PR Straight Talk

[NOTE:   Also viewable at - http://www.enrichment.com/content/remedy-china-reversing-cancer-cell-growth]

There is a remedy from China that users report is putting their cancers into remission.

The remedy is called “Haelan 951” (pronounced “Heelan”). It has had a dearth of publicity to-date – yet it is extraordinary, and worth consideration. Haelan 951 is approved by the FDA as a food substance. It is undergoing clinical trials as a remedy for cancer and is not yet officially FDA approved as a medicine. For this reason, the company that imports the product into the USA cannot yet officially state that it is a cure or remedy for cancer. But wherever clinical trials are held, the findings are extremely positive.

Interviews with people who have taken Haelan 951 for cancer, shows that in many cases it works by boosting the immune system up to 700%, making it virtually impossible for cancer cells to grow or spread. After these interviews, I recommended to a family member with both chronic lymphatic leukemia and the diagnosis of an aggressive breast cancer tumor, that she take the Haelan. Having done so, she went into remission after a few months from both the CLL and breast cancer. Eight years later, she is still in remission.

Haelan 951 is a super nutritious, fermented soybean protein beverage that has shown remarkable results in the treatment of cancer. The bean is grown in China where it is also processed. It is imported in bottles by The Haelan Company in Washington State. The beverage contains large quantities of single cell proteins and their metabolites produced by a specially patented fermentation process. This process hydrolyzes many of the soybean proteins into amino acids and compounds that are rich in nitrogen and fermentation metabolites of the naturally occurring isoflavones such as genistein, protease inhibitors, saponins, phytosterols and inositol hexaphosphate compounds in soybeans.

The majority of those I interviewed reported they had gone into remission – and some of them reported that they did not do conventional treatment, but only the Haelan.

Colorado-based medical researcher Donna Sage, who conducted extensive interviews and research with patients and physicians on difficult cancer cases that had dramatic turnarounds after taking Haelan 951, wrote several articles for Well-Being Journal, including a well-documented piece in the January/February 1999 issue entitled, “Soy Nutrient That Reverses Cancer Cell Growth.” (http://www.haelanproducts.com/well%20being%20journal.htm). Prior to her research, Ms. Sage was a skeptic about the beneficial effects of Haelan. She now believes that Haelan is a potent and viable anti-cancer remedy.

More research can be found at the Haelan Products Company website: http://www.haelanproducts.com/research.htm

One clinical trial of note was a study supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute, and conducted by the Divisions of Medical Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. A 56 year-old woman with rapidly progressive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer experienced remission and entered into a phase of prolonged disease stabilization upon initiating self-directed treatment with Haelan 951, a commercially-available soy beverage.

The case report of the study states: “We present a case of a woman with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who has had asymptomatic, stable disease for nine months on Haelan 951.” The study was first published on May 27, 2005

For serious cases, Haelan is taken initially for two or three months at a bottle (8 ounces a day) – perhaps more. Four ounces in the morning, four ounces at night before bed.

After the initial bottle or more a day, one goes on maintenance, usually an ounce in the morning and an ounce at night, indefinitely. The taste is not great though one gets used to it.

More information is available in several languages at www.Cancer-Disarmed.com

Michael Jackson was an artistic genius - and like many artistic geniuses of his calibre - he had a very sensitive inner child which in his case had become wounded by an abusive father, and the absence of a normal childhood.  Michael was used and manipulated by many barracuda types in his life - managers and financial advisors who were not only interested in cashing in on his mega-success - but people who did not truly care for him as a person.  He was surrounded by people who feigned caring about him, but they were disingenous - whether we’re talking about plastic surgeons, M.D.’s who overmedicated him, or close consultants including publicists.

Michael did have the wisdom to occasionally turn to spiritual teachers like Deepak Chopra and Rabbi Shmuley - but he did not have a close inner circle of centered, caring people who cared more about HIM than his image.  These were people who feigned concern, but their real motivation was monetary self-enrichment.

