Well, then:

Anti-Abortion Protesters Crash Vigil For Slain Doctor

About 10 members of the Westboro Baptist Church bearing signs with messages like “Baby killer in hell” were an unwelcome presence at a vigil for murdered abortion doctor George Tiller.

————–

Oh, no, no, no. Just, no:

WICHITA – A national animal rights group plans to erect billboards in Wichita urging people on both sides of the abortion debate to go vegetarian.

One version of the billboard says, “Pro-Life? Go Vegetarian.” The other says, “Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian.” Both feature a photo of three baby chicks.

Lindsay Rajt, campaign manager for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said the billboards were prompted by the recent shooting death of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was killed Sunday at his church.

“The discussion of the value of life is front and center right now in the public conversation,” Rajt said today.

“We think we would be irresponsible if we don’t talk about how we’re all guilty of extreme cruelty to animals every time we sit down to a meal that includes meat.” [...]

Rajt said the timing or content of the Wichita billboards may be controversial.

But, “If our billboards leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth, we just think they might give a thought to what animals feel when they go to the slaughterhouse,” she said.

“We want to remind people that no matter where they come down on the abortion issue, each and every one of us can spare a life every time we sit down to eat.”

Frankly, the actual content of the proposed billboards is rather inoffensive – and downright blasé when compared to 75% of PETA’s other ads. In fact, I think the “pro-life” version is rather cute – and, on a subtle level, calls so-called “pro-lifers” out on their hypocrisy and ethical inconsistencies. The pro-choice one, meh, not so much; it just strikes me as a forced corollary to the “pro-life” billboard. A reach, albeit a harmless one.

But the timing – the timing is beyond crass and tactless. Fuck that shit, it’s downright amoral.

Listen. Anyone who’s been reading this blog for more than a week knows that I view the exploitation of non-human and human animals as equally important – and intertwined in numerous ways, to boot. This isn’t about me elevating the rights of humans above those of non-human animals, as PETA snarkily suggests; this is me expecting those in the animal rights advocacy community, PETA included, to act with a modicum of compassion. Dr. Tiller’s murder – and women’s reproductive rights in general – has little to do, at least on its face, with animal rights. And the link between the domination of women, animals and nature? This really isn’t the time to make it – and even if it were, I wouldn’t trust PETA to build the case. Not with its record thus far on issues involving marginalized groups of humans.

Nor is this even what PETA’s attempting to do with the pro-life/-choice billboards. It’s a sound bite, a publicity stunt, nothing more – and in discussions deserving of nuance, sound bites only hurt and confuse.

When one further stops to consider that our government has branded animal rights “terrorists” The #1 Domestic Threat – while Dr. Tiller’s murderer is being described as anything but – PETA’s actions seem doubly irresponsible. In their utter insensitivity and rush to capitalize on this tragedy, they align us with the fringe “pro-lifers,” the other domestic terrorists, who’ll use any means to achieve their goal, no matter who they harm in the process. There’s all kinds of marginalization going on here, and as always, PETA just piles on.

I, for one, want no part of it. Dr. Tiller’s murder hit me like kick in the gut – an expected kick, which probably makes it far, far worse – and I’ve been mourning him ever since. Not just Dr. Tiller, either, but the many women who, in need of abortions in the later terms of their pregnancies, may find themselves unable to locate a doctor willing to perform the procedure, and suffer or possibly die because of it. Dr. Tiller was only one of a handful – perhaps just three (three!) – of doctors willing to perform abortions in the third trimester, even when the life or health of the mother is at risk. What do we tell those women now? (I doubt “go veg” is much of an answer, *snort*) We may never know how many women Scott Roeder killed on Sunday.

I also mourn for women everywhere – women who are told that their lives, their well-being, is less important than that of a clump of cells or deformed fetus. I’m sick of being a second-class citizen, a sperm receptacle, a walking womb. I’m every bit as human as my husband – and yet, I somehow have less right to health care than he, all by virtue of my lady parts.

I’m also scared – scared of the many “pro-lifers” whose real agenda extends well beyond that of restricting or banning abortion, to nullifying the Constitutional concept of “right to privacy,” banning birth control, and pushing women back into the Dark Ages, barefoot, pregnant, uneducated and completely subordinate to God and her Husband. That thought terrifies me. Christ on a stick, I don’t even believe in a god!

But PETA doesn’t see any of this. No. They don’t see a senseless tragedy, born of misogyny, sperm worship and Christian nationalism. They look at Dr. Tiller’s murder and see an opportunity – one they’ve gotta cash in on, asap, and vocally, too.

I see the animal rights advocacy community’s equivalent of Fred Phelps. I see a fucking disgrace.

(h/t, Feministe; by the by, I’m working on a much longer piece about terrorism and the animal rights and anti-abortion movements, in which I’ll explain some of the above concepts in greater detail. In the meantime, I recommend Cristina Page’s How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex for more on the so-called “pro-life” movement.)

[Edited to reflect PETA's tenuous grasp of "animal rights."]

