George Bush: Pardon All the Turkeys

Progressives should support not just the rights of children, but the rights of animals! Regardless of where one stands on abortion (yes, there ARE progressive pro-lifers), we can all agree that cruelty to children is wrong--and the same applies to animals.

A rational case exists for the rights of preborn humans. The case for animal rights is stronger and more readily apparent. Animals are highly complex creatures, possessing a brain, a central nervous system and a sophisticated mental life. Animals actually suffer at the hands of their human tormentors and exhibit such "human" behaviors and feelings as fear and physical pain, defense of their children, pair bonding, group/tribal loyalty, grief at the loss of loved ones, joy, jealousy, competition, territoriality, and cooperation.

Dr. Tom Regan, the foremost intellectual leader of the animal rights movement and author of The Case for Animal Rights, notes that animals "have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; and emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference and welfare interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independent of their utility for others and logically independent of their being the object of anyone else's interests."

John Stuart Mill observed, "The reason for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves— the animals."

In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, notes that "In some ways, Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise, and even more so, in the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us."

Christians have found themselves unable to agree upon many pressing moral issues—including abortion. Exodus 21:22-24 says if two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the child is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus. On the other hand, the Didache (Apostolic Church teaching) forbade abortion.

"There has to be a frank recognition that the Christian church is divided on every moral issue under the sun: nuclear weapons, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment, animals, etc.," says Reverend Linzey. "I don't think it's desirable or possible for Christians to agree upon every moral issue. And, therefore, I think within the church we have no alternative but to work within diversity."

Again: Progressives should support not just the rights of children, but the rights of animals! Regardless of where one stands on abortion (yes, there ARE progressive pro-lifers), we can all agree that cruelty to children is wrong--and the same applies to animals.

Since the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 and The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan in 1983, animal rights and vegetarianism are gradually becoming mainstream political issues.

By 1991, seven medical schools in the U. S. had stopped using animals to train their students. In 1991, fur imports and trappings were cut in half. Seventy-five firms had stopped using animals to test their products.

In 1992, Congressman Ron Dellums called for a halt to all animal experimentation in the military. Presidential candidate Jerry Brown said, "The millions of animals used in scientific experiments should be replaced by other methods."

In a letter dated March 26, 1992, Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton wrote to Don A. Jones of Marietta, GA: "Thank you for writing to express your concern for the rights of animals. I have always loved and respected animals and abhorrer any cruelty toward them. Please be assured that a Clinton Administration would be extremely sensitive to these issues and concerns."

In letter dated October 6, 1992, Congressman Pete Stark said he supported H.R. 3918, the Consumer Products Safe Testing Act.

He wrote:

"Animals should be treaded humanely. As I was in the last Congress, I am a co-sponsor of this bill which declares that Federal policy shall encourage the development and use of product testing procedures which accurately reflect the acute health effects on humans of certain products, but...do not rely upon animal testing."

Stark, along with Congressman James Scheuer, is also an original co-sponsor of legislation to ban the use of the steel-jaw leghold trap--banned in over 66 countries. Stark also supports the Endangered Species Act, without weakening its provisions; an immediate ban on the importation of wild-caught birds for the pet trade; a prohibition on sport hunting and trapping in the National wildlife Refuge; non-animal toxicity tests for non-medical products; making medical research more accountable for tax money spent and animals used; and more humane methods of raising animals for food.

This is now the 21st century. People used to mistakenly think humans were omnivores; they know now that, in reality, we resemble the other primates (frugivores), and possess a set of completely herbivorous teeth. People used to worry if one could be healthy on a vegetarian diet; they know now that it's healthier to be a vegetarian and that all kinds of delicious meatless alternatives are readily available.

Celebrities like Paul McCartney and musical groups like the B-52s promote vegetarianism at rock concerts. Other celebrities, like Sara Gilbert of "Roseanne" fame, wear "Meat Stinks" T-shirts on television. And science and technology now provide us with alternatives to animal research and testing.

In secular circles, the animal rights movement is taken more seriously than the right-to-life movement. In an article on animal rights entitled "Just Like Us?" appearing in the August 1988 issue of Harper's, bioethicist Art Caplan was willing to seriously discuss the rights of animals, but warned:

"...if you cheapen the currency of rights language, you've got to worry that rights may not be taken seriously. Soon you will have people arguing that trees have rights and that embryos have rights..."

Peter Singer concludes in Animal Liberation that "by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation, too."

Keith Akers, in A Vegetarian Sourcebook, similarly concludes:

"In the long run, we are all going to be vegetarians. Doubtless through further exploitation of the environment, we can prolong the period in our history in which we think it is necessary to kill animals for food. But the ecological limitations of this procedure will soon make manifest to all that a vegetarian economy is both necessary and desirable.

"Only a small minority of the world's citizens will ever be able to consume meat at current American levels: the resources to support a more intensive livestock agriculture simply don't exist...To continue to maintain a meat economy can only make matters increasingly difficult for everyone, and can only adversely affect the goals of health for everyone and world peace."

Just a final comment: Vegetarians/vegans are not trying to "force" anyone to follow that lifestyle, any more than anyone suggesting driving a more economical vehicle or otherwise lightening our footprint on the environment. It just makes sense and is much healthier for everyone.

So many wonderful comments from the fabulous Common Dreamers to praise for responding to Bill Maher's article.

This coming February will be my 40th year as a vegetarian. I'm not a vegan (yet) as I consume dairy products, and when I discontinued eating anything that"walks, crawls, swims, or flys", my relatives and friends laughed and thought it was a 'fad' and waited for me to revert back to the omnivore diet, telling me I needed 'meat'. Well, many decades later, the 'Doubting Thomas's now ask me for advice on natural remedies to fight the ailments they are afflicted with. They've all cut back on their flesh consumption, and one cousin is now a vegetarian and off the daily insulin injection for diabetes.

Thank you Bill Maher for writing this article. By the way,Bill,if you read these comments, I have just lost respect for a fine comedian, Ellen De Generes for crossing the picket line in the writers strike. There is no justifiable excuse for her rationalization.I love your show and your facial expressions (perfect timing) and the way you handle the right-wingers, but would rather never ever have your show on again if you and your writers scabbed the picket line, which is akin to stabbing fellow workers in the back. Stay healthy, Bill!

The militant Peace and Labor activist

vasumurti:

Wow...I can't believe I forgot to drop John Robbins' name into this discussion by now: thank you for bringing his name into more peoples' search engines. I admire him very much, and I highly recommend anyone who's scratching their heads asking "Who is John Robbins?" to go check this man out. He writes very well, and is truly a treat to read. I don't necessarily share his perspective 100%, but the practical side of his viewpoints is very convincing, and at the same time very considerate of the daunting task of changing the minds of what some in this forum might call "meat-apologists." The level of subjective, emotional and linguistic tenor in his writing is somehow unoffensive to the odd passions I have about this subject, so I'm willing to bet that many others would find his articles quite palatable. I think we all could learn a thing or two from his style and delivery.

Hi DRIFT,

You mentioned that: "I just can't believe that a man who is so manifestly incompetent could've pulled off 911."

Please consider that the shrub is acting much dumber than his otherwise obvious incompetence.

