Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

Okay I want to pose this problem to everyone, and it is a component of my presentation, but I want what i say for this to be broader than what I can come up with. The presentation needs to contain solutions to the problem. If I talk about how animals are given a minority status, what are some ways we can counter this and hopefully give them a better stance in our society? Consider countering the religious attitudes that keep the outlook on animals as it is now.

Yeah that's strange that your teacher doesn't want you to use any books on the subject, because there are a lot of good ones out there. Steven Wise's book "Rattling the Cage" gives a good critique of the religious and legal history that led to the way animals are treated now

wait....your teacher wont you use any books College B? I am confused.

I should have been more specific. She wants us to use scholarly journals, not just a book that we can pick up at Hastings or Barn's and Nobel's. I fully intend to use regular books but just point out well so and so says this. I think she is concerned people will use what a book says as fact and not really bother to say it was written by anyone. I have never had an assignment where non-scholarly books were not allowed.

Nibert is a professor of sociology, and Steven Wise is a legal scholar - so I would think your teacher would allow their books

ya Will is right - these should be allowed, and at any rate, I am sure you can find Wise's stuff in law journals - which would definitely count.

We didnt have a book by wise but I did get a Nibert book and the sociology influence really comes out. It will be great to use.

Lewis and Clark Law School has an "Animal Law Journal" too - http://www.lclark.edu/org/animalaw/

Hey guys I found this through my searching. I would put up a link to what I got this from but it came from a database that only the school internet has access to. ...

ubjects: Conservatism, Livestock industry, Animal rights movement, Cruelty to animals, Public policy
Author(s): George F Will
Document types: Commentary
Section: The Last Word
Publication title: Newsweek. New York: Jul 18, 2005. Vol. 146, Iss. 3; pg. 66, 1 pgs
Source type: Periodical
ISSN/ISBN: 00289604
ProQuest document ID: 867593191
Text Word Count 817
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=8675 ... &VName=PQD

Yes, of course: You don't want to think about this. Who does? But do your duty: read his book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." [MATTHEW SCULLY], a conservative and hence a realist, knows that man is not only a rational creature but a rationalizing creature, putting his intellectual nimbleness in the service of his desires. But refraining from cruelty is an objective obligation.

Copyright Newsweek, Incorporated Jul 18, 2005

MATTHEW SCULLY, A FORMER SPEECHWRITER for President George W. Bush, is the most interesting conservative you have never heard of. He speaks barely above a whisper and must be the mildest disturber of the peace. But he is among the most disturbing.

If you value your peace of mind, not to mention your breakfast bacon, you should not read Scully's essay "Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism-for Animals." It appeared in the May 23, 2005, issue of Pat Buchanan's magazine The American Conservative-not where you would expect to find an essay arguing that industrial livestock farming involves vast abuses that constitute a serious moral problem.

The disturbing facts about industrial farming by the $125 billion-a-year livestock industry-the pain-inflicting confinements and mutilations-have economic reasons. Ameliorating them would impose production costs that consumers would pay. But to glimpse what consumers would be paying to stop, visit factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm. Or read Scully on the miseries inflicted on billions of creatures "for our convenience and pleasure":

"... 400- to 500-pound mammals trapped without relief inside iron crates seven feet long and 22 inches wide. They chew maniacally on bars and chains, as foraging animals will do when denied straw ... The pigs know the feel only of concrete and metal. They lie covered in their own urine and excrement, with broken legs from trying to escape or just to turn ..."

It is, Scully says, difficult, especially for conservatives, to examine cruelty issues on their merits, or even to acknowledge that something serious can be at stake where animals are concerned. This is partly because some animal-rights advocates are so off-putting. See, for example, the Feb. 3, 2003, letter that Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-animals other than humans-sent to the terrorist Yasir Arafat, complaining that an explosive-laden donkey was killed when used in a Jerusalem massacre.

The rhetoric of animal "rights" is ill-conceived. The starting point, says Scully, should be with our obligations-the requirements for living with integrity. In defining them, some facts are pertinent, facts about animals' emotional capacities and their experience of pain and happiness. Such facts refute what conservatives deplore-moral relativism. They do because they demand a certain reaction and evoke it in good people, who are good because they consistently respect the objective value of fellow creatures.

