have a real voice in securing life’s essentials? Does it exist anywhere? Is it possible or a pipe dream? With hunger on the rise here in the United States—one in 10 of us is now turning to food stamps—these questions take on new urgency.

To begin to conceive of the possibility of a culture of empowered citizens making democracy work for them, real-life stories help—not models to adopt wholesale, but examples that capture key lessons. For me, the story of Brazil’s fourth largest city, Belo Horizonte, is a rich trove of such lessons. Belo, a city of 2.5 million people, once had 11 percent of its population living in absolute poverty, and almost 20 percent of its children going hungry. Then in 1993, a newly elected administration declared food a right of citizenship. The officials said, in effect: If you are too poor to buy food in the market—you are no less a citizen. I am still accountable to you.

The new mayor, Patrus Ananias—now leader of the federal anti-hunger effort—began by creating a city agency, which included assembling a 20-member council of citizen, labor, business, and church representatives to advise in the design and implementation of a new food system. The city already involved regular citizens directly in allocating municipal resources—the “participatory budgeting” that started in the 1970s and has since spread across Brazil. During the first six years of Belo’s food-as-a-right policy, perhaps in response to the new emphasis on food security, the number of citizens engaging in the city’s participatory budgeting process doubled to more than 31,000.

The city agency developed dozens of innovations to assure everyone the right to food, especially by weaving together the interests of farmers and consumers. It offered local family farmers dozens of choice spots of public space on which to sell to urban consumers, essentially redistributing retailer mark-ups on produce—which often reached 100 percent—to consumers and the farmers. Farmers’ profits grew, since there was no wholesaler taking a cut. And poor people got access to fresh, healthy food.

When my daughter Anna and I visited Belo Horizonte to write Hope’s Edge we approached one of these stands. A farmer in a cheerful green smock, emblazoned with “Direct from the Countryside,” grinned as she told us, “I am able to support three children from my five acres now. Since I got this contract with the city, I’ve even been able to buy a truck.”

The improved prospects of these Belo farmers were remarkable considering that, as these programs were getting underway, farmers in the country as a whole saw their incomes drop by almost half.

In addition to the farmer-run stands, the city makes good food available by offering entrepreneurs the opportunity to bid on the right to use well-trafficked plots of city land for “ABC” markets, from the Portuguese acronym for “food at low prices.” Today there are 34 such markets where the city determines a set price—about two-thirds of the market price—of about twenty healthy items, mostly from in-state farmers and chosen by store-owners. Everything else they can sell at the market price.

“For ABC sellers with the best spots, there’s another obligation attached to being able to use the city land,” a former manager within this city agency, Adriana Aranha, explained. “Every weekend they have to drive produce-laden trucks to the poor neighborhoods outside of the city center, so everyone can get good produce.”

Another product of food-as-a-right thinking is three large, airy “People’s Restaurants” (Restaurante Popular), plus a few smaller venues, that daily serve 12,000 or more people using mostly locally grown food for the equivalent of less than 50 cents a meal. When Anna and I ate in one, we saw hundreds of diners—grandparents and newborns, young couples, clusters of men, mothers with toddlers. Some were in well-worn street clothes, others in uniform, still others in business suits.

“I’ve been coming here every day for five years and have gained six kilos,” beamed one elderly, energetic man in faded khakis.

“It’s silly to pay more somewhere else for lower quality food,” an athletic-looking young man in a military police uniform told us. “I’ve been eating here every day for two years. It’s a good way to save money to buy a house so I can get married,” he said with a smile.

No one has to prove they’re poor to eat in a People’s Restaurant, although about 85 percent of the diners are. The mixed clientele erases stigma and allows “food with dignity,” say those involved.

Belo’s food security initiatives also include extensive community and school gardens as well as nutrition classes. Plus, money the federal government contributes toward school lunches, once spent on processed, corporate food, now buys whole food mostly from local growers.

“We’re fighting the concept that the state is a terrible, incompetent administrator,” Adriana explained. “We’re showing that the state doesn’t have to provide everything, it can facilitate. It can create channels for people to find solutions themselves.”

For instance, the city, in partnership with a local university, is working to “keep the market honest in part simply by providing information,” Adriana told us. They survey the price of 45 basic foods and household items at dozens of supermarkets, then post the results at bus stops, online, on television and radio, and in newspapers so people know where the cheapest prices are.

The shift in frame to food as a right also led the Belo hunger-fighters to look for novel solutions. In one successful experiment, egg shells, manioc leaves, and other material normally thrown away were ground and mixed into flour for school kids’ daily bread. This enriched food also goes to nursery school children, who receive three meals a day courtesy of the city.

“I knew we had so much hunger in the world. But what is so upsetting, what I didn’t know when I started this, is it’s so easy. It’s so easy to end it.”

The result of these and other related innovations?

In just a decade Belo Horizonte cut its infant death rate—widely used as evidence of hunger—by more than half, and today these initiatives benefit almost 40 percent of the city’s 2.5 million population. One six-month period in 1999 saw infant malnutrition in a sample group reduced by 50 percent. And between 1993 and 2002 Belo Horizonte was the only locality in which consumption of fruits and vegetables went up.

The cost of these efforts?

Around $10 million annually, or less than 2 percent of the city budget. That’s about a penny a day per Belo resident.

Behind this dramatic, life-saving change is what Adriana calls a “new social mentality”—the realization that “everyone in our city benefits if all of us have access to good food, so—like health care or education—quality food for all is a public good.”

The Belo experience shows that a right to food does not necessarily mean more public handouts (although in emergencies, of course, it does.) It can mean redefining the “free” in “free market” as the freedom of all to participate. It can mean, as in Belo, building citizen-government partnerships driven by values of inclusion and mutual respect.

And when imagining food as a right of citizenship, please note: No change in human nature is required! Through most of human evolution—except for the last few thousand of roughly 200,000 years—Homo sapiens lived in societies where pervasive sharing of food was the norm. As food sharers, “especially among unrelated individuals,” humans are unique, writes Michael Gurven, an authority on hunter-gatherer food transfers. Except in times of extreme privation, when some eat, all eat.

Before leaving Belo, Anna and I had time to reflect a bit with Adriana. We wondered whether she realized that her city may be one of the few in the world taking this approach—food as a right of membership in the human family. So I asked, “When you began, did you realize how important what you are doing was? How much difference it might make? How rare it is in the entire world?”

Listening to her long response in Portuguese without understanding, I tried to be patient. But when her eyes moistened, I nudged our interpreter. I wanted to know what had touched her emotions.

“I knew we had so much hunger in the world,” Adriana said. “But what is so upsetting, what I didn’t know when I started this, is it’s so easy. It’s so easy to end it.”

Adriana’s words have stayed with me. They will forever. They hold perhaps Belo’s greatest lesson: that it is easy to end hunger if we are willing to break free of limiting frames and to see with new eyes—if we trust our hard-wired fellow feeling and act, no longer as mere voters or protesters, for or against government, but as problem-solving partners with government accountable to us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Moore Lappé wrote this article as part of Food for Everyone, the Spring 2009 issue of YES! Magazine. Frances is the author of many books including Diet for a Small Planet and Get a Grip, co-founder of Food First and the Small Planet Institute, and a YES! contributing editor.

The author thanks Dr. M. Jahi Chappell for his contribution to the article.