————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare dr. tiller george tiller women feminism misogyny abortion reproductive rights terrorism peta people for the ethical treatment of animals health clinic pro-life pro-choice wichita kansas fred phelps fuck peta

—————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare video video blogging youtube murder eaters trolls vegan rant vegan rant the internets

———————

Update, 9/27/08: Mary Martin @ Animal Person discusses Ben & Jerry’s obtuse response to the campaign, as well as The Today Show’s take on the kerfluffle. Hint: you may want to write them about their weak attempts at “journalism.” Because, like it or not, many Americans’ sole provider of mainstream media news may very well consist of inane newstainment programs such as The Today Show.

———————

Hey! Feminists! You want to know why PETA continues to engage in (possibly) sexist, racist, classist, sizeist and otherwise “offensive” and “controversial” campaigns?

I’ll give you a hint:

In the top screenshot, a Google search for the terms PETA + “breast milk,” which returned 51,900 hits.

In the bottom screenshot, a Google search for the terms PETA + Hormel + pigs, which returned 11,500 hits.

Sex sells. “Tell us something we don’t know,” goes the collective snort. As you wish.

You see, the newly launched PETA campaign to have Ben & Jerry’s replace cow’s milk with human breast milk has received oodles and oodles of attention from all corners feminist. (And even those not so.) Even though it’s really a publicity stunt. Even though it stands absolutely zero chance of ever being implemented. Even though it’s completely infeasible.

And that’s the fucking point, people.

PETA doesn’t seriously mean to have all American cow’s milk replaced with American breast milk. As of 2004 statistics, that would translate to “582 pounds of milk equivalents per person.” There’s absolutely no way that we could possibly produce that much milk from American human mams. No way.

And again, that’s the point.

Because, rather than being a serious proposal, this is a thought experiment, meant to demonstrate how ridiculous – how ridiculously cruel – the mass consumption of dairy really is. 582 pounds of milk, you see, demands quite a bit of suffering at the expense of the milk producers: the dairy cows who produce milk, and the veal calves they give birth to. Those nameless, faceless milk machines, yeah?

Mothers, daughters and sons.

They don’t really mean to suggest that American tits be hooked up to breast pumps 20 hours a day in order to whet our appetite for a highly unnatural, wholly unnecessary product.

They mean for you to imagine what a system might be like, and then extend that compassion and consideration and horror and outrage to those animals who currently are suffering for our convenience.

Why not educatione the public, the consumers, about the cruelty that goes on behind closed (factory farm) doors in order to bring y’all your Chunky Monkey? Why not air a few PSAs that feature undercover footage showing dairy cows, confined to concrete stalls, hooked up to all manner of machinery, in essence stealing milk meant for their babies, which are either destined to share their mothers’ fate (daughters) or – perhaps worse – spend their too-short lives confined to crates so tiny that their muscles are never allowed a chance to develop (sons)?

Yeah, PETA, why not just do that?

This is why.

People are more interested in reading, talking and hearing about tits than the abuse inherent in factory farms.

Last week, PETA released this shocking (well, shocking not to us veg*ns, but to you “see no evil, hear no evil” types) footage from a three-month undercover investigation of a Hormel “pork” supplier:

If you can’t bear to watch the footage – I couldn’t – here’s a summary of what they found:

* A supervisor shoved a cane into a sow’s vagina, struck her on the back about 17 times, and then struck another sow.

* Multiple pigs were beaten with metal gate rods, and lacerations were found on more than 30 sows – which is probably evidence of more abuse.

* A worker hit a young pig in the face four times with the edge of a herding board, and investigators witnessed dozens of similar incidents involving this worker and 11 other workers.

* Two men – including a supervisor – were witnessed jabbing clothespins into pigs’ eyes and faces. A supervisor also poked two animals in the eyes with his fingers.

* A supervisor kicked a young pig in the face, abdomen, and genitals to make her move and told PETA’s investigator, “You gotta beat on the bitch. Make her cry.”

* A worker who weighed an estimated 315 lbs. punched a sow on the back three times and said that he sat on a sow’s head.

And yet,

PETA + “breast milk” = 51,900 hits

PETA + Hormel + pigs = 11,500 hits

People love teh boobies. Undercover exposés of factory farming cruelty? Eh.

As much as I disagree with some of PETA’s tactics, I gotta give ‘em props – they do some solid undercover work. I could never do this shit, I know that much. No fucking way.

And yet all the supposed outrage over the Hormel investigation has dissipated at the thought of – ZOMG! BOOBIES!!!1!!!1!!!

PETA, for all their faults, uses a wide variety of strategies to bring about change: case workers on individual cruelty cases, letter writing campaigns, celebrity involvement, contests and giveaways, street team activism, college/campus engagement, organized protests.

Do I agree with everything they do? Hells no.

I think their biggest offense is using sizeist insults against their opponents (e.g., Al Gore and Michael Moore); they can also be classist, racist and occasionally sexist.

And, you know what? When PETA engages in sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, sizeism, ableism – or any other manner of isms – then yeah, they ought to be called out on their shit. Sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, sizeism, ableism – none is any more or any less acceptable than speciesism.

But I am So. Fucking. Sick. of speciesists criticizing PETA (and, usually by extension, all animal rights advocates) for an ism, real or perceived, and doing it from an obviously speciesist perspective.

Because, um, *leansinclosetowhisper* YOUR PRIVILEGE IS SHOWING!

Yeah, that’s right, your privilege.

Not your white privilege, or your male privilege, or your class privilege, or your heterosexual privilege, or your cisgendered privilege.