It may be true that, as has been said, the Puritans banned bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. And there are indeed degrading pleasures. But to argue for outlawing cruelty to animals because it is bad for the cruel person's soul is to accept, as Scully does not, that man is the only concern.

Statutes against cruelty to animals, often imposing felony-level penalties, codify society's belief that such cruelty is an intrinsic evil. This is a social affirmation of a strong moral sense in individuals who are not vicious. It is the sense that even though the law can regard an individual's animal as the individual's property, there nevertheless are certain things the individual cannot do to that property. Which means it is property with a difference.

The difference is the capacity for enjoyment and suffering. So why, Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference? There cannot be any intrinsic difference of worth between a puppy and a pig.

Animal suffering on a vast scale should, he says, be a serious issue of public policy. He does not want to take away your BLT; he does not propose to end livestock farming. He does propose a Humane Farming Act to apply to corporate farmers the elementary standards of animal husbandry and veterinary ethics: "We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life."

Says who? Well, Scully replies, those who understand "Judeo-Christian morality, whose whole logic is one of gracious condescension, or the proud learning to be humble, the higher serving the lower, and the strong protecting the weak."

Yes, of course: You don't want to think about this. Who does? But do your duty: read his book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." Scully, a conservative and hence a realist, knows that man is not only a rational creature but a rationalizing creature, putting his intellectual nimbleness in the service of his desires. But refraining from cruelty is an objective obligation. And as Scully says, "If reason and morality are what set humans apart from animals, then reason and morality must always guide us in how we treat them."

You were warned not to read this. Have a nice day.
[Sidebar]
Why, Matthew Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference?

Subjects: Web sites, State laws, Hunting
Classification Codes 9190 United States, 5250 Telecommunications systems & Internet communications, 8307 Arts, entertainment & recreation, 4320 Legislation
Locations: United States, US
Author(s): Annie Gentile
Document types: News
Section: ISSUES & TRENDS
Publication title: The American City & County. Pittsfield: Jun 2005. Vol. 120, Iss. 6; pg. 16, 2 pgs
Source type: Periodical
ISSN/ISBN: 0149337X
ProQuest document ID: 854693001
Text Word Count 557
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=8546 ... &VName=PQD

Using a computer-assisted hunting model invented by Texas entrepreneur John Lockwood, for as little as $150, people can point, click and bag a trophy black buck antelope at his remote 300-acre Texas hill country ranch from the privacy of their own homes. The online recreation has sparked legislation in several states and outrage from animal rights and hunting groups. Employing a Remington semi-automatic rifle affixed to a camera and a high-speed Web connection, Lockwood touts his Web site - Liveshot.com - as a practical hunting alternative for nontraditional hunters such as the severely disabled. Internet hunting opens up a very bad precedent, says Bruhn, who also questions how states could feasibly regulate the owners of such ranches from making the hunting experience as tough or as easy as they choose.

Copyright PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. Jun 2005
[Headnote]
Lawmakers, activists outraged at cyber shooting.

Using a computer-assisted hunting model invented by Texas entrepreneur John Lockwood, for as little as $150, people can point, click and bag a trophy black buck antelope at his remote 300-acre Texas hill country ranch from the privacy of their own homes. The online recreation has sparked legislation in several states and outrage from animal rights and hunting groups.

Employing a Remington semi-automatic rifle affixed to a camera and a high-speed Web connection, Lockwood touts his Web site - Liveshot.com - as a practical hunting alternative for nontraditional hunters such as the severely disabled. "This was never intended for the fat, lazy guy from New York City who just wants to log in and kill something," Lockwood says. With few exceptions, he says it would be hard to imagine any able-bodied hunters paying for his service.
Photograph
Enlarge 200%
Enlarge 400%
[Photograph]
State and federal legislators are working to ban hunting over the Internet, which allows a hunter to shoot game that may be thousands of miles away.

Dale Hagberg agrees. Paralyzed from the chin down, Hagberg made history when he became Lockwood's first live hunt customer.