It was all an act to convince the people of:

_1._ INeffective gov't,
_2._ worthlessly organized departments (not just FEMA, the coast guard actually was heroic)
_3._ need to more fully privatize EVERYTHING (to spawn further geometrically growing profits for his "handlers")
_4._ He's really a very fine Christian inspired leader, who has to work with a broken system to obtain pathetic results, and that he wouldn't do ANYTHING that might cause human suffering (to further profiteering).
_5._ Trust him, he's tried so hard to make everything work, but BIG gov't just doesn't have what it takes any longer so we need to make massive changes.
_6._ He only appoints the smartest and most qualified officials "That a way, Brownie"

OUT OF HIS IN-ACTION, he has purposely:

_1._ decimated otherwise proactive and effective (previous administration's) gov't action,
_2._ delayed the disparately needed humanitarian supplies to ameliorate suffering
_3._ Added to that suffering while stealing the spotlight to obtain political visibility on the scene, and the appearance of both concern and action -- while he actually interfered and further delayed the supplies that otherwise would have been distributed several days earlier.

I could go on extensively, but it just makes me sick of the shrub's duplicity, psychological warfare being conducted against thoughtful and concerned Americans (funded illegally by our taxes no less), and pathetic posturing as if he really cared about people (OK, he does care about that class of people whose wealth and power float his "boat").

Namaste

I've been vegetarian since 1982. I attended my first anti-vivisection protest in the spring of 1985. It was outside the biology building at UC San Diego, when anti-apartheid demonstrations were taking place.

I first got interested in promoting vegetarianism in mainstream society after reading John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987). Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, it makes veganism seem as reasonable and mainstream as recycling.

For example, half the water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water are also used to wash away their excrement. U.S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as does the entire human population; creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage.

Animal wastes cause ten times more water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes three times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined. Meat producers are the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contributing to half the water pollution in the United States.

Joanna Macy, author of Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, depicts the advantages of America moving towards a vegan diet in her foreword to Diet for a New America:

"The effects on our physical health are immediate. The incidence of cancer and heart attack, the nation's biggest killers, drops precipitously. So do many other diseases now demonstrably and causally linked to consumption of animal proteins and fats, such as osteoporosis...

"The social, ecological, and economic consequences, as we Americans turn away from animal food products, are equally remarkable. We find that the grain we previously fed to fatten livestock can now feed five times the U.S. population; so we have become able to alleviate malnutrition and hunger on a worldwide scale...

"The great forests of the world, that we had been decimating for grazing purposes, begin to grow again. Oxygen-producing trees are no longer sacrificed for cholesterol-producing steaks.

"The water crisis eases. As we stop raising and grinding up cattle for hamburgers, we discover that ranching and farm factories had been the major drain on our water resources. The amount now available for irrigation and hydroelectric power doubles.

"Meanwhile, the change in diet frees over 90% of the fossil fuel previously used to produce food. With this liberation of water energy and fossil fuel energy, our reliance on oil imports declines, as does the rationale for building nuclear power plants..."

Joanna Macy admits, "This scenario is wildly, absurdly utopian. It is also clearly the way we are meant to live, built to live." What could possibly make it a reality? "It is this very book!"

Paul McCartney also says, "If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is just stop eating meat. That's the single most important thing you could do. It's staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let's do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century."

Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights similarly says:

"Merely by ceasing to eat meat
Merely by practicing restraint
We have the power to end a painful industry

"We do not have to bear arms to end this evil
We do not have to contribute money
We do not have to sit in jail or go to
meetings or demonstrations or
engage in acts of civil disobedience

"Most often, the act of repairing the world,
of healing mortal wounds,
is left to heroes and tzaddikim (holy people)
Saints and people of unusual discipline

"But here is an action every mortal can
perform--surely it is not too difficult!"

When I first read Diet for a New America, I thought it could have the same kind of impact on mainstream American society that Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet had in the '70s.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in pounds. A fellow animal activist in San Diego, Tricia Fernatt, felt as I did: since the vast majority of animals are being killed for food, why are we wasting our time on peripheral issues? Shouldn't veganism be the main focus of our movement? And Diet for a New America tied it all together. If Americans reduced their meat consumption by just 10 percent, it would release enough grain and soybeans to feed over 60 million people.

In writing his expose on the meat industry, John Robbins has been compared to Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader and other whistleblowers. In Diet for a New America, he demonstrates how all the various causes that concern the Left: healthcare, a sustainable energy policy, global hunger, pollution, environmental devastation, etc. are all taken care of in one fell swoop by a vegan diet.

I had the opportunity to meet John Robbins in September 1988. It was one of the most inspirational moments of my life!

He was heir to the Baskin-Robbins fortune. He renounced it at a young age. He traveled to India, opened a yoga ashram in Canada, etc. He spoke of Gandhi and nonviolence. His son Ocean Robbins founded Youth for Environmental Sanity (YES!) and is also dedicated to promoting veganism.

I asked John if he would try and get the American Left to support animal rights. He told me that he had sent a copy of his book to Mother Jones, a left-liberal periodical published in San Francisco.

Many on the Left are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. Joanna Macy spoke at the San Francisco Green Festival, in November 2005. In his 1990 updated and revised edition of Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes that many of the political parties leaning towards the "Green" end of the political spectrum in Europe were beginning to oppose animal experimentation.

John Robbins elaborated further on the economic waste of raising animals for food in May All Be Fed, which my brother gave me for Christmas in 1992. Oxfam, the international charity, reports that in Mexico, 80 percent of the children in rural areas are undernourished, yet the livestock are fed more grain than the human population eats! Meat consumption in Taiwan increased 600 percent between 1950 and 1990. In 1950, Taiwan was a grain exporter; in 1990 the nation imported, mostly for feed, 74 percent of the grain it used.

In the late 1960s, Syria was a barley exporter. But in the intervening years, livestock have consumed increasing amounts of the country's grain. Now, despite a phenomenal 1000 percent increase in the land area devoted to producing barley, Syria must import the cereal.

John Robbins spoke before the United Nations in 1994, where he received a standing ovation.

I had the opportunity to hear John Robbins speak at a Unitarian church here in Oakland, CA several years ago. The church was PACKED! John writes in The Food Revolution (2001):

"The revolution sweeping our relationship to our food and our world, I believe, is part of an historical imperative. This is what happens when the human spirit is activated. One hundred and fifty years ago, slavery was legal in the United States. One hundred years ago, women could not vote in most states. Eighty years ago, there were no laws in the United States against any form of child abuse. Fifty years ago, we had no Civil Rights Act, no Clean Air or Clean Water legislation, no Endangered Species Act.

"Today, millions of people are refusing to buy clothes and shoes made in sweatshops and are seeking to live healthier and more Earth-friendly lifestyles. In the last fifteen years alone, as people in the United States have realized how cruelly veal calves are treated, veal consumption has dropped 62 percent."

How did our progressive little chat room become so tainted with pharasaical RULES and judgments:

Can't belong if you eat meat.
Al Gore's busy gazing at his awards.
Being a progressive means you're a vegan.

Jesus spoke of the Pharasees and Saducees thanking God that they were not like other men.

While the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

It seems to me we need to learn how to discuss without demonizing others and their points of view. More humility!

thewonderingyou

No apology need be given. I'm truly enjoying this debate across the spectrum. Some wonderful points (civilly) presented from just about everybody.

THE WONDERING YOU: Agreed! I will check out the book. Inspired, enlivened discussion is after all the OTHER good head.