Your human privilege.

You know, that privilege which allows you to dismiss the very real claims of animal cruelty that PETA is highlighting and focus instead on their totally hypothetical (never gonna happen, people!) proposition of treating women’s tits like milk machines.

You know, how we currently treat cows’ teats.

And – psssst! – closer! – let me also say that:

Featuring women in a campaign isn’t necessarily sexist.

Featuring naked women in a campaign isn’t necessarily sexist.

There are natural parallels to be drawn between the use and abuse of animals’ bodies and the use and abuse of women’s bodies.

Again, from the Hormel video:

A supervisor shoved a cane into a sow’s vagina, struck her on the back about 17 times, and then struck another sow.

A supervisor kicked a young pig in the face, abdomen, and genitals to make her move and told PETA’s investigator, “You gotta beat on the bitch. Make her cry.”

We’re all “bitches” in a patriarchy; identifying similarities between different types of suffering isn’t sexist, it’s honest.

So, is this particular “breast milk” campaign sexist? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it’s a fair comparison. Animal agriculture exploits the reproductive systems of female non-human animals, in much the same way that the reproductive systems of female human animals have been and are exploited, throughout time and across cultures. This campaign simply wouldn’t work if it featured men or men and women. The logic wouldn’t compute.

Now, in regards to PETA’s print ads – such as their “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” series – yeah, I think you can make a compelling case for sexism there. Fur is a unisex or gender neutral form of exploitation, if you will. Male and female animals alike are anally electrocuted, skinned alive and made into fur coats. And yet, if you look at PETA’s print ads, including the fur series, most of the nekkid models are women. Young, conventionally attractive, young, white, skinny women. In my best guesstimate, based on a few years of collecting such ads, women appearing in PETA’s print ads stand a 50/50 chance of appearing in the nude vs. fully clothed. The men, in contrast, usually appear at least partially clothed; in the rare case that they are naked, it’s generally played up as a humorous pose. Nothing like the pornified centerfold wankworthy bullshit the women are subjected to.

Case in point: the Suicide Girls series. 45 photos; 45 naked, pornified women. Not one naked, pornified man.

And let me clarify what I mean by “pornified.” I don’t believe it’s inherently sexist to feature naked women in a campaign. But the poses PETA uses – they display the women, plain and simple. Like props. In a porno, natch: down on all four, backs arched, gazes vacant, submissive and ready for a good fuckin’. Pornified. Passive. Ready to be consumed.

That’s sexist, moreso than the simple female nudity.

As is the near-total lack of male nudity. And the complete absence of pornified male nudity. (Not that I think either sex should be pornified, just sayin’.)

And these are all legitimate points of criticism.

But so is the use of animals for meat, dairy, clothing, entertainment, research subjects, “pets” and game. These too are issues that should – must – be examined, debated, criticized.

So it’s extremely frustrating and deflating when all the non-veg*ns work themselves, with knee-jerk speed, into an offended, self-righteous tizzy every time PETA devises a new campaign that compares Human Group X to Animal Group Y. Because no one ever expresses outrage over the animal part of the equation; only the humans merit consideration. Regardless of whether the humans are even being marginalized, insulted or oppressed.

And PETA, as I tried to say over at Vegan Bits, shares a little of the blame, I think. Sometimes their message really is (insert your ism here). Other times they should just know better: know that the crux of their argument will be willfully ignored in favor of the salacious window dressing; know that speciesists will deliberately read their message as “ist”; know that the campaign won’t really get people discussing the issues that they should be talking about. Sometimes their campaigns are just distracting. Real-world veg*ns are stuck defending PETA instead of defending animals.

And yet…can I really blame them? After all, tits and ass gets air time; the sexual and physical abuse of pigs at the hands of slaughterhouse workers, not so much.

Ahem. I’ve ranted long enough. Blame it on years of trying to avoid the ongoing PETA kerfluffle.

Before parting, I would like to extend a hearty fuck you to all those who dishonestly evoke the specter of one oppression to draw attention away from another.

That goes for the PR peoples at PETA and omni feminists alike.

(Crossposted from.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare feminism sexism misogyny racism classism ableism sizeism peta people for the ethical treatment of animals breast milk dairy dairy cows cow’s milk hormel pork pigs cows meat factory farming undercover google video youtube

That’s right, torturing pigs. Fucking awesome, isn’t it, the way her eyes bulge out of her sockets and her tongue lolls out of her mouth as you squeeze every last bit of air out of her porcine lungs, isn’t it? What can be cooler than inflicting some unnecessary hurt on a “lower” life form, eh? Bet it makes y’all feel like quite the menz. Tomorrow you can haul her off to the slaughterhouse and come back with a freezer full of pork chops. You know, a MANLY MEAT!!!!! “Real food for real guys,” indeed.

Lest you think the lady folk are too compassionate for such cruelty, think again:

Guess they haven’t quite grasped the interconnectedness of oppressions. Maybe, one day as Jenna Marten’s future-husband is throttling her for burning dinner or raping her after a night out drinking with his friends, she’ll look back with horror on the time she and her sister Kendra tortured a hog with a similar amount of indifference and cruelty. Maybe she’ll even realize that what she did to the pig – grabbing her, slamming her to the ground, choking and hitting her – wasn’t all that different than the violence perpetrated on her by her own abuser. Nope, not that different at all.