While his three 3-hour hunting sessions did not net a kill, Hagberg says just watching his monitor, and seeing the leaves rustling on the trees and the animals excited him.

But the difference between being behind the trees or behind a computer screen thousands of miles away is what has angered many state legislators. "[Remote hunting] is unethical and violates fair chase principles," says Mike Bruhn, Chief of Staff to Wisconsin Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford. Gunderson has proposed legislation that requires individuals to be in physical possession of a firearm when shooting at captive wildlife and outlaws operating Internet hunting facilities within the state.

Internet hunting opens up a very bad precedent, says Bruhn, who also questions how states could feasibly regulate the owners of such ranches from making the hunting experience as tough or as easy as they choose. "[Lockwood's business promotion as a service for disabled hunters] is just a last-ditch effort to justify his business model," Bruhn says.

Maine Rep. Rod Carr, R-Lincoln, limited his antiInternet hunting bill to the prohibition of such ranches within the state's borders. His bill, however, does not prohibit Maine residents from logging onto the Internet to hunt animals in other states.

"This is the kind of technology I associate with warfare," says California Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach. In late April, California passed a three-part bill, which bans Internet hunting sites from operating within the state's borders and outlaws importing animals into the state for such purposes. Bowen concedes that a third provision - to prohibit anyone from hunting over the Internet from within the state - may be the most difficult part of the bill to enforce.

In all, 15 states have introduced Internet hunting legislation, and U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., recently introduced a federal bill. The legislators are backed by The Humane Society, the National Rifle Association and groups that cater to disabled hunters, all of whom have spoken out in opposition to Lockwood's model. "[We are] opposed to all forms of Internet or remote-controlled hunting, because it is simply not hunting," says Ken Schwartz, state governmental affairs and communications manager for Texas-based Safari Club International.
[Author Affiliation]
Annie Gentile is a Vernon, Conn.-based freelance writer.

Subjects: Animal rights movement, Product introduction, Automobiles, Leather & leather products
Classification Codes 9175 Western Europe, 8680 Transportation equipment industry
Companies: DaimlerChrysler(Ticker:DCX, Sic:336111 ) , People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Sic:813312 )
Document types: News
Column Name: Cars
Publication title: Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 10, 2005. pg. 1
Source type: Newspaper
ISSN/ISBN: 00999660
ProQuest document ID: 791142471
Text Word Count 154
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=7911 ... &VName=PQD

Abstract (Document Summary)

"When you consider that the skins of four to 15 cows are needed for each car this means thousands of cows will be spared," said PETA researcher Edmund Haferbeck. "This is a huge victory for animal rights."
Full Text (154 words)
Copyright (c) 2005, Dow Jones & Company Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Reuters News Service

BERLIN -- Mercedes-Benz has agreed to offer "leather-free" versions of all its luxury cars to pacify an animal-rights group that says thousands of cows are slaughtered each year for leather car seats and interiors.

After complaints from the German chapter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, DaimlerChrysler AG said its Mercedes subsidiary will offer fabric or synthetic leather as options.

Daimler spokeswoman Ursula Mertzig-Stein said that far from wanting leather-free cars, "our customers . . . are more likely to want even more leather at the premium end. But we'll make cars without leather on demand."

PETA officials, who had threatened protests at the car maker's Stuttgart headquarters, said they were delighted.

"When you consider that the skins of four to 15 cows are needed for each car this means thousands of cows will be spared," said PETA researcher Edmund Haferbeck. "This is a huge victory for animal rights."

Alright everyone, this paper is due Tuesday August 9th and on that day I give a presentation to the class. I'll try to put the ppt on here so if anyone wants it they can use/ alter it. I think I can post my paper so if anyone will read it and give me any feedback they want, I would be grateful (it is about 5 pages in microsoft word so it may take some time to read, again thanks!)...


Did you forget someone, or better yet, something?

