Animal Person

On Sarah Palin

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

From today's New York Times and entitled, "Palin, an Outsider Who Charms."

My husband just said, "Honey, leave the lady alone. When she's Vice President she's gonna have you hunted down and killed."

Should We Keep Pets?

The folks at Opposing Views asked me what my thoughts were about the keeping of pets.

First, let me say I'm thrilled there's an "Is There a God?" debate. And as the inadvertent, official videographer at our best buddies' new baby's bris, I'm overjoyed that there's a debate called "Should Boys be Circumcised?" When asked if I had "the stomach" to get so close to the blessed event, my response was "hey, I've been to a slaughterhouse, and there are certainly similarities, so sure, I'll do it."

Rant alert.

I wouldn't feel right if I didn't say, at least once, to someone other than my husband, my in-laws or my mother, that when a grown man (grandpa) is actually asked to pin an 8-day baby to a dining room table as he screams bloody murder and flails in pain because he is being cut without anesthesia and for no good reason, while people gaze on blissfully, that, my friends, is no blessed event.

That's mutilation.

And when people say the 6 pound, 8-day old "did such a great job" and "was so brave" what does that mean? He did a great job bleeding and squealing? With all due respect, there's no bravery involved when a roomful of grown-ups ambushes you, strips you, overpowers you, then cuts you. You cry out for help, you try to escape, and you inevitably lose. The words "terrorize" and "torture" come to mind, but the tiny boy doesn't know enough about what's occurring to be brave. He's just trying to survive.

You're probably thinking this happened yesterday, but it was three weeks ago.

I'm done now.

End of rant.

Now, should we have pets?

Ideally? No. Realistically, considering the fact that we have bred and domesticated certain animals, I believe we have an obligation--as the creators of a colossal overpopulations problem--to do our best to solve the problem.

Rather than setting all animals free, which by the way I've yet to hear any animal advocate propose, but plenty of anti-animal advocates claim we propose, the solution would take, say, a generation (horses can live for decades, and I include them along with dogs and cats). During this generation, all breeding of "pets" by humans would cease, and spaying and neutering would be necessary, though I welcome arguments that us ceasing breeding would do the job without having to take control over the animals' reproductive systems without their consent and sterilizing them. Desperate times require desperate measures.

I do not think that there's a home for every dog and cat, as I'd have to modify "home" with "acceptable," and I know few people now who in my opinion are meeting the needs of their "pets" (particularly once the people have children).

Rounding up feral dogs and cats to sterilize them and return them would also be part of the solution, however I question where that stops. Do we just do it in our own neighborhoods? Do we actively go out looking for animals to sterilize? I'd say no to that one.

Finally, it's true that "the wild" is a dangerous place and animals suffer all the time. My purpose, though, is to do something about the suffering that we have caused and continue to cause. Just because there's suffering in the wild and there always will be doesn't mean we shouldn't try to alleviate some of the suffering we're responsible for.

Though dogs, cats and horses do add immeasurably to our lives (or at least they can), that's not a good reason to continue to breed them and keep them in our homes. I've said before that I don't feel that bad (most of the time) that Emily is an inside cat as she has a terminal disease (FIP) and is highly contagious and cannot ever be in contact with other kitties.

Meanwhile, a few doors down, at a home that has two outside cats, one recently disappeared, and two children (and two parents) are distraught. They've plastered the community with signs, and when a storm washed the signs out making them illegible and causing some to fall, they replaced them with new signs that are laminated, and they've used better quality staples. If the cat didn't go outside, she would be home right now. Such is the position we're in and we put our cats in.

This isn't an issue that there's consensus on. It's not black and white, and it seems to involve compromise regardless of your position.

What do you think?

On "Behind the Mask"

I finally watched "Behind the Mask" a couple of days ago. (Here's a different the trailer. Embedding has been disabled for some reason, and here's the official description of the film.)

My thoughts as a viewer and accidental documentary filmmaker are:

• There is so much misinformation about the animal liberation movement, and it's great to hear about what it is/was, who started it and why, and what these people's stories are! Like when you read Terrorists or Freedom Fighters! or Igniting a Revolution, there's much value in hearing the words of the people whom you agree or disagree with, as opposed to getting information second hand or making assumptions based on little information.
• Therefore, as far as the content goes, I found it helpful and inspirational (as in, the words of some of the people interviewed inspire me) as well as cautionary (as in, apparently all you have to do is go to a demonstration or represent an activist in court or run a website in order to unwittingly submit an order for your very own surveillance team from the FBI).
• From a production standpoint, the intention was to produce "the first 'FUN' animal rights movie" with "a different kind of action hero." This is where the filmmakers kind of lost me. The Mission Impossible-esque music and editing and effects of some sections made me realize that 41+ suburban writers aren't the target market for the film. I wouldn't call my experience of the film "fun," and I might even go so far as to say that the silliness of parts of it, which could have been done in a more dark, ironic way that might have been considered "fun" took away from the message.
• It was the words of Rod Coronado and Kevin Jonas, and the story of Jill Phipps, told by her mother, that I found most moving.

