Sunday, November 15, 2009

Manifesto for Radical Abolitionism: Total Liberation By Any Means Necessary



By Dr. Steven Best

11/13/09

I.

The nonhuman animal advocacy movement is at a crucial crossroads where truly it is now do or die. In the early 1980s, a new animal rights movement glowed bright with potential; in just a few years, however, the light faded to black as corruption, opportunism, and bureaucracy snuffed out the promise of genuine change. As they evolved, it became increasingly obvious that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other groups emulated the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to become corporate behemoths and mainstream machines. Increasingly co-opted and compromised, animal rights groups frequently worked with, rather than against, the exploitation industries in order to regulate, not eliminate, the ongoing nonhuman animal holocaust.

In the last decade, for instance, PETA pressured McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC to increase cage size and adopt “less cruel and more profitable” slaughter methods,[1] while HSUS aggressively campaigned for “humane meat” and “cage-free eggs.” These groups ultimately serve corporate exploiters’ interests and champion capitalist principles generally. But whereas PETA began as a grassroots organization in 1980, and continues to defend the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and to promote veganism, HSUS has been a bureaucratic welfare group since its inception in 1954, it consistently denounces the ALF, and has always capitulated to carnivorous culture as it barely gives support even for vegetarianism.

Lest anyone in either the industry or advocacy camps had any doubts, HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle put them to rest in a sycophantic July 2009 interview on Agritalk radio. Pacelle virtually apologized for being vegan in his private life and assured the flesh, vivisection, hunting, zoo, and circus industries that they had nothing to fear from HSUS, as his goal is to promote “decency and mercy toward animals” and not to close their operations.[2]



II.

In direct response to the wretched reformism and opportunism of bureaucratic “welfarism,” a new movement emerged to reconstruct nonhuman animal advocacy unequivocally as a struggle for animal rights, not “welfare”; for the total abolition of nonhuman animal slavery rather than its regulation; and for veganism, not “humane” animal-derived products of any kind. To a significant degree, the new vegan abolitionist movement has been shaped and defined by the work of Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers University. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Francione exposed the duplicity of “new welfarists” who use the term “animal rights” but pursue “welfarist” policies. These policies, Francione argues, are incoherent and dilute the meaning of rights; “welfarism” in any form, he insists, works to the benefit of industries and thus increases, rather than decreases, the demand for animal-derived products; it only aggravates, rather than alleviates, speciesism and the plight of nonhuman animals in horrific systems of exploitation.

Francione tapped and mobilized growing dissatisfaction with corporate reformism and sparked a growing vegan abolitionist movement. More accurately, he revived a vegan movement first created by Donald Watson in 1944, and was sustained by vegan societies such as in the UK and US. These societies maintained Watson’s broad and political vision of veganism not merely as a diet but rather as an ethical and political commitment to the abolition of nonhuman animal exploitation and, indeed, to all systems of oppression.[3] Francione wedded the pacifist ideals of ancient Jainism, Watson’s vegan viewpoint, and the philosophy of animal rights first systematically developed in 1983 by Tom Regan, merging these influences in a new matrix of pacifist vegan abolitionism.

Francione typically speaks as if he invented veganism, and sycophantic followers such as Roger Yates claim that a bona fide “animal rights movement” only began in 2006 with the ascendant influence of Francione’s work.[4] But Francione mostly returned to Watson’s original teachings, albeit often in diluted form that retains the ethical vision linking food choices to moral commitments to oppressed nonhuman animals, but without a consistent political commitment to working against all forms of oppression and exploitation. Abolitionist approaches toward speciesism began within the nineteenth century feminist-antivivisectionists, were deepened in Watson and emerging vegan societies, informed the hunt saboteur movements in the UK from the 1960s to the present, and were advanced in historically momentous ways in 1976 when Ronnie Lee founded the Animal Liberation Front.

While Francione advanced a forceful critique of “welfarism” and took animal rights philosophy to a new level, he has nonetheless proved to be bereft of political vision and incapable of forging a genuine resistance movement that can evolve beyond the marginalized position currently embraced by less than one percent of the human population. In Francione’s religious, tepid, and apolitical rendering, vegan abolitionism remains an elitist, white, Eurocentric consumerist lifestyle easily co-opted by capitalism and dominant ideologies. Moreover, Francione has spawned a cult-like following – “Franciombes” – who parrot his fundamentalist, rigid, bellicose, and Manichean positions; with slavish devotion to their Master and his hostile manner, Franciombes defame his critics in a style more suited to Machiavelli than Jains.

III.

The Guru and his disciples come together in a dance of doctrine and dogma. Like Christian fundamentalists, Francione and his followers believe they possess the Truth while all others struggle in error. As Francione argues there is literally “no alternative,” only chaos and ruin, except for their approach based on obedience to law, peaceful education, and focus on individuals and consumption habits over institutions and productive imperatives stemming from global capitalism. For them, the world is black and white, answers are cut and dry, and complexity is reduced to the Procrustean bed of either/or, rather than enlivened through the dialectical logic of both/and.

According to the pacifist party line, militant direct action (MDA) tactics such as economic sabotage are ALWAYS wrong and NEVER effective. Excusing themselves from the work of analyzing the complexities and unique specific situations, Franciombes fashion a handy a priori “truth” and apply it mechanically to every action that has happened or will happen. Their ignorance of history is matched only by their mental rigidity. For over three decades, in dozens of countries throughout the world, in countless thousands of actions, liberators and saboteurs have freed hundreds of thousands of captive nonhuman animals; permanently shut down numerous breeders, “fur farmers,” and vivisectors; and convinced countless numbers of individuals to find gainful employment in careers other than nonhuman animal exploitation, while inspiring people worldwide to join the animal liberation movement.

In all this, Franciombes see no value or gain and, despite operations closed forever, they can only repeat the baseless claim that all damaged property is rebuilt and all liberated nonhuman animals are “replaced.” This may happen in some cases, but in light of the many operations shut down for good, this clearly is a false claim; even when animals are replaced and property rebuilt and restored, rising insurance costs are enough to weaken and jeopardize the viability of small and moderate operations at least. Whereas dogmatic pacifists hide under the cover of ignorance and denial, corporate exploiters themselves have testified to the effectiveness of ALF actions.[5]

By vilifying sabotage tactics as “violent,” and by conflating attacks on property with assaults on people, Franciombes adopt the reactionary discourse and position of the FBI and the corporate-state-media complex. They needlessly and divisively pit education in opposition to illegal tactics (even open rescues), as if the two tactics were irreconcilably opposed rather than complimentary aspects of a revolutionary process.

Despite some talk of capitalism, commonalities of oppression, and alliance politics, Francione ultimately pushes a simplistic, single-issue “go vegan” approach pitched to a white, affluent, privileged, Western audience, with no intent to engage people of color, working class families, the poor, or China and India – the world’s most populous nations now in rapid transition from maintaining traditional plant-based diets to embracing Western diets rooted in consuming “animal products” including flesh, milk, and eggs.

Francione thereby reinforces the dismal elitist, classist, and racist stigmas attached to activists for nonhuman animals since the beginning of “animal protectionism” in the early nineteenth century, and he further isolates veganism and animal rights from progressive movements and the social mainstream. Unable to articulate a structural theory of oppression, exploitation, and ideological hegemony, and mired in Western dualisms and the construction of false oppositions such as between production/consumption, individual/social, and psychological/institutional, Francione exculpates the logic and global machinery of capitalism to lay the entire burden of blame and responsibility on individual consumers.

Certainly, humans do have agency and need to take responsibility for transforming their personal lives, such as by engaging the ecological and ethical imperative to go vegan. But politically and pedagogically it is also crucial for citizens to recognize the formidable power of the structural forces in their lives and the ways in which sedimented economic and political institutions pose profound obstacles to teaching, learning, and progressive ethical and social change. Psychological and ethical change is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of the large-scale social transformations needed for creating viable democratic and ecological cultures.

Internalizing the capitalist ideology of liberal individualism, this pseudo-abolitionist offers nothing but the most banal and tepid reformism which is no more effective in changing the overall social relations of domination than “welfarism” is in breaking the chains of speciesist oppression. Rather than advancing on Watson’s formulation, Francione offers a regressive and hollow version of a rich ethical political ideal opposed to all forms of exploitation and hierarchy.

IV.

Franciombes eliminate complexity and ambiguity from the social-political picture, and reek of arrogance, dogma, and condescension. They cling to the religious conviction that any approach to veganism, animal rights, or abolitionism other than what Francione has set in stone is false, reactionary, and “welfarist.” They promiscuously deploy the phrase “new welfarist” to discredit others in the movement, much as McCarthyites hurled the epithet of “communist” and post-9/11 patriots terrorize with the discourse of “terrorism” to discredit their opponents as irrational extremists.

Indeed, in McCarthyist fashion, upon receiving alleged death threats from supporters of confrontational or illegal direct action, Francione made reckless accusations and named names of anyone (including avowed pacifists) remotely connected to such a devious terrorist plot. Moreover, Francione routinely brands his opponents as “mad” or “insane,” as if disagreement with his divine teachings were evidence of psychological impairment and oblivious to the normalizing and ableist implications of crude dichotomies of sane/insane and rational/irrational.

Unable to grasp the root causes of hierarchical domination and ecological crisis, blaming individuals over institutions, Francione is hardly positioned to grasp the nature of the problems afflicting other animals and the planet let alone to offer potential solutions and viable tactics. And thus we get nothing beyond the hopelessly vague, liberal pseudo-panacea of “vegan education.” Apparently limited to blogging and podcasting to the choir, Francione & followers are bereft of politics, and, in fact, they lack even the most rudimentary elements of a theory and practice of education – more than a small problem for an approach seeking change through vegan education. Their outlook is utterly delusional in the conviction that veganism is the main vehicle and catalyst for individual enlightenment and, thereby, for social change. These pugilistic pacifists cling to a Christian-like faith that somehow, someday their insular polemics and feeble “education” efforts will transform the heart and soul of humanity and, thereby, change society as a whole. Oblivious to the threshold we are about to cross, they promote slow, incremental change amidst rapid, systemic ecological breakdown.

Incredibly, as global ecological and social crises rapidly mount, Francione ignores the most crucial events of the day – human overpopulation, species extinction crisis, deforestation, global climate change, and the destructive growth imperatives inherent in the capitalist economy. The chaos theory model Franciombes use to buttress their collective hallucination of a “vegan revolution” is far more applicable to the exponential growth of flesh consumption in China and India. For every person who becomes vegan, a thousand flesh-eaters arise in these rapidly industrializing societies and elsewhere such as Brazil and South Africa. The Franciombe concern over “replacement” of liberated nonhuman animals seems to elude them as it applies to their own single-issue approach, which fails to realize that for every vegan convert they celebrate, armies of necrovores are continuously born and raised.

Francione’s approach is complacent, detached from reality, and irrelevant to the massive and complex struggle necessary to forestall biological meltdown and ecological catastrophe. Pacifist lifestyle veganism is another dead-end and groundless hope, totally inadequate to the unprecedented challenge of a planet in crisis. If once progressive, Francione’s approach is now clearly reactionary. It is a pseudo-abolitionist movement, bourgeois lifestyle veganism; it is a one-dimensional, single-issue, Eurocentric, white, elitist, consumerist, capitalist construct that vegans and abolitionists need to shed quickly.

Where Franciombes seek to trademark abolition and revile as mere “welfarism” any vision not their own, this group aims to blow the doors off their cultish theology in order to reinvigorate thinking, restore common sense, situate veganism in its broadest political context, and revitalize possibilities for revolutionary change. Our options are not confined to either the “welfarism” of HSUS or the pseudo-abolitionism and lifestyle veganism of Francione. There are other ways, such as history reveals and the future requires.



V.

We need a far richer and more radical concept of abolitionism that draws from and revitalizes the strength and power of the nineteenth century anti-human slavery movement that erupted in the US (and of course earlier in the UK). Unlike the pale imitation and caricature espoused by Franciombes, the version of abolitionism we champion is far more in tune with the radicalism, pluralism, and alliance politics (imperfect and impermanent as it was) of nineteenth-century abolitionism. But eschewing nostalgia and outmoded political models, this approach also draws from numerous other contemporary theories and political movements. We recognize the need for radical social change and we understand that the fight against speciesism, capitalism, the state, and hierarchy in all forms will be waged on many different fronts simultaneously. We seek to reinvigorate a movement sold-out by corporate opportunists and paralyzed by pacifists who sympathize with the latent “humanity” of oppressors and demonize the militant wing of animal liberation, a perverse inversion of loyalties and misguided sentiments manifested in the Stockholm Syndrome mindset evident in the mindset of fundamentalist pacifists who enjoin activists to respect the humanity of murderous oppressors as they demonize and vilify militant liberationists[6]

We cannot stop the speciesist and corporate war on nonhuman animals and the planet with blogging, leafleting, tabling, and recipe books alone. Capitalism is inherently destructive, and change will never come solely through education and persuasion, nor without a movement more powerful than the agents and institutions of omnicidal destruction. As radical pedagogy theorist Paulo Freire himself insisted – education can only be part of a much broader and multi-pronged movement of resistance, struggle, and change. Thus, like all priorl revolutions, human and nonhuman animals will not win liberation because oppressors suddenly see the light, but rather because enough people become enlightened and learn how to rock the structures of power, to shake them until new social arrangements emerge.

It is not only the content of Francione’s positions we challenge, but also the very form and method of his approach. We cannot progress in the struggle for liberation or hope to be politically relevant unless we abandon Francione’s dualistic, either/or logic for a dialectical both/and logic, one that abandons all bogus dichotomies and false separations. Thus, we need education and agitation, mainstream and militant tactics, peaceful resistance and confrontation and sabotage, and aboveground/legal and underground/illegal means of weakening speciesist capitalism.

We need more, not less, vegan education, of a kind that shatters the enclaves of white privilege in which Franciombes entomb abolitionism and reaches out to the poor, working classes, inner cities, less-industrialized nations, and, crucially, the emerging crisis flashpoints in the burgeoning population giants of China and India. And, despite one of his most persistent and vapid imposed false options, those who work underground to liberate nonhuman animals through raids can and do rescue other animals from “shelters.”

While we support the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, and defend the importance of economic sabotage, we also recognize that property destruction is only a rear-guard and minor means of resistance that has to yield to a broad social movement. Still, it remains an important – sometimes seemingly the only – means of resistance against the capitalist property system, and merits support as we simultaneously work toward building political alliances on a global scale and in an unprecedentedly broad and inclusive way.

The pluralist and contextualist approach central to our position absorbs the partial value and validity of vegan abolitionism, but without the debilitating dogmatism and disabling rejection of effective tactics simply because they do not conform to an ancient code or utopian ideal that only serves to strengthen oppression and to reassure oppressors they have nothing to fear from an “opposition” movement.[7] It abandons single-issue fetishism and the complacency of class and racial privilege in favor of diversity, solidarity, and bridge-building with those most economically disadvantaged and politically marginalized. Only in this way, can the profound importance of veganism and animal rights be recognized and respected by a social majority; only in alliance with other struggles can its revolutionary potential be realized.

In the consumerist and privatized lifestyle form promoted by Franciombes, however, veganism is the opiate of the people, and Murray Bookchin’s polemic against apolitical “lifestyle anarchism” can be fruitfully applied to the vaporous lifestyle veganism championed by Franciombes and others.[8]

We endorse a form of abolition that (1) defends the use of high-pressure direct action tactics, along with illegal raids, rescues, and sabotage attacks; (2) views capitalism as an inherently irrational, exploitative, and destructive system, and sees the state as a corrupt tool whose function is to advance the economic and military interests of the corporate domination system and to repress opposition to its agenda; (3) has a broad, critical understanding of how different forms of oppression are interrelated, seeing human animal, nonhuman animal, and earth liberation as inseparable projects; and, thus, (4) promotes an anti-capitalist alliance politics with other rights, justice, and liberation movements who share the common goal of dismantling all systems of hierarchical domination and rebuilding societies through decentralization and democratization processes.[9]

VI.

We form this new group out of the need for a radical social approach to veganism and animal rights that transcends bourgeois liberalism; the need for a global Left that renounces speciesism and all other ancient and lingering prejudices and forms of oppression; the need for post-hierarchical worldviews and democratic and ecological societies; and the need for total liberation and revolutionary transformation.

Forget Francione …

We must link the liberation of other animals to human and Earth liberation, and build a revolutionary movement strong enough to vanquish capitalist hegemony and to remake society without the crushing loadstones of anthropocentrism, speciesism, patriarchy, racism, classism, statism, heterosexism, ableism, and every other pernicious form of hierarchical domination. Humanity may not succeed in this endeavor, but it is one that we must undertake. It is no longer the classical choice between “revolution or barbarism,” but now that of revolution or ecological collapse and mass extinction.

We have two goals. First, we aim to expose the fatal flaws in Francione’s approach, and provide a positive alternative to his apolitical, one-dimensional, and single issue form of abolitionism. This approach provides a greater openness, diversity, and flexibility of tactics in contrast to the dogmatic and artificially constrained options Francione leaves open for his extreme pacifist approach. Since this alternative model is richer, multidimensional, and far more political, it opens to an alliance politics with other progressive and radical causes and groups.

And as we promote alliance politics, it is crucial to find ways of building bridges and forming commonalities. And thus our second and quite modest goal is simply to open a space for new forms of thought and struggle that revolve around the ideal of total liberation and a new ethics and politics that transcend humanism – however broadly defined – and encompasses all sentient beings and the natural world. We must first and foremost forge channels of communication to link vegan and nonhuman animal liberation communities with human animal liberation and environmental communities, representing a politics for the 21st century. In this endeavor, we hope to make this site and possible others a rich storehouse of information and a valuable medium for discussion and debate.

We reach out to any and all people from any of these communities to contribute to this crucial endeavor. Clearly, this broad spectrum of thought and politics will not agree on all points, but it is more important to focus on similarities and shared concerns, such as arise from the devastating impact of capitalism on social, sentient, and natural worlds with mutual concerns of peace, justice, equality, democracy, rights, autonomy, and ecology.

To Join Our Extended Facebook Network:

-Do a group search on Facebook for "Radical Abolitionism: Total Liberation by Any Means Necessary" and submit a request to join, or

-Email camille@negotiationisover.com with the subject "Faceboook Radical Abolition Group"

Notes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For PETA’s approach, see “The Case for Controlled-Atmosphere Killing” ( www.peta.org/cak/).

[2] For a transcript of the interview, see: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?contentid=327066 .

[3] For Watson’s seminal 1944 essay arguing for a broad ethical and political concept of veganism, see: http://www.ukveggie.com/vegan_news/vegan_news_1.pdf .

[4] Roger Yates, “Three Years Young” (http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/2008/12/three-years-young.html).

[5] Susan Paris, president of vivisection-industry front group Americans for Medical Progress, for example, admits the ALF has had a large impact on vivisectionists, writing, “Because of terrorist acts by animal activists like Coronado, crucial research projects have been delayed or scrapped. More and more of the scarce dollars available to research are spent on heightened security and higher insurance rates. Promising young scientists are rejecting careers in research. Top-notch researchers are getting out of the field.” Moreover, the August 1993 Report to Congress on Animal Enterprise Terrorism describes the effectiveness of ALF tactics:, “Where the direct, collateral, and indirect effects of incidents such as this are factored together, ALFs professed tactic of economic sabotage can be considered successful, and its objectives, at least towards the victimized facility, fulfilled.” Both quotations cited at: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ALFPrime.htm.

[6] For a vivid and grotesque example of the Stockholm Syndrome and the internalization of the capitalist superego, see Lee Hall’s scurrilous attack on MDA in her self-published screed, Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror (2006). For critical dissection of the multitude of fallacies, errors, and abysmal scholarship informing this pacifist propaganda tract (which one could easily mistake for a political attack from a vivisection industry front group or the FBI), see the essays by Best and Miller listed in note 7. Also see the devastating critiques from UK activists deeply involved in the campaigns Hall distorted and denounced: Steven Best, Jason Miller, Joan Court, Janet Tomlinson, and Lynn Sawyer, “Presence of Malice: UK Activists Vs. Lee Hall” (http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/presence-of-malice-uk-activists-v-lee-hall/),Alison Banville, “Lee Hall: Unplugged and Unmasked” (http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/lee-hall-unplugged-and-unmasked/); and Lynn Sawyer, “On the Practice of Pluralism: A Response to Lee Hall and the London Vegan Festival Controversy.”

[7] On the importance of a pluralist and contextualist method, see Steven Best and Jason Miller, “Pacifism or Animals: Which Do You Love More? A Critique of Lee Hall, Friends of Animals, and the Franciombe Effect in the New Abolitionist Movement” (http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/pacifism-or-animals-which-do-you-love-more/), and “Averting the China Syndrome: Response to Our Critics and the Devotees of Fundamentalist Pacifism” (http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/averting-the-china-syndrome-response-to-our-critics-and-the-devotees-of-fundamentalist-pacifism/).

[8] See Murray Bookchin, “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm” (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/bookchin/soclife.html).

[9] On alliance politics in a total revolution framework, see the Introduction to Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella II (eds.), Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth (2006, AK Press).

Dr. Steve Best is TPC’s Senior Editor of Total Liberation. Associate professor of philosophy at UTEP, award-winning writer, noted speaker, public intellectual, and seasoned activist, Steven Best engages the issues of the day such as animal rights, ecological crisis, biotechnology, liberation politics, terrorism, mass media, globalization, and capitalist domination. Best has published 10 books, over 100 articles and reviews, spoken in over a dozen countries, interviewed with media throughout the world, appeared in numerous documentaries, and was voted by VegNews as one of the nations “25 Most Fascinating Vegetarians.” He has come under fire for his uncompromising advocacy of “total liberation” (humans, animals, and the earth) and has been banned from the UK for the power of his thoughts. From the US to Norway, from Sweden to France, from Germany to South Africa, Best shows what philosophy means in a world in crisis.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Death Park Slaughterer: "We euthanized 312 deer in 3 nights..."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf2NSLhb4c]

Watch this video to "take the time to educate yourself on who we [White Buffalo] are and what we do..."

Anthony DeNicola, the deer mass murderer who orchestrated and led the slaughter of 313 deer (the "official" count) in Death Park (fka Shawnee Mission Park) over the course of three nights last week, sent me this missive via email:

From: WBUFFALOINC
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Jason Miller
Subject: Re: DEATH PARK DEER: The latest disturbing developments


Jason,

If I understand correctly you are a self-proclaimed autodidact. If so, please take the time to educate yourself on who we are and what we do, and not follow the misinformation and ignorance that you are regurgitating. We euthanized 312 deer in 3 nights while training law enforcement personnel to be able to continue management in the future in the most humane way possible. There were no crippled deer and all were shot in the brain. The meat processor and State biologist can verify this because they saw every carcass, and they have no reason to lie about their observations. In fact, the State would prefer hunting, so if we had conducted ourselves improperly they would have called us to task to have hunting be the only permitted management option.



Also, please realize that my organization was instrumental in the research that allowed for the registration of GonaCon, the vaccine that was part of your proposed solution. I am conducting 100 surgical sterilization next month in Missouri as part of a suburban deer management program. This is an initiative to come up with an alternative non-lethal solution that can be practical and cost effective in developed environments.

And remember millions of "semi-tame" cats and dogs are euthanized every year.

Tony DeNicola, Ph.D.
www.whitebuffaloinc.org



Probable victim of the Death Park Deer Massacre....

My reply:

From: Jason Miller
Date: Nov 12, 2009 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: DEATH PARK DEER: The latest disturbing developments
To: WBUFFALOINC


Tony,

I will admit that I'm no expert on you, your company, or your "services," but I've done enough homework to know that while you are not the cause, you are an abhorrent symptom of the dominant culture and its obsessions with death, killing, dominating, profiting, "wise use" (my favorite euphemism for abusing nature and nonhuman animals), and satiating human desires at the expense of other sentient beings and the Earth.