And no, that’s not a threat, it’s a fact. An estimated 1 in 4 American women will face such abuse, usually at the hands of a family member, at least once in her life. I wish it weren’t so (oh dog, do I), but them’s the numbers. There’s a one on four chance that Jenna will be mistreated; a one in two chance that either her or her sister Kendra will one day be a victim in the cycle of violence. The same cycle they perpetuated a few weeks ago under the guise of “fun.”

Let’s just pause for a moment and consider that there were children in attendance. Children who witnessed these awful displays of cruelty. Children who learned that, sometimes, it’s ok to be cruel. Sometimes a little pain can even constitute the centerpiece of a “fun” family affair!

Speaking of good times and family values, let’s check out some more family snapshots from the Eldorado Community Picnic.

Here’s some unnamed good ole’ boy, smack talking a pig which he presumably defeated in the mid wrestling ring:

Four more unnamed fuckwits tackle one – one! – poor hog; collectively, they must outweigh her by a few hundred pounds at least:

And in this frame-worthy photo, two big strapping men squeeze a pig between two slats of wood – I’m guessing to hold and release her before the “match”? Which begs the question, how can they make the flimsiest of claims to “humaneness” when they don’t even have the necessary equipment to restrain these muddy and terrified animals?

I mean, just look at this pig’s face!

Don’t just glance at it and then quickly avert your eyes because it’s too uncomfortable, too painful. Seriously look at that picture.

Look at the pain written across the pig’s – let’s call her Wilbur -

(even though yes, I know, Wilbur was a dude pig, but we’ll name her Wilbur because I have been referring to her as a she since the beginning of this post)

just look at at the pain, the suffering, expressed on that innocent pig’s face.

Think of Wilbur, trapped between the bodies of two – no, four -

(christalmighty, there are four gown men slamming into her from all directions; how on dog’s green earth can this be legal!?)

- trapped between the bodies of four grown men, each of them pressing, slamming, hitting her from all sides. Think of how that must feel. The force. The impact. The pressure and the weight. The terror and panic at not knowing why these huge, loud, bald animals are torturing you senseless.

And while we’re staring at this photo, this document of abuse, let’s consider how Wilbur’s body even ended up in an upright vertical position. Pigs don’t walk on two legs. Why the fuck would Wilbur be standing like this?:

Well, clearly because the two current animal abusers / future woman/child abusers standing ventrally to her lifted her off the ground and launched her into the fucking air when they tackled her, full force.

It’s all just a fun day at the fair though, eh?

Well, you know, I’d like to ask Anthony Pagor, Dale Meyer, Brandon Meyer, Justin Williams, Jenna Marten, Kendra Marten, and all the other unnamed and anonymous “people” (a term I use loosely) something. Well, a lot of things, actually.

Would you treat a dog this way? Would you hurl a German Shepherd through the air, throw him around, hit and slap and punch him? No? Why not? Pigs are just as smart as dogs; only different is, one’s considered food, the other, a “pet”. At least, in our society. Other cultures make different distinctions. And, I might add, an animal’s level of intelligence and sentience (which is all that really matters when we’re discussing rights or even “welfare”; and yes, there is a difference) does not change when said animal crosses international borders.

Would you treat a three-year-old child this way? Again, pigs are as smart as three-year-olds. If your argument is that it’s ok to abuse pigs because they’re “stupid,” they’re no dumber than a young child. So what logically follows, then?

Would you treat a grown human adult this way? Would you gang up on an innocent stranger, four-to-one, and beat him (or her) senseless – without his permission? Because, remember, Wilbur did not consent to this. I’m sure she’d much rather be wallowing in a nice warm mud hole with her piglets somewhere. *

So just where do you get off abusing a pig for your own amusement and entertainment? How do you even get off by doing such a thing?

Because this picture:

made my gut wrench. I recoiled, visibly. I kind of gagged a little.

Truthfully, I don’t think I’ll be able to sleep tonight, not without seeing that pig’s tortured face in my dreams.

And you – you who hurt her – how will you sleep tonight?

——————-

Link via Ryan of the Veg Blog.

* By the way, if you answered “yes” to any of the above, you’re a sick fuck and ought to go shoot yourself before you infect any more of humanity. Or get some psychiatric treatment. Honestly, as long as you do one or the other, I could not care but a whit.

(Crossposted from.)

——————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare pig pigs pig wrestling hog hogs hog wrestling wisconsin eldorado animal abuse animal cruelty cruelty to animals parallel oppressions intersections violence state fair farmed animals livestock

This cycle, it’s Hillary who’s selling out her humanity for the “sportsmen’s” murderer’s vote. Clinton’s comments of this morning, made in response to Obama’s comments of April 6, are what set me off, but in searching for the exact quote on teh internets, I found quite a few references to her Duck Hunter days. (See, I can condemn the misogyny directed at Hillary without blindly throwing her my vagina vote. Nay, nay, nay boiz!)

Here’s Clinton on February 18:

“I’ve hunted. My father taught me how to shoot,” she told a crowd at the Labor Temple in rural northern Wisconsin. “I remember standing in the cold water. It was so cold, you know, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men.