In authentic public relations, the “image” is an extension of the true person - the true being.  Michael’s image was tarnished by the failure of close confidantes who might have helped him work on his demons with expert counseling, and help him disassociate his conflicts from his true artistic self, allowing him to see himself for the great, caring and artistic person he truly was.

Instead, Michael’s conflicted self and unconscious desire for punishment - since the punishment he endured from his father as a child was the “price” he was made to believe was necessary for success - allowed terrible people to later come into his life, which exacerbated the poor choices he made, and his image.  Even this may have been exacerbated by an on-stage incident that burned his hair and scalp, and set in motion antidotes for the excruciating pain he experienced, as well as plastic surgeries that went too far.  It is also my belief that Michael was not a child molester, as echoed by his friends Deepak Chopra and Chopra’s son, and Donald Trump. 

If a wise public relations practitioner had come into his life, understanding his personal struggle and physical pain, and had become a true friend of Michael’s, working with him to gain permission to bring wise and caring people into his inner circle, this kind of support might have changed Michael’s course, may have prevented the myriad of crises Michael confronted, and supported an image that would have been truer to the extremely talented artist, shining being and spirit-filled, uplifting entertainer Michael Jackson surely was.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff wrote an important piece, published on April 8th, entitled, “Humanity Even For NonHumans”.  Cudos to him for bringing the suffering - and rights - of farm animals - to the spotlight.  In his blog on the same topic, I addressed a kindred issue - the suffering of shelter animals.  Here’s that comment, posted by The Times:

Dear Mr. Kristoff:

Thank you so much for this important contribution to raising consciousness about the plight of farm animals.

The late great Dr. Albert Schweitzer said: “Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.”

Another related very important issue is the inhumane treatment of dogs and cats at so many animal shelters across the country. Here in Broward County, Florida, at the Animal Care & Regulation Division’s two animal shelters run by the Broward County Commissioners, 10,000 dogs, puppies, cats and kittens are euthanized each year. The vast majority of them are healthy and adoptable. The core of the problem is an unspoken but very real attitude of irreverence for the lives of these precious, feeling creatures. “ACARD” or “Animal Control” as it is known, is in actuality a disposal unit for the elimination - killing - of these animals.

Until they are killed, and due to this disposal attitude, their treatment is abominable - many are crunched in too small cages, making it impossible for them to move about; too many are not given the exercise they vitally need; they cannot be touched, thus lack the tactile experience all living creatures need for emotional and physical well-being; food is awful. Virtually all of the animals develop kennel cough, which can lead to pneumonia. A sweet Yorkie I recently adopted was near death with pneumonia.

Furthermore, no real effort is made to bring traffic to these denizens of death, allowing for adoptions to increase. Few know its location (the main facility is near the Ft. Lauderdale Airport). Despite my past urgings for large and colorful signings leading to the place, please have been ignored. Offers to provide free publicity (I am a media relations specialist), which would include public service spots on radio and television, articles in newspapers, stories on radio and tv - these offers have been ignored.

I am the son of Holocaust survivors; and I tell you that facilities like Animal Care and Regulation in Broward County is much like an Auschwitz. There is no regard for the lives or feelings of these dogs and cats - and they are truly unconditionally loving and feeling beings who only seek to be treated in a humane and kind manner. “Kindness” is not a word within the vocabulary of the uncaring bureaucrats and politicians responsible for this dreadful institution.

To make matters worse, they feign concern - but to see the actions that take place - and the gross inhumanity that exists there - this concern is clearly nothing more than a subterfuge.

In 2006, when I first became aware of conditions at ACARD, I wrote an article for The Best Friends Network. It describes the cruelty at this institution, and I am sad to report that the essence of the story has remain unchanged. That article can be found at:

http://network.bestfriends.org/news/postdetail.aspx?np=7511

A website I created, http://www.CompassionateAnimalFriendsofBroward.org also describes the critical situation, and provides an opportunity to electronically sign a Petition to the Broward Commissioners, demanding change.

