The Onion, a newspaper that publishes satire, irreverently and effectively debunks the “humane slaughter” myth in an article entitled “We Raise All Our Beef Humanely On Open Pasture And Then We Hang Them Upside Down and Slash Their Throats.” The article contains many graphic zingers that expose the extreme cruelty inherent in modern-day slaughter. Example:

“When we shackle a chain to a hind leg of each of our cows and hoist its terrified, quivering frame 12 feet up to the rafters, we can see firsthand just how tender, meaty, and well-marbled its entire body is—and that means exceptional flavor for you and your family!”

Some might find the use of humor in an article about death to be tasteless, but perhaps this unconventional approach will reach open-minded meat eaters who haven’t given any thought to what actually happens to animals in slaughterhouses. Please read the article and share it on social media.

In a testament to the impact of the animal rights movement, the “Animal Agriculture Alliance” sent spies to the 2014 animal rights conferences hosted by FARM and HSUS. In a press release announcing the publication of their reports from the conferences, the organization’s CEO said:

“It is so important that we be present at events like this in order to get a first-hand account of what activist groups are planning” so that we can “more effectively counter their misleading campaigns against animal agriculture.”

“I hope our members utilise these reports as tools to communicate with stakeholders about the true agenda of the activist organisations and recognise the need to actively engage in conversations along the food chain about agriculture’s commitment to animal care.”

Following is the Association’s map of “radical activist organizations.” We should all strive to make it onto this organization’s list.

“Radical Activist Groups” (photo: Animal Agriculture Alliance)

Whether we like it or not, celebrities have the power to influence public opinion in areas that have nothing to do with their careers – gun control, abortion, poverty, disease and, of course, animal rights. Many have used their voices to advance justice for animals; a few have helped to turn back the clock.

Liam Neeson, for example, has campaigned aggressively in support of NYC’s inhumane horse-drawn carriage trade, attempting to convince the public that the horses have good lives. He has used his voice to turn public opinion against the advocacy groups, reversing in a matter of weeks much of the progress made over several years in changing the hearts and minds of New Yorkers. It is moments like these when we wish celebrities would mind their own business.

Then there’s basketball star Yao Ming who is using his voice (and his 7’6 height) to convince Chinese people to stop buying ivory, which has led not only to the decimation of elephant populations but also to untold sorrow and suffering for the hundreds of thousands of elephants who have lost family members. Mr. Ming’s anti-shark finning advocacy has cut shark fin consumption in half in China, and his 30 second public service announcement about elephant orphans could make the same happen with ivory:

European Union taxpayers have been subsidizing bullfights, but the European Parliament’s Environment Committee has voted to remove this government handout from its budget.

The Committee’s decision to cut financial aid to “those who breed bulls for bullfights” is based on existing law, which states that “animals kept for farming purposes should not suffer pain, injury, fear or distress. Clearly these conditions are not met where it concerns bulls that are used for lethal bull-fighting.” (note to lawmakers: should be bulls “who” are used…)

Footage of matadors tormenting, stabbing and killing bulls for “sport” is difficult to watch. Less difficult to watch is a terrified and confused bull jumping over an arena wall and charging into the crowd:

Members of Parliament will vote on the Environment Committee’s amendment during the week on September 15th.

Most people will remember Joan Rivers as a trailblazer for women in comedy; for her unparalleled work ethic; for her irreverence; and for her advocacy, philanthropy and generosity. But some will remember her as the poster child for fur. She wore – and glamorized – fur more than just about any other public figure. And that has been a major source of frustration and anger for the countless people who dedicate themselves to ending this most egregious form of animal cruelty.

Ms. Rivers gave the impression that she had misgivings about wearing fur. When people criticized or challenged her, she asked if they wore leather, suggesting that they were just as guilty. She also attempted to justify her fur by saying that she had rescue dogs, as if the kind deed of adopting animals gave her a free pass for other forms of cruelty. When she was challenged by activists at public events, she struck back, saying that her fur was 15 or 20 years old, as if wearing old fur doesn’t generate demand for new fur. As an aside, some of her fur was, in fact, new.

Fur Coat and fur scarf

In the end, Ms. Rivers’ love of fur must have outweighed any guilt that she felt for wearing it. She had many opportunities to do the right thing by renouncing fur, as her own daughter Melissa did in a commercial for PETA, but she instead defended it and, at times, displayed contempt for those who challenged her, as shown in this video taken in July, 2014:

Because of her fame and unmatched consumption of fur, Joan Rivers will be one of the faces of fur when society relegates this barbaric form of animal cruelty to the history books. Now that she’s gone, will she come face-to-face with the hundreds off animals who were tortured and killed for her vanity?