“And they all were playing a trick on me, and said, ‘We’re not going to shoot, you shoot,’ ’cause you know what they wanted to do. They wanted to embarrass me.

“So the pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck.”

Awww! Isn’t that special. I think I’ll vote for her, because she’s snuffed out at least one life in the name of sport. She’ll be perfect to take over the war in Iraq!

April 12:

“I disagree with Sen. Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about trade and immigration simply out of frustration,” she began, referring to the Obama comments on small-town Americans that set off a political tumult on Friday.

She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

“You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

Why be bitter about your lack of privilege when you can assert some privilege over another, more oppressed group. It’s a win-win. Well, win-lose, but that’s what makes it so mofo fun. Human privilege rocks!

Minutes later, in a slightly awkward moment, Clinton faced a question from a woman in the audience whose son had been paralyzed by a gunshot. The woman asked Clinton what she would do about gun control as president.

Clinton touted her husband’s record on gun control during his administration, and said “there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights” and the effort to reduce crime.

Noting that many hunters and gun collectors want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, Clinton referred to her positive childhood experiences with firearms.

“As I told you, my dad taught me how to shoot behind our cottage,” she said. “I have gone hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting.”

If it walks like a duck hunter, talks like a duck hunter, and looks a duck hunter, then…it’s a panderer!

And my personal favorite, the one that spawned this post, from this morning:

“I believe that people don’t cling to religion, they value their faith. You don’t cling to guns, you enjoy hunting or collecting or sport shooting,” Senator Clinton said in Pittsburgh, a blue collar town feeling the economic pinch.

“I don’t think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you.”

Short and to the point. You don’t cling to guns and the power they give you over other, “lesser” beings…you just enjoy using them to assert your power over non-human animals in the name of “sport”. And, as illustrated by the mother of the paraplegic? quadriplegic? from April 12, sometimes human animals, too.

Bravo, Hills. Way to pander to the lowest common denominator. Methinks Barack wins this round:

“Shame on her. Shame on her. She knows better. She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen. She, how she values the Second Amendment, she’s talking like she is Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton is out there like she’s out in the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six shooter. Come on. She knows better. That’s some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind. You know, come on.”

This is all especially embarrassing, given Clinton’s strong record on animal protection issues. How I long for the day when politicians – particularly otherwise animal-friendly ones – no longer feel the need to pander to the gun lobby.

* Updated to add that there’s nothing “elitist” about Obama’s remarks, and I absolutely do not accept the Republican framing here. On the contrary, Obama is the most working-class of the three candidates. Besides, ain’t nothing wrong with being “elitist” – would you haters rather have an uneducated, illiterate president? I mean, that’s worked out wonderfully these past 7 years!

(Crossposted.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare 2008 elections hillary clinton barack obama hunting ducks duck hunting hunters annie oakley pander pandering gun lobby sportsmen quotes

Also depressing was this statement, part of Optimus Prime’s endless moralizing: “All sentient beings deserve freedom”. (Or perhaps it was more along the lines of “All sentient being deserve the right to live”…I forget now.) Really? All sentient beings? Because, like, “sentient” isn’t codeword for “human+”.

Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception.

Sadly, and despite the obvious implications of such an animal-friendly statement, Transformers was hardly a pro-AR movie. On the contrary; one of Optimus Prime’s cronies (you know, the “good” “guys”) wanted to kill a dog (which he* saw as evidence of a “rodent infestation”) for pissing on his foot. Uh, yeah, maybe y’all should modify that statement to “All sapient beings…” I hate to break it to the screenwriters, but dogs are sentient, you dumbasses.

The effects were pretty cool, though.

* Though Shane doth protest, the Transformers are all clearly uber-masculine entities. Androgynous they aint.

(Crossposted.)

——————-

Tagged: transformers animals animal rights animal welfare optimus prime ethics moralizing sentience war on terra movies medianimals

(00:34:59) orzonal: hey
(00:34:59) kgarbato : Sorry, you missed me!
(00:35:47) orzonal: eh, brb, i need to get something to drink
(00:41:54) orzonal: eh, you’re prolly sleeping
(00:42:04) orzonal: had an interesting evening
(00:42:35) orzonal: josh and his friends decided to go to the playboy club..couldn’t pay me to go there, so I took off, and was taking a walk around the casino
(00:42:40) orzonal: outside
(00:43:29) orzonal: so I pass this car in a handicap spot, and I notice a young woman trying to, what looked like to me, feed a dog in a car
(00:43:56) orzonal: it looked a little fishy, but I thought maybe she was locked out or something and was trying to help her dog
(00:44:16) orzonal: turns out it wasn’t hers, but she’d been there waiting with the dog for like 45 mins
(00:44:34) orzonal: the bike security guys wouldn’t help her, so she was waiting with him
(00:44:53) orzonal: he had plenty of air, and I don’t think he could have died of heat..but it was in a casino parking lot?
(00:44:55) orzonal: !!
(00:45:17) orzonal: the woman, before I got there, went inside and got a bowl and put a water dish for him in the back seat
(00:45:20) orzonal: so..
(00:45:37) orzonal: i took a snapshot with my phone of the license plate and went to the concierge
(00:46:10) orzonal: they called security to go out there
(00:46:16) orzonal: i went back to the car
(00:46:22) orzonal: and waited to make sure security came
(00:46:23) orzonal: they did
(00:46:28) orzonal: with the old couple
(00:46:41) orzonal: the woman who had been waiting just went off of the old couple
(00:47:18) orzonal: at that point security asked the old couple to go home, and essentially kicked them out for the night