Finally, I think about individuals who were saved and whose lives were worth saving, as well as the individuals who might have replaced them (and in many cases there were none, as companies were put out of business) and how their lives are just as worthwhile. And like before I watched the film, I am still conflicted, but I am also enriched by the experience of being a witness to the struggles of others.

On Painting Cats

There I was, listening to the local news while working yesterday (sometimes I keep the television on in the great room to distract the dogs from the sound of the neighbor's dogs) and I hear the anchor woman say: "You won't believe who--or rather--what--is behind these paintings."

I bolt into the great room and press rewind on the DVR remote because I just know that the what--the thing--the anchor was talking about was some kind of animal.

When I rewind I see a person holding a kitten. Not a couple of weeks old, but a month or two or three. She dips the cat's paw in paint and brushes it across the canvas.  Several kitties are shown, one of whom clearly wants no part of the situation and tries to curl up in fear or anxiety or whatever clearly negative experience she's having, and the person smears her around the canvas anyway. (Here are some stills. Marilyn Monroe is the resistant cat.)

The anchor and reporter both laugh.

The paintings will be auctioned off at an event called Paws for a Cause, with the proceeds to go to the Hobe Sound Animal Protection League, which is a very well-respected, no-kill organization. I've visited the place where the cats live, and as far as I have been told and can tell the organization has the best interests of the cats.

But who on earth thought the painting gimmick was a good idea? This isn't like the animals we've seen who choose to paint. This is people using cats as paintbrushes, and it might not upset you because you didn't see the clip (and it's not available, just the stills are) and I'm probably not doing it justice.

Here's where I come in. This is the first time the organization has done this, and perhaps they might think about it differently, and see it differently, and choose a different path next year.

I'm going to contact them and suggest they look at the news footage and they rethink whether using cats as paintbrushes might be sending a message they don't want to send.

On Welfarists and Nazis

Robert Cohen, of NotMilk.com, writes:

Thanks to Rutgers University law professor Gary Francione for creating a work of art by combining my words with music and photographs.

I'm sure we know what bunny thinks, as she brought this to our attention a couple of weeks ago. As you all know, I have no problem with the Holocaust analogy. However, I don't think that seeing how similar the two situations are is the same thing as calling someone a Nazi. The difference, for me, is the underlying motivation. The Nazis, whether leaders or just following orders, believed, to one degree or another, that they were helping rid the world of some kind of scourge. Animal welfarists, and I'm sure there are exceptions just as there were Nazis who were exceptions, believe they are helping the animals (the victims) by finding ways to inflict less pain on them and kill them more efficiently. They don't despise the animals and think the world would be a better place without them; they in fact want them around so they can continue to use them. Call it a nuance, but for me it's important.

I do believe that the average welfarist and I are not fighting the same battle, and I do think there are exceptions (and I have no idea if Wayne Pacelle is one, but he certainly is an interesting case because he's a vegan). But what I find difficult to believe is that they're intending to create a market where more people (including vegetarians) are more comfortable eating animals. That might be an unintended consequence of their behavior that they need to examine as soon as possible and alter their strategy accordingly, but to attribute a Nazi-like intention to them doesn't make sense to me.

I was a welfarist a mere two years ago. I was certain that humans weren't going to stop the massacre of sentient nonhumans anytime soon, and that the least I could do was to find a way for them to suffer less while they are being used. I had absolutely no intention of making anyone feel more comfortable about using and consuming them; I just wanted to do what I could to alleviate some of their suffering because my personal goal (the world stops using them) was unattainable.

Is that the mentality of a Nazi, asks the one-eighth-Jewish Mary Martin?

What do you think?

 

Should We Eat Meat?

Edgar at Opposing Views contacted me a couple of days ago about posting on a couple of debates: Should we eat meat? and Should we have pets?

I encourage everyone to comment or submit as an expert. I'd rather pose even more questions, and I don't think they're looking for that.

Here's what I'd say . . .