When I talk to people about minorities, they think in terms of race. Our text book by Richard T. Schaefer (2004) discusses human race and ethnicity, and today children in most schools are taught about the history of racism in the U.S. People are aware of race and minority status, they are aware of what happens to minorities, and some people even provoke what happens to the minorities such as the KKK and their ilk who possess xenophobic ideologies. What drives these ideologies is partially fear, perhaps that is all that is there, but Schaefer also points out economic components of the creation of subordinate groups. Fear and the economy are part of a society and so there is a societal influence on minority groups as well. The subordinate group is a labeling effect to justify exploitation. Government is not free from blame here though. It was government policy that sanctioned slavery; government that protected segregation, government that interned the Japanese, and government which started a war on drugs which historically targets minorities, Government is responsible for the holocaust, and let us not forget about its attempts to “civilize” the “savage” Native Americans. Government is the ability for a few to have power over many and this is evident with policies the government has had in the past as previously mentioned.
As our society progresses the plight of the under-dog becomes more intolerable, as I believe because it stands out more. Our text book (Schaefer, 2004) shows this with the diagrams in the conclusion sections. Each chapter has a chart noting segregation and above it with an arrow indicating past behaviors such as extermination we see “increasingly unacceptable” and assimilation is towards the other end of the chart and under it reads “more tolerable.” During the depression racism was acceptable, people had things like feeding their families to worry about, but now if a mosque is spray painted, or someone not given a taxi ride we hear about it, and many people have a reaction and want justice. This trend is obvious when considering civil rights legislation, and even church mission work to help the needy. Government has tried to turn things around with legislation for civil rights, and even hate crimes laws, but as we will see the legislation meant to do good things can easily be circumvented or even hurt the groups it meant to protect.
One subordinate group that has been overlooked the most are animals or I should specify as non-human species, but for this paper I will use animal just to spare myself from some extra typing. Animal rights supporters have been around since people have lived in societies. People ranging from Pythagoras, to Pilgrims, to Protestants have recognized that animals have rights just as humans do. Not the right to vote or own property, but the right to live their lives free from bondage and servitude. They believe animals have a right to live, period! Which is a notion not reflected in our mainstream society. A portion of this paper is an attempt to understand why this is so, and also how laws can impact animal rights and welfare.
To understand our relation to animals we should consider what came before, or the context of today. The theories I can think of which support the consumption, involuntary contact and inherent exploitation of animals comes out of domesticating them. It is necessary to consider why it was that they were domesticated, but also reasons why animals were eaten. There is no need to do a very thorough history of time since many have been exposed to it, but one theory proposes that humans would not have evolved without consuming meat for protein as Jay Thorley (2005) shows. Colin Spencer (2002) notes that meat protein “is not much superior to eggs or nuts” and protein itself does not “alter the evolution of the brain.” Colin reveals that brain evolution would require omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids. Omega 6 can be found in several foods including meat, while omega 3 comes from plant foods. In summary a complete or predominantly meat based diet would not have helped the brain evolve. Colin uses other carnivorous animals as an example, and says that they “would have become far more intelligent and might by now have been the dominant species” if a total meat diet made you evolve. Even after all this the consumption of meat as necessity is still a central theme in the mainstream society; making it what Schaefer (2004) would call a normative approach. Many people are very puzzled at how anyone can live without meat, and people have told me, to my face it is not possible though I have been living without it for 5 years now. If one applies functionalist theory then some explanation as to why we still eat animals can be devised. It stands to reason that since so many people believe they must eat animals to live then society could very well become unstable and possibly perish if this majority were denied their meat. Contrary to the theories that man evolved by eating meat, David Nibert (2002) in his book makes an example of what Steven Mithen, an anthropologist has proposed. Mithen claims that the “australopithecines, who lived between 4.2 and 1 million years ago were largely vegetarians.” Nibert also writes that “hunting was an ineffective and inefficient way of obtaining resources.” In modern times we have become completely domesticated as well and the only gathering we must do is at the grocery store, so why do we still consume animals and treat them as inferior beings? Religion has been instrumental in sanctifying the consumption of animals. Many ancient cultures had rituals around hunting and animal slaughter. Colin Spencer (2002) provides us with an account from Peter Wilson who noted that the Tsimihety in Madagascar “ate meat solely on ritual occasions, about twelve times a year.” Many, especially the Native Americans, believed the animals had spirits so they tried to be respectful. This spiritualized thinking gave way to scientific thought. Descartes proposed that all beings are nothing more than machines, and therefore took away emotions from living beings that were thought to be inferior, specifically animals. Descartes’ theory is still alive with the majority of our society, but there have always been those people so in tune with other beings that they defy the majority.
Pythagoras is one of the first people to be recorded as having an “abstention from meat.”(Colin Spencer, 2002). Colin Spencer (2002) also writes that John Wesley the founder of Methodism was a vegetarian. These people are just examples that there have been throughout history people who believe that meat eating is not something humans need to do for various reasons. During the 1900’s women wanted rights in the society they lived in, specifically those in the U.S. and U.K. Women wanted the right to vote (suffrage). It is documented that many women in the suffrage movement were also vegetarian (Leah Leneman, 1997) and actually opposed abortion (Vasu Murti, n.d.). These women saw all life as sacred, not just those of humans. As we know the women succeeded, and were recognized as having the right to vote, however animals did not see an improvement in their lot in society. This group believed that once they succeed other reforms such as animal rights will come naturally. They believed that if they could gain the right to vote then society must be progressing; it must have changed, but I think they overlook the power they had in creating a legal change, but not a change in mentality of those within the society. Minorities around this time were also looking to gain more civil power and aided the women’s movement. Today there exist many different animal advocate groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), Compassion Over Killing (COK), and the Farm Sanctuary which is “the nation’s largest farm animal rescue and protection organization” (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/about/index.htm).