NATARAJ RIO PROJECT 2011

http://rioproject2011.wordpress.com/

NATARAJ RIO PROJECT 2011 -http://rioproject2011.worldpress.com

http://rioproject2011.worldpress.com

Introduction

Posted on August 21, 2010 by martinaalencar

Hello!

So, after meeting some amazing people in Tanzania, I decided to set up this site to help them help me with my upcoming project. I am trying to set up an organization to help develop the community in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and make a difference in people’s lives.

I would have never thought so many people could take such a genuine interest in my affairs, wanting so enthusiastically to help a country they don’t even know. I was really surprised and very, very pleased because these people gave me a palpable glimpse to my dreams. I am so thankful and touched, I can’t begin to explain it.

I will kindly ask you to be patient because there is only so much I can write about in this moment. I am travelling with my laptop and am still lacking solid information about the project. I will, however, anticipate some stuff to give you guys a superficial idea of what is pumping ideas and passion through my mind.

Who am I?

I do not think I could ever explain or describe myself. I will try to give you an idea of what is happening and what has helped shape what I stand for today. My name is Martina Mesquita Alencar and I was born in São Paulo, Brazil twenty-one years ago. I was raised in a wealthy family and was very sheltered my whole life. This makes me a minority in Brazil, though it definately did not seem that way. Brazil, like so many other places will give you a head start just because you have money. Anyways, I am now trying to use this opportunity to help bring a sense of equality back to light.

I have invested in myself to be all I can be for the benefit of other people (of course, I realize I am no martyr, I have made sure to enjoy the ride). The plan is to see as much as I can, talk to as many people as I can, gain perspective and dimension and share it with everyone I can. So, a few years into my journalism and social science courses at Uni, I decided to travel the world to fulfil what I was set off to do. It was very subjective journey. I worked in orphanages in Argentina, foster homes, schools, I have camped in Central America, survived the jungle, the heat. I have seen loads, met some of the most amazing people, heard the most bizarre stories and have been plenty inspired in the way.

Everyday I feel more confident and more prepared to put myself out there and reach for anyone who wants to meet my hand. I have learnt loads in the way and have got attached to many children I have been in contact with.

In february, I got really close to a class of eleven year-olds in Rio. They made me want to invest in them, and because of them I decided to restart my studies and my life in Rio. These children are amazing and they really touched my heart. They taught me more than I could ever think possible.

One student in my class, Wesley Gilbert was a happy little chap, chirpy and extremely full of life. Sadly, one week before I came to Africa, in July, I received the news that he was hit by a stray bullet. Sad as it was, he was inside the school, in a maths lesson and a bullet from a street cross-fire (policemen x drug dealers) and killed him. It was devastating. It gave me, however, a confirmation and a stronger desire to raise a generation away from drugs and degrading street life.

Aim:

To make everyday more pleasant for as many people as possible. To make it easier to smile, to make it easier to recognize how life can be good. To show people respect and to have a venue to share what we are and what we know.

Practically, to create a space to bring together people to promote exchange in message, to broaden people’s horizons and incite joy and laughter.

Volunteers are invited to teach kids any skill, to tell jokes and to connect as equals. Difference in backgrounds, views on life are most welcome as to increase their field of reference, to show the infinite amount of options kids can chose to conduct their experience. This will help them develop an analytical mindset which will allow them to become self-sufficient individuals.

What I believe

Money is not fundamental to run this organisation. Time and energy and good spirits are requirements to start this. I believe that knowledge and love put forth can only become something bigger and positive. You might not harvest the fruits of your actions immediately. But be sure that one day your smile has inspired someone to act more compassionately towards someone else, and this has made some other person more kind and could possibly prevent a violent action. Smile like you would like to be smiled at and that will bring change. The more good energy you put out, the more results you will see.

Situation in Brazil

The situation in Brazil is always described as being complex. I am sure it is. I confess I am still very young and have got just enough tools to give you an idea of the situation. This will be mainly come from personal observation.

The thing in Brazil is that you have a really bad distribution of wealth. What does that mean? Very simply, you have the country divided in the very rich and the very poor. This means there is a handful of owners: of land, of major companies, of the media and then, you have the people who work for them.

The way politics and media have written history means that the wealthy remain wealthy and the poor remained poor. As long as they kept opportunity of the poor extremely dire, they could not have the strength/voice to pose any threat to the status of the wealthy.

So there it is: the polar society.

Unfortunately, so many of us have been brought up with values that reinforce the alienation of the rich and the poor. It has snowballed and we cannot even be classified as the same species – though we are (in case you forgot). I will definately post some more thoughts I have on the subject and will further explain the nitty gritties of it all.

Thank you so much for reading this far. I will keep you guys posted and would love the support.

Special thanks to my dear friends: Tracy Hinton (England), Sarah Iqbal (England), Zahrah Sharif (England), Alison Elrick (Scotland), Ian Nickels (Essex boy), Eugena Oram (Wales), Ewan Johnston (Scotland), Chris Paine (Scotland), Amber Hayward (Scotland). I really appreciate the love.

karol zielinski

The Meat Industry Online

"Because one species is more clever than another, does it give it the right to imprison or torture the less clever species? Does one exceptionally clever individual have a right to exploit the less clever individuals of his own species? To say that he does is to say with the Fascists that the strong have a right to abuse and exploit the weak - might is right, and the strong and ruthless shall inherit the earth."

Richard Ryder

Columbine: Whose Fault Is It? by Marilyn Manson

It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. A half-naked dead man hangs in most homes and around our necks, and we have just taken that for granted all our lives. Is it a symbol of hope or hopelessness? The world's most famous murder-suicide was also the birth of the death icon -- the blueprint for celebrity. Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.

A lot of people forget or never realize that I started my band as a criticism of these very issues of despair and hypocrisy. The name Marilyn Manson has never celebrated the sad fact that America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those dipshits Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be surprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols.

We applaud the creation of a bomb whose sole purpose is to destroy all of mankind, and we grow up watching our president's brains splattered all over Texas. Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised. Does anyone think the Civil War was the least bit civil? If television had existed, you could be sure they would have been there to cover it, or maybe even participate in it, like their violent car chase of Princess Di. Disgusting vultures looking for corpses, exploiting, fucking, filming and serving it up for our hungry appetites in a gluttonous display of endless human stupidity.

When it comes down to who's to blame for the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's guilty. We're the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we're the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

Man's greatest fear is chaos. It was unthinkable that these kids did not have a simple black-and-white reason for their actions. And so a scapegoat was needed. I remember hearing the initial reports from Littleton, that Harris and Klebold were wearing makeup and were dressed like Marilyn Manson, whom they obviously must worship, since they were dressed in black. Of course, speculation snowballed into making me the poster boy for everything that is bad in the world. These two idiots weren't wearing makeup, and they weren't dressed like me or like goths. Since Middle America has not heard of the music they did listen to (KMFDM and Rammstein, among others), the media picked something they thought was similar.