Kindness must extend to all living beings who share this planet with us. We are all part of the Great Circle of Life. We are all connected. We all live, breathe and feel. We must advocate for them, for they cannot advocate for themselves. But their purity, and the unconditional love they give to us, stands as a call for us to act, to act now and to act with compassion.

VALUES IN PR

This is a page you may not ordinarily see on a public relations site.  Many p.r. people are “invisible” when it comes to publicly taking a stand about their own values and what they believe in – or don’t believe in.  They hold a position of seeming neutrality in this area.

For some, this may be to maximize the field of potential clients they can attract, and consequently, to maximize the potential for doing business. The potential negative consequence of this decision is that it has created the perception of some p.r. professionals as “flacks” and “ambulence chasers.”  

For others, withholding a statement of values and beliefs is necessary in order to spotlight their clients’ values. They rightly hold that the mission of public relations professionals is to create compelling communications programs on behalf of their clients’ positions – not their own.  They believe that the most effective p.r. representation, therefore, is to represent virtually any kind of client, while remaining personally detached from that client’s point-of-view (even while exhuberantly presenting that view to editors and producers).   Some of the professionals in this latter grouping may even believe that by adhering to this position, they support the constitutional right of freedom of speech (on behalf of their clients).

While I believe there is merit to this latter position, if it is sincerely held, I come down in a slightly different place.  I believe that, for me, the times we live in make it necessary to enunciate a basic personal and professional declaration of “What I believe and what I value.”   For while I see myself as an advocate for my client’s core values and fundamental self-interests, as a citizen of my country and the world – like yourself - I also see myself as an advocate of core values that guide the decisions I make about who I  represent.

The first experience I can remember as a public relations professional that layed track for this position was just prior to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylania.  I was a young rookie, working for a major public relations agency (my first p.r. job).  I was asked to be part of a strategic brainstorming meeting with a new client, a major corporation involved in energy and electronics.  The client informed us that its nuclear power plants were one hundred percent safe from any mishaps, and asked us to craft a communications program that boldly enunciated that position.

When I raised my hand and asked the question, “Can you back up that position with sound scientific proof and evidence?” - I noticed that some of the more senior staffers in that meeting seemed to cringe, annoyed I had asked this question. I also suggested that a “crisis media plan” be developed in advance in case the client was confronted with some sudden catastrophe which required damage control.  I explained to the client that it was necessary to take a “devil’s advocate” stance, in order to build a stronger campaign which anticipated the tough questions that would inevitably be posed by adversaries of nuclear power plants, or in case of human error “in spite of  the client’s insistence that nothing could go wrong.”

The client “laughed me down,” saying that the proof was so “self-evident,” it wasn’t necessary to further research the issue or to prepare for a problem.

Two months later, the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant accident occurred. That plant was owned by this particular client.  When the media tried to approach the client for a statement, it took days before the client was ready to make an intelligent statement to the press, let alone answer tough questions.

It was at this moment that I realized four very important things:

(1)    It is the public relations professional’s responsibility to help the client anticipate problems in advance – and counsel the client on how to deal with      problems when they occur.

(2)    Clients can make mistakes, and should admit mistakes when they occur.

(3)  A good public relations professional must have the courage to follow his or her gut instincts and intuition, as long as they are honest and sincere – even in the face of raising questions the client may find unappealing.

(4)    Public relations agencies and professionals should think twice before representing clients they consciously know have services, products or ideas that may undermine the quality-of-life or higher public good, irrespective of the fees that client may be willing to pay the agency or professional.

In subsequent years, I developed a list of such “value statements” that ultimately turned into a kind of credo.  Here’s the rest:

*    Be open to representing clients which have services and products that minimally pose no hazards to public safety.  Just as a potential client will investigate whether  you as a public relations professional are right for them, you have every right to investigate whether they are right for you.