The judgments and views our society has about animals are reflected in the laws passed. We have the Animal Welfare Act which seeks to protect animals. The problem is that it only goes so far, and the enforcement is optional by citizens, there are no real police assigned to do this. So the Humane Society and other animal shelter groups tend to be the ones funding the methods to catch the violators. This act seeks to protect animals from some psychological harm as well as suffering while they are in the lab. Subpart C 2.33 of the act requires “attending veterinarian and adequate veterinary care.” Part 4 of section 2.32 requires that pain be limited to that which is “unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable” research. This bill places no limitations on the animals that can be used. The act also establishes the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This body is to approve of the experiments done at a facility, and they inspect the facility in a given time span to make sure animals are treated in accordance with the act. By now you may think well things are looking great for the animals, what is the fuss? In section 2.31 part (a) of the act which creates the IACUC, its formation is also discussed. The committee is to be selected by the “Chief Executive Officer of the research facility.” To me this is not very effective and so to ensure the complete accordance with the act, an independent panel should be created. The Animal Welfare Act has provisions of the types of pain animals can be subjected to within the experiment, but it also covers stolen animals who are sold to those who experiment on animals. The act makes this illegal so it actually does more to protect cats and dogs who already are revered in our society, but still lets other animals (which do not usually live in human homes) lack protections. Protection from pain for animals is not absolute either. If an experiment needs the animal to suffer then no anesthesia is given. Vivisection is the best example for needless suffering brought to animals for “scientific” purposes, and it is not banned anywhere even though movements against vivisection have been around for centuries. Our society wants to protect animals somewhat though. Nibert (2002) asks us to think of Keiko the Whale, who starred in Free Willy. Many wanted Keiko to have a bigger tank and he got one, but not many care about the other animals they may see at Sea World nor the dolphins which were killed so they could have a can of tuna. We as a society care enough about animals that there is an endangered species act. A majority feel it is necessary to protect animal species who are about to become extinct, but do not feel that protecting those with normal populations needing of protection. Our society does protect domestic animals too. It appears that if the animal has a face to the public, such as their pets or Keiko the whale, people will want to treat them well but if it is just another cow in the pasture or an animal they have not seen individually, they do not care. The humane slaughter act advocates for the quickest effective methods to be used to kill animals for food, but this is frequently violated as accounts from slaughterhouses reveal. The one area where animals can see improved treatment is if they are domestic animals. This includes dogs, chickens, cows, pigs, turkeys, cats etc. The Humane Society can step in and seize these animals if their owners neglect them. The ironic thing is these animals are species eaten by people everyday all over the world. Why is it that we have the enigma of wanting to protect animals on one hand, but sanctioning their slaughter and inherent suffering on the other? We feel a kinship with some domestic animals, but then they are also seen as property, thus we must question if people value animals intrinsically or just as something they posses. This all goes back to how people view animals. I believe that when there is suffering people take notice, but when things are fine they go about their daily lives as if everything was perfect. There are also feelings of superiority which are ubiquitous for humans in the industrialized world. They still feel that it is good to eat animals, it is natural, but it is also good to limit suffering as evidenced by Dr. Temple Grandin writing for McDonald’s, claims to “[care] about the humane treatment of animals,” (http://www.mcdonalds.com...) but, as I must emphasize, not their lives.
Mercy for animals is not only a website (http://www.mercyforanimals.org/) but a position mostly attributed to political leftists as most people who know me think I am some kind of hippie because I don’t eat meat. There is another website (www.conservativeveggie.com) which is a message board, but shows that liberals are not the only ones who do not eat animals. A conservative columnist George Will wrote an article based on the former speech writer for George W. Bush- Matthew Scully. According to Will, Scully writes that “"We cannot just take from these creatures; we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life." This shows that people in our society are having altered thoughts, and I think that this is becoming a predominant way of thinking when considering the laws to protect animals and even the KFC boycott that is happening now which even Al Sharpton endorses (www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com). Melanie Joy defines this progress as an “animal welfare” stance because as she noted animal welfarists “seek humane slaughter,” whereas, animal rights people seek to end their slaughter.
I realize things will not improve in this world over night. It has taken centuries to fight the idea that some people are better than others, I only hope it does not take centuries to fight the speciesist views currently held by the majority of members in our society. It is apparent that views are changing. The general trend from McDonalds to the law is that animal suffering should be reduced. Many are waiting for when we as a society decide animals do not need to suffer any more than humans do. Harold A Herzog (1995), however, read through some media and noted a decline in concern for animal welfare/rights since 1990. He explained this trend by noting that historically the public attention waxes and wanes with time. He also proposed that more animal activism is in the courts, so not presented in the media which he searched through. Another thing he mentioned that could “take some of the wind out of the sails of animal activists” are acts like the animal welfare act. Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." It is very plausible that many nations in this world are actually in decline.