Responsible journalists have reported with less publicity that Harris and Klebold were not Marilyn Manson fans -- that they even disliked my music. Even if they were fans, that gives them no excuse, nor does it mean that music is to blame. Did we look for James Huberty's inspiration when he gunned down people at McDonald's? What did Timothy McVeigh like to watch? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones? Do you think entertainment inspired Kip Kinkel, or should we blame the fact that his father bought him the guns he used in the Springfield, Oregon, murders? What inspires Bill Clinton to blow people up in Kosovo? Was it something that Monica Lewinsky said to him? Isn't killing just killing, regardless if it's in Vietnam or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Why do we justify one, just because it seems to be for the right reasons? Should there ever be a right reason? If a kid is old enough to drive a car or buy a gun, isn't he old enough to be held personally responsible for what he does with his car or gun? Or if he's a teenager, should someone else be blamed because he isn't as enlightened as an eighteen-year-old?

America loves to find an icon to hang its guilt on. But, admittedly, I have assumed the role of Antichrist; I am the Nineties voice of individuality, and people tend to associate anyone who looks and behaves differently with illegal or immoral activity. Deep down, most adults hate people who go against the grain. It's comical that people are naive enough to have forgotten Elvis, Jim Morrison and Ozzy so quickly. All of them were subjected to the same age-old arguments, scrutiny and prejudice. I wrote a song called "Lunchbox," and some journalists have interpreted it as a song about guns. Ironically, the song is about being picked on and fighting back with my Kiss lunch box, which I used as a weapon on the playground. In 1979, metal lunch boxes were banned because they were considered dangerous weapons in the hands of delinquents. I also wrote a song called "Get Your Gunn." The title is spelled with two n's because the song was a reaction to the murder of Dr. David Gunn, who was killed in Florida by pro-life activists while I was living there. That was the ultimate hypocrisy I witnessed growing up: that these people killed someone in the name of being "pro-life."

The somewhat positive messages of these songs are usually the ones that sensationalists misinterpret as promoting the very things I am decrying. Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility. Rather than teaching a child what is moral and immoral, right and wrong, we first and foremost can establish what the laws that govern us are. You can always escape hell by not believing in it, but you cannot escape death and you cannot escape prison.

It is no wonder that kids are growing up more cynical; they have a lot of information in front of them. They can see that they are living in a world that's made of bullshit. In the past, there was always the idea that you could turn and run and start something better. But now America has become one big mall, and because of the Internet and all of the technology we have, there's nowhere to run. People are the same everywhere. Sometimes music, movies and books are the only things that let us feel like someone else feels like we do. I've always tried to let people know it's OK, or better, if you don't fit into the program. Use your imagination -- if some geek from Ohio can become something, why can't anyone else with the willpower and creativity?

I chose not to jump into the media frenzy and defend myself, though I was begged to be on every single TV show in existence. I didn't want to contribute to these fame-seeking journalists and opportunists looking to fill their churches or to get elected because of their self-righteous finger-pointing. They want to blame entertainment? Isn't religion the first real entertainment? People dress up in costumes, sing songs and dedicate themselves in eternal fandom. Everyone will agree that nothing was more entertaining than Clinton shooting off his prick and then his bombs in true political form. And the news -- that's obvious. So is entertainment to blame? I'd like media commentators to ask themselves, because their coverage of the event was some of the most gruesome entertainment any of us have seen.

I think that the National Rifle Association is far too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries or yours truly. This kind of controversy does not help me sell records or tickets, and I wouldn't want it to. I'm a controversial artist, one who dares to have an opinion and bothers to create music and videos that challenge people's ideas in a world that is watered-down and hollow. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I've always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. So don't expect the end of the world to come one day out of the blue -- it's been happening every day for a long time.

MARILYN MANSON

(May 28, 1999)

Chevron’s Environmental Disaster in Ecuador

Published on Saturday, May 9, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Chevron’s Environmental Disaster in Ecuador
by Paul Paz y Miño

I grew up with family tales about the unique beauty of Ecuador. My father's family made their living on tourism in the Andes, the Galapagos, and the Amazon. Sadly, what was to us a mysterious and majestic example of the wonder of creation was merely a dumping ground to Texaco. They chose to discard 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the pristine rainforest, poisoning its people.

Texaco left Ecuador in 1992, not long after I finished college, and in their wake was left the worst oil related disaster on the planet. That damage is still there today. Mere weeks ago I stood in front of a toxic waste pit, decades old and yet only a few feet from the home of a family of campesinos. Told the area was cleaned and safe, they bought the land and built their home there. Families like that one have lost more than Chevron, or anyone else, can ever repay.

I found it impossible to witness such a horrific site in contrast to the beauty of the rainforest and not be changed. As much as the smell turns my stomach so does the knowledge that Texaco admitted to dumping it, yet refuses to accept responsibility.

Of course, the affected communities are demanding justice from the company that caused the damage. It's actually a very simple case. There's a massive murder weapon, 30,000 victims and a motive -- profit.

Some Texaco executive, who most likely never set foot in the Amazon, nor ever met any of the indigenous people whose territory Texaco invaded with helicopters and massive machinery, made the cold calculation that saving $3 per barrel was worth the destruction of this part of the rainforest. It still gives me chills to read the 1972 memo from Texaco describing their policy of hiding spills and destroying records.

In fact, every decision that has been made from the very first one to drill has been made to choose profit over people and the environment. Decisions that took only the shortest-term impacts into consideration, yet decisions that would wreak havoc on the world's oldest and largest forest. The toxic waste pits sit there, apparently stagnant, but all the while leaching toxins into the rivers and streams of the Amazon.

Meanwhile, Chevron's decisions to try to cover up its liability continue unchanged, knowing all the while that the resulting inaction means the continued poisoning of entire communities.

The 60 Minutes story that aired this past Sunday has ripped another layer off of Chevron's attempts to bury and ignore this story, like the truly festering wound that it is. The resulting publicity has wiped out much of Chevron's efforts to deceive the financial markets and the general public. I listened to a recent Chevron shareholder call and one of the very first analyst's questions was about the case, it was prefaced with "I know you are not going to be happy about this next question..." Have you seen the internet traffic since Sunday? Chevron is really unhappy this week.

Watching Chevron's strategy in the face of the overwhelming facts and growing awareness is as uncomfortable as watching Chevron spokesperson Sylvia Garrigo compare drinking contaminated water with wearing makeup (a tip for Ms. Garrigo: your cosmetics may very well be harming you, please visit www.safecosmetics.org to learn more). Yet Chevron's executives continue to deny and delay. Time is running out for them and the lies they hide behind (to read Chevron's top ten lies about this case look here). They are learning the hard way that hiding a potential $27 billion dollar liability is just as impossible as hiding 18 billion gallons of toxic waste.

The ease at which Chevron's CEO David O'Reilly (who also happens to be the Chair of the Board) has apparently kept his board in the dark is amazing. Yet, last year that plan came crashing down around him like Bernie Madoff's scheme when O'Reilly was force to disclose to shareholders that it faced a potential liability in the billions in Ecuador.

How does the board of directors miss the hypocrisy of Chevron's "Will You Join Us" ad campaign, asking others to join THEM in making sound environmental and energy efficient choices, while their CEO refuses to seek a real solution to this quagmire? I suppose that is to be expected from a company which bought Texaco without even demanding a master list of all its toxic dump sites in Ecuador (as we learned courtesy of 60 Minutes).

In this economic climate, Chevron's board must realize that they can on longer afford to operate with such poor governance. Their wound is bleeding even more deeply into the social consciousness and Chevron is becoming the poster child for lack of corporate accountability. Today, even the Attorney General of the State of New York is asking tough questions of Chevron.