First, I'd change the question to: Should we eat animals? Then, I'd say:

Given the reality (similar to evolution in that it is contested by a certain special interest group) that there are nonhumans whose capacity for pleasure, pain, boredom and frustration is similar to ours, why would you hold someone captive and intentionally end her life when you don't have to? Why would you pay someone to do that for you?

Would you cage, then slaughter, then eat your dog or cat?

Given the reality that you do not need to eat the flesh, menstrual excretions or breast milk of another species in order to survive, why would you cause pain to someone and end their life when you don't have to?

Would you suckle at the breast of your dog? Would you even suckle at the udders of a cow?

If you are female, would you eat your own menstrual secretions mid-cycle?

If not, why would you eat those of another species?

Given the reality in the developed world in 2008 that fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes and grains are available and meet your nutritional needs beautifully, deliciously and without cholesterol (but with a daily squirt of B12 under your tongue), why would you cause pain to someone and end their life when you don't have to?

If you think that some animals are for eating and some are for petting, why do you think that? Do you realize that all that is is a statement about what a culture finds acceptable? Is there a rational reason why we should eat chickens but not parrots? Lambs but not dogs? Calves who are weeks old rather than kittens?

If you doubt that chickens or fish feel pain, yet so many other people have demonstrated that they do, wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution and not eat them just in case everyone else was right?

If you think that we should continue to eat animals because those before us did, think about some of their other practices that no longer exist, like slavery.

Why should we do something today just because we did it yesterday? What is inherently positive, productive or spiritually nurturing about slaughtering another sentient being and eating her flesh?

If you think we are omnivores and are meant to eat other animals, therefore we should, there is plenty of evidence right in our own bodies that begs to differ and puts us far closer to herbivores (e.g., our teeth, our saliva, our digestive enzymes and our digestive tracts). And when you factor into the equation that a diet free of animals can be perfectly healthy, the herbivore/omnivore dilemma is no dilemma at all.

If you think there is a god who told us that other animals are ours to eat, why do you think that is so? If your evidence comes from some kind of religious text, just remember that it was probably written thousands of years ago by men who thought the earth was flat and didn't understand what lightning was or why it rained.

If you think the flesh of animals, or their menstrual excretions (eggs) or their breast milk is tasty, and that's why you consume such things, and you don't care what had to happen in order for you to eat what you want to eat, there probably is nothing I can say (or ask) to change your mind, except possibly: Do unto others . . .

On Steve Best and YOU

There's a deafening silence over here at Animal Person regarding yesterday's post, and I'm thinking two things:

1. "Mary, how on earth can you expect anyone to read a daily blog and then post something so long? Do a recap and I'll think about reading it."  (And by the way I am making a concerted effort to write shorter posts.)
2. "That was inflammatory infighting and it's bad for 'the movement' and I can't believe you even posted such rubbish!"

There's a discussion about the essay developing at Cyrano's Journal (Thomas Paine's Corner), and a couple of comments at the Institute for Critical Animal Studies Blog, but bupkis over here. Here are some of my thoughts:

• I don't think I have to address the idea that the HSUS collaborates with animal exploitation industries or that they are well-funded and their allocation of funds doesn't include much direct helping of animals (but to be fair, that kind of work is not their mission). I also don't think anyone questions that no-kill isn't a priority of theirs. And even I wrote about Pacelle's stand on Michael Vick's dogs.
• Here's what strikes me (and it's with regards to the killing of healthy cats and dogs):

"When you needlessly take life; when you refuse to seriously pursue alternatives to killing; when you condemn cats and dogs to die with contemptuous complacency; when you lie to the media, the public, your donors, and to the animals; and when you bullshit your way through the whole goddamn bloody process of killing homeless cats and dogs, this is not 'humane destruction,' it’s just murder, pure and simple. And Pacelle, you have the gall to call SHAC and the ALF violent?"

That last sentence is an important one for me. A couple of weeks ago Will Potter asked what we all thought about the HSUS offering "2,500 to the 'eco-terrorism' witch hunt in California." What I think is that the HSUS' actions demonstrate they're fine with violence as long as it suits them and is legal and falls within cultural norms. The answer to Potter's question, for me, has to do with (cringe) infighting.

Steve Best on Wayne Pacelle, HSUS and the FBI

As promised, today I bring you Steve Best on Wayne Pacelle and HSUS (which is also posted at Critical Animal Studies and at Thomas Paine's Corner) . . .