HYBRIDOMA: I love your posting about our ties to nature and her cycles. I am nearly finished with a book that seeks to explain how time is experienced on the inside (especially of women who phase with the moon). In a society that prefers to medicate people OUT of what they feel, this book is RADICAL! Time itself is revolutionary! Today as the moon completes its passage through Taurus, the sign of food, we eat leftovers, but this month's full moon in Gemini proves king of discourse, and where we face internal polarity, as well as note it in the antipathies evident in our world. Blessings...

I was wondering when 911 was going to enter the thread...

Give Maher a break. He is running a comedy show, after all. I think he's hilarious, and when he does drop the f bomb, it's well-placed. He's not just cussing to prove he can because he's on HBO. The guy's extremely well-spoken, in addition to being funny as all get out.

And as for being childish, I think those charges are better leveled at people shouting from an audience during a live broadcast. If you listen to the audio, you can't hear anything but incoherent yelling anyway.

Look, I've seen "Loose Change" on youtube. It is a compelling argument that the official story about 911 doesn't add up. No argument there. The problem is we can't therefore draw the conclusion that GWB orchestrated it. This is a guy who hasn't been able to orchestrate ANYTHING during his time in office, from "No Child Left Behind" to the debacle in Iraq to the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. I just can't believe that a man who is so manifestly incompetent could've pulled off 911. Hence, drawing the conclusion that it was an "inside job" is at least as specious as the official story.

I realize I'm about to get pounced all over from alot of folks on CD I otherwise admire and agree with. I hope you will understand I'm not trying to bait anyone here. The official story is a lie. This is apparent. The official report is a cover-up. Clearly. But just who is behind all of this I just don't think we can know yet. And I wish there were enough people in this country who weren't scared out their minds who would demand that the entire investigation be re-opened, and run by an independant counsel.

Anyway, Go Bill!

WTF, it wasn't until I lived on a farm and almost all of my food came from our farm, except things like milk and cheese and other dairy products that I learned things taught in no textbook. I like meat. But it wasn't until my first Christmas on this farm that I took part in the killing of a pig. The screams were terrible and then watching and helping in cutting up the pig taught me something I had never realized before. Everyone there was so thankful for what the Earth had given them.

Almost none of the people born before the Spanish Civil War could read or write but they knew everything about life and taught me so many things. One of those was living in harmony with nature.

We shared wines that different families had produced and the old women would ask me to taste the sausage to find out if it tasted good or not. In short, it was an experience I had never had before: a true Thanksgiving.

I understand that the world is in dire need of many changes in the way we live, and a large part of that problem is raising so many animals as livestock. As to whether a person is a meat eater or not, that's for each person to decide.

But back to the farm; for those who have never lived on a large farm (our main crop was olives, in Southern Spain) where almost all of your food is provided for you from the earth, there is a true sense of gratitude toward everything nature gives us, plant and animal and earth. In fact for me, I had this sense of something primordial, which had been awakened in me. It was like a spiritual experience for me. I was thankful to the pig that was raised to feed many people, and parts of it, once salted and dried, provided food for months.

Even the weather was something to give thanks for. One becomes aware of the moons and planting times. Ancient thoughts and feelings rise back to the surface. Cycles are recognized, and the stars provide a show each night, as you sleep out in the field with a couple of dogs to watch over and protect the goats – and the olive trees from the goats!

Killing was visible and death was seen and lived, not hidden away from view like today. Death is part of the cycle, and while difficult at times, it was a necessary thing to do and an inescapable fact.

In most parts of the world, this all needs to change because we can no longer live in harmony with nature. We have taken and taken and not given back. The great wheel of Karma has rolled and now it is our turn to begin healing the damage we have done. What stands in the way of this is greed by the huge corporations which have no sense of Thanksgiving. It is time for those of us who are lazy and uncaring to wake up and become a part of the solution.

If this doesn't happen now, then we will have missed the opportunity to change Karma and the Earth will take things firmly back into her hands. And it won't be just the pigs which are slaughtered; it will be almost all living beings and living plants and animals. Her farm may lay fallow for many a year, until it's time to raise a new crop.

These debates always include the monumentally stupid contention that killing a broccoli plant is the same as killing a cow or a pig. When you meat-eaters can come up with an argument that makes sense, let me know. In the meantime, your mind-boggling stupidity is showing. (Plants lack nervous systems...just a hint).

"Fish is OK" Nonsense; fish-eaters are not vegetarians. Fish have nervous systems...

Vegetarians have a holier-than-thou attitude. Not really. Nothing is holy.

Siouxrose:
"I hope I have enlightened you as to MY position."
You have, and I'm thrilled to finally have a dialogue with you. Your 5th grade teacher sounds like one of the kinds of teacher who've inspired me to be one. I don't share your beliefs on the explanation of the mysteries behind the "mostly-empty-space" school desk, but exploring the differences between our viewpoints is certainly intellectually stimulating. If "the space between us" (Sorry, Dave Matthews) intrigues you, I highly recommend Michio Kaku's "Parallel Worlds" (He's a devout Christian physicist, but don't hold that against him) as a fascinating trip to the very widest lens of the cosmological micro/telescope. I couldn't put the book down...

Hello all.

I'm glad I sparked some discussion. I'm hopeful that I sparked a little introspection and re-evaluation as well, but it doesn't seem like I've been as successful as I'd have liked.

A few replies, and then a general rebuttal.

imfedup:
Sorry about the vulgarity. Truly, I am. That was part of the "wanting to scream" passion that I feel about this topic. I honestly didn't mean to offend anyone.

kgarry:
I've lived with cats all my life. They've all lived a privileged life. Your personal attack does not merit any further comment.

WTF:
I fail to see what was "holier-than-thou" about my post. Your suspicions about my "true intent and life-style" are prudent in this medium of semi-anonymous comment postings, but I am no apologist. I see no reason to apologize. To me, consciousness and self-awareness are not a prerequisite for moral standing in issues of worthiness to live. That is my position, and it has been honed through studies in moral philosophy, botany, environmental law and ecology. I will give ample treatment to your use of terms (harvest, murder, consume, exploit, etc.) at the end of this post, for therein lies the point I was trying to make.

vasumurti:
History is indeed fascinating. But more recent research, study, and even concensus in gut morphology, anthropology, and ecology beg to differ with your claim that the esteemed Dr. Kellogg's observations "hold true today." History is rewritten daily, as new facts arise. I salute you in your eriudite review of historial viewpoints, but the truth remains necessarily malleable.
Ashoka was prejudiced. "Certain animals?" Sounds rather antithetical to me if the first precept of Buddhism is to be taken at face value. "All life." All life. Life is life.

AdeleTheCzech:
"centuries of certain kinds of local diets" and "tradition"...yeah, I'm from Wisconsin and I'm living in Taiwan. I can't tell you how much I miss good cheese! Curses to lactose intolerance! ;)

pacplyer:
Thanks, man. I felt so alone until I read your post. I'm glad there's someone out there who understood.

