We're looking for passionate and enthusiastic individual to be the Guide to the Animal Rights site of About.com!

What sort of information do we want the new Guide to provide?
Well, we're looking for someone to help keep the public informed about major animal rights issues, both in the United States and throughout the world. Since we are not a breaking news service, content should primarily provide deep background and perspective on major animal rights issues and current events. The site should also be action-oriented in giving readers constructive ways in which they can get involved.

What sort of person are we looking for to be the new Guide to Animal Rights?
Our ideal candidate:

• A journalist or author who has written extensively on the subject
• An experienced member or leader from an advocacy group who can address a broad spectrum of issues evenhandedly

If this sounds like you, and you've got excellent writing skills and the desire to reach and teach a broad audience through your writing, why not go over to our application site to learn more about our hiring program and submit an application?

I heard an interesting story on NPR's Science Friday today. The guest was Elliot Aronson, a social psychologist who has co-written a new book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). The theory is that human brains (regardless of cultural or gender differences) are hard-wired to reduce cognitive dissonance and increase pleasure. This means that people internally "self-justify" their choices, even if they are given information that proves their choices are wrong. This seems to be especially true if their choices are harmful to others.

In an excerpt on the NPR website, Aronson writes: “Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent, such as ‘Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill me’ and ‘I smoke two packs a day.’ Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don't rest easy until they find a way to reduce it.” Unfortunately, for many people, reducing cognitive dissonance doesn’t mean making a change but rather justifying the status quo.

This is discouraging for people trying to encourage social change, such as animal rights. For example, the brains of people who eat meat are predisposed to discounting pro-vegetarian messages -- even irrefutable evidence about the mistreatment of farm animals and the health consequences of the Standard American Diet -- to "protect" the person from feeling torn about their personal choices. In essence, the brain "turns off" its analytical centers so it doesn't have to process this information that is creating a conflict, which is not pleasurable. This is all done subconsciously.

Clearly, not everyone blocks out all conflicting information, or nothing would ever change. It would be interesting to see how the brains of people who do transition to vegetarianism (and other pro-animal behaviors) look in comparison to those who justify eating meat (or other behaviors harmful to animals). Perhaps this would give us some clues to being more successful at effecting social change.

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three other people were indicted this week on charges surrounding alleged dogfighting activities, according to a CNN.com article. Vick faces maximum penalties of six years in jail and a $350,000 fine, if convicted.

The indictment states that the defendants reportedly bought, transported, bred and trained dogs for gambling fights and also killed dogs by electrocution, hanging, drowning and shooting. The indictment follows an investigation that included a raid on a Virginia property April 25. Vick and the others that were indicted have not yet been arrested. So far, Vick has retained his Nike endorsement and his active status on the NFL team, although groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and PETA have been exerting pressure on companies to cut their ties based on the scandal.

Yes, Vick is innocent until proven guilty, but from a public relations standpoint, the NFL and Vick's corporate sponsors would be wise to take this opportunity to make a stand against illegal activities, including animal cruelty. Not that we should expect much from Nike, which has been criticized for producing shoes made from crocodile skin (not to mention leather) and for using sweat-shop labor. Then again, the NFL's "pigskin" remains an animal-unfriendly icon as well.

It is interesting how much outrage surrounds these dogfighting allegations, while other forms of animal cruelty go unnoticed and even supported. I heard one letter from a TV viewer read on-air that suggested smearing Vick in liver pate and pushing him into the ring with fighting dogs. The American public is making some strides in its views about the treatment of animals, but it still has a long, long way to go.

There have been countless times that vegetarians have heard this comeback (and its companion retort “...but you eat chicken, don’t you?”), and it still seems strange to me that so many people don’t consider fish and chicken to be animals simply because they do not produce “red meat.” Didn’t they ever play that game 20 Questions that lays out the three basic “animal, vegetable or mineral” categories? Let’s break it down into really simple terms: Fish and chicken aren’t rocks, and fish and chicken aren’t vegetables, so they must be animals. And vegetarians don’t eat animals.