In an anarcho-vegan world (which we probably won't see in our lifetime, but if Homo sapiens are to remain extant, humanity will probably be forced to reorganize and evolve into such a sociocultural and economic construct---since we're destroying the planet), you would be tried and severely punished (perhaps executed) for premeditated mass murder of sentient beings.

I have watched the video that Steve Hindi captured of that horribly botched "sharp-shooting" you orchestrated that devolved into chaos, mayhem, and the shooters resorting to suffocating deer with plastic bags over their heads. God only knows what Hindi had captured on the confiscated cameras which you or the rangers wiped clean. And God only knows what happened out there in Death Park. It took the FBI, the JOCO Sheriff Department, city police, the park police, and a ridiculous restraining order, but they managed to keep me out of the areas where you were baiting and preparing for the democide. Otherwise, you can bet I would've had you on "candid camera." One day someone will capture you on film and shut you down.

I saw the photos, have spoken to activists and have read accounts of the helicopter massacre of Axis deer you perpetrated at Pt. Reyes.

And gunning down 313 deer in 3 nights at Death Park? That's a bloodbath. What'd you use? Uzi's?

I've read of your butchery you call sterilization (saw a photo of you with a scalpel in one hand and a deer ovary in the other), which by the way is NOT a nonlethal means of deer overpopulation control I support. Your sterilization and IC projects are merely vehicles for you to maintain your tax-exempt status. You aren't pulling the wool over my eyes.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O89KlVzqxDs]

GonaCon is NOT the IC that we proposed in our nonlethal plan. We suggested the use of PZP, which Jay Kirkpatrick has been studying for years---and as he states, "It works. It works WELL." We ultimately began demanding (we learned early on there was no point in "asking") that JCPRD/KDWP use GonaCon since it had recently been approved for use by the EPA, though even without that approval they could have gotten a permit to use either drug for research purposes---an ideal scenario for our suburban family park had they used Anthony Marr's DAA to "remove" the "excess" deer instead of paying you to shoot them in the face and splatter their brains on the ground.

GonaCon would have been developed and approved with or without your organization. Besides, I see the world in shades of gray. Polemics and hyperbole aside, I recognize that you are not "all bad" and that you have made some contributions to wildlife. But make no mistake about the fact that I also realize that your ruthless barbarism cloaked by your intellect and professionalism far outweigh any good you've done for nonhuman animals.

And to call shooting another living, sentient being in the head "euthanasia" is a criminal abuse of language. At the end of your missive to me, you reference the millions of domestic companion animals whom are euthanized each year (a practice which I utterly abhor---I have several rescue animals in my family and make regular donations to no-kill shelters). As malevolent a practice as that is (Nathan Winograd has crafted a brilliant plan to implement nationwide no-kill shelters), even animal shelters generally euthanize with drugs. But then again, I suppose bullets are cheaper.

I recognize that state conservation agencies like the KDWP are all about killing too, though for slightly different reasons than you. I'm all too familiar with the complex social, cultural, economic, and political dynamics that enable the 15 million or so US hunters and "conservationists" like Lloyd Fox to maintain their self-appointed place as "guardians of over-populated species" and of "biodiversity."

As with most forms of nonhuman animal exploitation and slaughter, it comes down to human monetary gain, "tradition," comfort, pleasure or convenience---with an utter disregard for sentience and for the growing body of cognitive ethology studies showing that the individuals that people like you and hunters wantonly massacre lead relatively rich intellectual, emotional, and social lives. It takes a souless person, Tony, to reify or objectify thinking, feeling individuals to the extent that you can eradicate them like a flea infestation, murdering them, tearing apart families, and leaving fawns motherless before they're self-sufficient.

And for you to present yourself as the only alternative to their blood-sport is both mendacious and representative of a false dichotomy. Like you, Tony, I'm a smart, educated man. So don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that it isn't possible to utilize a variety of nonlethal means to manage human-caused over-populations of wildlife. In this specific instance, we had Anthony Marr, In Defense of Animals, and thousands of grass roots activists around the world poised to pour their time, money, brainpower, and labor into creatively implementing a comprehensive nonlethal deer management plan in Death Park. JCPRD and KDWP let the deer overpopulation problem spiral out of control for several years and then simply marched in lock-step with the prevailing culture of death, anthropocentrism, and speciesism by paying you handsomely to slaughter our precious deer and by authorizing a bow hunt, which won't happen if my group has anything to say about it. You and your butchers have already plowed enough deer six feet under.

You, sir, are an abomination from a moral standpoint. And practically speaking, your're a dinosaur----a vestigial remnant of a culture of death that's gasping its last, choking on the noxious fumes of its own excrement. We've fouled our own nest to the extent that we, as a collective species, are drowning in our own effluent.

Meanwhile, empathy deficient bullies like you surf the wave of humanity's peak as "lords and masters" of the Earth. Be careful, Tony.

When Mother Nature reaches out and bitch slaps us (Homo rapiens), that wave will hurl you face-first into the craggy rocks hugging the shore-line and you and your pitiless cohorts are going to find yourselves mangled beyond recognition.

Regards,

Jason Miller
Senior Editor and Founder of Thomas Paine's Corner
Press Officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office
Founder of Bite Club of KC


More on Anthony DeNicola aka Dr. Death:

http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000431

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/cc2007-w-what.html

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

The CNN.com “Blogger Bunch” Discussion: Animal Liberation v. Vivisection



by Camille Marino

November 12, 2009

Simulposted with Negotiation Is Over

In lieu of the scientific debate that the vivisection community has consistently and adamantly refused to engage in, CNN.com aired a discussion focusing on animal liberation v. animal experimentation on November 11, 2009. Interestingly, neither J. David Jentsch nor Dario Ringach chose to appear, confirming that they have no desire to discuss their atrocities with a mainstream audience. It is obvious from this "Blogger Bunch" forum, however, why one-sided propaganda campaigns are embraced by UCLA Pro-Torture.

Click HERE to watch...

The panel included:

While there were no actual opening statements, arguments, or rebuttals, Michael Conn's comments were the most problematic and deceitful. If one were to award points for evading subject matter and long-winded factually-deficient diatribes, then, without question, Conn would be the uncontested winner. Tom Holder adhered to his standard industry lines which have already been addressed here. And, while Dr. Ray Greek and Peter Young attempted to cultivate a factual debate about issues, unfortunately, their adversaries were unwilling or unable to do so.



Some Major Issues

1) The first questions posed: (1) why do "researchers" experiment on nonhuman animals who react differently than humans? and (2) why are the same cruel experiments continuously repeatedly? I suspect that they are playing the law of averages, waiting for an isolated result that will provide fraudulent data. But I guess I'll never know the answer for sure because...

Michael Conn -- reminiscent of Sarah Palin -- decided he didn't like those questions. He decided to speak about something else entirely: If you do not have polio or if you have ever taken a drug, then you have benefited from vivisection. He proceeded on an insufferable and irrelevant tangent about how "you owe a debt to animal research" if you have ever used a pediatrician, veterinarian, pregnancy test, vaccine, or had a stroke. Constructing his strawman argument, Vivisector Conn essentially confirmed what we already knew -- that nonhuman animals were tortured with ruthless efficiency and packaged for profit in every perverse way imaginable. But he wholly evaded the real issue of whether or not those sadistic experiments were valid. Fortunately, there was a scientist on the panel...

Dr. Greek, a physician, spoke of the fact that drugs react differently in nonhuman animals than they do in people. "Animals simply cannot predict human response and, yet, that is exactly how people who earn their livlihood from using animals sell that animal use to society and that's just fraud, plain and simple... Of course you can grow things using animal eggs, etc. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether they predict human response and they just don't."

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="This 5-year-old male Rhesus macaque, known as Frak, is part of a U. study to test a neurally activated prosthetic arm. After the study, Frak is to live out his days in a primate sanctuary. Frak is among several research animals an animal-rights group alleges are being mistreated in violation of federal law at the U. following an eight-month undercover investigation. (Photo courtesy of the University of Utah)"][/caption]

2) Tom Holder -- he wants people to believe that "conditions in labs are spectacularly improved" from the fifties and sixties. And, as always, Holder advances an image of well-cared for and nurtured animals in a comfortable laboratory environment, he refuses to acknowledge that these victims are imprisoned and terrorized regularly. They are tortured, drugged, mutilated, and murdered at the hands of sociopaths in white lab coats. Yet Holder concludes that if you are against "animal research" then you are against "animal health and human health".

Peter Young cites an investigation into animal abuse at the University of Utah which was in the news as the debate aired, November 11, 2009. "Dr. Conn and Mr. Holder are lying to you. These pictures you see are not outdated. Every single time anyone cracks that veil of secrecy and goes into a lab they come out with horrific images every single time... EVERY SINGLE TIME." The Salt Lake City Tribune reports the following:


"PETA leaders contend their evidence reveals "flagrant disregard" for the animals' well-being and violations have become "business as usual" at the U.


"The ongoing lack of veterinary care means that animals who were already doomed to live and die in laboratories are suffering much more than they have to," said Kathy Guillermo, PETA's vice president over laboratory investigations.


The group plans to release video images it says show mice dead from neglect, dying mice bloated with ulcerated tumors, rabbits and cats with surgically implanted devices on their heads and spines, and U. lab staff, their faces blurred, casually describing deplorable conditions for the research animals.


"Betcha if you squeezed that, that would pop," a lab worker says, holding up a mouse with a bulging abdomen to the camera.


"How would you like to be sitting in a little square box with half your skin missing and your eyeball hanging out for a week, just shivering in trauma?" another mouse-lab worker says."





3) Michael Conn then says "the U.S. government does not tolerate bad actors." He also has the audacity to make the statement that the USDA overseas animal experimentation, therefore, ethical, well-trained professionals provide the utmost care ensuring humane treatment. But USDA Inspector Dr. Isis Johnson adamantly disagrees with the vivisector and discusses the futility of the Federal Animal Welfare Act. The following is an excerpt from Matt Rossell's Letter to the Editor of "The Scientist":

"Conn maintains that diligent inspections were conducted by USDA and other internal oversight committees. Compare Conn’s claim with the fact that the USDA inspector at the time, Dr. Isis Johnson Brown, was by my side at a press conference, having quit in frustration after her supervisors at the USDA failed to support her efforts to enforce the minimal requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Every news agency in Portland was on hand, and the following is part of what she had to say:



“While working for the United States Department of Agriculture as the inspector in Oregon for the Federal Animal Welfare Act, I was dedicated to providing the animals the protections, minimal as they are, that are stipulated by law. This is no easy task. As Oregon’s only inspector, I was responsible for the oversight of over 120 facilities throughout the state. I barely had time to visit each facility as required, which for some facilities was no more than once every three years. If that wasn’t enough, I soon found out that my own supervisors were working against me at every turn. The research institutions I visited, including the Oregon Primate Center, were not happy to see me coming once they realized that I was going to hold them to the law. This reaction I expected. What was surprising to me was my own supervisors were disappointed and unsupportive of my efforts to simply enforce the bare minimum standards in the Code of Federal Regulations. The USDA has a good ol’ boy relationship with the research industry and the laws are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. More than once, I was instructed by a supervisor to make a personal list of violations of the law, cut that list in half, and then cut that list in half again before writing up my inspection reports. My willingness to uphold the law during my site visits at the Primate Center led to me being “retrained” several times by higher-ups in the USDA.Understand that the laws I was attempting to enforce require no more than minimum standards— food and water, shelter from the elements, a clean cage that protects from injury and “adequate” veterinary care— that’s about it. At the Primate Center, the attending veterinarian tried to march me through as fast as he could. Only when I specifically asked to see a husbandry task, like cage washing, would he grudgingly show me. I would spot check records on paper but for the most part, I had to take the attending veterinarian on his word about procedures and veterinary care.”

Simply revealing the truth was what caused the “public relations nightmare” Conn describes as being so difficult for the primate center to deal with."


4) Dr. Ray Greek challenges Michael Conn to a debate: "I've offered to debate Drs. Ringach and Jentsch many times; they've always turned me down. The animal experimentation community does not want an open dialogue on this, they want to propagandize to the general public. Michael, if you're so convinced that you're right on this issue, let's have a public debate." But, whereas Jentsch and Ringach have refused the challenge, Michael Conn ended the discussion as he began it -- by evading Dr. Greek's offer and, instead, giving a literary critique of one of his books.


FOR THE RECORD, DR. GREEK CHALLENGED THE VIVISECTION COMMUNITY TO A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE TWO MORE TIMES IN THE LAST 24 HOURS, AND NOT ONE "RESEARCHER" IS WILLING TO DEFEND THE MERIT OF ANIMAL MUTILATION IN A PUBLIC FORUM.

Camille Marino, TPC’s Editor of Vegan Agitation, is an animal liberationist, an extraordinary agitator and activist, and is the founder and editor of Negotiation is Over. In her words, “It’s time to stop waving signs at cars or trying to enlighten the apathetic. The fight for the rights of non-human people is urgent and requires us to act outside the box.”

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

'Moral obligation is as extensive as the power to feel'



"Man's treatment of his fellow-men, and especially his conduct toward the forms of life differing anatomically from him, are such as to stamp him as being anything but an ideal animal—anywhere outside the psychologies of brigands, at any rate."

The New Ethics

By J. Howard Moore

London, 1907

The inhabitants of the earth are bound to each other by the ties and obligations of a common kinship. Man is simply one of a series of sentients, differing in degree, but not in kind, from the beings below, above, and around him. The Great Law—ACT TOWARD OTHERS AS YOU WOULD ACT TOWARD A PART OF YOUR OWN SELF—is a law not applicable to Aryans only, but to all men; and not to men only, but to all beings. There is the same obligation to act toward a German, a Japanese, or a Filipino, as one acts toward a part of his own organism, as there is to act in this way toward Americans or Englishmen; and, furthermore, there is the same reason for acting in this manner toward horses, cats, dogs, birds, fishes, as there is in acting so toward men. Restricting the application of this all-inclusive injunction to the human species is a practice dictated solely by human selfishness and provincialism. The restriction is made, not because we are logical, but because we are diminutive.

How would it be for some other distinct group of the inhabitants of a world, to cut themselves off ethically from the rest, observing in their conduct toward each other THE GREAT LAW of social propriety, but ignoring this law in their conduct toward others, and acting toward all others, although these others were like them in every essential respect, as if they were without any of the ordinary rights and sensibilities of a common consciousness? Is it probable that men would have any difficulty in seeing clearly the untenableness of such an attitude? And yet it would be just as logical for any other group of animals to do this as it is for men to do it. The philosophies of this world have all been framed by, and from the standpoint of, a single species, and they are still managed and maintained in the interests of this species. What insects! The breadth of human sympathy and understanding is the catholicity of katydids who never see beyond the hedgerows that bound the little meadow in which they sing their lives away.



Moral practice and understanding are everywhere tribal and antagonistic. They have been inherited, not reasoned out. They have been handed along to us, not generated by us. They have come about as a result of the militant condition of things in the midst of which and in conformity with which life has been developed on the earth.

The ideal conception of social obligation is bigger than family and friends, bigger than the city and state in which one happens to be born and raised, bigger than species, bigger even than the particular world of which one is a tenant. There are no aliens anywhere, not even in hell, to the being who is as big morally as he ought to be—only brothers. The universal heart goes out in tenderness beyond all boundaries of form and color and architecture and accident of birth—into every place where quivers a living soul. The Great Law is for the healing and consolation of all. Moral obligation is as extensive as the power to feel. […]

Man has defined himself as the "paragon of creation."

This is an overestimate. Man is no more a model animal than the universe is a model universe. They are both of them very immodel, as every one must know who has powers of understanding exceeding those of the infant.

Man is a bigot, and in his conception of himself and in his estimate of the relative importance of himself and others, he is true to the weaknesses of his kind. But, omitting altogether the question of whether man is the masterpiece of the universe or not, we may affirm with perfect confidence, and without fear of contradiction, that if man is the paragon of the universe, the universe has no cause for dry eyes.

Man's treatment of his fellow-men, and especially his conduct toward the forms of life differing anatomically from him, are such as to stamp him as being anything but an ideal animal—anywhere outside the psychologies of brigands, at any rate.

Human beings have been sufficiently enterprising and sufficiently devoted to each other to evolve into the master of the earth; but instead of recognizing their responsibilities and converting themselves into preceptors for the vanquished races, as an ideal race would have done, they have become the butchers of the universe. Instead of becoming the models and schoolmasters of the world in which they have outstripped, and striving to improve the faulty natures, and guide the wayward feet of those by means of whom they have been hoisted into distinction, they have become colossal pedants, proclaiming themselves the pets and specials of creation, and teaching each other that other races are mere things to furnish pasture and pastime for them. They preach that it is the ideal relation of associated beings for each to act toward the others in the way in which he himself would like to have others act toward him. This ideal of social rectitude was discovered two or three thousand years ago, and has been taught by the sages of the species ever since. But in the application of this rule human beings restrict it hypocritically to the members of their own species. No nonhuman is innocent enough, or is sufficiently sensitive, intelligent, or beautiful, to be exempt from the most frightful wrongs, if by these wrongs human comfort, curiosity, or pastime are in any way whatever catered to. Our own happiness, and that of our species, are assumed to be so pre-eminent that we sacrifice without hesitancy the most sacred interests of others, in order that our own may be carefully provided for. Even for a tooth or a feather to wear on human vanity, forests are silenced and communities littered with the dead and dying. Beautiful beings that fill the groves with song and juvenility are compelled to sprawl lifeless and disheveled on the heads of unconscionable sillies. […]

Look at the scenes to be met with in our great cities! They are sufficient to horrify any being susceptible enough to the sufferings of others to be rated as one-fifth civilized. An army of butchers standing in blood ankle-deep and plunging great knives into writhing, shrieking living beings; helpless swine swinging by their hinders with their blood gushing from their slashed jugulars; unsuspecting oxen with trustful eyes looking up at the deadly pole-ax, and a moment later lying aquiver under its relentless thud; an atmosphere in perpetual churn with the groans and screams of the dying; streets thronged with unprocessioned funerals; dead bodies dangling from sale hooks or sprawling on chopping blocks; men and women going about praying and preaching, and sitting down two or three times a day and pouncing on the uncoffined remains of some poor creature cut down for them by the callous hands of hired cutthroats—such are the sights in all our streets and stockyards, and such are the crimes inflicted day after day by Christian cannibals on the defenseless dumb ones of this world.

Oh this killing, killing, killing—this awful, never-stopping, never-ending, worldwide butchery! What a world! "Ideal"?—and "perfect"?—and "all-wise"? Certainly—to tigers, and highwaymen, and people who are sound asleep; but to everybody else it is simply monstrous.

We are nothing but a lot of ferocious humbugs—that is the long and the short of it—leading lives all the way from a tenth to two-thirds decent in our conduct towards our fellow men, but almost absolutely savage in our treatment of not-men. A being who can look without weeping on the heart-rending facts that fill the cities of our so-called civilization has a psychology granitic enough to gaze unmoved on a hellful of roasting souls.

The Chicago stockyards alone grind up annually 4,500,000 sheep, 5,500,000 cattle, 450,000 calves, and 10,000,000 hogs-20,500,000 living beings a year, or an average of over 100 a minute during every ten-hour working day!

What a mill! Just think of it! You who find it hard to realize vividly, and who stand blank and unconcerned in the presence of horrors that ought to make your very viscera crawl, and the very stones at your feet rise up, just remember, as you go about your daily duties, wherever you are and whatever you may be doing, that every time the clock strikes, 6,500 innocent, intelligent, and highly sensitive beings have had their heads smashed with an axe, and their throats lunged through, and have struggled, and shuddered, and seen the world vanish from their eyes, here in these godless charnels. And remember, too, that this appalling carnage goes on, and on, and on, day after day, month after month, year after year.

"What for"? Why, bless your life! In order that men and women may pray for mercy, and preach the Golden Rule, and deplore injustice, with their bellies full of blood!

I would like to retain respect for the religion of my boyhood, but when I see that religion look with indifference, and even levity, upon a hemorrhage wide as the continents, and horrible even to "heathens"—not only wink at it, but apologize for it, and even belittle those few emancipated souls who are trying to stop it—I can but feel that such a faith has no just claims on the allegiance of thinking men. "Does it not shame you," cried "pagan" Plutarch away in the dawning, "to mingle blood and murder with Nature's beneficent fruits? Other carnivora you call savage and ferocious—lions, tigers, and serpents—yet you yourselves come behind them in no species of barbarity." Men and women who hold shares in the responsibility for the common crimes of our civilization would do better to stop giving money for missionaries and begin on themselves; for they commit every day of their lives greater crimes and more of them than the so-called heathens they are trying to "convert" ever dream of. The gods pity this world if we have got to go on for ever as we have in the past—a globeful of lip-virtuous felons!

It has been claimed that man cannot be a consistent humanitarian, because it is necessary for him to exploit others in various ways in order to provide for his own needs and desires.

This is the most common objection. ... It is the most common because it is the most selfish. So prominent is egoism in human psychology, and in the philosophies that have sprung from that psychology, that the most natural and convincing objections to any proposition are those prompted by and appealing to the selfish instincts. The question that arises in the mind of the ordinary man when a change in the arrangements of the world is suggested to him is not what will be the effect of the change on the universe, but what will be its effect on him—on that remarkable atom of the universe so zealously partitioned off from the rest of his own skin. Man has been so long accustomed to the undisputed privilege of spoliation, and has so long and so brilliantly imagined himself to be all there is in the world, that a proposition denying this privilege, however fair the proposition may be from an impartial point of view, is promptly classified as the allegation of a zany, and is supposed to be conclusively disposed of when it is shown to be capable of interfering with human convenience or pleasure.

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Spin is not the same as a debate

protest

By Ray Greek MD

November 10, 2009

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

Dr. Dario Ringach has posted an essay titled “Opponents of animal research should get their facts right” on the Speaking of Research website. In his essay Dr. Ringach creates the illusion that 30,000 scientists support using animals in research and that the only people opposing such use are misanthropic nonscientists. There are several falsehoods in his essay.



1. A vast majority of the scientific community does not see animal models as predictive for humans. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole is working to find predictive tests as animals have not been and even the National Cancer Institute has said society has lost cures for cancer because of misleading effects in mice. The people who support animal use regardless of efficacy are those who pay their mortgages with the proceeds from the enterprise. Upton Sinclair in his book I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935) said “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

2. Dr. Ringach uses the usual bait and switch technique of confusing basic research with predictive research. Society is uncomfortable with using animals in research but tolerates it because they have been told, by those who use animals, that cures will be forthcoming. When society asks, “Where are the cures?” the researchers respond that the research they are doing is basic research which is not goal oriented and hence was never supposed to lead to cures. They are pursuing knowledge for knowledge sake and maybe that knowledge will someday lead to cures but maybe it will not. This rhetoric is necessary, as numerous scientific studies have proven beyond doubt that animals cannot be used to predict human response to drugs or disease. However, society will only allow animals such as monkeys and chimpanzees to be used in research if they believe that such animals are surrogate humans and can be used to predict human response. The basic researcher’s dishonesty tells us mush about their priorities.

3. Dr. Ringach uses the fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and lists supposed historical examples he claims society has only because of using animals in science. Neither of these things is science. One is a fallacy hence should alert the reader to the strength of Dr. Ringach’s argument and the other is unverifiable without extreme effort on the reader’s part. No reader is going to exert that kind of extreme effort so Ringach is safe in making his case.