As my own son grows up I will share with him the same stories of the sacred and timeless beauty of the Amazon. I am confident he will learn from a young age the lesson with which Chevron still grapples. One can only hide from their mistakes for so long, each day you delay facing up to them brings with it a heavier cost, so don't wait until you find that the whole world is at your doorstep demanding justice.

Paul Paz y Miño is Managing Director of Amazon Watch which works to defend the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin.

The Spirit of Revolt

There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable. New ideas germinate everywhere, seeking to force their way into the light, to find an application in life. These ideas are opposed by the inertia of those whose interest it is to maintain the old order; they suffocate in the stifling atmosphere of prejudice and traditions. The accepted ideas of the constitution of the state, of the laws of social equilibrium, of the political and economic interrelations of citizens, can hold out no longer against the implacable criticism which is daily undermining them … Political, economic and social institutions are crumbling. The social structure, having become uninhabitable, is hindering, even preventing, the development of seeds which are being propagated within its damaged walls and being brought forth around them.

The need for a new life becomes apparent. The code of established morality, that which governs the greater number of people in their daily life, no longer seems sufficient. What formerly seems just is now felt to be a crying injustice. The morality of yesterday is today recognized as revolting immorality. The conflict between new ideas and old traditions flames up in every class of society … the popular conscience rises up against the scandals which breed amidst the privileged and leisured, against the crimes committed in the name of “the law of the stronger,” or in order to maintain these privileges. Those who long for the triumph of justice, those who would put new ideas into practice, are soon forced to recognize that the realization of their generous, humanitarian and regenerating ideas cannot take place in a society thus constituted. They perceive the necessity of a revolutionary whirlwind which will sweep away all this rottenness, revive sluggish hearts with its breath and bring to mankind that spirit of devotion, self-denial and heroism, without which society sinks through degradation and vileness into complete disintegration.

In periods of frenzied haste toward wealth, of feverish speculation and of crisis, of the sudden downfall of great industries and the ephemeral expansion of other branches of production, of scandalous fortunes amassed in a few years and dissipated as quickly, it becomes evident that the economic institutions which control production and exchange are far from giving to society the prosperity which they are supposed to guarantee. They produce precisely the opposite result. Instead of order they bring forth chaos; instead of prosperity, poverty and insecurity; instead of reconciled interests, war – a perpetual war of the exploiter against the worker, of exploiters and of workers among themselves. Human society is seen to be splitting more and more into two hostile camps, and at the same time to be subdividing into thousands of small groups waging merciless war against each other. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushes to seek a new organization. It clamors loudly for a complete remodeling of the system of property ownership, of production, of exchange all economic relations which spring from it.

The machinery of government, entrusted with the maintenance of the existing order, continues to function, but at every turn of its deteriorated gears, it slips and stops. Its working becomes more and more difficult, and the dissatisfaction caused by its defects grows continuously. Every day gives rise to a new demand. “Reform this,” “Reform that,” is heard from all sides. “War, finance, taxes, courts, police, everything would have to be remodeled, reorganized, established on a new basis,” say the reformers. And yet all know that it is impossible to make things over, to remodel anything at all because everything is interrelated; everything would have to be remade at once. And how can society be remodeled when it is divided into two openly hostile camps? To satisfy the discontented would be only to create new malcontents.

Incapable of undertaking reforms, since this would mean paving the way for revolution, and at the same time too impotent to be frankly reactionary, the governing bodies apply themselves to half-measures which can satisfy nobody, and only cause new dissatisfaction. The mediocrities who, in such transition periods, undertake to steer the ship of state, think of but one thing: to enrich themselves against the coming debacle. Attacked from all sides they defend themselves awkwardly, they evade, they commit blunder upon blunder and they soon succeed in cutting the last rope of salvation. They drown the prestige of the government in ridicule, caused by their own incapacity.

Such periods demand revolution. It becomes a social necessity; the situation itself is revolutionary.

When we study in the works of our greatest historians the genesis and development of vast revolutionary convulsions, we generally find under the heading “The Cause of the Revolution” a gripping picture of the situation on the eve of events. The misery of the people, the general insecurity, the vexatious measures of the government, the odious scandals laying bare the immense vices of society, the new ideas struggling to come to the surface and repulsed by the incapacity of the supporters of the former regime – nothing is omitted. Examining this picture, one arrives at the conviction that the revolution was indeed inevitable, and that there was no other way out than by the road of insurrection … But, between this pacific arguing and insurrection or revolt, there is a wide abyss – that abyss which, for the greatest part of humanity, lies between reasoning and action, thought and the will to act. How has this abyss been bridged? … How was it that words, so often spoken and lost in the air like the empty chiming of bells, were changed in actions?

The answer is easy. Action. The continuous action, ceaselessly renewed, of minorities brings about this transformation. Courage, devotion, the spirit of sacrifice, are as contagious as cowardice, submission and panic.

What forms will this action take? All forms – indeed, the most varied forms, dictated by circumstances, temperament and the means at disposal. Sometimes tragic, sometimes humorous, but always daring; sometimes collective, sometimes purely individual, this policy of action will neglect none of the means at hand, no event of public life, in order to keep the spirit alive, to propagate and find expression for dissatisfaction, to excite hatred against exploiters, to ridicule the government and expose its weakness and above all and always, by actual example, to awaken courage and fan the spirit of revolt.

When a revolutionary situation arises in a country, before the spirit of revolt is sufficiently awakened in the masses to express itself in violent demonstrations in the streets or by rebellions and uprisings, it is through action that minorities succeed in awakening that feeling of independence and that spirit of audacity without which no revolution can come to a head.

Men of courage, not satisfied with words, but ever searching for the means to transform them into action – men of integrity for whom the act is one with the idea, for whom prison, exile and death are preferable to a life contrary to their principles, intrepid souls who know that it is necessary to dare in order to succeed – these are the lonely sentinels who enter the battle long before the masses are sufficiently roused to raise openly the banner of insurrection and to march, arms in hand, to the conquest of their rights … Whoever has a slight knowledge of history and a fairly clear head knows perfectly well from the beginning that theoretical propaganda for revolution will necessarily express itself in action long before the theoreticians have decided that the moment to act has come.

Nevertheless the cautious theoreticians are angry at these madmen, they excommunicate them, they anathematize them. But the madmen win sympathy, the mass of the people secretly applaud their courage and they find imitators … Acts of illegal protest, of revolt, of vengeance, multiply.

Indifference from this point on is impossible … By actions which compel general attention, the new idea seeps into people’s minds and wins converts … Above all, it awakens the spirit of the revolt: it breeds daring … The people observe that the monster is not so terrible as they thought; they begin dimly to perceive that a few energetic efforts will be sufficient to throw it down. Hope is born in their hearts, and let us remember that if exasperation often drives men to revolt, it is always hope – the hope of victory – which makes revolutions.

The government resists; it is savage in its repressions. But, though formerly persecution killed the energy of the oppressed, now, in periods of excitement, it produces the opposite result. It provokes new acts of revolt, individual and collective. It drives the rebels to heroism, and in rapid succession these acts spread, become general, develop. The revolutionary party is strengthened by elements, which up to this time were hostile or indifferent to it. The general disintegration penetrates into the government, the ruling classes, the privileged. Some of them advocate resistance to the limit; others are in favor of concessions; others, again, go so far as to declare themselves ready to renounce their privileges for the moment, in order to appease the spirit of revolt, hoping to dominate again later on. The unity of the government and the privileged class is broken.