Agent Wayne Pacelle, the Hypocrisy Society of the United States, and the Thrill Kill Cult

Steven Best

In August 2005, when HSUS (hereafter think “H$U$”) Executive Vice President Mike Markarian publicly “applaud[ed]” the FBI for arresting and imprisoning six amazing activists from Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), my outrage over this self-serving betrayal of activists and animals alike inspired me to write “The Iron Cage of Bureaucracy,” a fierce critique of HSUS and its chief executive, Wayne Pacelle.[1] I condemned HSUS for its divisive attacks on animal rights militants, its bureaucratic rigidity, its cowardly conformism, and its disturbingly cozy relationships with the animal exploiters they claim to oppose.

Despite a recent fluff piece in the Los Angeles Times that promotes Pacelle as a consummate animal champion and visionary leader,[2] I am pained to report that his “humane meat” and “cage-free” egg campaigns have promoted more, not less, animal suffering and killing; that HSUS is a collaborationist with, not antagonistic of, various animal exploitation industries; and that HSUS has developed strong ties with law enforcement agencies and the FBI not only to go after animal abusers, but also animal activists, the hard-line militants prepared to do what it takes to stop the torture and murder of innocents. Specialists in political repression, the FBI has a long track record of framing innocent citizens, destroying social justice movements, and even murdering vocal opponents of the state such as Fred Hampton.[3] They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this is downright surreal.

The problems I pointed to in “The Iron Cage of Bureaucracy” have considerably worsened in the last three years, and it is now glaringly obvious that HSUS is part of the problem of, not the solution to, animal exploitation. Pacelle is a “leader” alright, one who is steering this great movement into a cul-de-sac where it is becoming increasingly coopted and ineffectual.

Ever more aggressively, HSUS promotes “humane meat” and “cage free” egg campaigns (marketing its “Certified Humane Raised & Handled” label to meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy producers), rather than advancing the cause of vegan education that Pacelle claims to champion. Symptomatic of its bureaucratic deformities, HSUS raked in tens of million dollars from the 2005 Katrina disaster, but spent only a few million to help the animal victims of that hurricane.[4] In fact, after Katrina, there was a second storm involving the furious backlash of grassroots activists complaining that HSUS obstructed animal rescue efforts, then commandeered the lion’s share of credit and $30 million in donations. Subsequently, many activists and the Louisiana attorney general called for a criminal investigation into HSUS fundraising and demanded an explanation why this organization – like every other bloated bureaucracy, including the “impeccable” Red Cross – disregarded the clear intent of donors and spent a puny percentage of a mountain of money on helping victims of a catastrophe.[5]

On China, Silencing Dissidents and New Strategies

Fresh from Beijing this morning, I bring you thoughts and an appeal from an Animal Person reader that isn't just about eating cats, which is as unacceptable as eating chickens. It's about the industry and the environment that breeds not only suffering and rights violations, but illegal behavior and disease. Read on . . .

CATS SMUGGLED OPENLY in NANJING, CHINA

These two video clips of pet cats being smuggled to their death were shot just a few weeks ago, in Nanjing, China, by brave local and foreign activists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH_-sp8e_eM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKO59jzXp9c

There is no extreme violence in it, just the beginning of a tragic journey for cats who were bred and raised to be pets, but who didn't sell, including many strays who were taken off the streets.

A TWOFOLD CRIME

The crime you see in this video is not just cruelty, but cruelty perpetrated against those we bred to be gentle to us. We humans, all of us, everywhere, have betrayed the animals we purposely bred to be gentle. Cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, cows, sheep -- does it really matter? Whether pets or livestock, we don't breed the ass-kickers.

BIGGER STORY - HUMAN HEALTH

For those of you who are journalists, there are a few potential stories here that could fit in a context slightly broader than cruelty to cats and dogs:

Such as: WORLD HEALTH, CHINA'S LEGAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD SAFETY, GLOBALIZATION OF BIOLOGICAL THREATS, etc.

On the Palm Oil Crisis, Trolls and Steve Best

The palm oil crisis has had another big break.

In terms of coverage, at least.

Fortune magazine's "Eco-police Find New Target: Oreos," by Marc Gunther, re-alerts the masses that . . .

"The link between the supermarket shelf, climate change and shrinking rainforests is palm oil, a controversial ingredient that may now be the most widely-traded vegetable oil in the world."

There are also some creatures in there who are suffering and dying off. Oh, and some workers aren't exactly being treated well, either.

Gunther mentions the Rainforest Action Network campaign (among others), including links to their arguments, and even quotes the ED of RAN, Mike Brune, who said:

"Most customers won't want rainforest destruction and climate change in every mouthful of cookies or crackers, so our plan is to start with the most prominent brands. Once we get some of the top brands on our side, we'll use the power of the pocketbook to convince the 'A,B,C's' (ADM, Bunge and Cargill) that destroying rainforests and increasing climate change isn't smart - for business or the planet."