I could continue to point out the flaws in Dr. Ringach’s essay specifically but have done this in general in a book authored by Niall Shanks and myself, Animal Models in Light of Evolution. However, there is another way to allow society to judge for themselves who is right on this issue. Hubert H. Humphrey said, “The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously.” Facts matter more than rhetoric. Society needs to know the facts and understand this issue because lives depend upon the outcome. With that in mind, I have on numerous occasions asked Dr. Ringach and his colleague at UCLA, Dr. Jentsch, to debate this issue in a public forum on the UCLA campus. They have declined. (Although I hear they are trying to arrange a panel discussion with nonscientists, who know nothing about the issue, or scientists who more or less agree with them. Perhaps they hope that by having such a fiasco they can claim they have honestly debated the issue.)

Sometimes researchers present a sweat-drenched fear of public debate because of threats to their life. The fact is, I have probably had as many if not more threats to my life as any of them have. (A little publicized fact.) What they really fear is public exposure to the facts. Furthermore, this excuse does not play when the forum for the debate is a college campus complete with security and metal detectors. If the researcher is as scared as many suggest he is then he should not be walking around campus or driving to the store but rather staying at home 24/7. Clearly this excuse has more to do with not wanting the facts exposed to the light of public debate than actual rational fear.

Hubert H. Humphrey also said, “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.” I agree. If researchers like Ringach want society to believe their rhetoric then let them engage in a time honored American tradition and debate the science behind their claim that animals are predictive for humans. I am still available.

Ray Greek MD
President,
Americans For Medical Advancement

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

“Researchers” Panic When They Are Exposed



November 9, 2009 — Negotiation Is Over

NIO Editorial Note: It is not animal rights activists that vivisectors fear, it is exposure. To illustrate this indisputable fact, the Star Tribune published the following report in response to a post on NIO last week, Pro-Vivisection Activism: Promoting Violence Against Animals

Simulposted with The Star Tribune: Group targets U animal scientist (by Jim Spencer)

The school raised security around one of its researchers after an animal activist group singled him out on its website.

University of Minnesota police have increased patrols near the home of a Medical School animal researcher after a posting on an animal activist website displayed his name and photograph and noted that “… we should not be surprised when the unconscionable violence inflicted upon animals is justifiably visited upon their tormentors.”

The Internet posting went up late last week on the website NegotiationIsOver.com in reaction to a Star Tribune story about a multimillion-dollar national campaign by biomedical researchers, including U Prof. Dick Bianco, to increase lagging support for medical and scientific tests using animals.



“The university police are patrolling around my house now,” said Bianco, an associate professor of surgery and director of experimental surgery. “The FBI is involved to assess the threat.”

FBI spokesman E.K. Wilson said: “I can’t confirm or deny an investigation. But we have talked to Professor Bianco and received his information. We are reviewing and assessing it and coordinating with the University of Minnesota Police Department.”

Greg Hestness, the U’s chief of police, said the school has invested in security measures for staff and facilities “since prior attacks” at the university seven years ago.

Animal activist Camille Marino wrote the article and published Bianco’s photo and contact information on NegotiationIsOver.com. “These abusers need to understand that their unethical behaviors entail tangible consequences,” she wrote.

Marino said Monday that the FBI has not contacted her.

Marino said she had “no expectation” of what people reading the website should do to Bianco or Frankie Trull, who directs the Research Saves campaign for the Foundation for Biomedical Research. On the website, Marino wrote that “my activism is wholly above-ground and, therefore, I would never encourage any activity that is illegal or otherwise questionable.”

In an interview, she said: “I believe there is a moral obligation to prevent violence against innocent beings, whether they are animals or humans. If violence will prevent that, it would be justified.”

Concern over such statements arises from recent violent attacks on researchers by extreme animal activists. Scientists in California have had cars bombed, property set afire and family members harassed.

Bianco called the language of Marino’s essay “right on the edge.” “It borders on inciting people to violence,” he said.

Bianco, who plays an active part in the animal research campaign and invites high school students to his lab to see how he conducts research, has received anonymous death threats in the past. His office and lab include panic switches that set off an alarm in the U’s police headquarters.

Bianco said he will be careful in the coming weeks. “This is as bad as I’ve heard it,” he said of the website posting. “It doesn’t hurt to be safe.”

Camille Marino, TPC’s Editor of Vegan Agitation, is an animal liberationist, an extraordinary agitator and activist, and is the founder and editor of Negotiation is Over. In her words, “It’s time to stop waving signs at cars or trying to enlighten the apathetic. The fight for the rights of non-human people is urgent and requires us to act outside the box.”

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Who Owns Ya, Baby?



By Vi Ransel

10/28/09

Corporations are "inhuman entities" (Jon Faulkner) whose single, and legally mandated purpose, is to turn the Earth, and all its resources, including human resources, into profit for its shareholders – as long as they stay within the law (that they have written). Ask Milton Friedman.

And when human beings surround themselves with the mantle of these entities, 3-pound cheeseburger in hand as they talk into a Blue Tooth while driving an SUV; when human beings are owned by them by reason of debt for resin gnomes made in China, for McMansions made of pressed sawdust patties, for education that mis-educates, for healthcare/insurance that "lives" off the diabetes, heart disease, obesity and cancers created by the producers of food-like products polluted with the same poisonous organophosphates developed to gas soldiers in World War I and refined for use on Jews in World War II and mainline its media like junkies; when human beings prostrate themselves before these entities, willing to call the choice from among thousands of shiny, branded commodities freedom, they trade their identity, their soul, their "selves" for these poisonous, quality-less "products," which are nothing more than a means to relieve them of the money they received for the work of creating all the wealth that made the production of those tawdry trinkets possible in the first place.



Because industrial/manufacturing corporations wanted cheaper labor costs, they shipped US manufacturing out of the country in order to raise their profits. Now American workers, whose jobs they've downsized, outsourced, and contracted-out, no longer have the money to buy what those corporations have manufactured offshore. The finance corporations rode to their fellow corporations' rescue by stepping in with debt in the form of a plastic I.O.U. card/slave chain to be waved whenever the purchase of those resin gnomes, sawdust homes, mis-education, poisonous food-like products, gas for SUVs, electronic distractions or healthcare is desired. The Treadmill of Endless Purchase, itself a church, goes on. The offshored manufacturing corporations are paid by the finance corporations who hold our I.O.U.s and we continue to ride the destinationless merry-go-round of debt slavery with an occasional stop by an ever-increasing number of us in Poverty Land.

The less individual thought, the less knowledge available, the more profit created. The more we THINK about a purchase, the less likely we are to make it, and the more time we might use to think about who's in charge here, the majority of the American people or just the few behind the corporate cloaking device. And besides, if you don't use your time to think, you can use it to by more stuff. And buying stuff is more fun than participatory democracy. Ignorance is easier than thinking. And, no, "we" can't have thinking.

Knowledge is dangerous. Knowledge creates doubt. Knowledge is power. That's why we're not allowed to have it. That's why it's missing in our mis-education and corporate "entertainews." That's why it was illegal to teach slaves to read. That's what pissed off the Church about the printing press. And that's why knowledge (of good and evil) was given the rap of original sin.

The less you know, the more of everything the Rich or the Church - or insert your choice of tyrant here - gets to keep without your even questioning it. You have no information on which to base a question. All you have is what's fed to you by the corporations who own 80% of the media. And they have answered all the questions that need to be asked, in their opinion, that is. That's the way things are, the way they were and the way they always will be. I learned that in catechism. Or was that "God always was, always will be and always remains the same?" Or perhaps, TINA - There is no alternative. Ask Margaret Thatcher. Or corporate capitalism is the logical and benevolent end of history. Ask Francis Fukiyama. Or, the common people don't need to know nuthin'. We'll tell them what they think. Leo Strauss.

When we willingly surrender our identity, our free will, our ability to make meaningful choices, we become truly one of the herd, a follower allowed only the facade of choice. The choices that matter will be made FOR us. What a relief. Thinking is hard work. Morality is too much responsibility. Drink the Kool-Aid. Swallow the pill. Shut your eyes. Relax into the waterboard of consumerism’s faux-individuality, based entirely on repetitive and addictive choices from among thousands of meaningless choices proffered by the masters behind the corporate curtain, whose only actual product is slavery, both mental and financial.

Vi Ransel, TPC’s Senior Editor of Anti-Capitalism, is a researcher and poet of exceptional caliber. Very little is known about her.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Pro-Vivisection Activism: Promoting Violence Against Animals



“In still a further sign of desperation, vivisectionists have also erected billboards claiming the Los Angeles populace is free of, get this, leprosy, because of animal experimentation. There were 91 cases of leprosy, or Hansen’s Disease, in the entire United States in 2000; treatment has been effective since at least the 1940’s, with new drug regimens in place to counter resistance to the causative bacterium since the 1980’s. Implying that the continued killing of animals in the 21st century is a “necessary evil” to prevent leprosy is just another attempt to keep UCLA rolling in research grant money, most of it taxpayer funds wasted on addicting non-human primates to methamphetamines and other utterly ridiculous, useless and cruel experiments.”

November 5, 2009 — Negotiation Is Over

by Camille Marino

According to an article published on Wednesday, November 4, in the Star Tribune, a decline in public support for sadistic animal experimentation has prompted an aggressive $1 million propaganda campaign by the Foundation for Biomedical Research.

Sinking equally as low as UCLA Pro-Test did with their full-page advertisement in the L.A. Times, 15 billboards in the Twin Cities employ empty rhetoric bereft of any scientific merit in an attempt to mislead the public:

“Ever had leprosy? Thanks to animal research, you won’t.“

The North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO) recently addressed this nonsensical claim:

“In still a further sign of desperation, vivisectionists have also erected billboards claiming the Los Angeles populace is free of, get this, leprosy, because of animal experimentation. There were 91 cases of leprosy, or Hansen’s Disease, in the entire United States in 2000; treatment has been effective since at least the 1940’s, with new drug regimens in place to counter resistance to the causative bacterium since the 1980’s. Implying that the continued killing of animals in the 21st century is a “necessary evil” to prevent leprosy is just another attempt to keep UCLA rolling in research grant money, most of it taxpayer funds wasted on addicting non-human primates to methamphetamines and other utterly ridiculous, useless and cruel experiments.”

Frankie Trull is founder and president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research. She is also president of the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), the nation’s leading lobby advocating exploitation of helpless animals. Trull is a vocal cheerleader for regimented torture which she euphemistically refers to as “biomedical research and testing.“ I can only imagine that Tom Holder hopes to one day fill her skirt.

[Frankie Trull, Founder & President of FBR: 818 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20006 Tel: (202) 457-0654 Fax: (202) 457- 0659 email: info@fbresearch.org]



Fearing that Americans’ support for animal mutilation will drop below 50 percent next year, she is concerned that legislative and regulatory “research” restrictions would have a huge impact on profit margins.

Dick Bianco, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Minnesota Medical School, is part of the campaign. Unconcerned with science or facts, he is focused on manipulating public perception by any means necessary: “If we could get a celebrity, that would change everything.”

[Richard W. Bianco, Department of Surgery Experimental Surgical Services 420 Delaware Street SE Mayo Mail Code 220 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612-625-5914 Fax: 612-626-6949 Email: bianc001@umn.edu]

We cannot be complacent. Abusers across the country are standing up and actively advocating violence against animals. The capitalists are using their money and power, targeted propaganda campaigns, and, with a little help from Dick, they will soon be enlisting celebrities. Paris Hilton, perhaps? What about Bart Simpson? It remains to be seen how low these parasites will stoop.



THIS IS URGENT: Animal Rights Activists Need to Use Every Tool Available

Nonhuman animals are being targeted by Pharma, their lobbyists, and the professional sadists in white lab coats. We don’t have the money to counter this unprecedented wave of “ANIMAL ABUSE ACTIVISM”, but we have many options. My activism in wholly above-ground and, therefore, I would never encourage any activity that is illegal or otherwise questionable. But, clearly, the time for civil dialogue is over. And we should not be surprised when the unconscionable violence inflicted upon animals is justifiably visited upon their tormentors. Sadists will never be persuaded to be decent human beings. These abusers need to understand that their unethical behaviors entail tangible consequences. Perhaps one day soon vivisectors may look back on the good old days when direct action meant ALF property damage.

Animal liberationists have many resources available and they need to be used to our greatest advantage.

1) INFORMATION IS OUR BEST FRIEND: As long as the animal terrorists continue to step into the mainstream forum, their readily-available public-domain information will continue to be published on Negotiation Is Over. While all communication should be respectful and non-threatening, animal rights activists have a responsibility to engage this element — by written word or in person — and be uncompromising in our position. Until the animals can live in peace, no one deserves to live in peace — certainly not their tormentors.

2) INFORMATION IS OUR BEST FRIEND: An effective method of countering a capitalist-funded propaganda campaign in to coordinate a media campaign of our own. I suggest that one day a week, Mondays, be set aside to blog about nothing other than “ANIMAL ABUSE ACTIVISTS” and their misinformation campaigns. Every single person reading this article can register at blogspot.com and proceed to publish the names and contact information of those advocating violence. (Or, forward it to me and I will publish the information.) In addition, we need to advance real science: the lies being generated by terrorist organizations such as Pro-Test for Science (formerly UCLA Pro-Test) and the BRF needs to be assessed and deconstructed. I personally know of several active scientists and anti-vivisectionists in the NIO community who’s expertise I hope to draw on.

This is simple. We can set aside one day a week to address the “ANIMAL ABUSE ACTIVISTS” and link our blogs in a network of comprehensive coverage — the sadists, the lies, the misinformation. I am appealing to everyone: contact me at camille@negotiationisover.com and take a stand with NIO.

3) INFORMATION IS OUR BEST FRIEND: Irrespective of the tactics each of us employs — and make no mistake, the spectrum of available tools needs to be employed — solid information is essential. I invite everyone to weigh in with comments, suggestions and creative strategies to counter the “ANIMAL ABUSE ACTIVISTS”. They have the money and power. We have the passion and drive.

WE CANNOT BE COMPLACENT!

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

HUNTING – the war on wildlife



Simulposted with Animal Rights Africa

Hunters are killers, plain and simple. Let us not mince words. Hunters try to justify their violent pastime, but whatever they say to the contrary, hunting is the premeditated, cold-blooded killing of innocent animals.
The object of the hunt is to kill animals. Hunters argue that it is not just about killing. They claim that the camaraderie, nature appreciation, exercise, nature education, and so-called conservation benefits are just as important a part of the hunt as the actual killing or attempted killing of the target animal.

But most people can appreciate and learn about nature and also contribute to nature conservation efforts without having to kill animals, and by doing their shooting with a camera instead of a gun or bow.

Do hunters really care?

It is ludicrous to believe that someone who actively sets out to kill a healthy animal for fun, trophy or profit really cares about wild animals specifically or nature in general. Photographs of smiling hunters posing with their dead victims hardly reflect the kind of “caring” that most normal people relate to. If hunters are the “true” conservationists they claim to be, and really do care about animals, they would pursue every humane, non-lethal possibility or means of caring for wild animals and the environment. Instead, their solution to any perceived problem with animals is to reach for the gun. Why is it that hunters, as so-called conservationists, are interested only in those animals that are most attractive as trophies, most enjoyable to eat or most “challenging” to hunt?



Do hunters pay for conservation?

Killing wild animals is big business, and there are lots of people who make a lot of money out of it. Those who encourage and participate in hunting form part of a multi-million Rand industry that will fight to its last breath to stay in business. Manufacturers and marketers of hunting gear and clothing, guns and ammunition, bows and arrows, camping equipment and much more have a vested interest in promoting hunting as a good, healthy outdoor sport for the whole family. The more hunters out there killing, the more they sell.

Game ranchers and provincial and national conservation authorities generate millions of Rands annually by selling wild animals to private game farmers where hunters pay exorbitant fees to kill them for fun, trophy or meat.

As with every other type of institutionalised animal abuse, hunting will not easily be abolished in spite of relentless pressure from animal rightists. What makes hunting relatively easy to defend is that the hunters have spread a false message that it is they who fund conservation, and that were it not for them, most conservation areas currently in private ownership would convert to agricultural land with the total loss of the wildlife at present on that land. This implies, firstly, that the only justification for maintaining wild animals on the land is to generate funds from hunting, and, secondly, that all land which is not profitable game ranching land must automatically be taken over by environmentally destructive agriculture. This is absolute nonsense.

Conservation and the protection of wild animals must be funded from ethically acceptable sources, including a conservation levy on all profits from the sale of goods or services which have their origin in any natural resource. Wildlife and environment conservation must not be abandoned to an animal-unfriendly system that uses profit to justify the killing of healthy, defenseless animals. By allowing hunters to make the claim that they “pay for conservation”, human society is failing in its responsibility to wildlife. The fate of wild animals has literally been abandoned into the hands of killers.

Do hunters fulfil the role of predator?

Definitely not. Hunters will not miss out on any opportunity to cover themselves in glory, even to the point of claiming the role of natural predator in those areas where natural predators have been eradicated or do not occur.
But as so-called predator, the hunter selects only the finest specimens to kill. This is in direct contradiction of the role of true predators, who hunt the old, disabled and unwary and in so doing maintain the health of the populations. Predators too old, disabled or incompetent are also preyed on, but not by human hunters who only want healthy specimens in the prime of life.

The sustained killing of prime specimens of any population or species leads to debilitation of the gene pool and can hasten the rate at which that population or species becomes endangered or even extinct. No natural predator would act in this manner unless in very unnatural and exceptional circumstances. Natural and balanced predator/prey relationships lead to healthy populations of both the prey and the predator species.

Why hunting is wrong!

Hunting is wrong because for no good reason it violates the most basic right of any living creature – the right to life. According to hunters, they only shoot animals who are surplus or excessive to the carrying capacity of the land or who are old or injured . They claim that their killing is done for humane and practical reasons, and that an untimely death by bullet or arrow is preferable to death from natural causes.

All of this presumes that animals who are killed or wounded by human hunters, endure less fear, stress and pain than those animals dying from natural causes, including predation.

It is a fact that hunters kill for the pleasure, the satisfaction and the boost it gives their fragile egos. This makes killing seem like an honorable pastime that others should strive to emulate. It relegates animals to the status of utility items that exist to pleasure humans, and if that pleasure lies in the killing of an animal, then so be it.

Hunting simply perpetuates the ethically indefensible conception that animals exist for humans. And nothing more emphatically emphasises this misconception than when humans deliberately track down a wild animal and kill it for fun, trophy or profit. This shows an absolute disregard by hunters for the right of wild animals to live out their lives as nature intended, in circumstances which allow them to enjoy the diverse experiences of living in their natural environment. And for as long as hunters are allowed to conduct their bloody war on innocent wild animals with the sanction of civil society, then every human in that society shares in the guilt of the wrongdoing.

Also, when a hunter removes the body of the animal he/she has killed, this in fact robs that ecosystem of the nutrients locked up in that animal’s body. Every animal is composed entirely of elements accumulated within the ecosystem in which that animal has lived. When an animal dies of natural causes, the body is decomposed or consumed within that ecosystem, and the elements which made up the body are released back into that ecosystem and recycled through other plants and animals. When a hunter removes the dead animal from that ecosystem, the elements contained in that body are lost to the ecosystem.

Considering the weapons used by hunters today, it is an understatement to say that a targeted animal has little or no chance of avoiding being killed or wounded. The distance from which a hunter can deliver a fatal shot far exceeds the distance from which a natural predator could successfully attack it’s intended prey. Wild animals have not yet evolved the instinct required to keep modern hunters at a “safe” distance.

Man has always hunted

There is a very clear attempt by hunters to defend their bloody sport by claiming that it is in the human genes to hunt. This is absolutely not true. Hunters are conditioned into hunting by their peers and by an industry, which in various ways encourages people to become hunters by associating it with manhood, adventure and even Divine decree.
What this implies is that humans are incapable of evolving into more civilised, caring and tolerant beings. Fortunately nothing could be further from the truth. There is hope for a future in which animals are respected for their inherent value, and that those laws which now give humans the “right” to own and abuse animals will be replaced by popular laws which protect the rights of all animals, just as they now protect the rights of all humans.

Hunters and criticism

Hunters are notoriously intolerant of anyone who questions their so-called “ethics” or who dares to criticise their violent pastime. Anyone who opposes the killing of innocent animals by hunters is labeled a “bunny-hugger”, “unrealistic”, “impractical”, “emotional”, “ignorant”, “humaniac”, even a “terrorist” if you happen to be an animal rightist.

Any critics of hunting are so ridiculed that both they and civil society at large are cowed into a state of silent acceptance of hunting as an indispensable, even honorable, component of orthodox conservation policy and practice.

That hunters have to go to ever-greater lengths to defend their actions to an increasingly critical, well-informed public, is encouraging. However, the use of terms such as “sustainable use” and “wise use” have become the everyday language of hunters and are intended to give legitimacy to their killing.

It is also an unfortunate reality that most wildlife-related NGO’s are dominated by people who are themselves hunters or who see no wrong in others killing wild animals for fun, profit or trophy. Most ordinary members of these organisations are quickly indoctrinated into accepting that hunting is a necessary evil that goes hand in hand with so-called “sustainable use”. Those who criticise the hunting aspect of “sustainable use” are ostracised and sidelined within the organisations of which they are members.

What you can do to oppose hunting

1. Join JA and become an anti-hunting activist
2. Write to provincial and national conservation authorities and object to the opening of conservation areas to hunters
3. Let hunters know that you are opposed to their violent pastime
4. Don’t visit conservation areas which allow hunting
5. Don’t purchase the by-products of hunting i.e venison, biltong, animal skins, curios from hunted animals
6. Boycott stores that sell hunting equipment and promote hunting
7. Write anti-hunting letters to newspapers and magazines
8. Support campaigns to end hunting
9. Do not join or support conservation organisations that promote or tolerate hunting as an acceptable component of “sustainable use”.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Stop Killing Deer



By Anthony Marr

Simulposted by Heal Our Planet Earth

Without a doubt, the biggest and hottest wildlife issue concerns deer “management”. Biggest because well over 10 million deer were killed by hunters in 2006, plus another 1 million died in deer-vehicle accidents (DVAs) which also involve human fatalities, plus the fact that massive culling of urban and suburban deer is spreading like wildfire across the land. And hottest because the 30-states-in-5-months (July-December) Compassion for Animals Road Expedition #5 (CARE-5 or Deer Tour) of Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) is making it so.

The first point I make here can cause wide-spread controversy and confrontation between hunters and anti-hunters. Hunters blame deer overpopulation for causing the DVAs as justification for the massive killing of deer in the eyes of the non-hunting yet safety-conscious public, but I contend that the DVAs are at least in part deliberately caused by none other than the hunters themselves.

Although only 6% of the American public hunt, they still amount to millions of deer hunters. To ensure themselves of enough deer to hunt, they use feed plots in the wild to artificially boost the deer population to “overpopulation” levels, which then causes high DVA rates.



Not only this. Ask any major insurance company what day of the year has the highest DVA rate, and you will likely be told that it is the opening day of the deer hunting season, and that the two months of the hunting season account for about half of the year’s DVA total.

It is circular logic, by hunters, for hunters. Unfortunately, the public usually sees only one segment of the circle, namely that there is a high DVA rate and therefore deer hunting is a necessary evil. Most have never even heard of feed plots.

Even fewer have heard of New Jersey’s recently challenged “Title 13”, which stipulated that of the eleven voting members of the Fish and Game council, at least seven must be “sportsmen”, i.e. hunters. It is hunting policy by hunters, for hunters.

The second point to be made here will likely arouse an even greater consternation, because the deer killings occur not somewhere out beyond the mountains, but right in a neighbor’s backyard, when children are coming home from school or in the middle of the night. The people are told that there too is a deer overpopulation problem, and that culling is the only way to go. Seeing no viable non-lethal alternative, they abide in resignation, even though they abhor the practice.

