On puppy mills

It's election night. And I'm angry. The anti-puppy mill Proposition B here in Missouri is going to pass, but it's going to be a lot closer than people thought. Polls from the Post-Dispatch found 70% support. Right now, as I type this, the margin is 51-49 in favor of passage. It will probably get larger as the night goes on, as St. Louis city, St. Louis county, St. Charles country, and Jackson county still have votes to be counted. These places will go heavily in favor of Prop B. How do I know this? Because these areas are civilization.

But who would possibly go against puppy mills? Is anyone for puppy mills? Yes. Some people make a lot of money in these canine factory farms, and they have money to spend in defending their economic interests. They did this using a very simple, and very effective tactic aimed at rural Missourians: they vilified animal rights supporters. Vilifying animal rights supporters is cheap, easy, and effective as far as an election goes. If AR people are for it, then it must be bad!

But to blame the puppy mill industry in this state misses the point. Missouri is the puppy mill capital of this country, and this is a well known fact throughout the state. That we have a puppy mill problem is not news, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a few misleading ads to make people forget that. The puppy mill industry is not to blame for this vote being close.

The people of Missouri are to blame. Specifically, the rural people of Missouri are to blame. Look at the county-by-county election map for Prop B. Notice a pattern? Look at civilization -- St. Louis and Kansas City areas. Then look at the rest of the state; "Mizzuruh" as the rednecks call it.

There is a hard truth that not many people want to face, but I will say it.

*ahem*

Rural Americans are the scum of the Earth. They are disgusting, immoral people, and honestly this country would be better off without them. If we removed all the cities from this country, this part of North America would be home to a Third World hellhole called Redneckistan.

Yeah, I am angry. I'm angry that what should have been a slam dunk was so close. I'm angry that people hate animals so much they would cast a vote for puppy mills. But this should serve as a reminder: a lot people hate animals. The road in the fight for animal rights is hard. It's going to take fundamental cultural change.

Nights like this do not make me optimistic for the future of animal rights.

Drunken ramblings

Drinking alone, it's almost 1:30 in the morning, and I'm a little drunk. Only a little. It's okay that I'm drinking alone since a) I have been diagnosed with depression and 2) I have a family history of alcoholism. Self medication eff tee double-you bitches! Seriously it's fine though; I'm a fucking LSU graduate, so my liver can take it. They give you extra credit for getting drunk. Hell, I think the first time I puked outside a bar they gave me two credit hours -- and that's graduate hours*!

I came in having no flippin clue what I was gonna write about. I just need to do something since 1) there are a few people that actually follow this blog for some God-forsaken reason and b) I post regularly on SB Nation where I link this blog, which is a network of thinking-man's blogs dedicated to... yeah sports. (And I like to have a fairly recent post on there.)

Sports? But you're vegan. Yes I am. I'm not a stereotypical vegan. I am sort of a guy's guy. I like the three Bs: Beer, boobs and baseball. Some people have this conceptualization of vegans as a bunch of tree hugging hippies. That's not really me. I guess I'm a bundle of contradictions. But this isn't about me -- it's about veganism going mainstream. Though I am an overeducated nerd, I'm also a "normal guy" in many respects. For some reason that seems to go against the typical conceptualization of the vegan -- the peace sign giving, yoga doing, kumbaya singing, tree hugging, slightly effeminate guy that's "in touch with his feelings." Sorry, but that's not me. Hell, to be honest, I'm not even a typical vegan animal lover! My knees don't go weak when I see that rescued baby goat at the communal farm, or your sister's ferret, or whatever.

Veganism to me seems like the most natural ethical position one can take. Animals are sentient beings -- capable of subjective perception. Let's be honest; cows and bulls are pretty fucking stupid. But that doesn't mean we should consume them and treat them as biological machines.

Going off on some animal rights rant is not my style, but at the same time I won't apologize for being a supporter of animals rights. And that's kind of my drunken, rambling, and very likely hard-to-follow point. I am a (sort of) "normal" guy, and I'm an unapologetic vegan. Honestly, I am the future hope of veganism and animal rights. No, I don't mean me specifically; I'm not a narcissist. What I mean is the mainstreaming of the vegan lifestyle and being a reasonable advocate of animal rights.

We need more normal vegans. If a more animal friendly perspective is to be ever be truly mainstream, then people that have mainstream tendencies will need to vegan. Moreover, this needs to become more and more normalized. It needs to be regular. I want to live in a world where being vegan doesn't mean that I am a weirdo, but rather a world where veganism is widely diffused among people that love boobs, beer and baseball, or that love NASCAR, hip hop, heavy metal, comic books, strip clubs, science fiction, model airplanes, S&M, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, motorcycles, classic cars... you get the point.