Now, here's the rebuttal and condensation of my point, for those of you who ignored, missed, or misunderstood: we are--I must repeat--heterotrophs. We eat other organisms to survive. You can call it murder, you can call it harvest, slaughter, hunting, or whatever other form of linguistic baggage suits you, but we end the life of other organisms in order to survive. We need to get over that fact, not as an apology for suicidal behaviour as a species by sacrificing the planet for hamburgers, not to assuage our guilt over shooting a buck in the forest for venison steaks, not as a rationale for spending weekends fishing or a justification of home gardening, but as a way of rising above the language and emotion of this childish bickering over the "rights" of one form of life (the ones who display what we call "consciousness") over another. The stakes are too high for us to be speciously speciistic. Cast off the linguistic and emotional baggage and you will be able to formulate an argument that can truly persuade, instead of one that polarizes, divides, obfuscates, and impedes. A truly rational argument for vegetarianism/veganism that can turn the masses, instead of turn them against you.

I'm on your side, goddamnit. I'm just trying to make this campaign more effective.

THE WONDERING YOU: Thank you for your respectful response. You said, "evolution does not have a "goal" in mind." I have to differ here. My view is based on teachings from the Theosophical School. These individuals took their Western academic learned intellects and braided their understanding with many mystical teachings founded in India and other Eastern nations. They explain that evoloution in the plant world works something like this: on higher planes, devic forces hold up an energetic imprint, something akin to a blueprint, that GUIDES the plant in its growth cycle and helps it "navigate" a program more likely to ensure its survival. Just as the human engineer uses blueprints to guide the structural evolution of a building, nature's unseen kingdoms act as those architects. We don't see these forces working, just as we don't see the continuity of souls beyond the mortality of the physical body. AS a natural intuitive who has studied mystical topics for 30 years, I have seen things many in this forum would take to be impossible. I have read countless more accounts of similar.

From the moment my 5th grade teacher explained that the desk that appeared as a solid before my eyes was anything BUT solid, rather it was a dance of whirling atoms, my worldview altered. WE know how we've been spoonfed an absolutely inaccurate account of history; many of us have recognized similar departures from Truth in our formative religious training. Discovering Truth is an inside job! But there are and have been many illuminated ones.

I believe there are different KINGDOMS of nature, so it's not that one is better to another; but there are evolutionary plans for each. The human is the bridge between the animal and the Divine (see Tarot), and as such, what I call evolution represents the degree to which singular souls and society at large comes to embrace a more Divine ideal. By Divine I mean, one that sees the oneness, the beauty, the love, the creative, rather than the negative, divisive, aggressive, etc.

I hope I have enlightened you as to MY position.

Bush has pardoned more turkeys then humans.
Bill Maher however, the media bad-boy board member of PETA is more concerned with being able to drop the F-bomb on his show like a fourth grader in class then exposing the truth about 911. Content enough with the official fairy tale or just afraid to investigate the official fairy tale because he might upset the wigs at HBO, who knows.
Lets see, willing to defend turkeys but unwilling to investigate the official fairy tale about 911 and honor the dead from that, not to mention the two wars (so far) and the innocents killed in those.
Fourth estate my ass!
Apparent difference?

I'm a meat eater, in fact I had what I consider a delicious turkey TG dinner. I only occasionally eat pork, and very very rarely beef and almost never ground beef since I'm paranoid about BSE (bovine spongiform encephalitis or "mad cow") which I suspect is not as guarded against here in the US as we are led to believe. Mostly it's chicken and turkey and fish and a little pork. And even with that I'm not what you would consider a big meat eater. I'm not saying this to outrage vegetarians or vegans, I'm just coming clean with where I am. I do have sympathy with the vegan (or at least vegetarian, see below) lifestyle, respect them and wouldn't dream of ridiculing them.
To be completely honest I think a lot of meat eaters would become vegetarian (ovo lacto) except they think they would miss the taste of meat. I'm certain that will raise objection, but you can't deny its probable truth.
I think cruelty in meat production is apalling and should be legislated and enforced out of existence, but if given the right conditions I see no reason why at least ovo-lacto consumption (eggs, milk, cheese, cream, etc) can't be humane and quite rational.
I think many people can relate to the ovo-lacto veg lifestyle, but vegans strike many as obsessive and a bit strange.
Regarding some of the posts that humans can easily subsist on non-animal products. I agree, though it's harder for growing children and certain human societies. I'm thinking in particular of Eskimos, who, I think you would agree, would have a pretty hard time finding enough nuts and berries on the frozen tundra. Now you may say "they should migrate the hell out of there" and I would again agree, but now we're straying from the particulars of human circumstance, and Eskimos are only one example.
In the ideal world we would all have gourmet menus to fit our ever whim and nothing would ever be hurt or killed. That may in fact be the route to the future, but we'll first need to master the art of synthetic food production.

If you are in California please help the volunteer effort to get the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act on the ballot here for November 2008. This bill should be a no-brainer as it provides basic protection to farm animals by letting them move around and stretch their limbs. We urgently need volunteer help in collecting signatures to get this measure on the ballot. Please go to http://humanecalifornia.org/ for more information. Happy Thanksgiving.

Impressive, great comments by everybody again.

Vegans: I understand your point of view, but I am an evolutionist. I do not mean to diminish your respect for critters, but I am aware of a common ancestor with the primate line six million years ago who descended from rodent-like mammals who were primarily root and plant eaters but who which occasionally would opportunistically eat meat when they could. This is our linage. Our colon evolved from both sources of nourishment (including insects,) but primarily plant matter. Your decision to be Vegan is a good one. You are right of course, and for all the right reasons. We do not mean to diminish your respect for critters. Natural Selection is horrible, but, as the East Indians would say: it is what you are. Now we need to all become primarily vegans to slow the worldwide thermal footprint. To reach the mainstream meat eaters I think we need to appeal to their self-serving sense of survival (gout, cancer, cardiovascular disease, bovine green house gasses.) Many are not going to quit eating animal flesh because they want to be nice to defenseless animals, imho. Neocons like littlebush reportedly tortured small animals as a boy and apparently still gets off doing it.

Thewonderingyou: I enjoyed your post immensely. Outstanding perspective, well done. I agree it would have been more timeless without the profanity; but that is what conveyed the passion. Makes me wish I had given more thought to my post. I tried to edit it but wordpress didn't allow it; I had forgotten to include the more important ideal that you eloquently articulated about making a consumption choice that gives the least impact to both yourself and the environment. (I loved the honesty in making a "murder" choice) But the most salient point you make is that the hard core vegans (at least publicly) need to rethink like a right wing republicans and convert the masses to a vegetarian lifestyle by any effective means possible. Maybe to shackle them with blood guilt keeps them eating hot dogs in retribution of those damn hippies? Many of them know its healthier to load up on the fruits and veggies; they just can't break the fast-food slaughterhouse habit.

Of course I could be wrong, but that's my impression having lived among the carnage of a hunting rural family.

I have succeeded this month, to get my folks to shop at local farmers markets held in the parking lot (even though it's a lot of trouble at their age, and it burns gas to get there.... but it fights the Frankenfood industry.)

At least get you neighbors to consider becoming semi-vegans. Parking cars is next.

Save the Planet.... Save Yourself.

(No Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we are not Greenpeace hippies, we are just like you and we want the temperature to stay below 50C at night: so quit supporting the slaughterhouse.)

vasumurti: Thank you for the post – I figured if I put the 'truths' up there someone would either belittle me or spread some insight into the Buddhist take on meat eating. Your words are inspiring and I will look into the books you mentioned. I thank you for the information and of course, for not belittling me.