The culling occur in one of three ways: by sharpshooting over bait, trap-and-bolt, or bow-hunting.

Sharpshooting: e.g., the city of Solon, Ohio, population only 30,000, spent over $500,000 in 2003/2004 to cull 1,000 deer by professional sharpshooter. In 2006, they had to shoot again.

Trap-and-Bolt: by which a 4” steel bolt is fired into the brain of the deer. Sounds simple, but it is not. Bolting is the way by which cows and pigs are killed. Deer are not quite so docile. They thrash around, sometimes breaking their legs in the process, and the bolts hit them in the nose, in the face, in the eyes... Video evidence has it that a net-trapped deer took minutes to die.

Bow hunting: a cruel method even on the standard of hunting, where the wounding rate is some 55%, meaning that for every 100 arrow-shot deer, 55 stagger around with arrows imbedded in some non-vital area, for days, weeks, even months. Another stat says that for every deer killed by an arrow, 17 arrows would have been shot, which begs the question as to where the other 16 went.

It is not that non-lethal deer management methods do not exist. There are deer repellents and deer deterrents and fence types and contraception and relocation technologies in abundance. Proper fencing of a high DVA roadway can reduce the DVAs by over 95%, whereas even if 50% of a deer herd is culled, the DVAs can be reduced by little more than 25%.

And it is not that culling really works in reducing deer population. Consider is the Compensatory Rebound Effect, by which a sudden increase in food resources due to a sudden decrease in the population induces a high reproductive rate. A culled deer herd can regain full strength in 1-3 years. This necessitates repeated culling, which of course is good for the culler. On the other hand, the fence, once built will last 25 years, so it is much more economical in the long run.

The hunting and culling industries maintain that even non-lethal strategies must have lethal components, specifically, that even if the immunocontraception technologies are commercially available, the herd must first be culled down to the desired level before contraception can take over. Not so. Today’s proven one-shot/multi-year techniques can achieve a zero reproductive rate for at least three years. Within 4-5 years, the population will have declined by natural causes to the desired level, when limited fertility can then resume. In the mean time, the initially overpopulated deer can be sustained by feeding to alleviate the pressure on the environment. These technologies have reached a point of maturity where general certification by the Environmental Protection Agency is imminent (probably in 2008).

The lethal methods have been riding on delaying the certification, that is, delaying the inevitable. Their days are numbered. The Deer Tour will exert whatever power at its disposal to hasten their demise.

Anthony Marr, founder
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.myspace.com.AnthonyMarr
www.ARConference.org
www.DeerOptions.com

Anthony Marr, TPC’s Senior Editor of Ecological Crisis and Wildlife Defense, has a degree in physics, and has worked as a field geophysicist and an environmental technologist; was born in China, lives in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and travels world-wide 6 months every year; has been to Africa to observe the wildlife situation first hand (~1980): has performed undercover operations and media campaigns in all the major Chinatowns of North America, to rid them of endangered species products (1995 onward); led the “highest profile Canadian wildlife campaign in 1996″ regarding trophy hunting of Grizzly bears in British Columbia; has led three deep-rural-India expeditions to help save the subcontinent’s wildlife habitat and ecosystems, resulting in being honored as the “Champion of the Bengal Tiger” in the award-winning TV documentary series Champions of the Wild aired in 20 countries worldwide (1997-1999); has conducted two overt/covert missions in Japan against whaling and the dolphin capture and slaughter (2004 & 2005); has since 2003 completed 6 Compassion for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE tours) throughout the United States and Canada, the first of which (CARE-1) covering 40 states and 4 provinces in 7.5 months (2003-2009); has been a speaker at the National Animal Rights Conference since 2004 (see www.ARConference.org), giving up to a dozen different speeches per year-conference (2004-2009); has appeared on television, radio, newspapers and magazines hundreds of times (1995 – 2009); is the founder of Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE – 1999); is the author of the book OMNI-SCIENCE and the Human Destiny (2003); and is the author of the book Homo Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH. For all the above and more, see www.HOPE-CARE.org.

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

What it really takes to emancipate a planet from the fetters of industrial enslavement

Photobucket

Clarifying Any Loose Ends: Addressing the total implications latent in my polemic on carrying capacity through a response to an unwittingly myopic critic, viz. what it really takes to emancipate a planet from the fetters of industrial enslavement.

By Frank Joseph Smecker

10/21/09

(This exchange relates to Smecker's The Polemics of Carrying Capacity: Thomas Malthus and his legacy of euphemistic extermination programs)

LS’ Critical Comment:

Frankly this article is pointless. It talks in the abstract, as if we had any of the choices and alternatives he mentions below.

He ignores the fact that we are in the middle of the stream already, not just starting to cross it. We already have over 6 billion people on earth, and are committed to 9 billion within another thirty years. This is inevitable and unavoidable due to the age distribution of people in and nearing their reproductive years, and to the number of young children already born.

It is too late for the kinds of solutions he proposes. These have been proposed by environmentalists, bioregionalists, decentralists for forty years, to no avail. Remember the Blueprint for Survival? The Limits to Growth? No one listened; no one believed them. Almost all, if not all, of the crises we face are PRE EXISTING ones that are being exacerbated by climate change: loss of biodiversity, desertification, overpumping of aquifers, death of coral reefs, overfishing, habitat destruction, loss of wetlands and estuaries, spread of infectious disease. And not least OVERPOPULATION.

The only direct new impacts of global warming are sea level rise, ocean acidification, melting of permafrost and mountain glaciers, loss of sea ice and ice shelves and sheets in the Arctic and Antarctica, intensification of pre-existing weather patterns (floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves). These ocean- and land-based conditions are causing positive feedback and enhancing all of the pre-existing problems and conditions.

One may well ask just why, only now when climate change is irreversible, and forty years after the first Earth Day, people are all of a sudden in a panic about all of this, even though the scientific research and evidence for all of the above already existed and have been published extensively in both the scientific and general media. Every major national environmental group that exists today has worked on these issues since 1970. Every one. All of these had journals and campaigns. Many people were members and got their journals. How come they didn't start worrying then?

We were warned by Rachel Carson about pesticides and their effect on birds and animals. We saw the slaughter of whales, baby seals and gorillas in journals and on TV. Divers and fishermen have witnessed the huge diminution in fish species for decades. We have watched the uncontrolled destruction of tropical rainforests in Asia and South America. Before Hurricane Katrina demolished New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast, we knew that the channelization of the Mississippi River and construction of levees to facilitate industrial access to the Gulf had destroyed the extensive wetlands that had protected the coast and prevented the build-up of the coastal area from silt carried south by the river. We knew that logging of old growth forests was causing local flooding and loss of habitat and therefore of endemic species (Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, among others). We knew that replacing forests and soils with concrete and asphalt caused (and still causes) extensive surface flooding. We knew that filling wetlands destroyed the nurseries of fish and shellfish.



But we also knew that burning fossil fuels was raising the average global temperature. Jim Hansen was the first to go public with this information in the early 1980s. Even earlier it was a well established scientific fact that greenhouse gases would raise global temperatures, a basic Physics 101 lesson. Now, we are all worried, anxious, angry, and confused. We are wildly casting around for technological solutions, when there are no solutions at all, only strategies for mitigation and defense. Yet not even THESE are being proposed seriously.

The blame has to be shared by all: industry, unions, government, developers, regulators, finance, energy companies, and consumers. It is as consumers and citizens that we need to unite behind real science, not wishful thinking, and take climate change as seriously as we take war. For indeed climate change is a war we started, against nature. A debate in Great Britain elicited comments on whether we should focus on adjustment and defense, accepting the worst scenario, or whether we should continue to fight back against the deniers and polluters.

I support this latter argument, proposed by George Monbiot, the world's leading environmental journalist, if only because we need to show those who refuse to take appropriate action that we distrust them and that we do not accept our fate lightly, and that we will continue to hold them responsible.

How do we do this? Besides direct actions, which have already begun and which will escalate, we need to aim at the U.S. congress and Pres.Obama, who have viciously deceived and misled us, and who refuse to accept the imperative of massive reduction of energy consumption. I have suggested several times that we organize an EcoPac for the next congressional election based on opposing the main offenders in congress (Waxman, Markey, Boxer, Pelosi) and then again at the next presidential election.

We need to publicly defect from the Democratic Party and vow to oppose any Democrat that does not support and promote the rapid reduction in energy consumption, through a carbon tax (as opposed to cap and trade), mandatory efficiency standards and regulations, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and imposition of tariffs, such as the Border Tax Adjustment, (BTA), to tax all imports having a high carbon footprint which come from countries that are not curtailing their carbon emissions, and most of all a complete shutdown of all coal powered plants.

Our leaders are not serious. But we must be.

LS

My response to LS (in back & forth sequence):

Paragraph 1: Yes, population growth is extrapolated to reach 9 billion within 30 years. What appears to be “ignorance” of this fact in my article is quite the opposite. I address the reality of overpopulation in the opening paragraph. Besides, despite nine billion people being a huge burden on the ecological infrastructure of the planet, I was concerned when writing the article, and still am, that if population control methods are to be discussed in an era of overpopulation, we need to be honest about its measures and the intent behind the latter. I don’t care how often Malthusian models (and similar ones) are defended and “legitimized,” they are not sane answers to overpopulation. They are genocidal: the question remains: Who does the controlling? That was the point of the article.

What I want to know is why you choose to overlook all the analysis that purports to show overpopulation as being a direct result of ‘civilized’ social arrangements. The term civilization is “a way of life predicated upon the growth of cities.” Inherent in the idea of civilization is the aspiration of limitless growth. Civilization gives birth to industrial civilization and that engenders unsustainable growth trends. Moving along…

Paragraphs 2 & 3: You are right that my solutions have been echoed and promulgated incessantly in today’s age as well as in the past. In fact, the same concerns and solutions were put forward as far back as the Romantic Period, if not earlier (you should reconnoiter Axial religious icons) – but this is no reason to throw in the towel. I don’t care about who isn’t listening, who isn’t believing; I care about who is and what we can and will do about it. I admit to preaching to the choir – because I intend to radicalize the choir. And of course all of these crises, for the most part, are pre-existing – hell, much of the Sahara was once a diverse community of wetlands and cedar forests before the cedar were felled for ancient city-state construction, and the wetlands desiccated into desert. This is still occurring: two-thirds of Africa’s arable land will be lost to desertification by 2025. Could it perhaps be a consequence of developmental models that are corollaries of colonial aggression? I surmise it does….

As regards global warming, I agree too that this has exacerbated pre-existing conditions, with some novel conditions (e.g., ocean acidification, melting of permafrost, intensification of pre-existing weather vagaries, etc.). Still, I refuse to stop providing radical solutions. Sure, environmentalists, bioregionalists, Indigenists, decentralists, poststructuralists et al. have been at it for decades, even centuries – and I will concede that their/our strategies, tactics, ideas, etc. have not sufficed a solid, silver bullet solution, yet – but we also have not drifted into obsolescence. If we were so futile, deficient and inadequate then we’d have been completely quieted a long time ago. But owing to the fact that the movement still exists, is testimony that it has some merit and worth; and, our ideas and strategies may not be the sole answer, but they’re at least important and effective enough to be part of the package – so to speak.

Also, to speak to your comment about “speaking in the abstract” – the term radical means to get to the root. Radical solutions are not abstract solutions – they are essentially attempts to return to something actual and concrete – not remain in some abstract concept where the real physical planet is being destroyed by being forced to accommodate itself to a voracious capitalism. You see – our current problems are a direct result of trying to force physical reality to conform to human ideas, which is just absurd and killing the planet and driving people bonkers.

Also, for the record, I am really uncomfortable with the fact that radicalism is conflated with so much pejorative baggage. There is nothing inherently violent or terrorizing about radicalism – the term is essentially a rather peaceful term that many of us eagerly want to employ so to put an end to all of this atrocious violence and live natural, sane, sustainable and peaceful lives free of fear, abstract conflict and inequality.

Paragraph 4: I don’t think panic is as impromptu as you’re making it out to be. People were panicked in the 70s as well, in fact, perhaps moreso than today. At least in the 60s and 70s people allowed anger to triumph over their fear in such a way that they employed personal agency to affect change. Let’s remember that the Civil Rights movement owes much to the actions of the Black Panther Party, the intellect of Malcolm X, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, et al. for its triumph. And even M.L. King stated, “If it’s right, it can never be too radical.” The Vietnam War ended primarily because the Vietcong let anger trammel their fear so that they could act in defense of their country. I believe this country has a similar history, too – although much more blighted and immoral in many respects. Also, you can’t legitimately include journals and campaigns as a barometer to purport to show how effective activism is or can be. Journals and campaigns alone will not end anything, or bring about change – no matter how much of it is happening. Action brings change. Journals and campaigns did not end slavery, abolitionists did. Journals and campaigns did not put an end to the gulags and Czarist Russia, action did. Journals and campaigns did not put an end to Nazi Germany, action did. Journals and campaigns did not put an end to the American apartheid, action did. However, it’s not as black and white as that either: journals and campaigns are just as important as actions. They can influence one to act, but they are not as important as the action itself. Also, we need everyone we can get on board. Including those working from within the system in tandem to those working the system alongside those working from outside the system to take it down. No action is pointless, just that some are more effective than others. There is no ‘one way’ to solve a convergence of global problems.

With regard to climate change and ecological collapse, it’s very difficult for people to align themselves with an effective outlet when capitalism has co-opted environmentalism and has stolen the “green movement” (capitalism has a nasty way of either co-opting, deriding, subverting, or eliminating any system of values that poses as an alternative to its own). Some of the fundamental reasons that myriad “activist” groups have had such minimal success is because a.) they are too entrenched in the bureaucracy of the dominant system b.) most are “fighting” to preserve civilization in the wake of crisis– refusing to accept that civilization is the problem and cause c.) not enough activists and groups are radical enough e.g. Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, the EPA, et al. are ineffective by virtue of venality and espousal of dominant cultural norms, values, and privileges d.) too many groups and individuals are insular and afraid to align themselves with more militant and radical groups (whom haven’t harmed a living being because they are fighting for the preservation of life)– when clearly they both want the same ends e.) too many people don’t want to part ways with their cheap perks capitalism affords them. And the reasons continue.

Photobucket

Paragraph 5: In this paragraph you remind us of all of the admonitions we’ve been given – of all of the despairingly rapacious and terrible effects of the dominant culture. But what’s interesting is that you don’t allow these deplorable acts to anger you – you just use them as an excuse to further your argument. Have you ever thought that as these atrocious acts continue to occur and worsen, it will further enrage individuals to the point of taking the effective actions needed to defend a world they love?

Paragraph 6: Yes, we’ve been aware of the pernicious effects of fossil fuels. But don’t you think that a culture so reliant on science is going to do nothing about these conditions because the culture is so invested in science to fix the problem? Why is it that this culture relies so strongly upon a scientist to tell us that the exploitation of resources is detrimental? The native indigenous of this land (land that was genocidally stolen from the indigenous) admonished about the errors of viewing the land as a retainer of natural “resources.” This culture never listened. But now, science gives us the same warning, only it is in the abstract, and we listen attentively. This is why we are so fucked. We believe in the stories of science so much, so arrogantly– we’re so reliant upon it that we presume the problems that science “discovers” (which are really problems it has created) are the problems science will solve. And most importantly, problems that science solves generate a shit load of money – science is the priesthood of industry worshipping the god of production in the house of economics. Always remember that. Strategies and mitigation are not being proposed seriously enough because there is too much faith in science to do most of the legwork. When really, this is our mess and we need to take personal/collective responsibility to clean it up.

Paragraph 7: The blame has to be shared by: industry moguls, government, developers, regulators, financial institutions, and corporations, moreso than the consumers. In other words, the blame has to be put on the top players of the dominant culture, while also putting the blame on civilization itself – no matter how unpopular or embarrassing such a public allegation may be. By placing the blame on consumers, it is taking the blame away from the real culprits: state, financial institutions, and corporations. If every citizen of the industrial First World were to do everything Al Gore proposed in his PowerPoint™, CO2 emissions would decrease by 22%. According to scientific consensus, emissions must come down 75%. Three percent of all pollution and waste is consumer waste; 97% of pollution and waste comes from the industrial/corporate sector. As Derrick Jensen put it: “Personal change does not equal social change.” So please excise the consumer from the list of those culpable – you’ll only make people spiteful and feeling small. Blame must be directed at the state, corporate and financial sectors.

Paragraph 8: I agree with you that direct actions will escalate, and they should. And yes, much aim needs to be directed at the U.S.– but also at every other complicit nation that indulges in the luxuries of industrial development at the expense of human and nonhuman resources. Your idea of an EcoPac is a swell idea; I’d be interested in hearing more about this. But at the same time, this should not shut the door to all other ideas that are sane and effective and urgently needed. If someone wants to write letters and another person wants to knock out a cell-tower, while one may want to donate their time at a soup kitchen or the humane society – while others want to picket, so be it. All ideas and actions in unison is much more effective than only one; and it is much more effective than a bunch of people debating over whether or not one action is more appropriate than the other. At the end of the day, we all know that the nondiscretionary violence of war and the murder of an entire planet is what’s inappropriate. With further regard to an EcoPak – I hope this is an all-inclusive initiative; exclusivity does not cotton well with those looking for solutions to a very real and threatening problem. However, there are a few groups that should not be allowed to take part in the constitution of this EcoPak: lobbyists, corporate entities, charlatans, or anyone else tied to pecuniary interests for that matter.

Paragraph 9: I don’t believe carbon taxing is a viable answer. This will only tweak and tease socioeconomic stratification– and we can’t have that at such a turbulent time. Those with plenty of money will still do what they do, despite levying taxes on the rich – they have the means to do so. Those who are poor will still have tremendous difficulty, if not more. We all know what impost and tariff manipulations really do: they benefit the ones doing the manipulations. Those in power will not give up their power and luxuries without a fight or for the sake of fairness. There needs to be a movement that does more than slap the wrists of the rich and elite.

As regards carbon trading – which I notice you agree is not an answer, but I will excoriate for the sake of educating the reader. To propound carbon trading, which is the panacea the U.S. is offering, is insane. Carbon trading has been in practice in Europe for over a decade, and you know what? It hasn't done shit. Emissions have increased. All that carbon trading does is allow the rich to get richer while the planet burns; create another bubble to speculate on and enlarge an already bloated derivatives bubble. For more information on why carbon trading will not work, read: “Carbon Trading; a critical conversation on climate change, privatization and power;” this book can be attained by visiting: www.thecornerhouse.org.uk

For more info, also visit:

http://globaljusticeecology.org/
http://www.forestcouncil.org/index.php
http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/

Also, it is silly for you to come at me with charges of thinking in the abstract – isn’t economics abstract?! I assume you probably sat done with much confidence in what you had planned to write up, but you seem to be a very confused individual deep down; genuinely concerned for the planet (which I appreciate and can familiarize with), but whose enculturation seems so strong, the idea of giving up the 'perquisites' of civilization is so apparently frightening for you.

I agree with you that all coal-fired power plants must come down. But so should all dams, oil refineries, foundries, vivisection labs, factory farms, monocrop plantations, LNG plants, rocket pads, etc. And all nuclear power plants should cease operation for good. With all of this in mind, you’re absolutely right – our leaders are not serious. But we must be.

Other comments:

I could not agree more with everything you enumerate to the effect of the urgency of realistic v. idealistic responses/approaches - and, if you were to have originally taken a deep breath, taken a few minutes to maybe Google some of my other material, you would have realized I'm in absolute concurrence with your concerns. However, we differ in opinion on a couple crucial aspects. After such a long-winded paroxysm - nihilistic in tone, might I add (which does no one any effective service other than a resignation to inaction) you bafflingly present a market approach to not only an entire rant that tacitly excoriates an inherently market-oriented culture... but also, you present a market-based solution to a globally existential crisis that has been made horrifically worse by market-based logic. Market praxis and hyperkinetic industrial production (both two edges of the sword of Damocles being waved over the planet's head) is responsible for exacerbating pre-existing socio-environmental problems. What's frightening is that, in your argument, you only galvanize the illusory "double-bind" we seem to be in. "We're already fucked - so this discussion is pointless" seems to be one aspect of your approach and, second, you regard speaking truth to sovereign and imbalanced power relationships as "thinking abstract" - which is ridiculous; you might as well have saved time and space and just said: "Either you're with us or against us. And if you're against us, your actions will be futile." You see, what you have presented is a.) things are so messy, so convoluted and irrevocable this discussion is nugatory or b.) in complete hypocritical style you suggest this problem is not so binding if only we align with science and economics to fix the problem - further galvanizing the notion that we are not free beings with our own personal agency to pursue other options to stop the murder of the planet; and, more importantly, leaving the entire economic/industrial infrastructure that is killing this planet in place and off the hook.

You offer only two ways out of this crisis, both keeping us entrenched in the delusion that to separate from the dominant culture is to "think in the abstract" never once speaking of the possibility of a third way out: shutting down the entire dominant constellation of ideas, institutions, and behaviors that are responsible for killing the planet and everyone on it. And then replacing it with a safe, sane, peaceful, fair and natural way of being in this world. What you have done is sneaky, intellectually sneaky.

With concern to this:

"We need to publicly defect from the Democratic Party and vow to oppose any Democrat that does not support and promote the rapid reduction in energy consumption, through a carbon tax (as opposed to cap and trade), mandatory efficiency standards and regulations, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and imposition of tariffs, such as the Border Tax Adjustment, (BTA), to tax all imports having a high carbon footprint which come from countries that are not curtailing their carbon emissions, and most of all a complete shutdown of all coal powered plants."

Not only do we need a "rapid reduction in energy consumption" we need a radical change in the way we access energy and employ it. We will never accomplish shit if we promise people we're gonna tackle global warming but not to worry, everyone can still have plasma-screen TVs, Doritos and hotdogs – deep fried and microwaved (which isn’t what you were stating or implying – at the very least you point a blaming finger at industry, which is great, but still, where’s industry’s bedfellow, economics, in your inculpation? Clearly, industry exists because people have been conditioned to demand particular products).

Second, the right v. left parley is stupid - the problem isn't politics it’s politicks: the modes of production and who controls them. So, I can't really align with you here completely, regarding the “public defecting from Democrats.” One also has to publicly defect from the GOP, from the dominant culture and civilization as a whole. If we focus on the ostensible issue of bipartisanship, nothing will change - bottom line. So, this argument is more pointless than my article. However, I do agree that: "we should continue to fight back against the deniers and polluters." And, as important, provide scholarly support in defense of radical activists so they're not victims of media calumnies that not only perpetuate, but also fabricate the public's inaccurate perspective of those 'rowdy misdirected kids’ and/or worse, as “terrorists.”

Lastly, to equate the human approach to global warming and climate change to war is an unforgivable mistake. This only highlights our culture's erroneous and egregious detachment from an animate, sensuous, ecological matrix of relationships. Wars have never been approached or resolved without widespread annihilation and death. If we approach an ecological infrastructure with hawkish intentions, we'll only exacerbate already exacerbated damage. Do we really want to approach climate change with the same rhetoric that is commensurate with hostility and oppressive violence? Shouldn't we be aligning ourselves with defenders of the wild and the natural - defending the planet not confronting it? Besides, we are not going to 'tackle' climate change - that's just fucking dumb to think (not that you think that way, but many people do). Either way, we will eventually (if we're still around) have to adapt to climate change – and ‘we’ must encompass everybody fairly and adaptation must be approached sensibly and without the neutral cool logic of science or economics.