The ruling class may also try to find safety in savage reaction. But it is now too late; the battle only becomes more bitter, more terrible, and the revolution which is looming will only be more bloody. On the other hand, the smallest concession of the governing classes, since it comes too late, since it has been snatched in struggle, only awakes the revolutionary spirit still more. The common people, who formerly would have been satisfied with the smallest concession, observe now that the enemy is wavering. They foresee victory, they feel their courage growing, and the same men who were formerly crushed by misery and were content to sigh in secret, now lift their heads and march proudly to the conquest of a better future.

Finally, the revolution breaks out, the more terrible as the preceding struggles were bitter.

The Spirit of Revolt, Pyotr Kropotkin, 1880.

Environmental Activist Jerry Cope on "The Crime of the Century: What BP and US Government Don’t Want You to Know" www.democracynow.com

AMY GOODMAN: BP has announced its latest attempt to seal the largest oil spill in US history once and for all appears to be working. Dubbed "static kill," the operation forces a heavy, synthetic fluid called drilling mud down into the well. BP said today pressure in the well appears to be stabilizing.

A seventy-five-ton cap placed on the well last month has contained the oil, but it’s considered a temporary measure. According to government estimates, nearly five million barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s oil well before it was capped July 15th. Scientists estimate as many as 62,000 barrels of oil were leaking from the well each day at its peak. That’s more than twelve times as much oil as the government originally projected.

Retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who’s coordinating the Obama administration’s response to the oil spill disaster, said static kill alone is not enough to plug the well.

THAD ALLEN: The relief wells are the answer. There’s a limit to how much we know and can find out from the static kill, if you will. First of all, if annulus cannot be accessed from the top—in other words, we didn’t compromise the seals—then we’ll only be able to fill the drill pipe itself, the casing, with mud, and then we’d have to actually go to the bottom anyway. We need to go into the bottom to make sure we fill the annulus, the casing and any drill pipe there, then follow that with cement. This thing won’t truly be sealed until those relief wells are done.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, ever since BP placed a temporary cap on the well last month, the media has been abuzz with reports of how the oil has largely disappeared from the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. And the New York Times is reporting today the government is expected to announce today that three-quarters of the oil has already evaporated, dispersed, been captured or otherwise eliminated, and that much of the rest is so diluted it doesn’t seem to pose much additional risk of harm. It’s not clear what effect the more than 1.8 million gallons of the dispersant Corexit that was dumped in the Gulf will have.

But independent journalists, scientists, activists and fisherfolk who have been to the Gulf recently tell a different story. I’m joined now by two guests. From Washington, DC, Antonia Juhasz is with us, director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange and author of The Tyranny of Oil: The World’s Most Powerful Industry—and What We Must Do to Stop It. She’s just back from Louisiana, where she found some of BP’s "missing oil"—on the wetlands and beaches along the waterways near St. Mary’s Parish, where no one is booming, cleaning, skimming or watching.

And joining us from New Orleans is environmentalist Jerry Cope. He has spent the last few weeks traveling along the Gulf Coast and experiencing firsthand the contamination in the air and water. He just published a piece in the Huffington Post where Cope argues that instead of celebrating the allegedly vanishing oil, we should be concerned about the disappearance of marine life in the Gulf. He describes the Gulf as a "kill zone" and looks into where the marine animals have gone, given that BP has reported a relatively low number of dead animals from the spill.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Jerry Cope, let’s begin with you in New Orleans. Talk about what you found.

JERRY COPE: Well, a friend of mine, Charles Hambleton, and I came down about three weeks ago. We’ve been hearing a lot of stories. People were calling both of us regarding the loss of marine life and that there was a tremendous cover-up operation in place to conceal this from the public and the media. And this was at the same time where a lot of, you know, mainstream media were complaining about restricted access, that they couldn’t get onto the beaches, they weren’t allowed to fly. So these calls kept coming in.

We finally decided three weeks ago to come down and see for ourselves what the situation was, and we went from Louisiana all the way to Florida, spent a great deal of time around Orange Beach and Gulf Shores, Alabama, which tends—is kind of like ground zero in this whole mess, in terms of especially the effects of the dispersant. There’s a great many people there that are sick and ill. The doctors aren’t really sure how to treat them. Dr. Riki Ott’s been down, spending a lot of time with those folks. Myself, I have a pneumonia induced by chemical exposure. I’ve been talking to doctors in Boston.

But the—we talked to numerous fishermen and local people, and there was, in fact, a very large-scale operation with BP, assisted by several federal agencies, to cover up the loss of marine life. They gathered up the fish, birds, whales, dolphins, all the sea life, and the carcasses were destroyed, in very large numbers.

AMY GOODMAN: Jerry Cope, you mentioned Riki Ott. You interviewed the marine toxicologist—she’s an Exxon Valdez survivor—last week about the disappearance of marine life in the Gulf. This is a clip from that interview.

RIKI OTT: We also know from Exxon Valdez that only one percent, in our case, of the carcasses that floated off to sea actually made landfall in the Gulf of Alaska. I don’t believe there’s been any carcass drift studies down here that would give us some indication of when something does wash up on the beach, what percentage is it of the whole. But anyway, we know that offshore there was an attempt by BP and the government to keep the animals from coming onshore in great numbers. And the excuse was, this is a health problem, we don’t want to create a health hazard. And that will only be a good excuse if they kept tallies of all the numbers that died, because all the numbers, all the animals, are evidence for federal court. We, the people, own these animals, and they become evidence for damages to charge for BP. In Exxon Valdez, the carcasses were kept under triple lock-and-key security until the Natural Resource Damage Assessment study was completed. And that was in about a year and a half—two-and-a-half years after the spill. And then, all the animals were burned, but not until then.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Riki Ott. She’s an Exxon Valdez survivor. She’s a marine biologist. Jerry Cope, take it from there. What happened, do you believe, to the animals in the Gulf, to the marine life?

JERRY COPE: Well, there were two dramatic sequences that were described by workers that were out at the source, which is what they called the Canyon 252 site where this incident occurred. And they reported seeing, just as far as the eye could see, dead carcasses of all kinds of marine life out near the source. And then there was also—we heard numerous accounts of a large wave of marine life being pushed into shore as the dispersant and the oil, the first wave, came in and approached towards the end of June. And then, all of a sudden, it was simply gone. All of these animals disappeared. They didn’t show up in the lagoons in any large numbers. And everyone—all the scientists were questioning, where did they go?

I spoke to Hal Whitehead, who studied extensively sperm whales, specifically, the ones down in the Gulf of Mexico, and there was an unusual pod that was resident in the area of the Mississippi Canyon site, and they’ve also disappeared, the entire pod. And that was an unusual social structure there in that those particular sperm whales were not terribly nomadic. They seemed to stay there, as well as the usual whales that moved in and out with the population.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the Corexit, Jerry Cope, the chemical dispersant? What the government is saying—there is just tremendous elation in the media now with the government announcing that 75 percent of the oil is gone. What about the Corexit?