Pretty simple logic, it would seem, but there’s now a special name for every variation on vegetarianism. “Pesco-vegetarians” eat fish but not other animals. “Pollo-vegetarians” eat chickens but not other animals. There’s even something called “flexitarian,” or someone who eats vegetarian most of the time but not always. These terms are all misnomers. Let me repeat: Vegetarians don’t eat animals. That’s the definition of vegetarian. So you can’t eat fish and still be vegetarian. You can’t eat chicken and still be vegetarian. If you eat animals in addition to vegetables, you are not a vegetarian of any type - you are an omnivore.

Why should we care what people label themselves with regard to their food choices? If someone calls herself a vegetarian and then eats chicken, it sends the message that other vegetarians think it’s okay to eat chickens. It makes it difficult for true vegetarians who have to constantly define what should be a fairly straightforward viewpoint. It creates fodder for opponents of vegetarianism who like to point out hypocrisies in an effort to discredit the entire notion of animal rights.

I’m not sure what the solution is. The people who are using these terms are not animal rights advocates or they wouldn’t be eating animals, so it probably will be difficult to get them to stop using these terms. I don’t want to discourage people from increasing the amount of vegetarian foods they eat, but I also don’t want people to be misleading about what vegetarianism really is. If you’ve got any ideas, please post your comments.

Musician Moby – who also is vegan and an animal rights advocate - has criticized the recent Live Earth concerts for selling hamburgers, hot dogs and chicken to fans, despite the environmental consequences of livestock production, including its significant contribution to global warming.

In his July 8 blog post, Moby wrote, citing a U.N. report: “People talk about using compact fluorescent light bulbs or driving hybrid cars (both good things, of course), but almost no one mentions giving up meat, even though livestock production is responsible for more than 20% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Again, to be blunt and plain: Livestock production is responsible for the release of more greenhouse gases than every car or SUV or pickup truck on the planet.”

I remember going to a Paul McCartney concert in the Midwest, where there was a big controversy over the fact that he and his wife Linda were vegetarians. The hog farmers actually picketed the arena. One of the first things Paul said when he came out on stage was, “But we love corn!” Alas, the corn farmers weren't out in force showing their support. However, the arena’s concession stands were selling meatless tofu hot dogs (made from soybeans) - and that wasn't even a benefit concert with an overt message. Good for you, Paul. Too bad more musicians with a conscience couldn't have influenced the menu at the Live Earth concerts.

From an animal rights perspective, there are plenty of reasons to go vegetarian. The climate change consequences are just another compelling reason to stop raising farm animals for human use, whether it's for meat, dairy or other animal products. Unfortunately, it's a hard habit for many people to break. Moby sums it up nicely in his blog: He says the glaring omission in the climate change discussion is like “…talking about someone with lung cancer and neglecting to mention that they smoked two packs of cigarettes a day. It's just depressing that some huge truths about climate change are too inconvenient even for the well-intentioned left.”

Reports of animal abuse are emanating from the movie set of Speed Racer, a live-action film adaptation of the 1960s Japanese “anime” cartoon that was recently revived and updated by Nickelodeon’s Nicktoons channel. The movie - starring Christina Ricci, Susan Sarandon and John Goodman – also features a character that is a pet chimpanzee named Chim-Chim. Complaints received by People from the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) allege that the chimp bit one of the human actors and then was hit or beaten, according to an MSNBC article. The studio in charge of the production, Warner Bros., denies that the chimp was mistreated, although it did confirm there was a bite incident.

Warner Bros. also says the American Humane Association backs up their assertions that the chimp is being treated well. However, PETA responded: “No humane representative is closely monitoring those animals while off-set or during pre-production training, the very places where abuse is most likely to occur, so we regret to say that the assurances you offer are meaningless.” While the AHA film guidelines do include sections related to the care of animals in training and off-set, it is not clear when and where AHA officials are physically present to observe what's happening. The movie-going public has come to rely on the American Humane Association’s “no animals were harmed” disclaimer as an indication of the humane treatment of animals in the film industry. However, the AHA film guidelines are just that - guidelines. The AHA “recommends” and “encourages” certain standards, but it doesn't seem to have the authority to require compliance. I guess films that don’t comply simply don’t get the humane stamp of approval.