The E's aren't far behind (wink wink, nudge nudge). Then again, I'm not sure if Earth Balance qualifies as a prominent brand to the rest of the world. Gunther continues:

Baby Whale Off Sydney "Put Down"

What to eat today? Easy.

Need new dress shoes. Where to buy? Easy. (Though when you factor in the environment and workers' rights, definitely more expensive. Like close to a hundred times more.)

Whether or not to kill a baby whale? Easy. The answer is no.

And this is just the type of situation anti-animal rights people live for, as they think it's an opportunity to point out that you're not 100% consistent.

First of all, no one is 100% vegan or consistent, as far as I know. At least no one living in mainstream society in the developed world. We do our best to avoid causing harm and infringing on the rights of others. All others. Compromises abound, decisions must be made, priorities must be set, factors must be weighed against each other.

But for heaven's sake, at least we have good intentions and we're doing the best we can!

The PETA I Knew and Loved, Sort Of

A handful of people sent me an article I wasn't surprised at, until the end.

In January, I wrote about how Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) was promoting veal. Well, they're still doing that, and now they're joined by none other than the RSPCA.

Let's deconstruct:

• In "Eat British Veal With a Clear Conscience, says RSPCA," the "food business manager" for CIWF, Ms. Rowen West-Henzell, says "Veal shouldn't be a dirty word. There's a process of re-education that needs to occur. British rose veal is something we are happy to endorse." British rose veal is also known as "high-welfare veal."
• Yes . . . high-welfare veal. I'm not even sure why they would call it "high welfare." They're not fed the traditional restricted diet, but so what?
• Male dairy calves are known as "waste products" and are either shot at birth or made into "veal." I'm still not sure where there's any kind of welfare consideration. Instead of shooting them now, they kill them later? Is that the welfare part?
• West-Henzell says: ""Over the next year we will be promoting the consumption of rose veal as a way of dealing with the problem of wasted bull calves." Call me crazy, but if you want to stop "producing" bull calves that end up "wasted," there's a quick and easy solution: Stop using cows for their milk so their kids have to be ripped away from them, tortured and slaughtered.

Finally, PETA injects some sanity into the discussion with: "While the plan is well-intentioned, the answer to saving calves from long-distance transport, confinement in cruel, tiny crates, and slaughter soon after birth doesn't lie in encouraging consumers to eat more British meat . . . Anyone who is concerned about the welfare of veal calves should dump dairy and go vegan."

Now if they could only say that about eggs . . .

I also question how "well-intentioned" the plan is. It's a business plan "intended" to reduce "waste" and increase profit, which is all plainly stated. It's an insult to our intelligence to claim that the "welfare" of the young calves is a priority.

Voice Your Opposition to AETA

Today, Angela brings us the following:

Please voice your opposition to AETA

Please  send letters for Abolish AETA as a presidential proposal.

Candidate contacts:

Senator Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Phone: 866-675-2008
Online Contact: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
Website: www.barackobama.com

Senator John McCain
John McCain 2008
P.O. Box 16118
Arlington, VA 22215
Phone: 703-418-2008
Online Contact: http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact
Website: www.JohnMcCain.com

Model letters

Dear _____________

As a constituent and a registered voter, I am very concerned about the trend to eradicate fundamental civil liberties that, historically, have made this country a beacon of hope around the world. I am respectfully appealing to you as my representative to consider this issue.

On November 27, 2006, S. 3880 [109th]: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (a bill to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror) became Public Law No: 109-374. While there is no room in our society for any actions that threaten public safety, I find it extremely worrisome that "terror" is increasingly being interpreted to include peaceful demonstrations -- a cornerstone in the maturation of American society ; the restrictions that are increasingly being applied to the constitutional right of free speech is detrimental to productive social discourse.

While this Act explicitly protects "any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) from prosecution as "terrorism", the interpretation of this subject has been a point of debate since the inception of this law:

On October 30, 2006, the National Lawyers Guild released a statement strongly opposing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, saying that "if enacted into law, the Act could define as a terrorist act any activity causing a business classified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a profit loss-even if such financial decline is caused by peaceful protests, boycotts, media campaigns or leafleting." Guild President, Marjorie Cohn said, "The AETA could lead to the prosecution of undercover investigators, whistle-blowers and other activists as 'terrorists.'"

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) was the sole voice opposing the legislation when it passed by voice vote on November 13, 2006. He warned that passage of S 3880 would endanger First Amendment protections, "I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another person's property or person, but I am for protecting the first amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest."