JERRY COPE: Well, last week, we spent two days flying over the Gulf. We went south from Louisiana and then all the way out, then back, all the way back up to Florida. And for as far as the eye can see, the entire Gulf of Mexico is a very strange green color. It’s not blue at all; it’s green. And it’s iridescent. You can—the dispersant, obviously, covers the entire ocean out there, well beyond the site of the spill. And there’s nothing moving. We saw, in two days of flying, four dolphins, that didn’t appear to be very happy, and then three schools of rays, as I put in the article. There’s nothing moving out in the water there.

And as far as the effects of the Corexit, the EPA came out with these wonderful reports yesterday how it’s no more toxic than the oil. But I didn’t read in any of those reports just how toxic the oil was. BP, in their training classes for hazmat, all of the crews that worked on the spill, part of that training, which was a four-hour program, is they told them, in no uncertain terms, if you had any cuts to your skin, abrasion, open wounds, and it was exposed to the crude oil in the water, on the beaches, any form whatsoever, you could pretty much guarantee yourself that you would get cancer in your lifetime. That was part of the training class. So, the oil is most definitely toxic. The Corexit is very toxic. In my opinion, it’s terrible. It evaporates and puts all of this up into the atmosphere. There’s a lot of sick people along the coast. And I called it the Jaws syndrome. It’s life imitating art on a scale that’s hard to wrap your head around, because they are pretending the situation is entirely normal.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz is also with us in Washington, DC, author of The Tyranny of Oil. You have just come back from the Gulf of Mexico. You’re writing a book on what’s happened there, Antonia. Can you talk about what you found in the Gulf, in St. Mary’s Parish, and where that is?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah. St. Mary’s Parish is one bayou over from Venice Beach area, which is the focus of a lot of the coverage of where the oil has been coming ashore and where a lot of the oil impact has been. So it’s one bayou over. And I went down there to attend a BP community forum that was held Thursday night. And at this forum, the parish president announced that St. Mary’s Parish doesn’t have oil, has never had oil, and won’t have oil hitting its shores. As soon as he said that, he was immediately surrounded by fishermen. And one of the fishermen said, "Well, if that’s true, then why does Kermit have oil in his bag right now?" And one of the fishermen, everyone turned to him, and he said, "You know, I was just out on the water, like I’ve been every day, looking for oil, and I saw oil, and I’ve seen oil. And we’ve been telling you that there’s oil." At that point, the microphone was turned off, and, you know, essentially all hell broke loose. And the Coast Guard, which was there, went over to this fisherman and said, you know, "If you saw oil, show us where you saw the oil." And they went over and they looked at maps, and he showed them where the oil was. And they were very concerned.

And then I, the next day, went out with him, and we spent five hours going along the coast of Oyster Bayou to Taylor Bayou in his boat, and what I saw was oil, waves of oil that had washed in. They had clearly washed in, because it was—you could see the wave effect. It was over the wetlands, grass, grassy areas, just coated in waves of oil that had hit. We went to beaches that were covered with tar balls. And, you know, this is not an unusual sight. Anyone who’s been watching TV has seen these sights. What was completely unusual, in my experience over three months of time going down to the Gulf, is that there was no one around. There were no cleanup workers. There was no boom. There was no evidence that anyone had any concern about this oil. And, in fact, that’s what we found out, that the Coast Guard then reported, after it went and looked at these locations, that it wasn’t enough to worry about. And that didn’t make any sense to the fishermen who I spoke to and the fisherman I was with, who said, "One, this is oil that is in and around where we live, where we fish, at the heart of our livelihood, which is this Oyster Bayou. And also, this is oil coating"—and I saw it—"the marshlands, the wetlands," which is, you know, when the oil gets into the grass, if it stays there, it can kill the root system. If it kills the root system, it kills the wetlands. If it kills the wetlands, there’s no barrier to, one, the oil getting further in and, two, more importantly in this area, hurricane provision and hurricane protection.

And this is also completely out of whack with what BP had been doing previously, in my experience, which is, wherever you saw oil, there wasn’t far behind a BP cleanup crew that would clean it up. Of course, the oil would just wash back on, and then they’d come back and they’d clean it up again. What is astounding, from my experience, is that it is evidence of what we’re hearing and seeing all across the Gulf, which is the cleanup apparatus being pulled away and removed. And the reason to do that is just as these—the press reports are saying, if the oil is out of sight, it’s out of mind. We know it’s out of sight, primarily, one, because the well is capped—thank goodness—but two, that it’s been dispersed. It’s been dispersed, and we can’t see it. And if BP can pull up its cleanup crews and show that everything is OK, the idea is that it would significantly limit the potential liability that BP faces. If it can say about the oil-soaked areas that I saw, "Oh, that’s insignificant," then they’re not liable for cleanup, not liable for the consequences to that community—at least, I imagine that’s what they would argue—in St. Mary’s Parish. Of course, they should be, and are, but that seems to be the logic, and it’s devastating to see it taking shape on the ground.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, you’re in Washington, DC, up from the Gulf of Mexico, because the Senate is expected to take up energy spill legislation today. Quickly explain what that is.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, they’re not, so—what was supposed to happen was two waves of legislation. One was the climate legislation that was supposed to happen addressing the ravages of climate change. That got pushed aside. What was initially supposed to happen was that the climate legislation that was on the table was going to now include spill response legislation, capping—or eliminating the cap on liability for oil companies involved in disasters like this, maintaining the moratorium put in place by the Obama administration, oversight and regulatory measures to the Interior Department, a lot of very good provisions that are needed to address making sure a disaster like this doesn’t happen and making sure—in the future, and making that BP actually is held liable for what it’s done. First, the climate package was pulled. It was felt there wouldn’t be votes for that. Then, just last night, where there was supposed to be a Senate spill bill that was supposed to come through today, that got pulled yesterday, because there weren’t going to be enough votes—just for that, this very small, very simple, very limited measure that would have been the only congressional response at this point, legislatively at this point.

AMY GOODMAN: And very quickly—we have fifteen seconds—BP planning to sell $30 billion in assets?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, BP is starting a fire sale to get rid of $30 billion worth of itself to try and consolidate its operations. My concern about that is, who’s going to buy those pieces? Exxon and Chevron have said they’re in the market. They’ve actually said they’re interested in potentially buying BP. And that would be disastrous, in my mind, in terms of further concentration and wealth and political influence being put into an ever-smaller number of corporate hands. Most disconcerting, we heard that—there’s a rumor that the Obama administration may be—

AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: —signaling a green light to such a potential change—something we want to make sure doesn’t happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz and Jerry Cope, thanks so much for joining us.

From GoVegan.com

Get Active // Effective Advocacy

Answering the Tough Questions

If you've spent any time talking about veganism or animal rights, you know that people ask the same questions over and over again. The key is, every time, to validate the person asking the question—say that you used to feel the same way (if you did). Tell the person that you hear the question a lot, if you do (to show that he or she is just like so many others, who wonder the same thing). Try to ask a clarifying question—this will make the other person feel heard and will help you to construct your reply. Force the other person to think about the conversation, rather than to just listen to you passively! And remember, no matter what their question, your basic argument for vegetarianism—that eating meat is unnecessarily cruel—will not be challenged by their question; you can help them to realize that by asking leading questions.

Below are reflections and responses on the most common sorts of questions. Visit the FAQ section of this site to read more.

“Why are you wasting your time worrying about this? Don't you have something better to do? People are starving in Africa!”