*    The world is in a critical stage in its development.  It needs advocates who embrace the values of both the American Declaration of Independence, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…advocates who are  willing to take a stand for the enrichment of life – and public relations advocates who represent   clients that enhance the quality of life with a view of life’s sacredness…clients that enrich the environment, human health and well-being, human rights (and animal rights)…clients that promote the advancement of human economic, creative and social potential, especially children’s potential…clients that advance human understanding, tolerance and respect      for the richness of, and differences  in, cultures, religions, genders, races, ethnicities and ideas…clients who if they       advance technology, also advance the progress of the human heart.

*    Take a stand for the Earth and the “wholeness” and intelligence of Nature.  Take a stand for the advancement of world culture while equally respecting the  uniqueness and sacredness of every individual human being, and the healthy, enriching uniqueness of  regional and national cultures.

*    Be suspicious of any group, organization or individual who believe they, he or she have “all the answers” or who wish to impose or project these  “answers” onto others.  Veer instead towards those who present creative solutions to specific problems; and judge these solutions on the basis as to whether they expand human human happiness and fulfillment

*    Consider groups, organizations or individuals who have creative or innovative ideas, services or products that enrich human life; or that have winning ideas, services or products that can help empower the poor or heal the sick.

*    Represent businesses that conduct themselves ethically, that deliver products or services that help, and don’t harm; that are businesses that invest in their people and contribute to the health and well-being of the communities in which they do business, both domestically and internationally; and that are sensitive to  the promotion of the human and civil rights of women and minorities, especially among their own employees and the customers they serve.

He was clear.  He was concise.  He was unambiguous.  He was certain about the response to evil (Islamic fascism) in the world - “defeat it.”  He was relaxed.  He could be light and funny.  He was a superb storyteller.  He spoke unpretentiously about the courage required as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and the painful but necessary moral choice to refuse release while those like his friend, detained two years longer than he, remained imprisoned.

This was John McCain at his best:  passionate, defender of the Constitution, patriot, hero, a man whose story revealed a dedication to higher causes beyond self-interest, a man clearly committed to the safety and advancement of the United States and the principles it rests on.

Most of all, this was a man who wreaked honesty and integrity.  His response and stand on virtually every question and issue raised by Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church was unambiguous - and seemed to rest on deep conviction and solid values.

This came through particularly in his response to the question about abortion - he’s pro-Life; and his understanding of the complexity of the issue and his ability to nuance it based on compassion for those suffering with life-wrenching illnesses such as Lou Gehrig’s disease and Alzheimers, revealed itself in his advocacy of stem cell research (while pointing to skin cells as an imminent alternative solution).

The brilliance of the “performance” cannot be understated.  For in a one hour interview, the character and intelligence of John McCain came through…compellingly, convincingly.   It was clear that this is a man who as President would, to the best of his ability, both defend our democratic - small “d” rights (as a prisoner-of-war, he pointed out, he experienced their absence), while balancing that with the staunch defense of America from terrorism and the radical Islamic threat.  My belief that McCain would do his best to protect civil rights through this delicate maneuvering is that he so forcefully criticized the use of torture as a means to extract confessions from possible terrorists.  He was a victim of torture in Vietnam.

He was equally compelling - whether one agreed with him or not - on his stand on energy solutions - offshore drilling and the development of the fullest range of energy alternatives.  He was also brief but persuasive in his exhortation to relieve all Americans of higher taxes.

What was exceptionally significant about the forum - a one hour conversation with each candidate - Obama and McCain - with the same questions put to each individual on the same stage and in exactly the same structured setting - is that the electorate had an  opportunity to compare each  man and each man’s character and mindset - with unprecedented clarity. 

Obama was typically eloquent and cerebral - but my own impression of the man was that he was more tenuous, and less compelling as a leader.  I sometimes had to ask myself, what did he really say?  There was more ambiguity in his responses.

While I do not agree with Senator McCain on all the issues, I was left feeling that I would trust America and her safety more to this man, than his opponent - and in spite of his opponent’s often idealistic rhetoric.