Most of the background sets and many of the film’s car-racing scenes will be computer-generated, and PETA is urging the show’s producers to use animatronics or similar techniques for the chimpanzee, instead of using live animals on the set. The studio replied in a letter: “We appreciate the concerns of your organization. We also respect the vision and choices of the filmmakers with which we work. Every option on a film is carefully weighed, and for this production, the decision was made to use live animals.” Considering that the film is made by the same directors and special effects wizard of The Matrix fame, you’d think making a realistic-looking chimpanzee would be a piece of cake.

The film is being billed as “family-friendly.” Exploiting animals isn’t a very good lesson for us to be teaching our children. Instead, we should be teaching them about the wonder of chimps as part of our wild heritage. They are classified as apes (not monkeys), as are gorillas, orangutans and bonobos. All four subspecies of chimpanzees are endangered, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)’s “Red List.” And although these animals are one of our closest genetic relatives (we share more than 98% of the same genes), humans destroy their habitat and use them in lab experiments, for entertainment and even for meat. For more information about chimpanzees, read Jane Goodall’s website Chimpanzee Central.

The industry group Australian Wool Innovation has reached an agreement with animal rights organizations, after more than two years of litigation. PETA is calling the news “the beginning of the end of mulesing mutilations in Australia.” The Australian wool industry has agreed to invest in selectively breeding sheep to be bare in their hind-quarters and to develop sheep that are genetically resistant to infestations.

Many of you are probably asking, “What the heck is mulesing? And how could it possibly be worse than genetically altering animals?” Mulesing is the practice of cutting off the flesh around a sheep's legs and tail, often without anesthesia, to prevent flystrike, or flies laying eggs in between the wrinkles of the skin. Once the eggs hatch, the larval flies – yes, I'm talking about maggots – eat away at the sheep’s flesh. Visualizing either mulesing or flystrike is equally grotesque, which is why tinkering with sheep genes has won out in the negotiations.

The industry also has agreed to allow products to be labeled as using wool coming from non-mulesed or mulesed sheep. It is not clear if this labeling also would apply to wool byproducts, such as lanolin. In exchange, PETA has agreed to stop public campaigns against specific retailers, although it has pledged to continue to push for general consumer boycotts of mulesed wool products, which will include storefront demonstrations and negotiations with companies that sell wool products.

Despite PETA’s exhaltations, I’m not sure that this is an animal rights victory worth bragging too much about, since the sheep will how be subjected to genetic experimentation in addition to suffering in the wool industry. Don’t get me wrong, I do want to see an end to cruelty in wool production - especially mulesing – and I know progress comes in incremental changes. But it would seem that successfully increasing consumer demand for non-mulesed wool (or even better, non-wool fabric alternatives) would be more of a victory than trading one exploitive practice for others.

Even if the practice of mulesing ends, the wool industry is cruel to animals in other ways. When sheep age and their wool production declines, they are sold for slaughter. The wool industry also participates in widespread wildlife “damage control,” killing animals such as kangaroos and coyotes, which it believes negatively affects wool production. Unfortunately, in this case - at least until more progress is made - genetically altering animals would seem to be the lesser of two evils.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney admitted he took the family dog on vacation, but instead of traveling safely inside the car with the rest of the passengers, the Irish Setter named Seamus rode on the top of the vehicle. After the 12-hour road trip from Boston to Ontario, there was dog poop (call it fecal matter or excrement, if you wish) on the roof and windows of the station wagon.

Yes, Romney did have the dog in a carrier, but that would not have protected Seamus from airborne road debris that could have struck the dog at high speed. If a vehicle traveling in front of you kicks up a pebble, you know how much damage that can do to your windshield. Imagine if that rock hit your dog in the face. Or worse, what if the restraints failed and the carrier was flung from the vehicle onto the road. Common sense tells most of us that this is just not a safe or humane way for animals to be transported.

According to a Time/CNN article, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has taken Romney to task since the incident came to light. In the report, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said: “…it is commonsense that any dog who's under extreme stress might show that stress by losing control of his bowels: that alone should have been sufficient indication that the dog was, basically, being tortured."