————————

Related: IDA’s My Dog Is Cool campaign

————————

Tagged: im instant message animals animal rights animal welfare dog canine vegas las vegas assholes shane brady pet companion animal heatstroke rant rave flickr my dog is cool ida in defense of animals dachshund weiner dog rat terrier Ralphie Peedee O-Ren my furbabies

‘Real World’ Experience with New Poultry Depopulation Method

MANHEIM, Pa. — On April Fool’s Day, April 1, at 8:30 in the evening, University of Delaware Poultry Specialist George “Bud” Malone received a phone call. A turkey farm in West Virginia confirmed the H5N2 Avian Influenza (A.I.) strain on the farm. Could he please bring his equipment to foam the house for depopulation.

This was not an April Fool’s joke, but a chance for Malone and others to earn some “real world” experience with a new technology for depopulation — foaming a house.

At hand for depopulation were four houses — two with 10,000 birds, one with 3,000 birds and one with 2,000 birds. Through this experience, Malone said a lot of lessons have been learned for bringing this application to the real world.

Now, those familiar with bird flu and its consequences will pick up on the trigger words employed by author and poultry industry lackey Charlene M. Shupp Espenshade. Yet, those not schooled in the evils of factory farming and the threat of bird flu might not understand what exactly went down on that mystery West Virginian turkey farm. Charlene, much like Tony Snow, sure knows how to work the spin.

The words “killed”, “suffocated”, and “dead” aren’t used even once throughout the entire article; the closest Charlene comes to saying that 25,000 turkeys were murdered (due to shoddy industry practices, to boot) is the following impersonal statement: “With foam, consistency is critical to get the needed height to cover the birds and ensure death” – and this refers to the practice of foaming in a general sense, with no acknowledgment of the deaths of these 25,000 individuals.

Rather than killed and suffocated, they were “depopulated” and “foamed”. Factory farmers and their groupies sure have a knack for create euphemisms, don’t they? Seriously, who talks like this? If y’all aren’t ashamed of what you do, then call it what it is: mass murder, genocide (specicide?), or cruelty of convenience. Please. An outbreak of bird flu necessitated the eradication of 25,000 birds housed in four (four!) structures, and yet the words “kill” (or even “destroy”, which I detest for its impersonality) and “suffocate” appear nowhere in the story. Talk about disingenuous.

Of course, you can bet that Charlene and her ilk have damn well heard the maxim about slaughterhouses with glass walls…

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare bird flu avian influenza West Virginia turkey factory farming rants foaming people suck euphemisms Lancaster Farming

Anyway, back to that Kinship Circle alert for a moment. Rumor #4 involves the ACLU’s opposition – or lack thereof – to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).

The whole section, verbatim:

4. QUESTION/RUMOR: The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) didn’t take a stand for free speech by opposing AETA.

4. CLARIFICATION

From D. Barber, Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union:

The ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (3/6/2006) can be read at www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/25620leg20060306.html.

If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm or call 1-888-567-ACLU. Once again, thank you for your interest in the ACLU.

Sincerely, D. Barber, Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union

11/14/06, from Karen Dawn, news [at] dawnwatch.com:

Actually, Sensenbrenner lied about lack of opposition from the ACLU. Sigh. ACLU did not oppose the whole bill but did ask for changes: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/27356leg20061030.html.

After contacting Kinship Circle for clarification, I was told that they were simply providing information regarding the ACLU’s stance on AETA, and leaving it to KC readers to draw their own conclusions.

My conclusion: at best, the ACLU is being duplicitous in their replies to animal advocates who dare to criticize the ACLU’s actions on AETA. Worst-case scenario – they totally sold us out.

Let’s have a little looksee at the facts, shall we?

1. The ACLU initially opposed both the Senate and House versions of AETA (S. 1926 and H.R. 4239), as is reflected in their letter to Congress dated 3/6/06, “ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239.”

2. The next publicly available piece of correspondence from the ACLU regarding AETA is dated 10/30/06. The subject: “ACLU Urges Minor Changes to AETA, But Does Not Oppose Bill (S. 3880, the ‘Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act’).”

As if the subject heading isn’t clear enough, I’ll also provide a direct quote from the body of the letter: “The ACLU does not oppose this bill, but believes that these minor changes are necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech.”

In other words, they acknowledge that the bill, as is, does appear likely to “chill or threaten freedom of speech” – yet they no longer oppose it, even if the suggested changes are not implemented.

3. In the ACLU’s response to Kinship Circle, they provide a link to the March letter, but conveniently omit a link to the more recent October letter – which represent a complete 180 from their original position. The rest of their reply (which is a pithy four sentences) is spent shilling for donations…after lying (or, at the very least, being misleading) about their efforts on behalf of animal advocates.

4. Will Potter of GreenIsTheNewRed.com has been all over AETA, with comprehensive news and analysis. He’s also concluded that, contrary to what the ACLU is telling complainants, ultimately they failed to oppose the bill.