What was especially gratifying was to give each candidate one hour, in a conversational format.  That really allowed the viewer to experience the fuller depth and range of each person in terms of character, style, depth of conviction and values, centeredness and qualities of leadership.

Prior to this event, McCain had been a disappointment - but clearly this forum was ideal for him - and a gift to the American public - enabling them to see what in my opinion was the better candidate.  He may not read a teleprompter well - but he can articulate his views and articulate them well in a more impromptu, less contrived setting.  The man reveals himself.

McCain won from the standpoint of more effective communications style, depth of values, character and certainty as a potential leader.

For the first time, I thought, “McCain can win!”

In political campaigns, message equals at least half of perception.  The other half has to do with style - a candidate’s personality, character, likeability, body language and the fluency of rhetoric, and identifiability.

When an economy is in decline, when jobs are down, and mortgages are on the line, message has much to do with economic solutions.  When gas prices are escalating out of proportion to the average person’s ability to manage his or her bills, the message is about lowering gas prices.  When the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals becomes unmanageable, health care is an important message.

When a country is in a long, seemingly endless and protracted war, message has to do with ending war - especially if losses outweigh gains.  

Last but not least, does the candidate inspire?  Offer hope?  A change of some kind?

Thus in the current primary battle, depending upon how voters perceive the messages of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they relate to the above issues, they will veer towards one or the other candidate based on their belief in that candidate’s sincerity, and their judgement that he or she can deliver on the message. 

The same holds true for John McCain.

But the degree of gravitation towards one candidate or the other will also be based on the other major variable - that of style.   Is the candidate likeable?  Is there a resonance with the way the candidate moves and gestures?  Does the delivery of language resonate?  Is there something about the character that moves the voter? 

Where in the assortment of all the above variables does the voter identify?

With respect to Hillary Clinton, clearly many women identify with her as the first major woman candidate.  Voters are also impressed with her tenacity, her strength and persistence, and her experience.  Those who support a universal health care system support Hillary’s plan.   “Message” and “gender” and “character” play important roles.

With Barack Obama, African Americans identify with the first serious candidate of color running for office.  Many Americans resonate with the Obama message of hope and bringing people together; and of a new kind of “cleaner” politics that presents itself as void of typical political games, and a willingness to talk to our enemies without preconditions. Many find Obama’s disdain for the war attractive.  Many are attracted to a high level of rhetoric that speaks to our nobler natures.   “Message” and “race” and “rhetoric” are high on the perception ladder.

During the Republican primary, those voters were clearly looking for Conservative messages, and were high on staying the course in Iraq, and a strong posture against terrorism.  Message was most important.  John McCain prevailed.

Perception of message and style clearly will sway voters in one direction or the other; and the convincability of message and the resonance with style will produce a President in the national election. 

What it seems to me hasn’t been tested enough is the vetting of one particular candidate.  How well do we really know Senator Obama?  How good a job has the media done in helping the electorate by investigating him with a real thoroughness deserving of the highest office in the land?  The Rev. Wright affair and Obama’s extremely tardy denunciation of the man after 20 years of close relationship with him; and the presence of advisors with stances contrary to Obama’s public posturing (e.g., anti-Israel advisor General McTweak versus Obama’s public declaration of staunch support for Israel) create doubts about the Illinois Senator’s credibility.  So do his pronouncement that he will meet with harsh adveraries without preconditions.  Hints of Chamberlain and Hitler?  He will say anything, it seems, in his typically articulate and mellifluent manner, to get elected.

If there has been insufficient vetting, then does that candidate deserve the electorate’s blind trust, message and style aside?  To put it another way, how can a candidate be accountable to the electorate in terms of the viability of message, if there is a lack of experience and lack of certainty as to that person’s background (in measuring up to the words of the message)?