The way I look at it, sane and sustainable ways of inhabiting the planet don't emerge out of economics; it's not something we need to create or transcend to. Only a peaceful, fair, sane and sustainable economics will emerge from sane and sustainable ways of living.

Sane and sustainable ways of living still exist, have existed and, is something we need to return to. You want to know what to do in the throes of this collapse? Go ask your landbase what should be done. What would your landbase want you to do? I can't provide you with one solution to these problems insofar as I refuse to direct orders of any such; I can only imply that there are more effective and sane ways than others to act in defense of the planet and its inhabitants.

Here’s my solution, though, if you’re wondering: First we hold a trial for crimes against life in which the rich and elite are arraigned for their villainy. We let all who are disenfranchised, landless, hungry, impoverished arbitrate and assert adjudication. Then, we absolve all private land holdings and return the land to the planet and to each and every indigenous tribe that has been displaced over history.

Frank Joseph Smecker, TPC's Editor of Radical Earth Defense, is a social-worker and writer from Vermont who has an ardent and committed passion to work in defense of everything wild. Mostly an autodidact, he is also currently in school matriculating toward a degree in psychology. He is an accomplished writer; his essays, interviews and articles, decrying the atrocities of industrial civilization and capitalism, have appeared in many publications. He is also a blog writer for the Vermont Commons Journal (for Independence from Empire).

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Death Park: "The Deer Democide of 2009"



Above: A glimpse into the future of DEATH PARK!

Susan Bennett's 10/27/09 email to the deer slaughterers:

To: Randy PRKKnight (Randy.Knight@jocogov.org); Governor@ks.gov; Michael PRKMeadors (Michael.Meadors@jocogov.org); clee@ksu.edu; lloydf@wp.state.ks.us; BOCC-Staff (BOCC-Staff@jocogov.org); BOCC-Commissioners (BOCC-Commissioners@jocogov.org);

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As I am sure you are aware, a traffic incident occurred on October 4th at the Park entrance in which I was a pedestrian and struck by a motor vehicle causing injury.

Shawnee Mission Park police department demonstrated gross negligence in failing to perform their sworn duties.

1. Failure to render aid or medical attention to a pedestrian victim.

2. Failure to stop and detain the driver leaving the scene of the accident, obtain identification, proof of insurance and determine if he may have been driving under the influence. Because of this most serious negligent act, we will never know if the driver was operating his vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It's too late. He was not detained at the accident scene. He took off when there were numerous police officers standing in the immediate area. He drove into the park and there was ample opportunity to detain him.

3. Failure to initiate a police report at that time so it may be as accurate as possible.

4. Failure to obtain witness statements and follow proper police procedure according to Kansas State law.

Instead, the burden and responsibility was on the injured party to contact Park Police to initiate a police report. Park Police did not perform this duty, nor did the driver of the vehicle, owned by Daniel Taylor.

The Johnson County District Attorney's office advised the Park Police also have a duty and an obligation to provide their office with a copy of the police report.

The KBI advised if Park Police and/or the BOCC fail to follow the law I may take the issue to the Kansas Attorney General for further investigation and determination.

I also trust no further errors or oversights will occur, and the Board will assuredly see that the District Attorney's office receives a copy of the police report. The individual I spoke with at the DA's office expressed concern the driver may cause harm to someone else. He did not follow officers' directions to reverse his vehicle. He struck me, mouthing obscenities, and showed no hesitation or remorse for his actions.



The inactions by Park Police related to this incident reaffirms Johnson County does not demonstrate even minimal care or concern for human safety.

It appears the Park Police were following instructions of the Park Board. If it were anywhere but Johnson County, when a human life may be at risk, and a crime committed when the driver left the scene of an accident, I believe officers would have had the common sense to make a judgment call, and taken action at the scene of an injury incident. Aiding an injured human being would take precedence and be an exception to a previously issued order. If an officer disobeyed an order to assist an injured senior citizen is forgiveable. Indeed, every officer has sworn under oath to do precisely that above all else.

The Courts do not look favorably on a citizen leaving the scene of a traffic incident. The driver could/should be charged with (1) reckless endangerment while operating a motor vehicle K.S.A. 8-1566; (2) leaving the scene of an accident; (3) failure to report the accident to the proper authorities. A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by severe penalties up to and including suspension of their driver's license, fined, and possible imprisonment up to one year, typically depending on their past driving record. K.S.A. 8-1604.

In addition, it is not known with certainty if there was a passenger with the driver. If so, this person is equally responsible as the driver to report the incident to law enforcement.

Publication of Johnson County's gross negligence, horrific actions and misconduct has been picked up by World News Network in 43 languages and an equal number of countries. It is reported and criticized not only locally, but nationally and across the world appearing on 4,400 news channels, several radio programs, newspapers and internet. Dissemination of negative publicity has been picked up on vacation and travel websites where Kansas is rated poor as a place to visit, and includes the park issue.

Because of your misconduct and perpetrators of this abhorrent slaughter, the Bite Club's membership has dramatically increased. The fb group is well over 1,100 people, not to mention the thousands of supporters worldwide.

The Deer Management Program to which you refer on the Parks website is erroniously named. The word manage means to treat with some degree of care. Such is not the case here. The dialogue on the website needs to be amended to "The Deer Democide of 2009".



Is that George Schlagel's truck? Or perhaps Lloyd Fox's?

What are the differences and similarities between democide and genocide? As defined, elaborated, and qualified in Chapter 2 of Death By Government, democide is any deliberate killing by government. More specifically, by officials acting under the authority of government. That is, they act according to explicit or implicit government policy or with the implicit or explicit approval of officials. Such was the burying alive of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers, the shooting of hostages by German soldiers, the starving to death of Ukrainians by communist cadre, or the burning alive of Japanese civilians purposely fire-bombed from the air by American airmen.

Today and in 2009 it is deer. What is next? Who or what will you choose to annihilate next? Drain the lake? Shoot the birds, ducks, geese? Will you invent and broadcast diseased fish, or water fungus as justification for draining the lake? You're proudly stocking the lake with trout. Are you sure you want to do that? Isn't it a little like canned hunting? For the true fisherman, it is not fishing. It may draw a few people for a very short time, and soon become self-defeating. Every person is guaranteed to catch a fish, and true fisherman are disgusted by stocked ponds. The fish didn't even have a chance, and there is no challenge for the fisherman.

Birds nesting will be determined by you to be nuisance animals, so let's get crazy, have some fun and kill them too. The only "nuisance animals" I know are human. By that definition, those of us who protest this violence are a nuisance. By your standards should we be bowhunted?

An atmosphere of death, killing, blood and destruction permeates the atmosphere on Renner Road. I've visited graveyards more appealing. The activities you boast about, archery, bowhunting, fishing are about killing.

I have a suggestion since you brag so proudly about donating deer "meat" to the poor.

Why not set up a community vegetable garden? People may have space to grow food and have experts on hand to give advice on ways to maximize the land for a worthwhile purpose. Those who keep their food may pay a nominal "rent" for their space, and those who donate their vegetables do not pay for the use of the land. It has been done with great success in Louisville, Kentucky. Apartment residents were especially enthusiastic. It is a celebration of life and growing, not death and destruction.

There are dozens of news articles and blogs out there demonstrating how inhumane your actions have been all along. Your lack of foresight and vision, and the unwillingness to listen to suggestions only demonstrates you clearly are not qualified to serve as government officials with far too much latitude to make decisions of serious importance.

You have law enforcement in Shawnee and Lenexa, on salary, supposedly trained in the use of firearms, enough so they may be used on humans. Yet you brought in outside, and out-of-state hired killers to destroy the deer. When you are working with a budget of only $50,000, not very wise judgment.

I again quote from a Solon, Ohio newspaper the enormous waste and misuse of tax dollars using hired killers to destroy the deer:

Solon Herald Sun

The city plans to resume its deer culling program in early 2009, David Hromco, Solon's assistant public works director, told City Council's Safety and Public Properties Committee on Oct. 15. Hromco said the number of deer culled will be similar to the 150 culled in 2007 and the 175 culled in 2008. The city will again pay White Buffalo Inc. sharpshooters to kill deer. Last year the culling program cost the city more than $110,000.
(http://www.cleveland.com/solonheraldsun/news/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1224769069147080.xml&coll=4)

More than $110,000 paid to Dr. DeNicola to cull 175 deer, not including the field dressing, and the other expenses. How can 375 deer be culled with a $50,000 budget? You dismissed our proposal with expedience. At $15,000 below your budget and allows the deer to live their natural lives. Your total and complete denial of Anthony Marr's DAA plan, and working with an unrealistic budget leads us to believe the only conclusion must be financial gains to either individuals, or agencies within the government.

If Johnson County officials could demonstrate they are leaders to be trusted, stop the anniliation, destruction, democide, genocide, and the holocaust of the deer residing in Death Park, we will also stop protesting and publishing news articles. Must you make us wait until your terms expire, or take action to initiate a Recall Petition? We are in the process of establishing a League of Humane Voters to ensure none of you secure another public office.

At least we may defend all we have done is publish factual information. Johnson County however, allows Ken Payne to spout any lie that comes out of his head without substantiation. Then again, he kills animals for a living, and "just for fun". He loves what he does. Shame on the staff writer from the KC Star who printed Payne's false statements and dollar figures without substantiation.

DeNicola has killed more than 9,000 deer and proud of it. Johnson County government's endorsement of DeNicola, Payne and other hired killers, sets a pathological and perverse role model for the children and young people in the community. These are children who under the age of 18 cannot be admitted to an "R" rated movie, but they are witnessing death, blood, animals screaming in pain, blood trails and the worst animal cruelty in their own neighborhoods.

You don't care about the safety and well being of human, or non-human beings; you don't care how this bloodbath will effect the children and young people in the community; you have allowed hired killers into our community teaching and fostering an atmosphere of violence in a once-peaceful suburban area; you have allowed the use of deadly force and weapons into a park area intended for children, families and the public.

There are far more news articles about saving the deer, than killing them. Even the strongest person shies away from reading about the killing of animals. It isn't interesting news to anyone except other killers. The vast majority of the public are rooting for the deer, and joining us in rebuttal of your extreme use of violence. As many hateful emails I've received from a few illiterate hunters and sociopaths, there are hundreds more that say they agree the violence has to stop. The very same people who helped get you elected and appointed, once your constituents are now doing what they can to help stop the slaughter because this vast and horrific violence is incomprehensible to most people. One resident of Shawnee called me in tears explaining her father was a hunter, so [she] "understood" she said but the tears came when she added, "but this is murder; this is violence."

The damage done to the reputation of the community is irreparable. Please guide your consciences accordingly.

Susan Bennett

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Incendiary attack at a Burger King. Mexico City



Received anonymously:
October 19, 2009


Simulposted with NAALPO

On Friday, October 16, around 3 in the morning, we, comrades from the cell of milicia incendiaria por la liberación animal (M.I.L.A) [incendiary militia for animal liberation] , were ready to again hit one of the most anthropocentrist, earth-destroying multinationals, McDonald's. Unfortunately, upon arriving at our target we realized that police officers were guarding the site, at both entrances of the establishment. But we did not let that stop us from attacking the murderer capitalism. Armed with all our anti-anthropocentrist anger and assisted by 10 liters of gasoline we turned to another equally exploitive multinational, this time the target was a Burger King located in the south of the city. Upon arriving at the place, a considerable amount of gasoline was sprayed around and some bottles with more gasoline and incendiary devices were also left. After leaving all this we withdrew into the darkness waiting for the devices to do their job and the sky could be seen illuminated by the beautiful abolitionist and anti-anthropocentric fire.

The action was planned that day against McDonald's. We want to make it clear that we will not accept any reform or laws to protect and ensure a better murder of our non-human comrades in the slaughterhouse, because we do not fight for the 'rights of animals' as the reformist groups do. We are fighting for animal liberation and against anthropocentric, speciesist and dominating attitudes and we will not rest until all the cages and the bars of the prisons fall and until the exploiters are destroyed, and while a being continues suffering because of this capitalist society, we will continue attacking.

Let's turn these words into action.

Milicia incendiaria por la liberación animal (M.I.L.A)

Spanish:

Ataque incendiario a un burger King. México d,f

Por la madrugada del pasado viernes 16 de octubre al rededor de las 3 de la mañana. Lxs compañerxs de la celula de la milicia incendiaria por la liberación animal (M.I.L.A) nos dispusimos a darle un golpe mas a una de las multinacionales mas antropocentristas y destructoras de la tierra nos referimos a un mc donalds. Lamentablemente al llegar a nuestro objetivo nos percatamos que unos policías resguardaban el lugar ubicándose en ambas entradas de dicho establecimiento. Pero no dejamos que eso nos impidiera dar un golpe al capitalismo asesino, así que armados de toda nuestra rabia anti-antropocentrista y ayudados de 10 litros de gasolina nos dirijamos hacia otra multinacional igualmente explotadora, esta ves el objetivo fue un burger King ubicado al sur de la ciudad, al llegar al lugar se roció una cantidad considerable de gasolina también se dejaron algunas botellas con mas gasolina y algunos dispositivos incendiarios. Después de dejar todo esto nos retiramos en la obscuridad esperando a que los dispositivos hicieran su trabajo y así el cielo se viera iluminado por el hermoso fuego abolicionista y anti-antropocentrista.

Esta acción fue planeada por el día contra mc donalds. Queremos aclarar que nosotros no aceptaremos ninguna reforma o leyes que protejan y aseguren un mejor asesinato en los mataderos hacia nuestros compañeros no humanos ya que nosotros no luchamos por los “derechos de los animales” como lo hacen grupos reformistas, si no que luchamos por la liberación animal y estamos en contra de actitudes antropocentristas, especistas y de dominación y no descansaremos hasta no ver todas las jaulas y los barrotes de la prisiones caer, hasta no ver a lxs explotadorxs destruidos y mientras un ser siga sufriendo por esta sociedad capitalista seguiremos atacando.

Convirtamos esas palabras en acción.

Milicia incendiaria por la liberación animal (M.I.L.A)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information visit, www.animalliberationpressoffice.org.

Animal Liberation Press Office
6320 Canoga Avenue #1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367


www.animalliberationpressoffice.org
press@animalliberationpressoffice.org

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Exxon-led Global Warming Denial Machine: PUBLIC ENEMY #1!



By Anthony Marr

10/26/09

Politicians are puppets, even the president of the United States. Their puppet-masters are the major corporations, the top-most of which being Exxon. Its Global Warming Denial Machine intentionally aims at sacrificing the long term future of our children and all life on Earth for its short term profit. If Exxon has its way, it will lead our children into a hell on Earth.

The EXXON-led Global Warming Denial Machine

Watch the video HERE!

EXXON: Executor of Progenocide! Targeting the Human Progeny

Photobucket

EXXON: Precipitator of Global Holocaust - displacing and starving hundreds of millions

Photobucket

EXXON: Dealer in Mass Extinction - potentially 80% of all species

Photobucket

EXXON: PUBLIC ENEMY #1!



Here are some good resources on ExxonMobil and the contemporary version of the flat earth society (global warming deniers):

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html

===========================================================

COP15, The United Nations Climate Change Conference takes place in Copenhagen Dec 7th - 18th. It's the most important set of talks to take place in a decade.

Will all life on Earth suffer because we were too ignorant or too distracted to recognize the danger? Will we continue to allow corporate PR firms and lobbying groups to fool us? Will we allow their quest for short term profits harm all life on Earth?

Steep Decline In Americans' Belief In Global Warming

DINA CAPPIELLO 10/22/09

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years, according to a survey released Thursday.

The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008.

The steepest drop occurred during the past year, as Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to slow global warming have been under way. At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change – from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.

The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic's thermostat.

But while the evidence appears clear, only about a third, or 36 percent of the poll respondents feel that human activities – such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles – are behind a temperature increase. That's the first decline since 2006.

"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things," said Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see these issues as less grave."

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.

"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.

Despite misgivings about the science, half the respondents still say they support limits on greenhouse gases, even if they could lead to higher energy prices, and a majority – 56 percent – feel the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change.

But many of supporters of reducing pollution have heard little to nothing about cap-and-trade, the main mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases favored by the White House and central to legislation passed by the House and a bill the Senate will take up next week.

Under cap-and-trade, a price is put on each ton of pollution, and businesses can buy and sell permits to meet emissions limits.

"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll ... is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-..and-trade," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who opposes the Senate bill and has questioned global warming science. Republicans in general have grown even more steadfast in their opposition. A majority – 57 percent – now say there is no hard evidence of global warming, up from 42 percent last year, according to the poll.

Other results of the survey also suggest that it will be tough politically to enact a law limiting emissions of global warming pollution. While three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave as they did last year.

Regional differences were also detected. People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

One of those lawmakers, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, told reporters Thursday that she was happy with the results, given the interests and industry groups fighting the bill.

"Today, to get 57 percent saying that the climate is warming is good, because today everybody is grumpy about everything," Boxer said. "Science will win the day in America. Science always wins the day."

Earlier polls, from different organizations, have not detected a growing skepticism about the science behind global warming.

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant – at around 80 percent – in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993 was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/steep-decline-in-american_n_330315.html

============================================================

I repeat: If we let Exxon and its cronies have their way, they will lead our children into a hell on Earth.

Anthony Marr, founder and president
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.MySpace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.YouTube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.ARConference.org
www.AnimalVoices.org

Anthony Marr, TPC’s Senior Editor of Ecological Crisis and Wildlife Defense, has a degree in physics, and has worked as a field geophysicist and an environmental technologist; was born in China, lives in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and travels world-wide 6 months every year; has been to Africa to observe the wildlife situation first hand (~1980): has performed undercover operations and media campaigns in all the major Chinatowns of North America, to rid them of endangered species products (1995 onward); led the “highest profile Canadian wildlife campaign in 1996″ regarding trophy hunting of Grizzly bears in British Columbia; has led three deep-rural-India expeditions to help save the subcontinent’s wildlife habitat and ecosystems, resulting in being honored as the “Champion of the Bengal Tiger” in the award-winning TV documentary series Champions of the Wild aired in 20 countries worldwide (1997-1999); has conducted two overt/covert missions in Japan against whaling and the dolphin capture and slaughter (2004 & 2005); has since 2003 completed 6 Compassion for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE tours) throughout the United States and Canada, the first of which (CARE-1) covering 40 states and 4 provinces in 7.5 months (2003-2009); has been a speaker at the National Animal Rights Conference since 2004 (see www.ARConference.org), giving up to a dozen different speeches per year-conference (2004-2009); has appeared on television, radio, newspapers and magazines hundreds of times (1995 – 2009); is the founder of Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE – 1999); is the author of the book OMNI-SCIENCE and the Human Destiny (2003); and is the author of the book Homo Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH. For all the above and more, see www.HOPE-CARE.org.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

How a single bullet killed 25 lions

Photobucket

By Anthony Marr

10/14/09

It is the dream of every ginger (male) kitty to be the king of beasts, but if the dream comes true, it could become a nightmare.

Photobucket

To be a king of beasts, you must first be a lion cub, and that, to begin with, is tough. The lions' infant mortality rate, due to predators, parasites, disease, starvation, and other lions, is two-thirds within the first year, so chances are that you won't live past your princehood. But assuming that you can reach 3 years of age, unlike your sisters, who will continue living in the pride for life, you and your brothers and male cousins will be summarily evicted from the pride.



Photobucket

Now out in the wide-wide-world of "sport hunting", you will have to hack out a niche for yourself. Up to this point, you've been protected by your father and uncle(s), and fed and taught by your mother and aunt(s). Now, not only do you have to protect yourself, you'll have to feed yourself.

Photobucket

So, you join forces with your brother and two cousins to form a 4-lion coalition, for self-protection, cooperative hunting, and, ultimately, to take over a pride by defeating the pride males.

You don't know this yet, but when your coalition drives out or kills the pride males, you will quite naturally kill off all their cubs. This is genetically programmed, so that the lionesses of that pride will get back in estrus, and have new cubs bearing your genes.

Likewise, if, while you were a cub, your dad and uncles lost the fight against younger bachelor lions, you'd be dead.

And don't think that once you have taken over a pride, life will be hunky-dory. It is a myth that the females will do all the work while the males lie around all day. A pride male has his responsibilities:

1. to patrol and scent mark your territory daily to repel any interested bachelor coaltion - daily

2. to assist in heavy duty hunting of, say, buffaloes

Photobucket

3. to babysit the cubs while the lionesses are out hunting

Photobucket

4. to protect the cubs from predators

5. to defend the pride from marauding bachelor coalitions

While #1 may get you tired, #2 may get you gored, #3 may get you irritated, #4 may get you growling, #5 will really hurt, and may get you killed, which is why male lions will be old, worn, scarred and decrepit by age 10, and seldom live past age 12, while females can continue to bear young till 15, and live past 16..

Still want to be the king of beasts? Well, let me tell you about something much more deadly than even a big pride lion in his prime who, though lethal, can kill only one lion at a time. This thing is called a trophy hunter. When I was camping in Africa in the early 80s, I observed the following tragedy:

The pride where I was camping comprised 3 males, 10 females and 22 cubs. The 3 pride-males, named Agamemnon, Achilles and Hector, were about 6 years of age and very much in their prime. One of the lionesses was indeed named Helen. Their 22 cubs were thriving under their protection - protection against the coalition of four 4-year-olds, who have been loitering in the neighborhood. By their scent-markings they have been intruding into AAH's territory. Due to the superior fighting prowess of the three pride lions, they have kicked the butts of the Gang of Four, so far. They will be able to repel them for another couple of years, by which time they will probably have become the Gang of Three. This is a fairly stable long term scenario, which in lion terms spans 3 years, no more, by the end of which the current crop of cubs will have grown and be able to defend and fend for themselves. Or so the theory goes. What was unforeseen was that murderous thing called a trophy hunter. He killed Achilles with one shot in the chess, while Achilles was charging at him.

Photobucket

Now with only Agamemnon and Hector holding the fort, they were no match for the Gang of Four. Valiantly, they tried to defend their offspring, but it was a matter of fighting to the last cub. The 10 lionesses became the spoils of war. And so, a new leonine dynasty was born. But through it all, 25 lives were loss.

Photobucket

And let me remind my readers, all this tragic carnage was caused by one single bullet fired into the lion-heart of the one Achilles by one egomaniacal trophy hunter. Shame on you, Safari Club International. Shame on you, Mr. President.

Anthony Marr, founder and president
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.MySpace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.YouTube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.ARConference.org
www.AnimalVoices.org

Anthony Marr, TPC’s Senior Editor of Ecological Crisis and Wildlife Defense, has a degree in physics, and has worked as a field geophysicist and an environmental technologist; was born in China, lives in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and travels world-wide 6 months every year; has been to Africa to observe the wildlife situation first hand (~1980): has performed undercover operations and media campaigns in all the major Chinatowns of North America, to rid them of endangered species products (1995 onward); led the “highest profile Canadian wildlife campaign in 1996″ regarding trophy hunting of Grizzly bears in British Columbia; has led three deep-rural-India expeditions to help save the subcontinent’s wildlife habitat and ecosystems, resulting in being honored as the “Champion of the Bengal Tiger” in the award-winning TV documentary series Champions of the Wild aired in 20 countries worldwide (1997-1999); has conducted two overt/covert missions in Japan against whaling and the dolphin capture and slaughter (2004 & 2005); has since 2003 completed 6 Compassion for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE tours) throughout the United States and Canada, the first of which (CARE-1) covering 40 states and 4 provinces in 7.5 months (2003-2009); has been a speaker at the National Animal Rights Conference since 2004 (see www.ARConference.org), giving up to a dozen different speeches per year-conference (2004-2009); has appeared on television, radio, newspapers and magazines hundreds of times (1995 – 2009); is the founder of Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE – 1999); is the author of the book OMNI-SCIENCE and the Human Destiny (2003); and is the author of the book Homo Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH. For all the above and more, see www.HOPE-CARE.org.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

The Island of Dr. Moreau via the Campus of Dr Jentsch and the UCLA “Pro-Test” Campaign to Legitimate Scientific Terrorism

Photobucket

Muscle Cow: Engineered by suppressing the production of Myostatin. Scientists have already inhibited the Myostatin Gene in mice and are working on blocking the gene in humans.