References

Joy, M. (2005). Humanistic psychology and animal rights: Reconsidering the boundaries of the humanist ethic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45(1), pp.106-130.

Grandin, T. (n.d.) Animal welfare. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/so ... lfare.html

Schaefer, R. T. (2004). Racial and ethnic groups. 10th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Spencer, C. (2002). Vegetarianism: A history. 2nd Ed. New York, NY, Four Walls Eight Windows.

Nibert, D. (2002). Animal rights / Human rights. United Stats of America, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Thorley, J. (2005). Protein and human evolution. Retrieved August 7, 2005, from http://www.iianthropology.org/JayThorley.

Farm Sanctuary (n.d.) About farm sanctuary. Retrieved August 6th, 2005, from http://www.farmsanctuary.org/about/index.htm.

Leneman, L. (1997). The awakened instinct: Vegetarianism and the women’s suffrage movement in Britain. Women’s History Review, 6(2), pp. 271-287.

Murti, V. (n.d.) The slaughter of the innocents. Retrieved August 4th, 2005, from http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/next-33.html

Herzog, H. A. (1995) Has public interest in animal rights peaked? American Psychologist, 50(11), pp. 945-947.

Frederick, K. G. & Adrian, R. M. (2000). Science and self-doubt. Retrieved August 6th, 2005, from http://reason.com/0010/fe.fg.science.shtml

Rev. Al Sharpton preaches compassion for chickens. Retrieved August 7th, 2005, from http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/sharpton.asp

Animal Welfare Act (1991) Retrieved August 4th, 2005, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... r2_03.html

hey College,

I just skimmed it - it is excellent. Only thing that I didnt see was the fact that the Humane Slaughter Act excludes some animals altogether (like chickens, I think). This is think is definietly worth mentioning.

otherwise, your presentation is going to KICK ASS and maybe, just maybe, one audience member will be more open to veganism after he heras your speech!!

Thanks nat, i'll have to add that.