Giovanna,

Thank you. I always enjoy reading your posts. Sinclair's book "The Jungle" indeed, is an excellent read. What I find fascinating is how he had three quarters of the book completed and got mind block. That is when he went on a walk and observed the disgusting practices of the meat packing industry in Chicago. When he completed the book, it became a national best seller. He said "I aimed for America's heart and accidentally hit its stomach." One of the first readers was an irate President Theodore Roosevelt who promptly summoned a meeting with members of Congress to draft legislation mandating changes to meat packing (and inspection) processes. I remember when I first the book, it definitely made me think twice about eating a hotdog or hamburger. Today, it still does the same.

The first precept of Buddhism is: "Do not kill, but rather preserve and cherish all life." There is an ancient poem, reputed to be the only text ever written by the Buddha himself, which states:

"Let creatures all, all things that live, all beings of whatever kind, see nothing that will bode them ill. May naught of evil come to them."

The Buddhist emperor Ashoka (268-223 BC) declared in one of his famous Pillar Edicts: "I have enforced the law against killing certain animals..The greatest progress of Righteousness among men comes from the exhortation in favor of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living beings."

Mahayana Buddhism supports the vegetarian way of life. According to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra: "The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion."

The Lankavatara Sutra says:

"For the sake of love of purity, the bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh, which is born from semen, blood, etc. For fear of causing terror to living beings let the bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh...It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specifically meant for him...Again, there may be some people in the future who...being under the influence of the taste for meat will string together in various ways many sophisticated arguments to defend meat-eating...But...meat-eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionally and once and for all prohibited...Meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit..."

The Surangama Sutra says:

"The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life. But in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life...After my parinirvana in the final kalpa different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment...How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings."

The Dalai Lama once said: "I do not see any reason why animals should be slaughtered to serve as human diet when there are so many substitutes. After all, man can live without meat."

For further reading:

Dr. Tony Page, Buddhism and Animals
Norm Phelps, The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights
Steven Rosen, Diet for Transcendence

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life is suffering;

2. Suffering is due to attachment;

3. Attachment can be overcome;

4. There is a path for accomplishing this

Thank you, Caroler. Also, kudos to Deepa and Claudius. Howard Zinn rocks. A People's History of the United States should be a mandatory text book for all high school students. I also believe that children should be taught about the Constitution beginning in elementary school and through high school. I'm not just talking about the pollyanna version of the history of the constitutional convention, which is really all kids learn. I'm talking about an entire class that teaches students what each article and amendment actually means. Part of the problem with this country is that very few people seem to know what the constitution says. They don't realize the Bill of Rights is their protection from governmental tyranny. The Declaration of Independence is a mystery to most people, too. They know it exists, but they never read it. We all should, every year especially on the Fourth of July! Now that would be a good tradition...

This why our current government easily violates tenets of the Constitution every day with complete impunity. This is also why our government convinces Americans that "unitary executive" powers NOT delineated in the document are somehow "inherent," while also telling them that specific tenets do not exist or are open to the "decider's" interpretation! I'll never forget former NSA director and current CIA director, General Michael Hayden, arguing with a reporter about the existence of a probable cause standard in the Fourth Amendment. In what should have been an eye-opening moment for Americans, Hayden repeatedly demonstrated that he either does not know the basic language of this key part of the Bill of Rights, or he wanted Americans to be intentionally misled. He vehemently and repeatedly denied that the Fourth Amendment requires the very high standard of probable cause in order to get a search warrant. This is simply a lie. Remember, this is the guy who Bush placed in charge of his warrant-less and RANDOM wire-tap program of Americans in strict violation of both FISA and the Fourth Amendment. Certainly HE should understand the Fourth Amendment--after all, it's only one sentence in length. This incident was an outrage, but went virtually unnoticed by Americans. The media remained mostly silent. Now there's a big surprise. Try having a discussion with someone about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights sometime. Most people haven't got a clue!

To AdeleTheCzech, I appreciate and understand your position regarding animal 'welfare' laws, but I respectfully disagree. How we treat the most defenseless and innocent among us is indicative of who we are as a society. We live in a world and nation that is becoming increasingly predatory, self-involved, and lacking in empathy. Why do we have laws? Because of people. People cannot be trusted, unfortunately. Unlike other animals, the human animal is cunning, cruel, and greedy at times; thus, we need laws to protect society. Animals require protection from people, also. They are completely defenseless. We already have animal cruelty laws; I'm just suggeting that they should be extended. I'm not talking about animal welfare, but instead fines and imprisonment for corporations that participate in or tolerate cruelty to animals. Yes, these animals are going to die, but they shouldn't have to suffer needless pain and suffering. I applaud you and your family for boycotting factory raised meats. We should all follow your example.

Humans are frugivores, and not natural omnivores.

The frugivores (gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates) have intestinal tracts twelve times the length of the body, clawless hands and alkaline urine and saliva. Their diet is mostly vegetarian, occasionally supplemented with carrion, insects, etc.

Flesh-eating animals lap water with their tongue, whereas vegetarian animals imbibe liquids by a suction process. Humans are classified as primates and are thus frugivores possessing a set of completely herbivorous teeth. Proponents of the theory that humans should be classified as omnivores note that human beings do, in fact, possess a modified form of canine teeth. However, these so-called "canine teeth" are much more prominent in animals that traditionally never eat flesh, such as apes, camels, and the male musk deer.

It must also be noted that the shape, length and hardness of these so-called "canine teeth" can hardly be compared to those of true carnivorous animals. A principle factor in determining the hardness of teeth is the phosphate of magnesia content. Human teeth usually contain 1.5 percent phosphat of magnesia, whereas the teeth of carnivores are composed of nearly 5 percent phosphate of magnesia. It is for this reason they are able to break through the bones of their prey, and reach the nutritious marrow.

Zoologist Desmond Morris makes a case for vegetarianism in his 1967 book, The Naked Ape:

"It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient feeding patterns."

In The Human Story, edited by Marie-Louise Makris (1985), we read:

"...recent studies of their teeth reveal that the Australopithecines did not eat meat as a regular part of their diet, and were mainly peaceful vegetarians, rather like chimps or gorillas. The popular image of the murderous ape is now as extinct as the Australopithecines themselves."

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores "have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth--showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

"Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

"Man instinctively is not carnivorous," explains Dr. Latto. "...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do; people enjoy doing it; they don't feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

"I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening."

Author R.H. Weldon writes in No Animal Food:

"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."

As far back as 1961, the "Journal of the American Medical Association" reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions."

More recently, Wiiliam S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded:

"Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

Keith Akers, in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usuallly placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

Finally, even if humans really are omnivores as some claim (and this claim is subject to dispute: I would refer these people to Dr. Milton Mills or to the website of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, www.pcrm.org , which advocates a vegan diet, an end to vivisection, etc., for the latest on whether humans are frugivorous or omnivorous), my friend Mareechi Duvvuuri (another Hindu-American!) who once studied sports medicine, pointed out that the diet of natural omnivores is mostly (up to 85 percent) plant food.

I emailed this article to almost everyone in my address book. Please spread the word. Thanks Bill Maher for the new rule, brillant as usual.