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

By Dr. Steven Best

10/24/09

“The biggest mistake that anyone can make is moving slowly, because the game is going to be over before you start.” Henrik Verfaillie, Senior Vice President of Monsanto Company

I. Mutation on the Mind

“Strange as it may seem to the unscientific reader, there can be no denying that … the manufacture of monsters — and perhaps even of quasi-human monsters — is well within the possibilities of vivisection.” H.G. Wells

Everywhere in popular culture, one finds deep-rooted anxieties about science, technology, and the fate of the human. Thus, in films such as Blade Runner, The Fly, Jurassic Park, Species, Godzilla, Deep Blue Sea, Gattaca, Mimic, Species, Terminator, Johnny Mnemonic, and X-Men as well as in TV shows like Prey, Millennium, and The X-Files, the focus is on biological mutations, experiments gone awry, the creation of monstrosities, and technoscience run amuck.

Such media texts are responding to a chemically saturated, increasingly synthetic, global warming world that has produced mutant frogs, encephalitic babies, lower sperm counts in men, and diseased and diminished human beings affected by environmental chemicals that mimic their hormones and disrupt biological processes, and skyrocketing cancer rates. They also articulate fears of a powerful technoscience developed without restraint in the service of profit, capital, and global corporate hegemony.

Already, science has genetically engineered cows, pigs, and chickens to grow as large and fast as possible for maximal profits for agribusiness; it has “pharmed” (pharmaceutical farming) nonhuman animals (modified with human genes) to exploit them as therapeutic drug factories; bred pigs with human genes to warehouse stocks of transplantable organs; and genetically altered most food crops.

And as the genetic revolution brings about new possibilities for transcending vivisection altogether, it also has fueled greater demand for “experimental animals,” thus ensuring that an antiquated 17th century mechanistic model (dualistic, control-oriented, and atomistic) continues to thrive in the 21st century despite holistic paradigm shifts, preventative health care, scientific support for veganism, and a plethora of viable “alternatives” to the costly, ineffective, and appallingly violent and cruel methods of research and testing through vivisection.[1]

II. Science Fiction and the Literary “Breakthroughs” of H.G. Wells

“Once intelligent beings achieve technology and the capacity for self-destruction of their species, the selective advantage of intelligences becomes more uncertain.” Carl Sagan

One great writer caught these changes in his perceptual traps well before they happened, and that was H.G. Wells (1866-1946). A prolific writer of novels, short stories, and works of non-fiction, Wells praised the wonders of science and technology, mostly in his non-fiction, but also sketched out potential horrors in his science-fiction writings. While he frequently championed science and technology as great vehicles of progress, he also provided prescient warnings of their dangers and potential misuse. Wells delivered what Isaac Asimov called the “science-fiction breakthrough” by portraying the extreme ruptures with past modes of life driven by science and technology. Pursuing the “what if” logic of modern science fiction to new dimensions, Wells envisioned how science and technology could transgress the “laws” of nature and create biological mutations and entirely new species from disparate materials, resulting in terrible and unforeseeable consequences.



The changes soon to be effected in nature and humanity were anticipated in classics such as The Time Machine (1895), in which Wells portrayed humans mutating into new species and transcending the boundaries of space and time. In a ruthlessly negative vision, Wells depicts a terrifying future for humanity, involving not only the entropic collapse of civilization (despite advanced technical knowledge), but the demise of the earth itself. Wells’ division of humanity into two warring classes/species, the Eloi and the Morlocks, is a warning that an irrational organization of society can produce monstrous results. There is thus a Marxist subtext to the story, but Wells goes on to imagine how sharp differences in class could create different species and forms of (post)human being (as represented, for example, in the film Gattaca). The Time Machine also contests the Enlightenment notion of progress that was more influential than ever with the promise of the 20th century (the most violent and disastrous century in human history). Wells’ time traveler “thought but cheerlessly of the Advancement of Mankind and saw the growing pile of civilization … must inevitably fall back upon and destroy its maker in the end.” Time travel is a metaphor for evolution, change, and discontinuity and Wells was suggesting that humanity could succumb to catastrophe and extinction rather than build ever better engines of progress. On Well’s critical and cautionary vision, ceaseless expansion of the powers of science and technology, far from a guarantee increasing well being, is a potential prime cause of collapse, and he his break with the secular religion of Progress was iconoclastic for his day.

In Food of the Gods (1904), Wells vividly portrays the possibility of destructive consequences of genetically modified food and, more generally, a culture based on unrestrained growth imperatives such as powered by science and technology, but also primarily capitalism and its inexorable growth imperatives reinforced by the modern narrative of history as Progress. Food of the Gods is a tale of two scientists with good intentions who create “boomer” food that promotes growth processes in nature. To their horror, the technology runs amuck as everything from vegetation and insects to rats and human babies consume modified foods and grow to monstrous proportions. Wells not only warns against tampering with food and metabolic processes for allegedly benign purposes – as corporations and their scientific mercenaries today tout genetically engineered “golden rice” is as the miracle panacea for scarcity and hunger — he also ridicules the myopia of scientists who live in “monastic seclusion” from their social world and therefore easily conjure up misguided and dangerous schemes – a prominent theme also in The Island of Dr. Moreau.[2]

As if scripted by Wells’ dystopian vision, today geneticists working for corporations such as “Metamorphix” have found a way to manipulate the genes that regulate the metabolism and growth of nonhuman animals, and consequently have exploited this knowledge not for profound and noble aims, but to advance corporate hegemony and profits by producing giant chickens, sheep, pigs, and other species consumed by a fast growing world population of carnivores. In a way faithful to current implementation of such revolutionary changes, which proceed with virtually no government oversight, Wells underscores “the general laxity of method that prevailed at the Experimental Farm.” Moreover, he prefigures “a public so glutted with novelty” that it largely ignores the momentous consequences of scientific and technological developments, a depressing phenomenon that became increasingly obvious over the 20th century with the advancement of mass media, advertising, shopping malls, gadgetry, and spectacles of all kinds.

While he observes the beauty and improved features of the giant children, Wells largely portrays the new food technology as “distorting the whole order of natural life … it swept over boundaries and turned the world of trade into a world of catastrophes.”Allegorizing emerging global economic conditions, the novel concludes on a pessimistic note of a globe given over to the imperatives of endless growth and the ceaseless conflicts capitalism generates, as humans attempt to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions of technologies that control them, rather than they being masters of their own creations.

III. Wells’ Critique of Vivisection and Mechanistic Science

“Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.” George Bernard Shaw

“By and large students are taught that it is ethically acceptable to perpetrate, in the name of science, what from the point of view of the animals would certainly qualify as torture. By the time [the students] arrive in the labs they have been programmed to accept the suffering around them.” Jane Goodall

Photobucket

Without doubt, one of Wells’ most important anticipations of coming ruptures in life processes is The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896).This prescient novel is a powerful protest against the self-proclaimed right of science to experiment on nonhuman animals, subjugating and exploiting them for human purposes, as it recklessly speeds down the path of engineering new life forms. This novel, as well, critiques dangerous utopian visions of “human perfection,” such as Marxist revolutionaries and proponents of eugenics – from early formulations in the late 19th and 20th century up to the “new eugenics” of the present – have championed. Further, it is a profound meditation on the psychic conflicts tearing apart humanity in the struggle to adapt to rapidly changing conditions with a mindset still tethered to its ancient primate past however “modern” or “advanced” its technological conditions.

Hardly a sanguine vision of modern science, The Island of Dr. Moreau dramatizes what may happen when science recklessly tampers with genetics and evolution, thereby disturbing intricate natural processes and relations that have evolved over billions of years, of which science understands little or nothing. Wells calls attention to technical methods and abstract knowledge that produces monsters not medicine; he reveals the will to power that informs “objective,” and “value-free” knowing, and the malignant mindset that drives vivisectors toward ever more killing, unconscionable cruelties, and habitual ignorance and arrogance.

Forced to relocate his barbaric experiments to a remote Pacific island when exposed by a journalist, as Huntington Life Sciences today have scurried from the UK to the US and Asia and attempted to hide from the damning revelations of seven separate exposes, Moreau obsessively and tenaciously advances his project to create new life forms, to become a Grand Manipulator, an omniscient and omnipotent God, whatever the cost in terms of suffering and death he inflicts on the nonhuman animals locked in cages. Moreau describes his island chambers as a “kind of Bluebeard’s chamber,” an apt phrase for vivisection laboratories everywhere whose hallways echo with the shrieks of brutalized beings victimized by the only animal capable of sadistic torture and rationalizing evil.

Moreau’s words also eerily invoke the macabre statement of 19th century vivisector champion, Claude Bernard, who wrote, “The science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen,” by traversing, that is, the torment, bloodshed, and death that is vivisection. While Bernard articulates here in florid form what contemporary scientists more prosaically refer to as a “necessary evil,” it is interesting to note that he implies vivisection is only a transitional stage in the development of science. Yet considering the campaigns of pro-vivisection groups such as Pro-Test, Speaking of Research, and Americans for Medical Progress, we see the vivisection industry tenaciously clinging to old models and adamantly resisting change, and this is largely because the money is locked in the models of the past, and the industry favors its financial interests over advances in science, medicine, and human well-being.

Upon arriving at the island, hapless traveler Edward Prendrick hears cries from the “House of Pain.” Wells reminds us of the agony endured by the victims of vivisection, and what an abominable, detestable, and barbaric practice modern experimental research has been and remains. The prevailing image of an obscure and distant island symbolizes the isolation of science from the public and the practice of vivisection in the unmarked and secured buildings that hide the horrors of nonhuman animal torture from critical scrutiny and help shield pseudo-science from effective regulation, meaningful oversight, and conditions of openness and “transparency.”

But once behind the walls of secrecy, Prendrick sees and hears all that is closed to the public; only through undercover investigations is the true world of the vivisector revealed to the public, rather than the lies and professional propaganda disseminated to a gullible populace. And every time an activist penetrates the thick walls that shield and protect vivisectors from scrutiny or accountability, the same habitual practices of neglect and cruelty are revealed, refuting the lies and obfuscating rhetoric of “welfare” and the obfuscation that government, oversight committees, and (in the US) the Animal Welfare Act ensure that scientists provide “care” for their coerced captives. The entire smoke and mirror act of welfarism, regardless, only reinforces the myth that any level of captivity, confinement, isolation, body invasion, terrorism, torture, and cutting, burning, maiming, and sickening other sentient beings is somehow “humane,” “responsible,” or acceptable by any society that has climbed out of the morass of barbarism and does not confuse the dressings and trappings of technology with moral evolution and genuine civilization.

Corporate and university laboratories are unmarked, hidden, and guarded for good reason. Just as if slaughterhouses had glass walls, the population of vegetarians would swell, so if laboratories were translucent and revealed the truth of their “care” and the fraud called “science,” a formidable mass of people would rise in outrage to demand an end to this charade, the immediate cessation of wasting taxpayer money on this travesty, a full scale investigation into corporate greed and government collusion, and a radically new vision for health and medicine. The dark, hidden, secret, and virtually unregulated world of vivisection cannot survive the light of truth, and so, like cockroaches, researchers and functionaries slither and scurry into their dark clandestine compounds and gloomy guarded fortresses. The image of an island is thus a perfect metaphor for vivisection, for whether in the basements of universities or behind the barbed wired walls of corporate research centers, vivisectors seek as much secrecy and distance from the public as possible.

Wells not only gave voice to growing protests against vivisection during the nineteenth century and after in England, the US, and other Western states, he anticipated the logical extension of the atrocities of vivisection in the 20th century, as the fictional crimes of Dr. Moreau progressed into the real horrors of Dr. Mengele and Nazi genocide. Speaking through the voice of a critically awaked Prendrick, Wells raises the terrible question: “could the vivisection of men be possible?” Wells clearly understands that experimentation on nonhuman animals – contemptible in itself and evil on its own – is but a step toward experimentation on human animals; it is the inevitable progression of Western pathologies and the unchecked modernist will to power that subjects all living beings to the dictates of the needle, scalpel, and microscope.

We know now — through Auschwitz; the Tuskegee, Alabama experiments that withheld penicillin treatment from 399 black men infected with syphilis; the intentional infection of mentally retarded children with hepatitis-B by doctors at Willowbrook State Hospital in Staten Island; government-directed radiation experiments on unwitting Americans to assess the effect of radioactivity on the human body; and countless cases of “volunteers” for medical “research” who were not informed of the serious risks they were taking — that the answer to Prendrick’s agonizing question is affirmative. Well’s position seems not to be the speciesist axiom that the “superior” status of humans justifies unlimited suffering and killing of other animals, but rather that a culture which dispenses violence and death to other animals will inevitably turn its weapons against itself.

With his sympathies and conscience still intact, unlike the human automatons re-engineered through years of “scientific training,” Prendrick recoils in horror upon seeing the sundry “Beast Folk” engineered by Moreau. He beholds a grotesque menagerie of transgenic freaks that include mixtures of hyena and swine, ape and goat, bear and bull, and horse and rhinoceros. Wells’ portrait of a veritable surrealist zoo of creatures remarkably anticipates our own era of genetic reconstruction, in which scientists have created potatoes with chicken and sheep genes; tomatoes with antifreeze genes from fish; glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants spliced with firefly genes; and pigs bred with human genes.

As if nonhuman animals do not already suffer enough, with billions confined, tortured, and butchered in the laboratories, factory farms, and slaughterhouses of the world, the Western corporate-science complex is now “pharming” an array of animal-human composites for their blood, milk, and organs. The obscene violence of intensive confinement of chickens, pigs, and cattle in the factory farming system grow even worse with genetic modification techniques used to maximize and accelerate growth processes and thus to expand profit margins. Not surprisingly, this unprecedented level of interference in the natural growth processes of nonhuman animals produced monstrosities, such as cows with massive udders, turkeys too top-heavy to mate, and chickens afflicted with a painful “rapid muscling” condition that impedes their ability to walk.[3]

From Frankenfields to brave new barnyards, scientists have spawned a cornucopia of transgenic species. Experiments with human-animal hybrids grown in Petri dishes suggests the possibility of creating humanimals in the manner of Dr. Moreau. As scientists have already created anomalies such as self-shearing sheep and broiler chickens with fewer feathers, some macabre visionaries foresee engineering pigs and chickens with flesh that is tender or easy to microwave, and wingless chickens that won’t require bigger cages. The next step would be to just create and replicate animals’ torsos – minimalistic organ sacks — and dispense with superfluous heads and limbs. In fact, scientists have already created headless embryos of mice and frogs in grotesque manifestations of the kinds of life they can now construct at will.

Prendrick sees the hybrid creations as humans devolved into animals, but Moreau informs him that in fact they are animals he is trying to elevate into humans. Within each hybrid there is a constant battle between instinct and morality, desire and reason; their struggle mirrors that of humanity which, despite varying social-institutional forms and its self-scribed essence as “wise” or “rational,” cannot evolve beyond the primitive urges of hatred, violence, killing, war, genocide, and social hierarchy.

Photobucket

In an uncanny anticipation of xenotransplantation and genetic engineering, Wells, speaking through Moreau, imagines that “it is a possible thing to transplant tissue from one part of an animal to another or from one animal to another, to alter its chemical reactions and methods of growth, to modify the articulation of its limbs, and indeed to change it in its most intimate structure.” Yet, every time Moreau’s chimeras seem to verge toward “triumphs of vivisection,” they revert to brute violence and chaos. Despite the intense social conditioning that Moreau believes nullify any possibility of disobedience, the Beast Folk regularly break his rules, rebel ever more boldly, and ultimately kill their despised creator.

The intractable and autonomous Beast Folk are vivid reminders of the limits of modernist schemes of prediction and control. Wells exposes the fallacies of mechanistic science and the Cartesian-Baconian paradigm, which stem from control fantasies, alienation and arrogance, and atomistic thinking. Consequently, vivisection is a massive error, fallacy, and obstacle to genuine knowledge, sustained by careerism, cowardice, inertia, dearth of imagination, hollow rationalizations about “necessary evil,” and the profits of the vivisection and pharmaceutical industries, including breeders, suppliers, and a huge supporting network of businesses from insurance to cleaning. The vast and variegated global vivisection complex serves the master of profit, not the principle of truth, and knows quite well that the money is in treating the symptoms of disease, not curing it once and for all.

In our own social context, Moreau is embodied in the global vivisection complex (and the complicit FDA) and citizens are the Beast Folk, the experimental “animals” of elite corporations and bureaucracies of specialized knowledge. Given significant differences in physiology, metabolism, and reaction to drugs, and the appallingly high failure rate (often causing serious injury or death) of drugs “tested safe on animals,” it is clear that everyone who takes prescription medicines and who eats non-organic food is a subject of a vast experiment corporations, scientists, and government impose on citizens without public debate and informed consent, such as may easily have unknown, long-term, and unforeseeable negative effects on health. In this sense, there is no island on which science is practiced apart from society, for the mindset, influence, and consequences of technoscience, vivisection, and corporate research spreads throughout the pores and interstices of society, into our homes and bodies.[4]

IV. The Campus of Dr. Jentsch

“They apply to humans the same formulas and findings that, without restraint, they force from defenseless animals in their nauseating physiological laboratories… Reason, mercilessly advancing, belongs to man. The animal, from which he draws his bloody conclusion, knows only irrational terror and the urge to make an escape from which he is cut off.” Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno

Upon encountering the shock of “the strangest beings” he has ever seen, Prendrick realizes that the island “is full of inimical phenomena” and he condemns Moreau as a “lunatic” and “ugly devil.” He concludes that Dr. Moreau – like Mary Shelly’s character, Dr. Frankenstein — “was so irresponsible, so utterly careless. His curiosity, his mad, aimless investigations, drove him on.”

Moreau, of course, has a different image of himself, as indeed do all white coat mercenaries and tenured sadists reaping the lucrative rewards of corporate caches and taxpayer booty. Like capitalists, scientists view the world as exploitable resources, and thus view nonhuman animals as nothing but commodities, things, data generators for publication, and mere means to human ends. Although Moreau has perfected the art of scientific detachment, and is exquisitely indifferent to the pain he inflicts on his victims, he imagines himself — in the bad faith of all vivisectors — as a benefactor to the world, as one who is trying to realize his vision of a perfect humanity to be achieved through rapid biological manipulation rather than the social and educational practices that span generations.

For twenty years, Moreau devoted himself “to the study of the plasticity of living forms.” Rejecting any belief that nature and species boundaries are fixed, he seeks to “conquer” nature, to bend it to his will, to become God-like in his power to design species, while admitting that he has “never troubled himself about the ethics of the matter.” Nothing today could better summarize the mentality of the scientific establishment trained to detach facts from values, research from ethics, feelings from reason, science from public scrutiny and concerns.

Wells’ Dr. Moreau, like Shelly’s Dr. Frankenstein, is sketched not so much as an individual as a general type or syndrome that is rampant in science, and far more so today than the last two centuries when Wells and Shelly wrote their novels.[5] One contemporary individual that these authors would have no trouble identifying as a manifestation of the Frankenstein or Moreauvian syndrome is Dr. J. David Jentsch, a UCLA vivisector and gung-ho leader of the US Pro-Test” movement. Originating in the UK in 2006, the Pro-Test movement mobilized to counter animal rights arguments “disinformation” with the “true facts” regarding the indispensible role of vivisection in the past, present, and future of medical progress.[6]



Jentsch’s bizarre, sinister, alien, metrosexual, gothy, insect-like, mutant posthuman look — his stretched Gladwrap face and altered eyebrows appropriate for an OC housewife, circus master, Addams Family cast, Star Trek set, bit player (perhaps star!) in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, but somewhat odd for an aging vivisector — is a remarkable symbolization of the monstrous nature of vivisection. Modified, amplified, distorted, enhanced, unnaturally twisted, bent, and shaped, Dr. Jentsch is the face of vivisection, the perfect spokesmen and poster boy for a vast, shadowy, sinewy, sinister multibillion dollar industry that inflicts pain, terror, and torture on millions of innocent nonhuman animals equal to human animals in their capacity to suffer psychologically and physically. Jentsch emphatically embodies an industry that breeds, boxes, and buys sentient beings from Charles River Laboratory (the so-called “General Motors of the laboratory animal industry”) catalogues as if they were blocks of wood. Whether captured from the wild, bought under false pretence from homes or shelters, or bred as slaves, monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, rats, and rabbits are cast into a living nightmare and terrifying hell where menacing figures in white coats bring pain without compassion and death without remorse.

Jentsch is the real deal; he doesn’t just play a vivisector on TV, he is a card-carrying, bona fide, board certified purveyor of pain; he doesn’t only theorize about vivisection, he practices it and sickens and kills with his own hands. Jentsch’s profound contributions to medicine and humanity stem from his efforts to “model certain aspects of schizophrenia” in monkeys, addict them to cocaine “to produce both selective deficits in cognitive functions,” and, for variety, he exposes rats to THC and amphetamines to manipulate “attentional impairments.” And still more nonhuman animals are subjected to Jentsch’s Moreauvian whims as he champions “the usefulness of PCP (also known as “ketamine” or “angel dust”) administration” to produce “symptoms of schizophrenia,” and continues his quest to addict primates to drugs that elicit psychotic reactions, ”particularly schizophrenia.” Like many or even most scientific publications, these studies take common sense ideas or deductions that could be stated a priori, dress them up with inscrutable scientific jargon, and convert them into publishable profundities that allegedly warrant more taxpayer money for more senseless suffering and depressing death.[7]

With Dario Ringach and other UCLA Pro-Test colleagues, Jentsch slices and dices throughout the day, ensconced within his campus compound, safe from animal rights “thugs” and “terrorists.” Like most scientists who wield life and death power over helpless innocents and brandish a license to kill, Jentsch’s arrogance blocks awareness of his own hypocrisy. Unlike Jentsch who tortures and kills for a living, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) strictly abides by a code of nonviolence and attacks property, never people, using sabotage as a tactic to weaken or shut down exploiters and oppressors who profit from the misery of others. Like the Underground Railroad of the 19th century, the ALF frees captive slaves, secures them food and medical treatment, and transports them to new homes.[8] In the topsy-turvy outlook of speciesism, ethical property destruction is terrorism but torture and murder of innocents – their just deserts for the crime of being nonhuman and inferior – is laudable and the service to humanity merits accolades of the highest order. History is likely to make a different judgment.

For scientists to create monsters, they first have to turn themselves into monsters, a process that begins with training in “objective” methods and the schizophrenic detachment of reason from emotion, facts from values. Curiosity pursued “for its own sake” is severed from ethical ideals as the drive for knowledge is its own justification and legitimation, no matter what unconscionable horrors are inflicted on innocent victims.

But the romantic individualism implied here is long obsolete, a causality of the commodification of knowledge and corporatization of academia. In the reign of advanced capitalism, science is pursued for the sake of grant money, profits, bureaucratic requirements, career ambitions, and the profits of the global vivisection complex. Whereas science driven by curiosity is foreboding enough, science powered by capital, contracts, and corporations is terrifying as “facts” become commodities, “truth” can be shaped to any agenda or purpose, and scientists are often bound to confidential agreements that prohibit them from divulging information that contradicts the desired corporate narrative they were hired to shape. The pressure of grants, tenure, and promotion ensure no one wanting a long term career step out of line to question corporate influence or policies of the state, and the indentured servitude of professors and sometimes entire departments to oil, agriculture, timber, and pharmaceutical corporations turns knowledge into a bar-coded commodity, prostitutes the ideals of the academy and the integrity of knowledge, and relegates universities to utilitarian functions within the academic-military-industrial complex.