"Animal enterprise terror" is too vague a term to mean anything either definable or adjudicatable, but it seems under the Act to include anything which in any way interferes with the conduct of any commerce whatsoever, be it legal or illegal, involving animals or animal products.

As an average citizen, it appears that the initial concerns cited have been realized. I have learned of individuals who are being prosecuted for exposing abuses at Huntingdon Life Sciences; animal-rights organizers who were convicted of multiple felonies for running a website that advocated the closure of this notorious animal-testing lab -- a vivisection firm that kills an average of 500 animals per day. Undercover video exposed accepted practices at Huntindon Life Sciences that we in absolute contrast to legal regulations. Yet, the individuals who were compelled to publicize these abuses were prosecuted because exercising their civil rights might impact Huntingdon Life Sciences' profits.

This Act has been expanded to encompass activity "with the intent to cause physical alteration…" "for the purpose of damaging or impairing" a company using animals. In this case, "alteration" means any activity that results in "losses" of $10,000+ due to peaceful protests, consumer boycotts, or the advocacy of reforms of harmful practices. As a committed advocate of animal rights who from time to time participates in peaceful protests or other peaceful campaigns to educate the public, I find the implications of the current trend to restrict my rights by prosecution nothing short of frightening.

Legislation introduced under the current administration is extremely biased in favor of protecting corporate abusers of animals at the expense of the individual to exercise his basic rights. As we look toward the election of a new president and the prospect of a restoration to a country where freedom is a basic right rather than an elusive concept, I am confident that you will give serious consideration to the dire implications of continuing along this path.

Finally, I am also concerned with America's place in the international community. It is widely accepted that our failed foreign policies have placed this country in a precarious position with our global neighbors. I hope this great country does not compound this situation by denying its citizens the basic rights that we should model for the rest of the world. The America I love encourages freedom and is a trusted international ally.

Thank you in advance for your attention to these important issues.

Sincerely,

Petition on line against AETA (ENGLISH)
To: U.S. Congress : Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), S. 1926 and H.R. 4239
http://www.petitiononline.com/Stop4239/petition.html

Letters to  abolish AETA (To:candidate) (SPANISH)
CARTA MODELO

Estimado_____________

Como ciudadanos que siempre hemos gozado de las virtudes de la libertad de expresión como un derecho humano contenido en la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos de 1948 y amparada en los tratados internacionales de Derechos Humanos, sentimos una gran preocupación por la tendencia a eliminar las libertades civiles de una nación que, históricamente, representó un ejemplo de esperanza en todos los pueblos del mundo. Respetuosamente nos dirijos a ustedes para exponer lo siguiente:

El 27 de noviembre del 2006 la propuesta de Ley titulada: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act S. 1926 y HR 4239 (AETA) fue aprobada a pesar de que el Diputado Dennis Kucinich la cuestionó porque violaba la Primera Enmienda Constitucional que prohíbe la creación de cualquier ley que atente contra la libertad de expresión. 160 Grupos (National Lawyers Guiad, American Civil Liberties Union, New York City Bar Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Humane Society of the US, American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, entre otros) y miles de electores también se opusieron, por cuanto esta Ley define cualquier actividad proanimal (protestas pacíficas, boicots, campañas, investigaciones encubiertas para exponer la crueldad animal, publicaciones en la Web, entre otros) como acto terrorista.

Como defensores de los derechos comprometidos con esta causa, vemos con preocupación la imposibilitad de nuestros activistas aliados , para participar en protestas o campañas pacíficas , por temor a ser enjuiciados como terroristas Considerar por ejemplo una manifestación a favor de la protección animal como un acto terrorista en un país que supuestamente apoya la libertad de expresión, resultaría contradictorio e inconstitucional con los derechos civiles de un pueblo. Si esta Ley se amplía para otras luchas sociales, terminaríamos considerando a todos los líderes de derechos como terroristas. Una gran deshonra para luchadores como Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, y Mahatma Gandhi que también serían considerados como terroristas.

La legislación aprobada en virtud de que la actual administración está muy sesgada a favor de proteger a las empresas que abusan de los animales, ha puesto en tela de juicio la moralidad del pueblo americano al otorgar a los promotores de esta Ley (empresas biomédicas) beneficios, a sabiendas de que estas de manera reiterada violan constantemente las leyes federales en América. Así mismo ha deslegitimado las leyes de justicia al pisotear la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos (Derechos Civiles) y los Derechos Animales, violar acuerdos y tratados en Derechos internacionales, atentar legalmente contra la Primera Enmienda Constitucional y todo tipos de legislación animal vigente.