The answer it seems to me is “No” and…”He can’t.”  And given this litmus test, Senators Clinton and McCain are known “commodities” with proven records of long standing, but Senator Obama, who clearly has not been vetted enough, and with little experience on the national level, does not deserve voter trust or confidence, irrespective of message and style.  The stakes are simply too high.

This is one case when message and style seem shallow in importance compared to the certainty that comes from in-depth vetting.

That’s one p.r. man’s opinion - p.r. aside!

Below is a letter I wrote to Daphna Ziman of StandWithUs, after I read her testimony about the anti-Semitic statements of the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who afterwards denied he made the statements.  This is the link that gives her testimony and the Reverend’s denials:  http://standwithus.com/app/iNews/view.asp?ID=350 

Dear Daphna:

It was not only horrifying to read your account of the vitriolic vituperatives hurled against the Jewish people by Rev. Eric Lee, president & CEO of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, but even more disturbing to read his letter of denial, affirming his solidarity and respect for Jews and unbelievably refuting that he made the remarks you and others so clearly heard. 

May I suggest that you get corroborative statements from others who were present with you, especially Assemblyman Mike Davis and Senator Mark Ridely Thomas?

Rev. Lee should be fired as head of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  He does not deserve to stand in Martin Luther King’s shoes.  Dr. King was time and again an eloquent supporter of Israel and the noble struggle of the Jewish people for social justice – not only for themselves, but often for the struggle of African Americans.  It is a fact, as you undoubtedly know, that Jews stood with Blacks at the forefront of the Civil Rights crusade.  Some Jews like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered alongside African American James Earl Chaney on June 21, 1964.  As young members of The Congress of Racial Equality who courageously came to the South to stand up for the rights of African Americans, these three martyrs stand forever emblazoned in history as champions in the struggle for freedom and the rights of all Americans.

Dr. King was no hypocrite, hiding his true feelings for different audiences.  He spoke with the same eloquence, passion and convictions in front of Black audiences as he did in front of white audiences.  He was a friend of the Jewish people and for Israel – and he would express this support at any time, to any audience.

What kind of affrontery to intelligent people of goodwill of all races and religions has Rev. Lee committed!  How can he think he can blatantly get away with his egregious hypocrisy, denials and lies?

This is the problem we as an electorate face with Senator Obama and his relationship with Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan.  Obama speaks to the American people denouncing these men’s bigoted words, but he has not severed his relationships with them.  He spends 20 years as a congregant of Rev. Wright’s Church, and says he never personally heard a bigoted sermon?  This is the same lying and hypocrisy displayed by Rev. Lee.  It reveals a hidden agenda – an antiseptic agenda of inspirational rhetoric dished out for a largely white public; but a hateful and venomous truer attitude that gushes up for constituents.

We don’t know the true Barack Obama, because he constantly “feeds” the media and the general public with what he knows they want him to say, while he de facto surrounds himself with advisors and mentors who belie these statements.  General Merrill “Tony” McPeak, Senator Obama’s military advisor and co-chair of his Presidential campaign is a case in point. McPeak is a longtime anti-Israel critic who has slammed Israel harshly during his career.  And yet Obama utters strong unqualified support for Israel in his public pronouncements.

Just as in the case of Rev. Lee, Barack Obama has two voices:  one for public consumption designed to gain power and the Presidency; and the other what seems to be truer darker feelings evidenced by his close and important relationships.

If I can support you in revealing the hypocrisy and lies of Rev. Lee, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Mike Schwager

Truth in communications.  I wrote about this subject early in my blog postings.  With respect to Barack Obama, the question looms:  how can a man who has cultivated close relationships and sought spiritual counsel from a bigoted Minister speak to America about “bringing us together” and about “hopefulness?” 

The question looms and begs probing.

For a review of my early posting on truth in communications, here is the link:

http://www.prstraighttalk.com/the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth-part-ii/

Hillary - when you opened your heart at the end of the Austin debate tonight with Senator Obama - you exposed the deeper part of yourself and your feelings - and you won our own hearts.  This was the second time you connected to me in the heart - and undoubtedly to millions of other Americans.  The first time was in New Hampshire after your Iowa loss.