V. The Time Machine of Visionary Fiction Critique

“Human history has become more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” H.G. Wells

As we move into a new millennium fraught with terror and danger, a global postmodern condition is unfolding in the midst of rapid evolutionary and social changes co-constructed by science, technology, and global capital. We are quickly morphing into a new biological and social existence that is ever-more shaped by computers, mass media, and biotechnology, all driven by the logic of capital and a powerful technoscience. In this context, science is no longer merely an interpretation of the natural and social worlds, rather it has become an active force in changing them and the very nature of life. In an era where life can be created and redesigned in a Petri dish, where species boundaries are transgressed at will, and genetic codes can be edited like a digital text, the boundaries between reality/unreality, natural/artificial, inorganic/organic, biology/technology, human/machine, and the born and the made are disappearing as all life ­- from bacteria and plants to nonhuman animals and human animals ­- is being reconstructed, commodified, and patented in a “second Genesis.”

Ultimately, the titans of technoscience intend to seize the reins of evolution and redesign – to “improve” – the human genome. They want to maximize the transformations, optimize the pace of change, and minimize public involvement and government regulation. To justify their island-like distance from society, they insist that only elites and experts can be in the driver’s seat, that the public must trust them completely, that their goals are purely altruistic, that they will bring progress and happiness to all, and that everything is safe and under control.

Amidst the vertigo of increasingly rapid and profound mutation, the lines between the future and present blur, as technological visions quickly become reality, unleashing waves of change that engulf existing forms of life, washing them away toward new, unknown destinations with unpredictable effects that could be liberating or destructive, depending on the extent to which human beings can envisage their double potential and shape them through democratic practices toward progressive ends. This very much is a public, democratic, and participatory matter. It demands our full attention, awareness, and engagement, and requires replacing the isolation of science from citizenry with a mutual critical dialogue designed to achieve goals of democracy, justice, and ecology.

But the injustice of human exploiting human and the grotesquely uneven effects of development within US society and between so-called developed and undeveloped worlds cannot be renounced only to replicate far worse injustices and forms of oppression in our relations to other sentient species. From a consistent ethical standpoint not vitiated by arbitrary bias in favor of our own species, we cannot enslave, butcher, and murder countless millions of lives to advance our own purposes, especially when these interests are best advanced by overcoming speciesism and carnivorism, advancing aggressive education campaigns about preventative heath and benefits of veganism, and healing our alienation from the surrounding world.

Our contemporary era, with all its strange novelties, demands new visions and new maps to survey the bizarre terrain. These must be not only empirical and sociological mappings, but also fictional and literary representations to startle the imagination into adequately grasping nova such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, cloning, and xenotransplantation. Perhaps no one demonstrates more clearly than H.G. Wells the fallacy of separating science fiction from earthly and social affairs. Science fiction works can anticipate new modes of being and illuminate the present through presenting ways of seeing that provide concrete embodiment to the abstractions of science and theory. They can also present the practical and human consequences of inventions, technologies, and scientific breakthroughs.

The Island of Dr. Moreau deserves to be re-read in the current context of an ongoing biotech revolution in which many developments he anticipated have become real, while the mentality of science is much the same. The Island of Dr. Moreau is a powerful critique of technology out-of-control, of unethical usages of “objective” science, of scientists without perspective or humanity, and of frightening mutations to come. Wells demonstrates how science fiction can serve as the critical conscience of science and provide powerful challenges to the delusions and propaganda of technoscience. Wells severs the equation of growth and change with progress, and calls into question rationalizations for cruelty, violence, killing, and domination as “necessary” for medical advance. Like the Cartesian view of animals scientists generally hold, vivisection is an obsolete research and testing model that ultimately impedes scientific progress, just as surely as it prevents the substantive moral and social progress necessary for an advanced technological society to be viable and sustainable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For detailed analysis of the modern and postmodern paradigm shifts in science, see Steven Best and Douglas Kellner, The Postmodern Turn (Guilford Press, 1997) and The Postmodern Adventure: Science, Technology, and Cultural Studies at the Third Millennium (Guilford Press, 2001),

[2] According to recent USDA estimates, 55% of soybeans, 35% of corn crops, 80% of processed foods, and 60-75% of nonorganic food in US supermarkets are genetically modified. With the firm support of US “regulatory” agencies, genetically modified corn, soybeans, tomatoes, potatoes, squash, cotton, and dozens of other crops have been planted across one fourth of US cropland, brought to supermarkets unlabelled, and imported to other countries. Four dozen genetically modified foods cultivated over 90 million acres of land turn up in a wide array of items, from tofu to tortillas, from canola oil to corn chips, from potatoes to protein powder, from breads to beer, and from syrups to salad dressings. And none are labeled as genetically altered for, according to FDA, this would be “alarmist,” “impractical,” and “confusing” to the consumer since they declared GMFs safe. This violates their own policy which requires that substances added to foods be identified and which prohibits “false or misleading” labeling.

[3] On the genetic modification and cloning of nonhuman animals, see Steven Best, “Genetic Engineering, Animal Exploitation, and the Challenge for Democracy,” in Leonardo’s Choice: Genetic Technologies and Animals (ed. Carol Gigliotti), Springer Press, 2009.

[4] See Fran Hawthorne, Inside the FDA: The Business and Politics Behind the Drugs We Take and the Food We Eat. Wiley Publishers, 2005.

[5] On Shelly’s ever-timely novel and the specific type of scientific mindset she was criticizing, see Steve Best, “The Frankenstein Syndrome,” simulposted at Negotiation is Over and Thomas Paine’s Corner.

[6] On the origins of the Pro-Test movement in the UK and US, see www.pro-test.org.uk, http://www.speakingofresearch.org/, and http://www.pro-test-for-science.org/.

[7] Biomedexperts “Research Profile” of J. David Jentsch (experiments, theories, publications): http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/638932/J_David_Jentsch

[8] On the history, ethics, politics, and tactics of the Animal Liberation Front, see Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella II, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. Lantern Books, 2006.

Dr. Steve Best is TPC’s Senior Editor of Total Liberation. Associate professor of philosophy at UTEP, award-winning writer, noted speaker, public intellectual, and seasoned activist, Steven Best engages the issues of the day such as animal rights, ecological crisis, biotechnology, liberation politics, terrorism, mass media, globalization, and capitalist domination. Best has published 10 books, over 100 articles and reviews, spoken in over a dozen countries, interviewed with media throughout the world, appeared in numerous documentaries, and was voted by VegNews as one of the nations “25 Most Fascinating Vegetarians.” He has come under fire for his uncompromising advocacy of “total liberation” (humans, animals, and the earth) and has been banned from the UK for the power of his thoughts. From the US to Norway, from Sweden to France, from Germany to South Africa, Best shows what philosophy means in a world in crisis.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Tom Holder (Speaking of Research): Paid to Advance Pharma’s Capitalist Agenda



Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

Vivisectors J. David Jentsch and Dario Ringach (UCLA Pro-Test/Speaking of Research) have consistently and adamantly refused to defend the scientific validity of mutilating and torturing animals in secluded, non-descript laboratories. Most recently, the two “researchers” ran from the public forum offered them by CNN and the opportunity to engage in civil debate with Dr. Jerry Vlasak (trauma surgeon) and Dr. Ray Greek (retired physician & author). Rather, they are waging an intense one-sided propaganda campaign, determined to keep their true agenda, as well as their barbaric atrocities, hidden far away from public view.

Since they refuse to discuss the science, TPC and NIO have tried to advance a dialogue in several other areas. We will be publishing a series of articles underscoring the lies, shameless lack of ethics, and illogic that propels this insidious community of terrorists.

Speaking of Research: Their Agenda is Money, Not Science

Jason Miller and Camille Marino initiated the following conversation with Tom Holder in an effort to openly discuss a critical issue: that the Speaking of Research community exists to advance the capitalist agenda of pharma. But like Jentsch, Tom has no interest in truth. The discussion that follows is complete and unedited.

From: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
To: Tom Holder
October 21, 2009 1:15 p.m.


Tom,

A lot of the editorializing and personal attacks do little to foster a productive dialogue. It may be beneficial, therefore, to establish a line of communication. In an effort to understand you and your positions within the Speaking of Research community, we hope you will entertain a single question:

Do you receive any money or payment in any kind for defending and promoting the vivisection industry?

We look forward to your response.

Jason & Camille

From: Tom Holder
To: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
October 21, 2009 1:29 p.m.


Dear Jason and Camille,

I do not believe that our respective blogs are the most productive places for dialogue – thus I will use these email addresses in future for issues such as the phone number instance. In that sense we have email as a line of communication.

Do I receive any money or payment for defending research?

No I do not. If I give a lecture I ask that all my travel costs be reimbursed (since I’m usually travelling from the UK). On occasion (and certainly not always) I receive a small honarium for speaking - this is not because I ask for it, but because they tend to give all speakers this fee (this is more normal for conferences that other one off talks).



I currently have another job in the UK that is not linked to the issue of animal research, it is from this that I make my living.

Regards,

Tom

From: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
To: Tom Holder
October 21, 2009 4:00 p.m.


Tom,

Thank you for your response.

We, too, are far more comfortable addressing this privately.

We are in receipt of strong evidence suggesting that individuals in the pharmaceutical industry finance your activism.

We are not concerned with the nominal fees garnered for speaking engagements.

It is evident from our information that you are advancing an agenda on behalf of entities who need to remain anonymous. There is not much more we can reveal without compromising our source.

We know you have a personal stake in this issue.

If you share shed some light on this dynamic, we are willing to share a few details with you.

Jason & Camille

From: Tom Holder
To: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
October 21, 2009 5:08 p.m.


Jason and Camille,

I’m not sure what I can say – I have never been paid by anyone in the pharmaceutical industry.

My personal stake in this issue is my health (not that I have any pressing health issues) – to see animal research abolished is to risk future treatments that may benefit me and those close to me (and just about everyone else).

I have no idea what sources you think you have (and I suspect this is a shot in the dark whereby you were hoping I would admit some dark truth) but I have no financial stake in this issue – not that I need to prove this to you.

Regards

Tom

From: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
To: Tom Holder
October 21, 2009 7:50 p.m.


Tom,

Didn’t your mother teach you that “honesty is the best policy?”

Our original question was, “Do you receive any money or payment in any kind for defending and promoting the vivisection industry?”

We also wrote, “We are in receipt of strong evidence suggesting that individuals in the pharmaceutical industry finance your activism.”

You wrote, “I’m not sure what I can say – I have never been paid by anyone in the pharmaceutical industry.“

The truth is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Medical_Progress

In Spring 2008 the organization awarded Tom Holder, the spokesman for Pro-Test, the Michael D. Hayre fellowship in public outreach[1]. This allowed Holder to move to the US[2], and with the support of AMP, set up Speaking of Research, a campus-oriented group supporting animal research with similar tactics to Pro-Test. In July 2009 AMP announced three new Hayre Fellows to work on local and national advocacy efforts[3]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Medical_Progress

Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) is an industry-funded organization and front group for the pharmaceutical, animal testing and breeding industries. AMP runs media campaigns targeting animal rights and welfare groups. It is a self described “charitable organization” and tax exempt under the IRS code 501(c)(3). [1]

AMP’s board of directors consists of senior executives and other representatives employed by the pharmaceutical and vivisection industries. They include Charles River, Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Wyeth. [2] Charles River Laboratories, Inc. is the world’s largest supplier of laboratory animals. It has been described as the “General Motors of the laboratory animal industry”. [3] Board members also represent universities and institutions receiving government grants for vivisection. Many corporations and institutions on AMP’s board have amassed a history of gross animal welfare violations in the United States and Europe and are the focus of animal and health advocates.

Those who underwrote the fellowship that enabled your activism represent the “who’s who” of nonhuman animal torturers. If you’re going to shill for morally abhorrent vivisectors, at least own up to it.

You also wrote, “My personal stake in this issue is my health (not that I have any pressing health issues)”

If you are so concerned about your health, why aren’t you a vegan?

Regards,

Jason & Camille

From: Tom Holder
To: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
October 22, 2:04 a.m.


Jason and Camille,

I was brought over to the US by a non-profit organization dealing in outreach (although I find it laughable that Sourcewatch is your special source). For 6 months I was funded by AMP. For the 2 years prior to that in Pro-Test, and the year after in Speaking of Research all my efforts have been unpaid.

With regards to your original question you will note it was in the present tense. I currently, and for the last year, have continued my efforts with Speaking of Research without receiving money or payment from the vivisection industry.

Regards

Tom

From: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
To: Tom Holder
October 22, 3:06 a.m.


Tom,

You underestimate us.

Sourcewatch is not the “source’ to whom our previous email referred.

Would you care to retract your previous statement asserting that “health concerns” propel your activism?

Jason & Camille

From: Tom Holder
To: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
October 22, 3:19 a.m.


Jason and Camille,

No, I began doing this and continue to do this for concerns about the future of medicine. I spent 6 months with AMP because that was the only way I could come out there (and survive financially). AMP do fantastic work in the field of education and outreach.

However I did not work for AMP – I ran my own organization, Speaking of Research, which furthered their aims and mine.

I am afraid I am beginning to suspect your motives for these emails – waiting for some sentence you can pull out of context rather than a real interest in the motivations behind my work.

Regards,

Tom

From: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
To: Tom Holder
October 22, 1:20 p.m.


Tom,

We’re not interested in splitting hairs or playing the Clintonian game of determining what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Whether you utilized the money for personal financial remuneration or simply to finance your activism, the bottom line is that you would not be in the US and Speaking of Research would not exist were it not for a host of morally despicable people and entities—who along with you are complicit in enabling the torture and annihilation of millions of sentient beings.

Fine, here’s a link to AMP’s own site which reveals that this entity, that gave you the seed money to whore for the vivisection industry, is comprised of egregious nonhuman animal torturers:

http://www.amprogress.org/atf/cf/{225f2fb1-fe52-4dde-9f29-dcf47a3d37d1}/AMP_BOARD_9.08.PDF

We’re still waiting for you to explain to us why you are not vegan when you allege that your activism is motivated by concerns for your health. Note how incredibly ironic it is that the consumption of rotting animal flesh (”meat”) causes many of the maladies and diseases which many of your sociopathic associates claim to be trying to mitigate or cure through torturing and murdering nonhuman animals.

It’s such a viscious circle of sadism, isn’t it, Tom? Torture, kill and eat animals. Become diseased because of eating those animals. Torture and kill more animals to try to cure the diseases caused by eating other animals. Imagine how much better off humans and nonhumans would be if we simply left our nonhuman animal brethren alone!

Jason & Camille

From: Tom Holder
To: Jason Miller, Camille Marino
October 22, 3:13 p.m.


Jason,

I’m not interested in having an argument with you over email. It’s not worth my time.

I’m well aware of who is on the board of directors, I’m also aware of AMPs funding. I also know my motives for getting involved have nothing to do with money, it never did (it never paid particularly well). The AMP board of directors have never had ANY control over my activities.

Regards

Tom

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

The Frankenstein Syndrome



Like many vivisectors who currently ply their ruthless 'craft' in the 'pursuit of knowledge,' including J. David Jentsch of UCLA, Dr. Robert White epitomized the "Frankenstein Syndrome." In spring of 1977, he grafted one monkey's head onto another's body and showed a film of this "experiment" on Italian television.

By Dr. Steve Best

10/23/09

A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.

---Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1993 [1818]) is one of the first and most prescient critiques of modern science and technology out of control, creating unanticipated destructive consequences. The novel has been reprinted endless times, made into countless films, and continues to shape our fears and suspicions of science and technology. It has spawned a vast literature, as well as genres of popular culture which have warned, time and time again, that the power of modern science and technology -- if divorced from an ethical sensibility and insight into the contingency and unpredictability of complex systems -- may bring disastrous results to human beings, other life forms, and the earth as a whole.[i]

Frankenstein first appeared in 1818 at the dawn of the industrial revolution, as a critical response to the insurgence of technological modernity. Emerging about the same time as the Luddite's demolition of the factory machines that threatened their livelihood, Shelley's novel shared the anti-technological vision found in Blake and the Romantics. Drawing on the Gothic tradition of tales of horror, Frankenstein anticipates the genre of science fiction writing, a mode that extrapolates a "what if?" situation, showing the possible consequences of rapid scientific and technological innovation. In Shelley's case, the premise was: what if human beings could originate life by reanimating the dead and forming a new being out of human flesh and organs? The result, of course, is Victor Frankenstein's "monster" who disgusts the scientist, escapes from his basement, and goes on a rampage, becoming a murderous and dangerous "fiend" after repeated mistreatment by humans and learning of his abandonment by his creator.

Shelley's tale synthesizes the vision of scientific materialism that modern science can produce wonders, including new life forms, and the stance of Gothic romanticism, that fears the ugly, the monstrous, the irrational, and the violent erupting and destroying human hopes and life. Her style revels in evocations of the sublime, especially in the treatment of nature, but also the demonic romance of science, in which the modern scientist plays the role of the Sorcerer's Apprentice, delving into the mysteries of nature to seek answers and to create new forms of life. Told in the form of a series of diary entries in which an intrepid explorer Francis Walton narrates his encounter with Victor Frankenstein who he picked up at sea en route to the North Pole, the novel presents multiple perspectives on the events of the tale, as seen by Victor, Walton, and the creature.[ii]

An Enlightenment Faust, Victor Frankenstein represents both the drive to master the mysteries of life and the Cartesian ego separated from the body, other people, nature, and the social world.[iii] Taught by his father the principles of modern science, Victor renounces alchemy, mysticism, and tradition, and seeks truth through scientific method, just as modern science itself was eradicating the premodern influences from its emerging mechanistic models. Above all, Dr. Frankenstein -- the "modern Prometheus" as the book is subtitled -- stole fire from the Gods, the secret of the creation of life, and aspired to become like a god, the author of life and a new species. He is thus a distinctly modern hero who embodies the deepest impulses of modernity to control nature, perfect social existence, and produce new forms of life. But in his pursuit of the life-force, he isolates himself from other people, including his family, fiancé Elizabeth, and friends, all of whom are destroyed by his obsession. Like Descartes, Victor sees the search for truth as an individual quest and like Bacon defines knowledge as an instrument for subduing nature and controlling its forces.



Much more than merely a romantic yarn or dark Gothic adventure tale, Frankenstein raises ethical questions concerning scientific inquiry and the nature and use of technology. Shelley's allegory represents Dr. Frankenstein as committing a number of wrongs: he turned his back on his "hideous" creation, he allowed it to escape from his home to roam freely in society, he permitted a servant to be condemned and put to death for crimes he knew his progeny committed, and thus acted irresponsibly throughout. Scientifically brilliant, but emotionally and ethically crippled, Dr. Frankenstein proved himself to be the real monster, confirming Ashley Montague's insight that "an intelligence that is not humane is the most dangerous thing in the world," as well as Kant's emphasis that knowledge divorced from the "good will" is a vice not a virtue.

Shelley's themes of technology producing calamities and eluding human control implies that technology -- along with the social and natural environments in which it is constituted -- is a complex system that does not lend itself to deterministic schemes of predictability. Shelley posed a warning that raised, before the currently available nuclear and genetic technologies, a crucial question facing us today: Should human beings attempt to control, alter, improve, or, most extremely, beget life through technological means? Humanity may certainly improve its world through technology, Shelley suggests, but there should be limits to technological intervention in nature. Shelley draws the line at the human creation of life; human beings must not "play God," her novel suggests, or, in their overweening hubris and lack of wisdom, they will suffer the catastrophic consequences that inevitably will result.

Currently, a crucial debate is unfolding over what, if any, limits exist that could impede human efforts to transform nature. Yet Frankenstein should not be read as an attack on science per se, but rather as a dissection of the hubris of an ethically irresponsible and inhumane science obsessed with control and manipulation. Hence, the tragedy of Frankenstein is not that he creates a form of life that careens out of control, but that he refuses to take ethical responsibility for his creation, turns his back on it, and refuses to provide adequate controls, safeguards, and monitoring for his experiment.

Shelley thus anticipated the immanent arrival of an era when science acquires the powers to create life, and her monster represents the dangers this project carries, as a new species can easily escape human control and wreak havoc on its creators and environment. Shelley's fable also suggests that human creations might themselves breed and produce a new, even more intractable species, as suggested in the subplot of the mutant seeking a wife and family. Hence, Shelley previews key aspects of the fifth discontinuity, where the creation of a new species threatens to rebound against humanity, and to decenter the human, robbing it of its prerogatives, uniqueness, and claims to the pinnacle of evolution. Indeed, the "monster" is appalled as he learns about the sordid history of human violence, power, bigotry, and bloodshed, leading him to question the supposed superiority and wisdom of Homo sapiens.

Moreover, Frankenstein deconstructs the line between the natural and artificial, persons and things, the born and the made, and presents the sensitive creature as a physically and mentally superior being. A sort of Rousseauean "natural man," the creature is innocent of human ways and only becomes violent when shunned and mistreated. Open to experience and learning, the creature shapes his mind and behavior through the reading of books, which gives him a sense of the range of human possibilities and existence of both good and evil, benevolence and violence. At different times in the novel, Frankenstein's creation is portrayed as a thing, as nonhuman, while other times its exquisitely human features come to the fore. Victor sees his progeny both ways and the perception of the creature as a "monster" points precisely to the transcendence and undercutting of natural boundaries, its mixing human and non-human, person and thing, in frightening and disturbing ways.

Photobucket

Frankenstein's creature also shows how an inhumane society refuses to recognize difference and otherness and brutally mistreats those who appear disparate and less than fully human. Film audiences through the ages have sympathized with Boris Karloff's poignant portrayal of the creature in James Whales' 1931 classic film by recognizing that he merely wants acceptance, understanding, respect, and contact with his own kind. An anticipatory symbol of postmodern otherness, the Frankenstein figure thus reproaches a modernity that normalizes and homogenizes, while marginalizing or destroying those who do not fit into its established order.

In today's postmodern adventure, the boundaries between science fiction and science fact are fast collapsing. To paraphrase Baudrillard's 1988 remark about the year 2000, Frankenstein is already here. Genetic engineering, bionics, lab-grown organs, xenotransplanation, organ markets, hand and forearm transplants, and full body transplants (experiments grafting the head of one monkey onto the body of another), all signal the materialization of Shelley's vision. Technologically designed species can be owned, patented, and commodified by corporations, while animals such as frogs, sheep, mice, and bulls have been cloned. Some scientists like Richard Seed are actively working to clone human beings, while others imagine concocting chimeras that are half-human, half-ape for medical and experimental purposes. Through contemporary science and technology, human beings are thus taking decisive steps toward becoming chimeras, mutants, and cyborgs. They are no longer species "originals," but rather syntheses of flesh, DNA, blood and organs from other species, silicon chips, technological implants, and prosthetics. Thus, "human beings" today can easily be part human, part animal, and part machine.