Happy Thanksgiving Bill! I think it's great that you bring these topics into the public forum. I have learned allot about how animals are pumped up with steroids and antibiotics and slaughtered mercilessly in the past year. That's why we eat allot of venison at out house. My husband respects the animals. He never shoots unless he has a clear shot. They live free and die quickly. He has sort of a spiritual connection with them. and YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT SO WHY NOT EAT SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL!!??? come on over and we'll fix you some. love ya

To Giovanna, who wrote: "I understand that people are omnivores and eat meat. However, humanitarians, whether meateaters or not, should never tolerate cruelty and abuse of animals. Unfortunately, I no longer trust our legislators to ... create laws abolishing such gratuitous and unnecessary torture of animals..." Exactly right! But fortunately, we don't need animal welfare laws (much as I would prefer them) to start making a difference right away.

My family has stopped buying all meat that is factory farmed. We've found a local place that raises chickens naturally, and buy eggs and an occasional fryer from them. We don't buy much beef, but when we do it's from the Coleman Ranch, which raises cattle naturally. Niman Ranch raises hogs naturally, if you're a pork lover. Yes, all these sources are more expensive than the supermarket, but we just buy less, so the cost evens out.

It seems that few of the commenters here have ever lived on a small farm, as I did when young. We raised chickens and had a milk cow. There was nothing inhumane in how these animals were treated! Later I tried vegetarianism, but I simply had no energy on that diet. Apparently I need a small amount of meat protein to thrive. (Despite my handle, I am only 1/4 Czech and the rest German and Danish. I wonder if centuries of certain kinds of local diets predispose one to be healthier if one stays within the tradition.)

Anyway, I hope that -- with all the contentiousness in American political life today -- we omnivores and vegan/ vegetarians can stop the arguments and fights. If we can't find a way to "live and let live" when it comes to food, how will we ever solve our far more serious problems?

Thank you, Bill Maher, and thank you Giovanna (your post made it worth reading to the end).

Anyone ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? It's difficult to read because it deals not only with a lack of empathy toward people, but also animals. The setting of the book takes place in and around a Chicago slaughterhouse, circa 1900, during the Industrial Revolution. The emphasis of the book was the meatpacking idustry's abhorrent working conditions, but readers also were enlightened to, and outraged by, the unsanitary and disgusting food contamination. Seems we've come full circle and we're right back to where we've been. When history repeats itself, it's called regression, the opposite of progressive, enlightened evolution. It's not a good thing. When this happens, conservatives are usually in charge.

When it comes to the elite robber barons from 100 years ago or now, empathy and Bush's so-called "compassionate conservatism" are never figured into the agenda. What's the agenda? "Free-market" (deregulated) capitalism, American-style: The pathological pursuit of profit at the expense of anyone (human or animal) or anything (morals, civil liberties) that compromise some corporate bottomline.

People of this ilk are incapable of empathy; "compassionate conservatism" is not only an oxymoron, but a flat-out lie. There is something disturbing about people who can tolerate and/or commit human or animal atrocities. It's called psychopathy, an inate, pervasive personality disorder indicated by a complete and total lack of conscience, a profound lack of empathy or remorse, and a desire to control and humiliate. These folks are indifferent to the suffering of people--friends, family, or strangers--and animals. Where do these people lurk? Everywhere, and that's what makes them so scary. They seem to figure prominently on Wall Street, 'K' Street, political offices, corporate boardrooms, religious organizations, mercenary groups, or just about anywhere where someone or something can be exploited for personal gain.

I'm a realist. I'm also an animal lover. I understand that people are omnivores and eat meat. However, humanitarians, whether meateaters or not, should never tolerate cruelty and abuse of animals. Unfortunately, I no longer trust our legislators to do the right thing and create laws abolishing such gratuitous and unnecessary torture of animals. Although disguised as a democratic republic, in our actual kleptocratic corporatacracy, any legislation that strives to achieve a more compassionate, evolved, and enlightened nation is immediately discarded.

As for the "tradition" of eating turkey on Thanksgiving, like all traditions, superstitions, rites, and rituals, it's served its time. Although many seem harmless, rituals can be dangerous because they are designed to subtley reinforce ideas that are generally manipulative or dangerous in nature. They're a form of brainwashing. Need proof? Read the classic short story, The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson. If The Lottery doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Ipenek writes: "The fact is much of the world's populace depends on animal meat for adequate protein, especially for growing children."

This argument was discredited by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (a top surgeon) in 1923, and his observations hold true today.

In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:

"Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped him for hunting."

According to Dr. Kellogg, "The statement that man is omnivorous is made without an atom of scientific support. It is true the average hotel bill of fare and the menu found upon the table of the average citizen of this country have a decidedly omnivorous appearance. As a matter of fact, man is not naturally omnivorous, but belongs, as long ago pointed out by Cuvier, to the frugivorous class of animals along with the chimpanzee and other anthropoids.

"The hog is a truly omnivorous animal. Although he thrives best upon a diet of grass or clover, tender shoots, seeds, and succulent roots, he will eat animal flesh, raw or cooked, with avidity when hungry, and he does not hesitate to regale himself upon carrion, after his taste has been cultivated in this direction.

"Man is not omnivorous. He cannot subsist upon grass or raw grain. Taking his food from the hand of Nature, without the aid of cookery, he must confine his dietary to fruits, nuts, soft grains, tender shoots, and succulent roots...It is true he can acquire an appetite for meat, especially when cooked, but practically all animals can do the same. Hunters sometimes teach their horses to eat broiled venison and cows have been taught to eat fish with avidity. Du Chaillu found in the Island of Magero...that sheep and goats were fed daily on fish both raw and cooked."

Dr. Kellogg insists, however, that "cookery is no part of Nature's biologic scheme, and hence the fact that man is able to eat and digest cooked meat is no more evidence that he is carnivorous or omnivorous than the fact that he can eat and digest cooked corn is evidence that he is to be classified with graminivourous animals, like the horse, which are eaters of raw grains.

"The bill of fare which wise Nature provides for man in forest and meadow, orchard and garden, a rich and varied menu, comprises more than 600 edible fruits, 100 cereals, 200 nuts, and 300 vegetables—roots, stems, buds, leaves and flowers...Fruits and nuts, many vegetables—young shoots, succulent roots, and fresh green leaves...are furnished by Nature ready for man's use."

Dr. Kellogg further notes that "the human liver is incapable of converting uric acid into urea," and this is "an unanswerable argument against the use of flesh foods as part of the dietary of man. Uric acid is a highly active tissue poison...The livers of dogs, lions, and other carnivorous animals detoxicate uric acid by converting it into urea, a substance which is much less toxic and which is much more easily eliminated by the kidneys.

"Flesh foods are not the best nourishment for human beings and were not the food of our primitive ancestors," observes Dr. Kellogg. "There is nothing necessary or desirable for human nutrition to be found in meats or flesh foods which is not found in and derived from vegetable products."

Although writing in 1923, Dr. Kellogg's words confirm a recent statement by the American Dietetic Association, that, "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near vegetarian diets."

"The human race in general has never really adopted flesh as a staple food," explains Dr. Kellogg. "The Anglo-Saxons and a few savage tribes are about the only flesh-eating people. The people of other nations use meat only as a luxury or an emergency diet. According to Mori, the Japanese peasant of the interior is almost an exclusive vegetarian. He eats fish once or twice a month and meat once or twice a year."

Dr. Kellogg writes that in 1899, the Emperor of Japan appointed a commission to determine whether it was necessary to add meat to the nation's diet to improve the people's strength and stature. The commission concluded that as far as meat was concerned, "the Japanese had always managed to do without it, and that their powers of endurance and their athletic prowess exceeded that of any of the Caucasian races. Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."