The former Massachusetts governor later said his dog “enjoyed” riding in the rooftop carrier and dismissed PETA’s criticisms, stating that the organization is “not happy that my dog likes fresh air.” Animal rights and animal welfare groups have criticized Romney in the past for quail hunting and for including a rodeo exhibition as part of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, while he was CEO of the International Olympic Committee.

In some states - including California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island and Virginia - it is illegal for animals to be transported unsafely, such as in the back of pick-up trucks. In fact, according to Massachusetts law, it is illegal for anyone to carry an animal “in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.” Animal cruelty investigators reportedly said that Romney’s actions could have been illegal but that the statute of limitations has probably run out on the 1983 incident.

I remember dissection and other animal experiments in high school biology class all too well. I was disgusted by the project that required students to catch insects, kill them with ether and then pierce their bodies with sharp pins so they could be stuck into a Styrofoam board. Many of the students’ bugs died by suffocation sealed in airtight jars over the weekend before making it to class on Monday. Students were to go through a hierarchical identification procedure and label the “specimens.” This exercise easily could have been done with photographs or models instead, with the same educational result. Little was gained by the students in collecting, killing and mounting the insects, especially when the point of the assignment was to be able to identify the animals’ taxonomy. At the end of the assignment, all the bodies of the dead, impaled insects were dumped in the trash.

Even more sickening to me was the dissection assignment. Our 10th-grade class experimented on earthworms, frogs and crayfish. I can’t specifically remember how the earthworms arrived at the school, if they were already dead or if the class was supposed to kill them before experimenting on them, but the frogs were already dead and preserved in formaldehyde, and the crayfish were delivered alive. Several teenage boys disturbingly crushed live crayfish in plastic bags with books and other heavy objects just to see what would happen. Other kids gruesomely disemboweled and mutilated the frogs far beyond what was required by the instructions for the assignment. (Remember, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer tortured cats for fun before turning his attention to people, more proof of the link between animal cruelty and human violence.)

There were three reactions to my classroom dissection experiment: traumatic horror, callous indifference or grotesque fascination. None of these were beneficial to the students or for teaching respect for animals and nature. For me, these exercises were more like emotional abuse than education, but we did not have the choice of opting out of these assignments.

Students today have more options. Nine states have student choice laws related to classroom dissection, and many other school boards have local policies allowing students to use non-animal alternatives. In addition, there are a variety of nonprofit organizations that provide information and resources for families that want to approach schools about changing their policies to be more inclusive of cruelty-free alternatives.

The involvement of high-profile sports celebrities has made dogfighting newsworthy of late. Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is currently under investigation, although no charges have been filed yet. Vick claims that he knew nothing about illegal dog fighting at his property in Virginia. According to an ESPN article, Vick’s house there was raided April 25, and authorities found “66 dogs (most of which were pitbulls), a dog-fighting pit, bloodstained carpets and equipment commonly associated with dogfighting.” The dogs were reportedly malnourished and neglected.

The popularity of breeding aggressiveness into dogs such as American Pitbull Terriers, which are commonly used in dogfighting, has led to some localities enacting breed bans. These measures prohibit people from owning certain breeds of dogs, even as companion animals. In some communities, it is difficult to even rent a home or get homeowners insurance if you live with certain breeds of dogs. In addition to pitbulls, the breed bans also target dogs such as Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, and others.

Dogfighting is deplorable and deserves to be outlawed. However, breed bans are not an effective way to address what is essentially also a human problem. It is people who are irresponsibly breeding and training animals and who treat them inappropriately. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to legislate human behavior than it is to ban property (animals are considered property under the law). This is one reason why these breed-specific bans have successfully started to take hold.

If you learn about the existence of dogfighting activities in your community, report it to the local law enforcement and animal control agencies. If you are afraid of retaliation, remember that reporting animal cruelty can be done anonymously. If your community is considering banning certain breeds of dogs, learn all you can about the issue and get involved to stop this discriminatory and ineffective practice. The Humane Society of the United States has more information about dogfighting and breed-specific bans.