Por último, nos preocupa el lugar de Estados Unidos en materia política-económica ante la comunidad internacional por cuanto es un hecho ampliamente conocido , que la intervención en conflictos bélicos en otros países, ha venido debilitando, el emblema de justicia y libertad de expresión que caracterizó al pueblo americano .Desde el punto de vista económico los ciudadanos de otros países vemos con temor la legalidad de expandir una Ley represiva contra la libertad de expresión con las grandes empresas biomédicas en el mercado internacional

Al mirar hacia la elección de un nuevo presidente, aspiramos que el nuevo líder americano , reflejé un modelo de gestión, donde la libertad de expresión sea el mejor aliado de confianza en las relaciones internacionales con otros países del mundo

Agradeciéndole de antemano su reconsideración para restituir la libertad de expresión en las luchas sociales proanimales

Atentamente,

Petition on line against AETA (SPANISH)
http://www.gopetition.com/online/21319.html

Forums

English
http://animalrightsdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9409
http://animalrightsdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9332

Spanish
http://animalrightsdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=9406
http://animalrightsdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=9319

Check Out Pigs Peace

First of all, never trust a storm track forecast. Lucky we did some last minute preparation in case we got pounded. Fay turned a bit and the eye isn't far from me and we've been getting the brunt of the storm for a good 12 hours, and now there's tornadic activity so we're preparing the safe room (can you say closet surrounded by cement?), as a town west of here was devastated by tornadoes early this morning and there's been a record number of tornado warnings this morning.

Just got power back and who knows how long that'll last, so here's a great story from Bea, about a vegan who started a sanctuary for pot-bellied pigs in Washington. "Judy Woods Gives Pigs a Place to Call Their Own" tells of how Woods sort of accidentally started collecting pigs until, 14 years later, she had 190, all living on 34 acres at Pigs Peace. She also does vegan education and cares for 20 or so feral cats and some dogs.

Check out Pigs Peace and the stories of the residents. And send along anyone in your circle of influence who's thinking about a pig as a pet.

Comments Malfunction

The power and the cable were on and off today, and when I was publishing four comments this afternoon they evaporated into the blogosphere. One second they were there, and the next they were gone.

I apologize and all appears to be back to normal.

On Rethinking Human Nature

I was going to extensively quote Steve Best's "From 'Man the the Hunter' to Homo X: Rethinking Human Nature" at the Institute for Critical Animal Studies Blog, but then I heard some disquieting news--there's a hurricane by the name of Fay headed my way. And can say that The New York Times is right about one thing: there isn't enough fear in Florida when it comes to hurricanes thanks to a multi-year streak of mellow seasons that delivered nothing close to the devastation of the 2004 season, which left us (meaning my neighborhood) waterless, powerless, roofless, and overweight from eating way to much peanut butter.

I currently have no bottled water, no peanut butter (or almond butter!), no crackers, no ice for a cooler, and very few batteries, so I'm off to do my shopping--with the rest of North Palm Beach County, before 9am.

I'll be around to moderate throughout the day, and I do hope to also chime in, not that my opinion is particularly interesting or anyone's waiting around to read it.

If you have some time, look through the posts at Critical Animal Studies. For me, they help remind me that veganism and animal rights are part of something much larger.

On Asceticism and Catholicism

Despite the fact that I frequently utter the sentence--Though I cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a god, whether or not there is one is irrelevant to me--that doesn't mean I don't want to hear from people who are indeed certain that there is a god.

In response to "On Infighting and Asceticism," Cathy wrote in an e-mail (and of course gave me permission to print):

i am a devout catholic and vegan.  i did not become vegan to imitate the saints of old who lived in the desert... it was because i realized that animals that are used for dairy and eggs actually suffer more than those   that are simply raised for meat.  but the fruits of veganism (pun intended) have been very similar to those of other, more conventional forms of ascetism.  here is what i have learned.

the purpose of ascetism in my faith is to free oneself from attachments of the world that can separate us from God.

when we decide that we really don't "need" animal products for food, we are free to love animals as God loves them.  we are not tied to closing our eyes to their suffering to ease our consciences, ignoring the impact on the environment, or ignoring the starving nations of the world while we dine on foods that waste resources that could be used to provide for them.  all the justifications are gone when we see that we don't "need" to   live on an animal-based diet (many people will assert that meat is "necessary," they are usually the ones who call themselves animal lovers because they spoil their cats and dogs).