I don't know if any of this makes any sense or not. If it doesn't I plead drunkenness.

I wrote this listening to Murs. Murs is vegan, and he is an incredibly talented hip hop artist. This is what I am talking about. Veganism is becoming more and more mainstream and normal.

Some of my fellow vegans on the granola-crunching persuasion might find the idea of veganism becoming more mainstream as being somewhat strange, and on an intuitive level they might find it undesirable. Sorry, but you are just gonna have to put up with my beer drinking, boob loving, sports watching ass. No offense, but I have just as much of a right to be vegan as you do.

This post probably have a zillion typos. It's okay -- again: I'm drunk.

*Gregatron is a proud product of the Huey P. Long School of Government. (No, LSU's political science department is not actually called that, though I think we can agree that it should be.)

Thought on the nature of our relationships with animals

Sometimes I am somewhat disappointed by what I see as a lack of intellectual vigor and critical thinking within the AR community. It seems that many of us become trapped into certain ways of thinking, and never move on from there. And to be perfectly frank about it, some of the people that shout the loudest are among the least intelligent of us. I think it is time to have an intellectual reawakening in the AR movement, where ideas are shared and discussed in thoughtful ways yielding productive dialogue.

Among one of the general misconceptions made by many advocates of animal rights is the assumption that all relationships between humans and animals are zero-sum games. First, what is a zero-sum game (ZSG)? In layman’s terms, a ZSG refers to a situation where, in the course of an interactive relationship, there are winners and losers. Think of this like a home poker game. If there are five players, and I win $50, then the sum of the losses of the other players are $50. If there is a winner then there must be losers.

ZSG easily lend themselves to exploitation, so it’s not surprising that many advocates of animal rights buy into this notion. They assume that all relationships where humans interact with animals are exploitive in nature.

The thing is, not all relationships, or even most relationships are ZSGs. This has been born out with the idea of trade. Centuries ago, the dominant idea was that trade was good for one country (the exploiter) and hence, bad for another (the exploitee). This notion, known as mercantilism, helped usher in the brutal practice of imperialism. Since then, economists (starting with Adam Smith) noted that trade could be, and often is, good for all parties involved. A simple example: if I have a field that grows wheat very well, and you have a field that grows corn very well, it makes no sense for me to grow any corn on my field or for you to grow any wheat on yours. Instead, we should each specialize in what we grow best, and maximize output, and trade with each other. We will have more overall if we do that. This is known as a positive-sum game (PSG). Note that not all positive-sum relationships have to be mutually beneficial, but PSGs are necessary but not sufficient for a mutually beneficial relationship. There are three types of PSGs involving two sets of actors: one where one party wins and another loses, another where one wins and the other yields little to no benefit but is not harmed, and the last where all parties involved win (mutually beneficial PSGs).

Can our relationships with animals be mutually beneficial PSGs? Yes, I believe they can. Many of us have such relationships in the form of having pets. (Some more radical advocates of AR believe that even pets are a form of exploitation, but I would argue that is an extreme position in the AR community.) This is a mutually beneficial relationship in that we provide food, shelter, and health care to an animal to degree that he would not receive in the wild. In turn, we receive companionship (and, as is the case with my cat, a hell of a lot of amusement). This is a win-win relationship, hence it is a PSG.

ZSG relationships include, most notably, factory farming for both dairy and meat. I think this clearly extends to “free range” animal agriculture as well. (One could even argue, that given the health problems associated with meat and dairy consumption, this is actually a negative-sum relationship which harms both parties.) Animal testing for cosmetic or medical purposes also is a ZSG. This would extend to the production of most dairy and the production of most eggs as well (even the “humane” alternatives).

Mutually beneficial PSGs include pets (which I do not morally consider ownership), and some traditional and, in the west somewhat rare instances of production of animal products. This includes one unusual example of a woman who has rescued chickens, who she feeds and provides shelter. In turn, she consumes the eggs. Let’s say she were to sell some of these eggs. Does that make this an exploitive relationship? I would argue it does not based on the logic I discussed above – just because someone benefits from a relationship does not mean the other party necessarily loses.

I think it’s important to understand the difference between a ZSG and a PSG in order properly categorize exploitive versus non-exploitive relationships. Doing this allows us to move beyond absurd and offensive views many less intelligent AR advocates express. (I have actually seen an idiot compare a person riding horses from a family farm to human slavery!) This “test” gives us a logical guideline by which to go beyond making arguments based on emotion and vitriol to making arguments based on sound, logical reasoning.