5. Additionally, a number of commenters at Green is the New Red have posted the replies that they received from the ACLU. Some received emails similar to that posted by Kinship Circle; these deceptively reference the March letter while ignoring the October capitulation. Other ACLU responses are equally deceptive, but in a different way.

A few examples, each from this thread:

I am a member of the ACLU. I was appalled to think they would give Mr. Sensebrenner the chance to use them against the opponents of this terrible bill. I called them in NYC to protest. They sent me an e-mail copy of their actual letter, opp[posing the bill and detailing the anticonstutional and unjust provisions of the law. I just wanted to clarify this. If you would like a copy, please let me know. The ACLU categorically opposed the AETA.

and

I called the ACLU today to let them know that I think this should be a priority for them, especially in today's political climate.

The person I spoke with was dismissive and made it clear that "you can't win 'em all". She ended the conversation with "my other line is ringing".

The most interesting ACLU response, though, was this:

Here is the reponse I got from the ACLU re: AETA

“I want to make clear that ACLU did not and does not support the AETA. We believe that expanding 18 U.S.C. §43 was unnecessary. The ACLU opposed the original House of Representatives and Senate versions of the AETA because both included provisions that were vague, overbroad and unnecessary, and would have criminalized certain forms of expression that are clearly protected under the First Amendment. Additionally, the bills provided that the AETA would constitute a predicate crime that would allow federal criminal wiretapping. A copy of the letter that we sent to Congress in March urging opposition to the bill is attached.

In the months that followed, the ACLU Washington Legislative Office worked to gain several important improvements to the bill, which was recently reintroduced as S. 3880.

The wiretapping provision was removed entirely from the Senate version. Under the Senate bill, the “economic damage” that could trigger liability “does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.” The original bill did not address lawful boycotts, which are clearly protected First Amendment activity.

Another revision was aimed at protecting advocacy. The Senate bill makes clear that only damage to “real or personal” property is the kind of economic damage that triggers liability. The original bill used the term “any property,” leaving open the possibility of even claiming damage to intellectual property (trademark dilution and tarnishment, for example).

Though ACLU secured enough significant improvements in the Senate version of the legislation to drop its opposition, we continued to advocate further clarifications and we sent a letter to key members of the House of Representatives seeking additional changes. A copy of that letter is also attached.

While we were disappointed that the final version of the bill passed by the House did not incorporate the changes we urged in our letter of October 30, we certainly did achieve significant improvements in the language compared to the language of the bill in its original form. The ACLU will monitor the bill’s application to determine any future course of action.”

I'll address the problems with this - their most in-depth answer to criticism - in a moment.

First, allow me to point out the obvious conclusions drawn from facts 1-5:

* The ACLU is clearly aware that AETA is designed to threaten the free speech of animal advocates and protect the interests of animal "enterprises." With or without the changes suggested by the ACLU in their October letter, AETA is blatantly unconstitutional. And, 'scuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ACLU supposed to defend our constitutionally protected rights?

* The ACLU either 1) doesn't have their shit together or 2) knows that they made a mistake, and are now lying their butts off in order to confuse their critics. The standard form letters that the ACLU is sending out conveniently point to an old, outdated letter that shows that they opposed AETA back in March '06 - even though they'd changed their position by the time the bill was voted on in October. Either the interns fielding complaints don't realize this - or they're misleading the public. My vote is for the latter.

Which makes me wonder about their motivations. Are the civil liberties of "crazy animal rights activists" less important than the Westboro Baptist Church's right to harass grieving military families? Or do they seriously think that we're more radioactive than Fred Phelps? Which is it - y'all don't think we're worth defending, or you just don't want the negative association with a bunch of animal nuts?

According to the last ACLU correspondence quoted above, the ACLU thinks that they did defend us. If so, why lie about their actual stance re: AETA?

The ACLU claims that they "secured enough significant improvements in the Senate version of the legislation to drop its opposition" - even though they admit in their October letter that they "[do] not oppose this bill, but [believe] that these minor changes are necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech.” Read: the bill that they do not oppose is “likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech” (!). WTF!?

Finally, with or without the changes that the ACLU was able to procure, AETA is 100% unnecessary. Not only does it target a specific group of activists based on their ideology alone, it addresses criminal behaviors that are already against the law! Arson, trespassing, vandalism, harassment – all are already crimes prosecutable under existing law. Additionally, a law directed at animal advocates was already passed in 1992 (see: Animal Enterprise Protection Act) – and, contrary to the animal abusers’ complaints, activists have been prosecuted and convicted under AEPA (see: the SHAC 7)…for running a website on which they published the names and home addresses of animal researchers. Which makes me wonder: when is Michelle Malkin’s court date, hmmm?

Maybe I’m missing something here. I pray to His Noodliness that I am – because, up until now, I had great respect for the ACLU, and defended 99% of their policies, even the most distasteful. Which makes it twice as hurtful to think that animal advocates are more toxic than pedophiles and gay bashers.

Until someone convinces me otherwise, the ACLU will languish on my On Notice Board. If you agree, contact info here.

(Crossposted at KellyGarbato.com.)