i accidentally discovered that veganism is a healthy form of denying oneself of bodily pleasures that otherwise lead to the detriment of the soul.  among my faith-mates, it is agreed and strongly felt that non-marital sex and lust are terrible sins, but in the same breath they will advocated eating lots of meat just because they enjoy it.  it tastes good.  ok well i just enjoy sex a lot but as i'm not married, that is something i feel is wrong, so i don't do it.  is that really a form of ascetism too?  the principle is the same, and frankly i'm annoyed to see devout catholics justifying any activity simply because it gives them bodily pleasure.  we know better, "catholic guilt" is a running joke, even among ourselves.

there is a negative connotation to what people generally consider "ascetic" practices, but i believe it is because we live in a world that has largely forgotten that the definition of hell is "complete and eternal separation from God" (i think any christian can go along with that).  this is often caused by an over-attachment to things "of this world" so that we put those things above "things that are of heaven" - even violating what we know is christian behavior and attitude because of it.

anyway - in a nutshell, those are my thoughts on the subject from a catholic perspective. . . .

On Dogs Who "Donate" Blood

Last week there was a segment on my local news about a canine blood drive in Denver. Greyhounds make up the largest percentage of "donors" by breed, as most are universal blood donors (and are docile and easy to work with). Of course, there's no "donating" going on, as the dogs have no choice. Here's my question: What do you think?

Know that some dogs who would otherwise be killed are kept alive to have their blood taken from them and then are adopted out, hopefully to good homes. So their lives are saved in order to use them.

Coincidentally, Bea happened upon this article, which provides details about how it all works.

The blood is used to save the lives of dogs, so it's not like some vivisection where the ultimate goal is to help a different species (us).

When I watched all of the Greyhounds lined up to have their blood taken, I had mixed feelings. I guess my biggest objection was around the language of the story and the "heroes" and "volunteers" who "donate," when that's not accurate at all as they have no choice.

Day-to-day veganism is something I don't find difficult mentally. But I think there are shades of gray and nuances within the concept of animal rights, despite protestations to the contrary by some.

What do you think about using animals to help animals? In this particular case, rights are being violated from the concept of the "pet" to the taking of the blood. But is that maybe not so bad? And is it better, worse or neither to save the life of a dog to use her for her blood (and we'll assume she gets adopted)? Would you call both scenarios abuse? And what of vivisection for veterinary purposes (that seems like the easiest one to object to, at least for me, but for all I know some of you are for it)?

What say you?

Rights for Apes: Op-Ed vs. Op-Ed

If you didn't see "Why They're Human Rights," by Russell Paul La Valle in July 27th's Washington Post, consider yourself lucky, as it's eye-rollingly frustrating in its misconceptions and its speciesism. Fortunately, Barbara J. King took him on in yesterday's "What Binta Jua Knew," deconstructing many of his misconceptions, but doing so while jumping on the speciesism train, which she appears to not be aware of and/or not care about.

But good for her for at least pointing out that, contrary to what La Valle wrote, apes are not "irrational, amoral" animals who rely on only instincts. That's sooo yesterday. So Cartesian, which King thankfully points out.

My concern with all of the articles about rights for apes is that reasoning always--always--centers on how humanlike they are. King goes that route too, but also touches on sentience, perhaps without meaning to. In her conclusion, she writes:

"But while writers such as La Valle bandy words about and academics such as I discuss the philosophical aspects of rights, the great apes are dying.

The combined forces of poaching, diseases such as ebola fever, habitat destruction and the trade in bushmeat are killing off the apes at unprecedented rates. If we write them off as irrational and amoral animals, we will fail to grasp the depth of their suffering at the hands of our own species -- a suffering that is cognitive and emotional as well as physical."

My question is: What about all of the other animals suffering at our hands . . . cognitively, emotionally and physically?

On Cockfighters and Religion

Today, the Washington Post was kind enough to provide two spectacular specimens to deconstruct, one of which is actually a deconstruction of a third specimen, making my job quite easy for today.

In "Dawn in Louisiana: With Cockfighting Outlawed, a Dying Breed Mourn Their 'Heritage,'" by Carol Guzy, Guzy introduces us to Clarence "Wooly" Bunch, a cockfighter for 40 years who has some priceless quotes such as:

"It's my heritage. I guess there are other people that want to be president of the United States or senators or whatever. Me, I want to be a cockfighter. . . . I would rather do it out in the wide open where everyone knows it and sees it because I am not ashamed of cockfighting."

Then there's his reasoning for why cockfighting okay, not like dogfighting.

"Dogs are your friend. . . . Not to say I don't like my chickens, but they are not my friend."

So I supposed fitting people with whom you aren't yet acquainted with blades and forcing them to fight to the death is acceptable, yes?

A friend of Bunch says:

"We ain't barbaric and we ain't hurting nobody."