According to Dr. Kellogg, "the rice diet of the Japanese is supplemented by the free use of peanuts, soy beans, and greens, which...constitute a wholly sufficient bill of fare. Throughout the Island Empire, rice is largely used, together with buckwheat, barley, wheat, and millet. Turnips and radishes, yams and sweet potatoes are frequently used, also cucumbers, pumpkins and squashes. The soy bean is held in high esteem and used largely in the form of miso, a puree prepared from the bean and fermented; also tofu, a sort of cheese; and cho-yu, which is prepared by mixing the pulverized beans with wheat flour, salt, and water and fermenting from one and a half to five years.

"The Chinese peasant lives on essentially the same diet, as do also the Siamese, the Koreans, and most other Oriental peoples. Three-fourths of the world's population eat so little meat that it cannot be regarded as anything more than an incidental factor in their bill of fare. The countless millions of China," writes Dr. Kellogg, "are for the most part flesh-abstainers. In fact, at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world make so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential part of their dietary...

"The ancient vegetarian races of Mexico and Peru had attained to a high degree of civilization when discovered by Cortez, and were certainly far more gentle and amiable in character than were their flesh-eating conquerors, whose treachery and cold-blooded atrocities so nearly resulted in the complete extinction of a noble race."

Dr. Kellogg reports that the South American bark-gatherers live "almost wholly upon bananas and other equally simple vegetable food...Certain tribes of South American Indians who subsist wholly upon a non-flesh dietary, are remarkable for vigor and endurance...the natives of the great plateau of the Andes subsist almost wholly upon corn and potatoes...the old Peruvians...were practically vegetarians."

Dr. Kellogg quotes Charles Darwin as having described the laborers in the mines of Chile living "exclusively on vegetable food, including many seeds of leguminous plants."

Concerning Central Africa, Dr. Kellogg admits, "It is true that practically all the natives eat meat on occasion, but...the chief sustenance of the native is obtained from the products of the earth, which are most abundant in this fertile region. Maize, yuma, manioc, coconuts, palm cabbage, bananas, and a great number of fruits and nuts afford ample variety and sufficient nourishment without flesh foods."

Dr. Kellogg cites a Mr. Sarvis of the Boston Transcript, who wrote: "The Bantu race, who inhabit the great part of Central Africa, are almost entirely vegetarian... Generally, their food consists largely of a kind of millet, which is almost tasteless... Bananas and sweet potatoes also form a very important part of the diet of the African races of the central parts...The natives also eat vegetables and salads of many kinds. In a few districts cattle are kept for the milk and butter, but the natives do not kill the animals for food...The Kavirondos wear no clothing whatever, and they are absolute vegetarians, the banana forming the base of their food."

The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620. There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on plant foods—fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity.

Dr. Kellogg gives an account of the "Silesians, Roumanians, and many Oriental people," all of whom he says "are almost exclusively vegetarians, and enjoy a degree of vigor, vitality, and longevity not found among flesh-eating nations."

In his 1583 text, Anatomy of Abuses, Stubbes wrote that previous generations "fed upon graine, corne, roots, pulse, hearbes, weedes, and such other baggage; and yet lived longer than we, were healthfuller than we, of better complexion than we, and much stronger than we in every respect." A century later, Macauley noted that, "meat was so dear in price that hundreds of thousands of families scarcely knew the taste of it," while half the population of England, "ate it not at all or not more often than once a week."

Dr. Kellogg also found a vegetarian lifestyle to be the norm in much of Europe: "An official report shows that the diet of the Swiss peasant includes little or no meat. 'In the Schwyz canton, the people have long lived on plant food, without flesh. They are a fine set of independent mountaineers, and from this canton the freedom of the Swiss was born.' The peasants of northern Italy eat meat twice a year. They are remarkably robust and hearty.

"The hardy Scotch have never been great meat eaters. In the remote districts kailbrose, shredded greens and oatmeal over which hot water is poured, is eaten with or without milk...According to Douglas, writing in 1782, the diet of the Scotch of the East Coast was then oatmeal and milk with vegetables. He says: 'Flesh is never seen in the houses of the common farmers, except at a baptism, a wedding, Christmas, or Shrovetide.'"

Anatomically, humans resemble the other primates (frugivores), and possess a set of completely herbivorous teeth. We can adapt to flesh-eating if necessary, but we're designed to live primarily (if not entirely) upon plant foods.

Agriculture, cookery, refrigeration, etc. aren't found in nature. Killing for food, in this sense, really is an ethical issue, rather than a "dietary" issue.

@thewonderingyou
Please spare us your holier-than-thou lecture. I have heard this same lecture from many meat-plunderer apologists, that I'll admit yours is the first I have heard it from a self-described veg. This alone makes me suspect your true intent and life-style.

By your narrow viewpoint, yes I am a killer, and as a man, I contribute significantly to the destruction of Gaia. The very construction and maintenance of life requires drawing energy from another life, so your statements are obvious and specious at best.

However, Man has a choice of what life he draws upon. The animals that man consumes are conscious beings, able to manipulate their environment and travel through it looking to better their condition. These same animals are sparing of their environment. Not so Man, who greedily and wantonly consumes.

When I harvest the crops for my family and the animals that I caretake, I thank and apologize to each plant that I have nurtured and raised, completing a karmic cycle.

I will admit that I have not raised all plants that I exploit, such as wood for my stove. Nevertheless, I thank each and every tree for their life. Similarly for all other products that I use; this computer upon which I touch, the DC powered systems in my home, and all the other "stuff" I consume. Each has a profound and deadly footprint on Gaia and I do my best to minimize the hurt, and spend much time in healing the wounds in my sphere of influence. I do my best to restore kharma.

So please, no apologist lectures for what Man does to his environment.

Finally, a comment for starofthesea and her comment Vegans, cultivate an inner peace in your own decision. If you radiate peace, others will notice and want to know your secret–then you can tell them you stopped eating animals.
Well, that's a nice Ghandi-esque comment, but does not apply to everyone. Some of us a very protective of our charges, and like any mother, will become very aggressive when they see their charges being threatened. I have little regard for most of my fellow men, and strongly believe that I, like-minded others and Gaia, would be better off without them.

wonderingyou:

"Jettison the prejudiced bullshit about animals being somehow more 'worthy' a life form than plants"

??? WTF !!! ???

i hope you do not live with any companion animals (dogs, cats. etc.) considering your empathy for them would only seem to reach to the level of feeling you have for a back-yard dandelion.

if the carrots you eat have the self-awareness of a cat, dog, pig, cow, whatever, i wanna meet your grocer and/or farmer.

He already pardoned a Turkey named Scotter Libby.....

Coffee,, Happy Thanksgiving!

It should be mentioned that the tortured animals being slaughtered are only the end stage of a cruel and sickening industry. These poor turkeys are genetically distorted creatures that should not even exist and couldn't live very long anyway. They are barely "turkeys" at all.

Our omnivorous ancestors emerged as scavengers and there is nothing wrong with us eating occasional carrion in the natural setting or even raising animals for food and slaughtering them on a small scale like farmers of the last century. However, for an urbanized population of our immense number, the eating of animals becomes problematic and impractical. The ecological and moral cost of meat is unconscionable and both humans and animals suffer. It means horrendous cruelty and hunger. It is nothing to "give thanks" for but is says much about what kind of society we have become.