————–

Tagged: animals animal+rights action+alerts aeta Animal+Enterprise+Terrorism+Act free+speech terrorism animal+terrorism eco-terrorism censorship aclu american+civil+liberties+union kinship+circle

As described by Dr. Alex Hershaft (FARM’s President/Founder and co-founder of the Equal Justice Alliance), the voting process was nefarious, to say the least:

Today (11/13/06), a dozen of us from Equal Justice Alliance, FARM, League of Humane Voters, and Compassion Over Killing spent five hours visiting Congressional offices and urging them to vote against AETA, which had been scheduled over the weekend for a sudden vote at 6:30 pm. We were carrying suporting statements from the National Lawyers Guild, the New York City Bar Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. At each office, we were told that the mail and calls were running overwhelmingly in our favor.

Around 3pm, one of the legislative aides said that the bill was just being debated on the House floor. He gave me a pass, and I rushed to the Capitol across the street. I was astonished to see only about six House members present. House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner spoke in favor of AETA, quoting Jerry Vlasak’s and other’s past extreme statements. Dennis Kucinich joined in abhorring violence, but noted that the bill infringed on civil liberties of people conducting civil disobedience or undercover investigations. Sensenbrenner invoked lack of opposition from the ACLU. Then the chair called for a voice vote, and Kucinich cast the only no vote. It was all over in 15 minutes.

After the vote, I rode the elevator with Sensenbrenner and chief AETA sponsor Petri. I told them I was there to lobby against their bill. Sensenbrenner replied “don’t blame me; I was just managing the bill for this guy,” pointing to Petri, who smiled sheepishly. The whole thing was absolutely surreal.

We played the game by their rules, we generated an overwhelming outpouring of opposition to the bill on short notice, and they kicked us in the face through underhanded maneuvers. Then they wonder why people lose faith in the system and take the law into their own hands. Today, Congress brought shame on itself by turning animal activists into “terrorists.”

Apparently, it wasn’t enough for our legislators to ignore their non-corporate constituents and wipe their arses with the Constitution, but they couldn’t even do so in an open debate. They fast-tracked the bill and then voted on it hours before scheduled, with only six Reps. present. Wonderful. It certainly takes the joy out of last week’s victories.

Though I fully expected the House to vote in favor of AETA – particularly in light of the Senate’s unanimous satisfaction with it – I’m still disappointed with the sheer number of Reps. who kowtowed to Big Business, and did so in an underhanded manner, to boot. Even more so, however, I am shocked and appalled by the ACLU.

Yesterday, I reported that the ACLU was one of the 160+ organizations that opposed AETA. However, I was (sorely) mistaken. I based my comment on an ACLU letter dated 3/6/06 and addressed to Congress, “ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239,” in which the ACLU explicitly voice their opposition to AETA. Yet, they rescinded their opposition after some minor changes were made – changes which fail to protect the First Amendment rights of animal advocates working within the confines of the law.

I have long been a supporter of the ACLU, and this stunning lack of spine from America’s largest champion of First Amendment rights is a bitter pill indeed. Of all the outrages surrounding AETA, this is perhaps the hardest for me to swallow. The lack of ethics, morals, and fairness (not to mention respect for the Constitution) among our politicians is nothing new. But the ACLU? For Chrissakes, I expect better from them.

It’s especially egregious that an organization which defends Fred Phelps’ First Amendment right to picket the funerals of American heroes – defaming our fallen soldiers and taunting their families with such delightful ditties as

First to fight
For the fags
Now they’re coming home in bags
And the army goes marching to hell.

Now it’s IEDs
The army’s on its knees
Count off the body parts all gone — Two! Three! — and where e’er they go
The dying soldiers show
The army keeps marching to hell.

with such glee – declines to defend peaceful, well-intentioned animal rights/welfare activists.

Well, shame on the ACLU! The current graphics on their main page boast, “Demanding Truth and Accountability” and “Stop the Abuse of Power: Demand Answers, Restore Justice, End Abuses; It’s time to restore lost liberties.” So, here’s an idea: contact the ACLU and demand to know why they wouldn’t stand up for the civil liberties of animal rights advocates. Obviously, AETA was of little consequence to the ACLU. Yet, it opens the door for our elected sheeple to target other activists, organization, and movements. Whether you work towards a woman’s right to choose, against discrimination based on sexual orientation, or for equal opportunities for all, AETA concerns you.

And it most certainly concerns the ACLU, whose self-described mission is to protect every American citizens’ Constitutional rights:

* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

* Your right to equal protection under the law – equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

* Your right to due process – fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

* Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

So shoot them a politely outraged letter, or better yet, give ‘em a call.

You can find brief talking points at www.NoAETA.org, and a more detailed breakdown of the legislation and its many problems at GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

Mailing address:

American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Online Feedback form:

www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html

Contact information for members/membership help. (Cancel your membership or tell them that you won’t join/support the ACLU as long as they discriminate against animal rights advocates.)

E-mail: membership [at] aclu.org

Phone: (212) 549-2585

Contact information for local affiliate offices:

State-by-state list here: www.aclu.org/affiliates/

If you can find additional contact information, please let me know, or leave it in the comments.

* Action alerts from org’s working against AETA to follow. *

—————-

Tagged: animals animal+rights action+alerts aeta Animal+Enterprise+Terrorism+Act free+speech terrorism animal+terrorism eco-terrorism censorship aclu american+civil+liberties+union