When you spoke to your empathy for amputee veterans - and when you became magnanimous in your appreciation of Senator Obama - I “saw” who you were in your heart.  I saw your essence.

Hillary - do more of that.   Do it now.  Don’t give up your strong stand on the issues - but if you lead with the heart, and complement with the mind - THAT’S a winning combination.  That’s the WHOLE Hillary!

Whether there’s time to regain the momentum in the race by winning Texas and Ohio, we won’t know until the outcome is known in those primaries just ahead. 

But one thing I do know - without being the WHOLE you - the campaign is lost.  And should you lose by keeping your true voice, you will have won in Spirit by being yourself - and winning the admiration of the entire country. 

Speak too about your Dreams.  Obama speaks about Hope.  You speak about your  Dreams - the Dreams you’ve had since  you were a young woman…even a girl.  Including the Dream for a woman to reach the highest office in the land.  Speak about those Dreams and how they led to your fight for Solutions, the word you recently coined. 

Your Dreams are larger than yourself - and bring you closer to your Heart - and can open up the Hearts of others.

Undercover video released by the Humane Society, and just shown on national tv, of sick cows in a meat processing plant, just prior to slaughter, made national headlines – but not out of compassion for these poor suffering animals.  The focus of concern by the news media was about the meat of sick animals entering the food supply.

When I saw the footage this morning, of animals too sick to stand, stumbling helplessly on the slaughterhouse floor, and lifted mercilessly and callously on a fork about to be taken for slaughter, I realized that my long interest in becoming a vegetarian had been realized. Where is our compassion?  I speak not only for the sickly cows, but the healthy ones too.  These are feeling, thinking beings.  The cow is a benign animal.  But the fate of tens of millions each year, who suffer by never seeing the light of day, in closed warehouses and cramped conditions, only to be cruelly slaughtered in the end – is a mark of a society and a culture without feeling, without compassion, without understanding or caring of the suffering of these docile creatures.

Mahatma Gandhi always felt that animals should be protected from torture and cruelty.  “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals,” he said.

“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives,” wrote humanitarian and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

Where is the national campaign and the voices of outrage that decry the suffering and cruelty of such animals – that decry their suffering in the manner in which they are housed and treated, and in the fact that they are slaughtered in inhumane and merciless ways?  Ultimately, where is the campaign that calls for an end to the slaughter of cows, period?  Where is the campaign that is rooted in a true embrace of reverence for life – all life?  Where is the campaign that decries the suffering and slaughter of pigs in a similar manner?  The campaign that decries the inhumane caging of chickens who live out their lives in cages without room to move in? 

The list goes on and on.  Has anyone ever considered that the pain and suffering we inflict on all these creatures, when ingested into our own systems, transforms into our own pain and suffering?  Think about it. 

This irreverence of the lives of animals extends to the treatment of dogs and cats in so many of this country’s County shelters –  killing institutions dedicated to the “euthanasia” of beautiful, healthy and adoptable dogs, cats, puppies and kittens, instead of a dedication to increasing community awareness, traffic and adoptions as our highest priority? 

What kind of a society is this that ends the lives of creatures who come into the world to give us the unconditional love we so sorely need?   What kind of a commentary is it about us that we so devalue these precious lives?  Is it any wonder that so much cruelty abounds in man’s treatment of his fellows?

If you are reading this and are moved in any way, reach out to animal advocacy groups dedicated to reversing all of this cruelty and suffering.  If you can’t find a group, start one yourself.  Get help from local public relations professionals who resonate with these sensitivities.  You can start by seeking them out on Craigslist.org – or by contacting the local PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) chapter in your city (www.prsa.org).

If the challenge seems uphill and insurmountable, remember the answer to the question posed in the Talmud:  “Where is the center of the world?” To which the response came, “Where each human being stands – there is the center of the world.”