The first category of question basically expresses the other person's sense that there are more important things that you could be doing with your time. They might ask explicitly, “Can't you find something better to do with your energy?” or “Why don't you work on fighting global poverty or child abuse or abortion?”

Remember that your goal is not to win this argument . Of course, the people who ask this question are probably not spending their own time fighting global poverty, so you could easily win the argument by pointing out that the person is a complete hypocrite. But however tempting and fun that might be, that's really not an effective way of bringing this person around to your way of thinking. Instead, acknowledge that it's a good question. Point out that you care about humans, too. And bring them around to an understanding that you are simply asking them to live up to their own ethical standards, which will include opposing cruelty to animals.

You may choose to say, “I see what you're saying, and I do support groups such as Amnesty International and Oxfam that fight for human rights as well. But don't you agree that cruelty to animals should be opposed?” Once they agree, you might continue by pointing out, “One of the great aspects of helping prevent cruelty to farmed animals is that it takes no extra time. We can continue our activism against AIDS or child abuse while simply choosing a veggie burger instead of chicken flesh at lunch. Of course, if we eat the veggie burger, we will likely be around a lot longer to fight for human rights, because vegetarians are less likely to suffer from heart disease, strokes, and colon cancer. Plus, because meat is so wasteful of fuel, grain, and water, you will be helping prevent global hunger by going vegetarian. It's a win-win decision for both animals and people. Here, won't you please read this brochure? I think that it will help explain why this issue is so important to me.”

“But I really just don't care about chickens. I don't care if they are boiled alive—they're only chickens. Why should I care?”

The next type of frequently asked question involves the rationalization of the person's desire to eat flesh. These questions try to divert the issue to something that is really beside the point.

Remember to think about motivation and to grant that the other person is reachable. It then becomes easier to construct a reply. Resonate with what they say—maybe you used to be that way and can understand the sentiment. People like to feel heard. And ask for more information rather than just launching into a monologue.

You may choose to say, “Well, I know what you mean. I didn't used to care about chickens either. Do you care about cruelty to dogs and cats?” After they reply, you'll be able to explain how farmed animals are the same as cats and dogs in their ability to feel pain and to suffer, and that they are individuals who don't want to be intensively confined and violently killed.

But let's say they continue with, “No, I really don't care about animals at all.”

You may choose to say, “I hear what you're saying, but for me, it's not about that. I have some friends who aren't animal lovers, but they have adopted a vegetarian diet anyway, simply because they're opposed to violence and cruelty. Animals on factory farms have their bodies mutilated, they're never able to do anything that is natural to them, and they're cooped up in their own waste for their entire lives. Chickens are bred and drugged to grow so quickly that they become crippled under their own weight. I think that if you could see how bad it is, you wouldn't want to support it. I know this may seem like an odd question, but why do you eat meat?”

Other common rationalizations:

“Animals eat one another in nature, so why shouldn't we eat them?”

“Aren't humans at the top of the food chain?”

“Aren't humans omnivores?”

You may choose to say, “I hear what you're saying, and I used to feel that way, too. But then I realized that in all other aspects of our lives, we don't rely on the law of the jungle, the idea that ‘might makes right,' to determine our moral values. Wouldn't you agree that we should have laws to protect dogs and cats from being abused?” Once you get their assent on that point, you can point out that farmed animals have no legal protection, that what happens to them would be illegal if they were dogs or cats, and move on, perhaps, to say something like, “Like you, I don't support murder, even though animals do fight territorial battles to the death. And no ethical person endorses rape, even though some animals rape as a method of procreation. As humans, we have the ability to be kind, rather than cruel. And of course, there is nothing natural about factory farming; these places are about as unnatural as you can get—mass cruelty, mass abuse, mass torture. Chickens are bred and drugged to grow so quickly that their legs become crippled beneath them—talk about unnatural! Does that make sense to you?”

Here you grant that the question makes sense, find some common ground in combating the argument with things that the other person will resonate with, and then steer the discussion back to cruelty.

“But God put animals here for humans to use as we see fit, didn't He?”

Please know that people don't say this to be callous. They say it because they honestly believe that it justifies their meat-eating.

You may choose to say, “Yes, I hear that a lot, and religion is of course very important in this debate. Would you agree that God opposes cruelty to animals, that God approves of laws to protect dogs from being beaten to death or cats from being poisoned?” Of course, they will agree, and then you can continue with something like this: “Actually, some of my closest friends are Jewish and Christian [or “I am Christian …”], and they are vegetarians because they're horrified by how badly God's animals are treated. From their perspective, God designed chickens to build nests and raise their families; God designed pigs to root in the soil; God designed all animals to breathe fresh air, to play with one another, and so on. But today, animals are denied everything that God designed them to be and to do, and they're horribly abused—they are God's creatures, but we're treating them like they're rocks or dirt or something. We're playing God, really. And of course, the horrible cruelty, even as the Bible teaches compassion for animals—it really does deserve condemnation. Don't you agree that cruelty to animals is wrong?”

Don't argue about whether or not God exists or whether the person's religion is valid. Begin by acknowledging that it's a good question. Get them to agree with you that cruelty to animals is ungodly. Don't try to convince them that they should have a new interpretation of the Bible, Koran, or Torah, or that Jesus was a vegetarian, however strong the arguments for these points are. Meet them on their terms. Raise issues that they will understand and resonate with and, as always, bring it back to cruelty.

“But we've been eating animals for thousands of years, right?”

You may choose to say, “Yeah, we have been eating meat for a long time, but I'm not sure that's a good excuse for continuing to do so. Up until 100 years ago, you could legally beat a dog to death, but now that's illegal. Would you agree that making cruelty to dogs and cats illegal was a good idea?” They will, of course, agree with that, and then perhaps you can move on in the discussion to say something like this: “We held slaves for most of our existence as a species; we treated women and children as property, and so on, but of course, that didn't make it right. One thing to realize, though, is that it's only the past 100 years that we've been able to treat animals as badly as we do now. It used to be that animals had to be treated at least well enough so that they would grow and not die, but we don't even do that now because of all the drugs. It's just so horribly cruel and so unnecessary. That we’ve been doing something bad for a long time doesn’t justify continuing to do it.”

Validate the question, make a solid moral argument, and steer them back to a discussion of cruelty. Ask them a question to keep the discussion going.

Closing: The Four Most Important Things
OK, I'm almost done, but I want to leave you with the four things that I consider to be most crucial.

1. In taking your activism seriously, don't just work harder, work smarter! Please consider how you can be most effective. Please make time for both your activism and for becoming better at it, as though these were the most important things in your life. Because for animals whose lives are worse than we can ever imagine, our activism truly is the difference between unmitigated horror and liberation!

2. Everything that you do matters. Each person you talk to, each person who sees your button, and each person who sees your bumper sticker is a mini-victory. Please do the big and the little things.

3. Use PETA. If you have anything that you want to talk with PETA about, anything that you want to brainstorm with us about—if you want to teach a cooking class and need help, want help with getting video onto cable-access TV, want literature, prior to doing an interview want to role-play—anything at all—we are here to help. We are absolutely at the disposal of activists across the country. Please call us at 757-622-PETA if we can help you.

4. Realize that we are truly winning. I know that it's easy to become discouraged when we're watching videos or reading about a specific instance of sadistic cruelty to animals. But honestly, we are winning, and we're winning at a rate that is lightning fast by comparison to any previous social justice movement.