Siouxrose,

That my comment elicited a response from you warms my heart. I have read your input on CD for many a month and I must say I have utmost respect for you.
But I must take pause with your perspective on evolution. Humans evolved roughly 60,000 years ago. Corn--as we know it--evolved (through the actions of humans) only several thousand years ago. I don't subscribe to the intuition that more recently-evolved life forms are more "advanced" in any way than more "ancient" lineages: evolution does not have a "goal" in mind. I also dismiss "consciousness" as a meter of evolutionary maturity, particularly in light of the dubious benefit to planetary well-being that "consciousness" (the quotation marks are intentional) has brought forth. To say that top-tier standing on the trophic scale (i.e. being an obligate carnivore or an opportunistic omnivore) has any bearing on one's spiritualistic view of life seems like a betrayal of my own personal understanding of what the goddess originally had in mind. Mind you, this is my own personal view of things, but I challenge you to rectify a heterotroph-biased world view with what I believe to be your otherwise holistic bent.
Respectfully yours. thewonderingyou.

It is a shame that the mass marketing and slaughter of animals is so prevelant.

A far cry from my grandmother's day (and even my parents) when they raised their own animals with care and love for food, with thanksgiving.

When it comes to vegetarianism, why do the carnivor"E"'s always say something stupid, without thoughtful consideration of the facts, defensive, and based in nothing beyond their own instant gratification? I guess I shouldn't expect much from somebody who can't even spell the title they boldly and "without guilt" bestow upon themselves.

"Fifty million turkey corpses will go into American ovens this Thanksgiving. More than 9 billion turkeys and chickens are killed in the U.S. each year"

Its a turkey holocaust!! The turkeys should get their own homeland in the Middle East somewhere as compensation. Just have to dislocate another bunch of Arabs to do it.

THOUGHT SHAMAN: The concept of heaven as a tangible sphere where one resides ever after has always amused me. I prefer to think we are energy that pulses on and off, when on, we take on some semblance of a life in a sphere that supports it; and when off, we're in a resting phase, likely reviewing our acts/thoughts from the most recent manifest experience.

DEEPA: I was invited to a Pow Wow for Thanksgiving. I have attended a few and am always appalled at the way "Warriors" are called to the circle to be honored. This little Mars-rules device makes Indigenous men identify with their conquerors by playing up to the myth of macho bravery. It insults me. My best friend (intuitive, sensitive, white male) was likely a native in former lifetimes. Privileged to grow up on the shores of Delaware, he was a modern Tom Sawyer who instinctively knew how to build a canoe, rendered forts out of dead limbs, and had an affinity with nature that would simulate sci-fi. He told me he feels the same way about these Pow Wows and turns around when they sing songs to Amerika's purported militaristic glory.

THE WONDERING YOU: While I do succumb to eat fish on occasion, I, too, have left meat behind. AS to the argument anything we consume involves the death of something else, the spiritual aspect of choosing what we eat is based on the LEVEL of evolution of the species we prey upon. Plants are considered lower on the totem pole of consciousness, and after all, our bodies decomposed return to feed the plants in a cycle that ultimately benefits both organic realms.

imfedup,

Thanks for the kind words. I spent a lot of time and thought on that post, so it really means a lot to me. The color of the debate about veganism and vegetarianism versus omnivory desperately needs fashion consultants, because while I personally love a black-and-white scheme, those hues need to be more precisely defined in this day and age. A deep gray masquerading as jet black just doesn't cut the mustard yellow.
Ohmigosh...I cracked a joke! Please don't tell anyone...

Nanoo,

I'll agree with your comment in spirit, but the anal-retentive scientist in me still defines "water" as H20, devoid of all minerals and organisms. I'll grant that such a state of water only sparsely exists on this teeming planet, but when I use the term "water" in posts, what I really mean is the genuine article, the pure molecule. But my training in microbiology reminds me that even the purest mountain spring cannot escape the omnipresence of organismal life. And I'm really happy about that fact!

thewonderingyou,

Well thought, well written commentary. A little vulgar... but it added the proper passion to your point. Your words make me want to "listen" instead of "switching off" to this debate.

thewonderingyou, you've got it right except I'd add that water has micro livings things too. I good book that I recently read gets into this topic, The Power of Myth, By Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers.

Plants, trees, have feelings too.

Sorry, I got about halfway through the comments (a little bit past "anon a mouse"'s ridiculous version of biology) and had to scroll down to the end, so I hope I'm not repeating anyone's revelations here.

Vegan/vegetarian evangelists:

Humans are heterotrophs. That means we need to eat other organisms. Plants are autotrophs, which means they can make their own food. Organisms are defined as things that are "alive," in contrast to rocks and air and water. That means, as heterotrophs, we must eat other living organisms to survive. Life is life, death is death. Would you eat a live turkey? I hope not: it's much safer to kill it first. But would you eat other living organisms...even while they are still living? That fresh salad you ate for lunch: most of the cells inside were still alive when you ate it.

Life is life, death is death, and killing is killing. A vegan/vegetarian diet is a good thing: I wholeheartedly advise everyone on the planet to switch. But any time I hear someone try to say that humans aren't meant to eat meat, or that killing an animal to eat it is somehow more ethically taboo than baking a potato for dinner, I want to scream. We live because we kill, herbivore, omnivore, and carnivore alike. Get over it. Jettison the prejudiced bullshit about animals being somehow more "worthy" a life form than plants, because it's lightweight and unconvincing. Rethink your evangelical approach, because the fact is meat tastes pretty damned good, and the bleeding-heart tack obviously isn't up to the task of reversing 2 million years of endocrine evolution.

If meat is murder, then so is broccoli, and I'm a murderer. A vegetarian murderer. A liberal, vegetarian, recycling, mass-transit-riding, Kucinich-voting, botanist murderer. And I've got nothing to be ashamed of for murdering another organism in order to eat and survive. You can easily get fat, succumb to gout, depress your immune system, and even die from eating too much of this plant or that plant. My choice is to murder organisms that don't exact a heavy ecological toll on the planet, or on myself. If you want to change the minds of the rest of the people, do so using that choice as your talking point.

But spare me the "save the little critters" bullshit.

The fact is much of the world's populace depends on animal meat for adequate protein, especially for growing children. For example, try talking the Japanese out of fish consumption forevermore. We can however, work effectively to make meat production as humane as possible, something which is hampered by inciting shame, which only turns those that might act away.

This thanksgiving I recommend all neocons load up on meat dishes this thanksgiving with all the trimmings!

As for me, my life has improved dramatically upon becoming a semi-Vegan. But it was not from a choice of being kind to critters. After all, you have cutting teeth because you evolved as a partial meat-eating descendant of apes (is my understanding.) I got off meat because of ingestion of 40 years of processed foods in plastic packages full of animal fat and hormones, feed chemicals and god knows what else has given me the GOUT.

You don't want the gout. Your foot joints turn to Jell-O, you cannot even crawl to the can because every breath tears cartilage and joint surfaces to shreds as you scream. You might give waterboarding a try if they will just stop the uric acid from melting the inside of your body apart! You are ready, willing and able, to change your ways if given another chance. Talk about nearly finding religion! Another chance means giving up fat of any kind, and most alcohol. Another chance means taking drugs the rest of your life so you can walk.

Be