When I'm reviewing the obscene studies discussed in industry trade journals or watching hours of new footage for inclusion in “Meet Your Meat,” it's easy to become despondent and lose sight of just how far we've come. But really, we've come a long, long way in a very short time.

Recall that slavery flourished on this continent until the mid-1860s. One hundred years ago, there wasn't a single law against child abuse in this country. Not one. Your child was your property, the same as your cow. Many readers probably have living relatives who were alive when there was a spirited debate in Congress about whether the Union would dissolve if those irrational creatures—women—were given a say in governance—that was in 1920! And the list goes on.

For an even broader bit of historical perspective, let's recall that Socrates, the father of all philosophical thought, was teaching more than 2,500 years ago—25 times as long ago as the U.S. outlawed child abuse. Shakespeare, who remains our most performed playwright, was writing 500 years ago—more than three times as long ago as we outlawed slavery.

I mention this not as a history lesson, but rather to point out how quickly things change. Not long ago—in just the blink of an eye, historically speaking—society believed, with complete certainty, that slavery was natural, that women and children were property, and so many other things that are the opposite of what we believe today. As hard as it is to imagine, they were 100 percent certain that these things—now moral anathema—were absolutely true.

Of course, the challenge is not to say, “Hey, look what those moral throwbacks were doing to each other 100 years ago.” The challenge is to say, “What are we doing today that future societies will look back on with horror and shame?

What we are doing to other animals today is the moral equivalent of what we did to other human beings just that short time ago. I agree with Leonardo da Vinci that in the future, society will look back on what we are doing to other animals today with the same incredulity and revulsion that we presently reserve for what people did to other humans in the past.

Think for just a moment about how far we've come: In May 2003, Gallup conducted a poll and found that two-thirds of Americans think we should have strong laws to protect farmed animals from abuse, and 96 percent thought animals should have some protection. The industries that abuse animals will not be able to hold out against public opinion forever.

Indeed, things are changing: Until 1990, there was one ballot initiative to protect animals that had passed at state level—just one! Since 1990, we've passed more than 20.

Animal activism in the developed world has never been stronger or more effective. We have more and more people going into the streets showing what happens on factory farms and in slaughterhouses, taking seriously the need to be not just active, but as effective and focused as possible. The Internet is making our advocacy efforts even more effective, allowing PETA to give out our vegetarian starter kit to more than 200,000 different individuals who requested them in one year via online orders, for example. I could go on and on.

In the U.S., given the numbers of suffering animals, the extent to which they are suffering, and the frivolous and gluttonous reasons why they are intentionally made to suffer so horribly, I am convinced that animal liberation is the moral imperative of our time. I firmly believe that our focus must be on ending the suffering and the death as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The 18th century saw the beginnings of our democratic system. The 19th century abolished slavery in the developed world. The 20th century abolished child labor, criminalized child abuse, and gave women the vote and blacks wider rights. If we all do as much as we can, the 21st century WILL be the one to usher in animal liberation.

I am deeply honored to be a part of this movement with you, and I want to thank you for reading this.

Shut Up and Listen! One Man's Quest for Absolute Silence by George Michelsen Foy

June 9, 2010, Animal Behavior

BP is silencing the sea

By killing or muting marine life, BP silences the Gulf

Published on June 9, 2010

A healthy sea is, if not noisy, at least as full of sound as a Vermont orchard in April--buzzing, humming, grunting, even chirping with the audio output of its varied life.

A healthy sea, though most of us cannot hear it, rings with the signals marine animals make to track prey, find mates, swim fast, yell "trouble!" and otherwise interact.

"Snapping shrimp" make the sounds you'd expect. So do croakers. Black drum make such a loud gulping noise that people living near canals down south can hear them from their time-share condos. Male crabs clap claws to wow girlfriends, schools of menhaden shred water as they leap to avoid bluefish, dolphins fire bursts of sonar to locate squid, whales emit complex "songs" that likely contain messages in Cetacean. On the surface, near the shore, seabirds shriek.

The hearing sense in all species is the alarm sense. There are many species of blind fish but no deaf ones. Sound travels five times faster in water than in air, and much farther. For all these reasons, a healthy sea is a symphony.

The Gulf of Mexico is no longer a healthy sea. While it would be naïve to believe the mercenary hysteria of TV news, it's clear that a good portion of the gulf will be poisoned, its life muted by the millions of gallons of raw oil leaked from BP's Deepwater Horizon well, and the chemical dispersants with which the oil giant seeks to break up the most visible components of the spill. Not enough research has been done to quantify exactly what a spill on the scale of BP's does to the marine environment in the long run, but there is plenty of evidence to prove the medium-term effects are dire. Oil suffocates and mutates fish eggs and larvae as well as the plankton fish feed on. Hydrocarbons have been shown to sicken adult fish, such as plaice. Drilling muds reduce the variety and number of codfish larvae around North Sea oil rigs. Areas of the Brittany coast covered with both oil and dispersants after the 1978 Amoco Cadiz spill show greater damage, even thirty years later, than areas covered with oil only; this suggests dispersants-plus-oil is a more lethal agent than oil by itself. Sea birds--well, we've all seen the pelican pictures. It seems highly likely that the Gulf of Mexico will go relatively silent for the foreseeable future.

Maybe I should qualify that statement. The Gulf will lose much of the complex symphony that healthy animal life plays. On the other hand, it will rock to an increasingly brassy techno beat as it fills with the noise of machines. Even while the sounds of life diminish, the rumble and whine of mechanical activity will fill its blue caverns and green shallows. Skimming vessels, boom boats, rig supply ships, rigs drilling relief wells, rigs pumping oil on other sites, will be churning up the waters between Florida and Mexico for months, for years.

This is not only true of the Gulf of Mexico. All the world's oceans have been growing louder thanks to increased human activity. In some of the more active areas, ambient underwater sound has doubled every ten years since the 1950s. Underwater noise off Point Sur in California, mostly due to commercial shipping, increased by 15 decibels, or fivefold, between 1950 and 1975. An oil company's seismic survey, by setting off charges on the seabed, will saturate 300,000 square kilometers of ocean for days at a time with damaging levels of noise. Active naval sonar--the "pings" the submarine crew listens for, sweating bullets, in WWII movies--routinely soaks 3.9 million square miles of the Pacific, according to studies by Linda Weilgart of Dalhousie University in Canada. The fact that whale strandings are often caused by such sonar is so thoroughly proven that even the US Navy admits it. Further evidence suggests that noise pollution throws off the direction-finding apparatus of deep-diving whales such as the Cuvier, causing them to stay down too long and drown. (All these data are discussed and sourced in my book, Zero Decibels.)

It's a sad fact that an increase in human activity, in most cases, seems to result in the hurt and muting of the non-human natural world. This is sad because that world is complex, beautiful, and still full of songs we have not yet heard, mysteries we have not yet solved. Thousands of species yet exist that we will barely have time to record before we stamp them out. All this is doubly sad because while humans are clever and versatile machine makers we are still products of a biosphere and we depend on its ability to provide us with food, and water, even soundscape. Given our soaring population, our scarcely checked pollutants, our obsession with growth, it is possible, even likely, that our species will not survive the harm we are doing to the rest of the world without undergoing trauma that will make the wars and depressions of the twentieth century seem like a Junior League cotillion by comparison