Photobucket

With computers and new technologies becoming increasingly sophisticated, ubiquitous, and central to the accumulation of capital, it is not surprising that the human imagination articulates a fear of technological takeover. Hence, there has been a proliferation of visions of technology rebelling against human creators, such as in Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the computer HAL refuses to follow human orders and kills a crew member. The film Colossus: The Forbin Project (1971) shows Russian and American supercomputers merging to take political control of earth. In Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano (1980), engineer Paul Proteus struggles to survive in a world dominated by machines. Isaac Asimov's short story "Little Lost Robot" (1947) depicts human beings destroying robots that develop intelligence and will. Android (1982) features the plight of "Max," an android living on a space station who learns he is about to be replaced by a better prototype, but kills his designer to fulfill his dream of living on earth. Demon Seed (1976) portrays a supercomputer that manages a house and then goes array, raping its female occupant. In Blade Runner (1982), androids return to earth in a quest for longer lives and freedom from human slavery (see the Epilogue). The Terminator series portrays a Skynet computer system acquiring self-consciousness and seeking to destroy human beings, first through nuclear warfare, and then by sending cyborgs back in time to destroy the seeds of future human resistance. William Gibson's cyberpunk trilogy presents forms of artificial intelligence who use human beings to accomplish their ends. The Matrix (1999) conjures up a grisly post-holocaust world where humans are appropriated as energy sources for computers, while their minds inhabit a cyberworld they take for reality.

Throughout the modern literature on human inventions -- whether robots, androids, cyborgs, a Frankenstein being made out of flesh and human parts, or computers like HAL and Skynet -- one finds the same anxiety and ambiguity: Are these creations friend or foe? Servants or master? Can we subordinate them to human will and purpose, or will they acquire a will and purpose of their own, and fight against us? Are they smarter or better than us? In modern and contemporary culture, we find a constant fear that machines and technological creations will breed out of control and take over -- e.g., Dr. Frankenstein's creation wants a wife, Asimov's robots acquire self-consciousness and an independent will, the dinosaurs at Jurassic Park spontaneously reproduce, the genetically engineered sharks of Deep Blue Sea kill human beings to attain their freedom, and the computer systems in the Terminator and The Matrix seek to eradicate superfluous humanity. Thus, sensing the growing technoscientific manipulation of life, the ascendancy of humans to a life-creating "God," media culture increasingly dramatizes the perils of the fifth discontinuity.

In retrospect, there is little Shelley imagined in her worst nightmares that has not already become reality in some sense; indeed, given the history of atomic and biochemical weapons, her anticipations were not dark and foreboding enough. There is a significant difference, for example, between unleashing a being that kills a few people before destroying itself, and dropping a nuclear weapon that obliterates entire cities, as the U.S. leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 -- or, for that matter, unleashing a virus that wipes out entire peoples and species.

But of course Shelley's vision concerned more than just the delusions of one mad scientist, it involved the Frankenstein syndrome -- the obsession with control over natural processes, and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, divorced from a careful consideration of ethics, politics, and potential consequences. Thus Frankenstein's "monster" remains an enduring symbol for any potent technology that human beings create which escapes their control and threatens their survival. Nowhere do the symbols and syndrome of Frankenstein apply more readily today than in the case of nanotechnologies, stem cell research, germ-line engineering (which makes permanent alterations in a genetic code), and cloning, all involving the manipulation of microcosmic natural forces. Having dispelled the mystery of the atom, scientists are now unlocking the secrets of the gene, and a dizzying array of benedictions and curses await us.

The lesson of Frankenstein highlights the need to carefully reflect upon the consequences of new technologies, to closely monitor their effects, and to accept accountability for scientific and technological undertakings. However, there are many scientists and engineers today who embrace unlimited technological innovation without ethical accountability. Devouring the tree of knowledge, accepting no legitimate boundaries of human intervention in nature, championing computers, robotics, artificial intelligence, cloning, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering, drunk with the potion of "progress," they would find Shelley's vision to be atavistic and "romantic" in the worst sense of the term (see Rollin 1995). While we would reject blanket prohibitions against human intervention in nature, we support a critical and skeptical attitude toward new developments in science and technology.

Undoubtedly, we need a dialectical analysis of science and technology that steers between the Scylla and Charybdis of technophobia and technophilia, one able to gauge the whitewaters of rapidly changing developments of the postmodern adventure. Yet the modernist belief in the technofix, the credulous, religious-like fervor that technology can solve all our problems is a dangerous illusion that must be abandoned. Technologies often generate more problems than they "solve," as they help constitute a fast-paced, super-stressed, overworked, and overpopulated society that is drowning in its own toxic waste, threatening the ecology of the earth, and changing the very nature of human existence – not necessarily for the better. Consequently, a postmodern philosophy of technology will at once maintain critical and skeptical positions, reject essentialist, determinist, and fixed definition of "human nature," and embrace life-enhancing scientific and technological innovations carried through with ethical responsibility.

Notes:

i. We are using the original 1818 edition of the novel, which contains a more radical critique of Victor Frankenstein's scientific materialism (1993). The revised 1831 edition added a lot of moralizing to make Victor more sympathetic and changed details of the plot to make it more acceptable to conventional morality. See the discussion by Marilyn Butler and the Appendix which delineates the changes (1993). On Mary Shelley's life, see Muriel Spark's lively and engaging account, that also contains critical discussion of the novel (1987). For a variety of variations and spinoffs of Shelley's Frankenstein tale, see Haining 1994.

ii. It is interesting that Walton, like Victor, was driven to unravel the mystery of life, aspiring to discover the secrets of magnetism at the North Pole, and that both saw electricity as the key to the riddles of nature. Both characters represent a drive toward knowledge and discovery that would sacrifice all else to find the secrets to dominating nature. The postmodern adventure too is seeking the basic stuff of life and to control nature (see Kaku 1997: 10), but locates it in code -- digital information, DNA, and the microcosm --, thus pointing to another continuity and discontinuity with the modern.

iii. On Faust and modernity, see Berman 1982 and for a critique of the Cartesian ego, see Bordo 1983.

Dr. Steve Best is TPC’s Senior Editor of Total Liberation. Associate professor of philosophy at UTEP, award-winning writer, noted speaker, public intellectual, and seasoned activist, Steven Best engages the issues of the day such as animal rights, ecological crisis, biotechnology, liberation politics, terrorism, mass media, globalization, and capitalist domination. Best has published 10 books, over 100 articles and reviews, spoken in over a dozen countries, interviewed with media throughout the world, appeared in numerous documentaries, and was voted by VegNews as one of the nations “25 Most Fascinating Vegetarians.” He has come under fire for his uncompromising advocacy of “total liberation” (humans, animals, and the earth) and has been banned from the UK for the power of his thoughts. From the US to Norway, from Sweden to France, from Germany to South Africa, Best shows what philosophy means in a world in crisis.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

The Rising Tide of Environmental Refugees



The bodies of Somali and Ethiopian asylum seekers, who were forced to jump off of the traffickers' boat, washed ashore in Yemen. ©SHS/N.Bajanoub

Simulposted with Earth Policy Institute

By Lester R. Brown

BOOK BYTE: Adapted from Chapter 2, “Population Pressure: Land and Water,” in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), available on-line at www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/books/pb4

October 22, 2009

Our early twenty-first century civilization is being squeezed between advancing deserts and rising seas. Measured by the biologically productive land area that can support human habitation, the earth is shrinking. Mounting population densities, once generated solely by population growth, are now also fueled by the relentless advance of deserts and may soon be affected by the projected rise in sea level. As overpumping depletes aquifers, millions more are forced to relocate in search of water.

Desert expansion in sub-Saharan Africa, principally in the Sahelian countries, is displacing millions of people—forcing them to either move southward or migrate to North Africa. A 2006 U.N. conference on desertification in Tunisia projected that by 2020 up to 60 million people could migrate from sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa and Europe. This flow of migrants has been under way for many years.

In mid-October 2003, Italian authorities discovered a boat bound for Italy carrying refugees from Africa. After being adrift for more than two weeks and having run out of fuel, food, and water, many of the passengers had died. At first the dead were tossed overboard. But after a point, the remaining survivors lacked the strength to hoist the bodies over the side. The dead and the living shared the boat, resembling what a rescuer described as “a scene from Dante’s Inferno.”



The refugees were believed to be Somalis who had embarked from Libya, but the survivors would not reveal their country of origin, lest they be sent home. We do not know whether they were political, economic, or environmental refugees. Failed states like Somalia produce all three. We do know that Somalia is an ecological disaster, with overpopulation, overgrazing, and the resulting desertification destroying its pastoral economy.

Perhaps the largest flow of Somali migrants is into Yemen, another failing state. In 2008 an estimated 50,000 migrants and asylum seekers reached Yemen, 70 percent more than in 2007. And during the first three months of 2009 the migrant flow was up 30 percent over the same period in 2008. These numbers simply add to the already unsustainable pressures on Yemen’s land and water resources, hastening its decline.

On April 30, 2006, a man fishing off the coast of Barbados discovered a 20-foot boat adrift with the bodies of 11 young men on board, bodies that were “virtually mummified” by the sun and salty ocean spray. As the end drew near, one passenger left a note tucked between two bodies: “I would like to send my family in Basada [Senegal] a sum of money. Please excuse me and goodbye.” The author of the note was apparently one of a group of 52 who had left Senegal on Christmas Eve aboard a boat destined for the Canary Islands, a jumping off point for Europe. They must have drifted for some 2,000 miles, ending their trip in the Caribbean. This boat was not unique. During the first weekend of September 2006, police intercepted boats from Mauritania with a record total of nearly 1,200 people on board.

For those living in Central American countries, including Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, Mexico is often the gateway to the United States. In 2008, Mexican immigration authorities reported some 39,000 detentions and 89,000 deportations.

In the city of Tapachula on the Guatemala-Mexico border, young men in search of jobs wait along the tracks for a slow-moving freight train passing through the city en route to the north. Some make it onto the train. Others do not. The Jesús el Buen Pastor refuge is home to 25 amputees who lost their grip and fell under a train while trying to board. For these young men, says Olga Sánchez Martínez, the director of the refuge, this is the “end of their American dream.” A local priest, Flor María Rigoni, calls the migrants attempting to board the trains “the kamikazes of poverty.”

Today, bodies washing ashore in Italy, Spain, and Turkey are a daily occurrence, the result of desperate acts by desperate people. And each day Mexicans risk their lives in the Arizona desert trying to reach jobs in the United States. On average, some 100,000 or more Mexicans leave rural areas every year, abandoning plots of land too small or too eroded to make a living. They either head for Mexican cities or try to cross illegally into the United States. Many of those who try to cross the Arizona desert perish in its punishing heat. Since 2001, some 200 bodies have been found along the Arizona border each year.

With the vast majority of the 2.4 billion people to be added to the world by 2050 coming in countries where water tables are already falling, water refugees are likely to become commonplace. They will be most common in arid and semiarid regions where populations are outgrowing the water supply and sinking into hydrological poverty. Villages in northwestern India are being abandoned as aquifers are depleted and people can no longer find water. Millions of villagers in northern and western China and in parts of Mexico may have to move because of a lack of water.

Advancing deserts are squeezing expanding populations into an ever smaller geographic area. Whereas the U.S. Dust Bowl displaced 3 million people, the advancing desert in China’s Dust Bowl provinces could displace tens of millions.

Africa, too, is facing this problem. The Sahara Desert is pushing the populations of Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria northward toward the Mediterranean. In a desperate effort to deal with drought and desertification, Morocco is geographically restructuring its agriculture, replacing grain with less thirsty orchards and vineyards.

In Iran, villages abandoned because of spreading deserts or a lack of water already number in the thousands. In the vicinity of Damavand, a small town within an hour’s drive of Tehran, 88 villages have been abandoned. And as the desert takes over in Nigeria, farmers and herders are forced to move, squeezed into a shrinking area of productive land. Desertification refugees typically end up in cities, many in squatter settlements. Others migrate abroad.

In Latin America, deserts are expanding and forcing people to move in both Brazil and Mexico. In Brazil, some 66 million hectares of land are affected, much of it concentrated in the country’s northeast. In Mexico, with a much larger share of arid and semiarid land, the degradation of cropland now extends over 59 million hectares.

While desert expansion and water shortages are now displacing millions of people, rising seas promise to displace far greater numbers in the future, given the concentration of the world’s population in low-lying coastal cities and rice-growing river deltas. The numbers could eventually reach the hundreds of millions, offering yet another powerful reason for stabilizing both climate and population.

In the end, the issue with rising seas is whether governments are strong enough to withstand the political and economic stress of relocating large numbers of people while suffering heavy coastal losses of housing and industrial facilities.

During this century we must deal with the effects of trends—rapid population growth, advancing deserts, and rising seas—that we set in motion during the last century. Our choice is a simple one: reverse these trends or risk being overwhelmed by them.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

IN LOVING MEMORY OF THE TIGERS I’VE KNOWN

By Anthony Marr

I made some friends while working in the Bandhavgarh, Kanha and Ranthambhore tiger reserves of India in the late 90s.

Photobucket

Sita was well past her prime when I first met her, but I mistook her to be a youngester when I first laid eyes on her. She'd had 7 litters of cubs, and had successfully brought up 21 cubs to adulthood - a major feat. She was featured on the front cover of the December 1997 issue of National Geographic - a real international star.

Photobucket

It was in 1998, when I went to India for the second time, and this time, in addition to my field work, I was the "star" of the "Champion of the Bengal Tiger" episode of the TV documentary series Champions of the Wild aired in 20 countries. I had the great privilege to observe Sita and her cubs at close quarters. She was a wonderful mother. With all due respect to lions, Sita was a different kind of mother. No matter how hungry she was, she let her cubs eat first. In 1999, I returned to Bandhavgarh, in part to see Sita. Upon my arrival, I was treated like a celebrity. I found myself in a national park in mourning. In the intervening 12 months, Bandhavgarh had lost at least 10 of its estimated 40 tigers, including Sita and her cubs. We eventually caught her poacher along with rolls of tiger skin and sacks of tiger bone, some still moist, with ants crawling all over them. Among the 6 tiger skins I examined, one was Sita's. I matched the facial markings to the Sita in my photographs. It was a heart-breaker.



Photobucket

Pipal was a young tigress who had just given birth to her first litter. Our first encounter was unpleasant, to her. My elephant (disclaimer: I will never ride an elephant again) got too close and disturbed her noon-time nap, and she was none-too-pleased, especially since her cubs were hidden nearby.

Photobucket

Another time, while driving down a park road, I noticed a sambar deer standing four square, tense as a piano string, staring intensely in the direction my jeep was going. It did not pay me the least bit of attention. I slowly drove on, and within 100 yards I saw Pipal sitting tensely at the foot of a pipal tree. She did not pay me the least attention either, but was staring intensely in the direction from which I'd come. The deer and the tiger could not see each other, but they were aware of each other's presence. The air was still, and the cicadas were singing. Pipal slowly raised herself from the ground, and began inching forward. The forest floor was covered with dry leaves, but the way she placed her feet, there was not a rustle to be heard.

Photobucket

After about three breathless minutes, she suddenly dashed forward, and in a split second, was gone, forever.

Photobucket

Ajuna and Shiva were two 3 year-old sibblings, a brother and a sister, who had left their mother some months before, and still hunted together, and in spite of their youth and inexperience, they managed to amaze me with their intelligence. Deer have super-keen hearing, and what they listen for are the very faint sounds made by a tiger as she moves through the undergrowth, sound so faint to be below human hearing. Elephants make a lot of noise, which are ignored by tigers and deer while a hunt is in progress. On this day, I was on an elephant, moving noisily through the forest. Suddenly, I saw two cheetal deer about 150 yards ahead. The undergrowth was dense, with a 30-ft visibility, but up on elephant back, I could see for at least 300 yards. These two deer were looking tensely in my direction, and I thought they were looking at the elephant. But something caught my eyes from underneath. It was Ajuna and Shiva, one on each side of the elephant. I then realized - they were using the noise made by the elephant to cover their own sound. The wind was blowing from ahead and they could smell the deer, and could not see them. Eventually, they did charge. Unfortunately, they were still too far, and the deer got away.

Photobucket

Charger was Sita's mate, although within his 50 sq.mi. territory lived three other tigresses. He acquired the unusual name (for an Indian tiger) because he had the funny habit of mock-charging tourist jeeps, and when the tourists began to scream he would calmly walk away. Now, since I was a "professional", I had a high tiger-sighting rate, maybe one sighting every two outings, whereas some tourists may not see a tiger at all. Soon, my "luck" was known among the tourists at the lodge where I was staying. One day, a German photographer named Axel approached me and asked me if he could come with me in my next outing, since he had had no luck seeing a tiger whatsoever, much less photogragh one. So, out we went in my jeep. Sure enough, charger showed up, and was just standing there at the edge of a thicket about 50 yards away. Axel quickly grabbed his camera and began to aim it at Charger. Without warning, Charger did what he was expected to do. Axel screamed and dropped his camera. Charger swerved to the left and dove into another thicket, leaving a cloud of red dust behind. Axel did nto get a single picture. I let him have one of mine.

Photobucket

Sita and Charger are both gone now. I hope that Pipal, Ajuna and Shiva are still thriving.

All photos by Anthony Marr (except the one from National Geographic).

Anthony Marr, founder and president
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org

www.MySpace.com/AnthonyMarr

www.YouTube.com/AnthonyMarr

www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com

www.ARConference.org

www.AnimalVoices.org


Anthony Marr, TPC’s Senior Editor of Ecological Crisis and Wildlife Defense, has a degree in physics, and has worked as a field geophysicist and an environmental technologist; was born in China, lives in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and travels world-wide 6 months every year; has been to Africa to observe the wildlife situation first hand (~1980): has performed undercover operations and media campaigns in all the major Chinatowns of North America, to rid them of endangered species products (1995 onward); led the “highest profile Canadian wildlife campaign in 1996″ regarding trophy hunting of Grizzly bears in British Columbia; has led three deep-rural-India expeditions to help save the subcontinent’s wildlife habitat and ecosystems, resulting in being honored as the “Champion of the Bengal Tiger” in the award-winning TV documentary series Champions of the Wild aired in 20 countries worldwide (1997-1999); has conducted two overt/covert missions in Japan against whaling and the dolphin capture and slaughter (2004 & 2005); has since 2003 completed 6 Compassion for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE tours) throughout the United States and Canada, the first of which (CARE-1) covering 40 states and 4 provinces in 7.5 months (2003-2009); has been a speaker at the National Animal Rights Conference since 2004 (see www.ARConference.org), giving up to a dozen different speeches per year-conference (2004-2009); has appeared on television, radio, newspapers and magazines hundreds of times (1995 – 2009); is the founder of Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE – 1999); is the author of the book OMNI-SCIENCE and the Human Destiny (2003); and is the author of the book Homo Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH. For all the above and more, see www.HOPE-CARE.org.

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Tom Holder’s Astounding Inanities — Caught on Tape

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JftURPWzvY&feature=player_embedded

10/20/09

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

"They attacked all of neuroscience when they attacked me"

--David Jentsch (October 19, 2009 in Chicago)

"When David Jenstch attacks helpless animals, he demands that all of us defend his victims."

--TPC/NIO

I had originally posted the above video thinking it was a presentation from Monday, as this science blog suggests. But Tom Holder corrected me in the comments section. This video has actually been promoted by the Speaking of Research website for over a year. We must infer, therefore, that this represents the optimal arguments they have available. Thank you for clearing that up, Tom.

Caught on Tape in the Above Video, Tom Holder’s Assine Arguments

1) He implies that since dogs and cats comprise less than 1% of lab animals, the other 99% do not matter. Sorry, Tom, the only inconsequential forms of life are vivisectors and their advocates.

2) He defends the crimes of “researchers” by explaining that factory farming has a higher body count. Nice try, Tom. You will not divert our attention by pointing to other abusers. We’re interested in you.



3) When it comes to pain, Holder asserts, with a glaring lack of empathy, that 37% of animals imprisoned in labs may feel pain, but it is of little consequence to the terrorist network’s spokesperson . He continues by trivializing the “ONLY” 7% that are intentionally subjected to pain. I would suggest that if the entire Pro-Test/Speaking of Research network were subdued, mercilessly mutilated, and murdered, it would account for a fraction of 1% of the population. There’s a statistic for your next presentation.

4) Tom Holder makes the astounding claim that managing pain makes a victim’s life “MORE ENJOYABLE”. Yet, Tom still refuses to volunteer for the pleasurable experience.

5) He explains that since computer technology cannot tell us how a drug will react in a human, we need to torture animals. Tom, you are a deceitful little man. Results extrapolated from nonhuman species injure, maim and kill people. Clinical trials with human subjects currently produce the most reliable data.

6) He actually whines that torturing animals is expensive. It might be far more expensive, Tom, when people begin to understand that you are a vile human promoting atrocities against the innocent & disenfranchised.

7) Holder would like us to conclude, therefore, that based on these fallacious and inane statements, mutilating animals is “critical” to medical science and that the victims are “happy in their lives.” Well, Tom, it is abundantly clear to everyone why your community runs from open dialogue.

Vivisectors Jentsch & Ringach REFUSED to Debate Dr. Jerry Vlasak & Dr. Ray Greek

Given the conventional diversions and drivel that the Speaking of Research spokesperson, Tom Holder, regurgitates, it is obvious that this community is unable to defend their barbarism. THE VIVISECTORS CONSISTENTLY REFUSE TO DEBATE BECAUSE THEY FEAR BEING EXPOSED IN PUBLIC (even in the mainstream forum offered by CNN, they ran). Rather than participate in open dialogue, these madmen chose to take out a full-page ad in the Sunday edition of the L.A. Times, portraying themselves as harrassed! I wonder if the target illustrated in this pathetic piece of propaganda is supposed to symbolize the vivisectors’ victimization… or maybe it’s just indicative of the inevitable…

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

A Dissection of Hunting



Anthony Marr

10/16/09

Animal Voices radio/online talkshow hosted by Anthony Marr

Guests: Dr. Steven Best and Jason Miller

To listen to the show, click on the link below and download the MP3 file:

http://files1.mailboxdrive.com/mp3s-new/a/anthony_marr@yahoo.com/946836.mp3



Dr. Steve Best



Jason Miller

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Jentsch and Ringach Refuse to Debate — YET AGAIN!

jentsch_still_jpg_130x97_crop_upscale_q85

Simulposted with NAALPO:

LA Times Advertisement, Billboard Confirm UCLA Desperation:
Animal Abusers Refuse to Debate Issues, Spend Big to Counter Exposure of Their Atrocities


October 18, 2009

LOS ANGELES: In an unprecedented display of desperation, UCLA vivisectors have taken out a full-page paid advertisement in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times to decry not the suffering of the thousands of innocent animals they torture and kill annually, but the lousy media attention they have received recently as activists have exposed their misdeeds.

The newspaper advertisement, apparently paid for by a medical industry schill group, is full of the usual lies and justifications propping up the outmoded, inefficient and cruel practice of killing animals to look for new ways to treat human diseases. In reality, most useful research that improves human health comes from modern techniques that no longer depend on gruesome and bloody animal mutilation, but instead make use of modern computer technology, epidemiologic studies, CT, MRI and PET scanning, microarrays and dozens of other methodologies.

In still a further sign of desperation, vivisectionists have also erected billboards claiming the Los Angeles populace is free of, get this, leprosy, because of animal experimentation. There were 91 cases of leprosy, or Hansen’s Disease, in the entire United States in 2000; treatment has been effective since at least the 1940’s, with new drug regimens in place to counter resistance to the causative bacterium since the 1980’s. Implying that the continued killing of animals in the 21st century is a “necessary evil” to prevent leprosy is just another attempt to keep UCLA rolling in research grant money, most of it taxpayer funds wasted on addicting non-human primates to methamphetamines and other utterly ridiculous, useless and cruel experiments.



Recent attempts by physicians to debate UCLA researchers have been rebuffed by the university, knowing that their practices cannot stand exposure to the public eye. CNN recently invited Drs. Jerry Vlasak and Ray Greek to debate UCLA vivisectors, albeit not physicians, Dario Ringach and David Jentsch. Vlasak and Greek jumped at the chance to dispute the medical efficaciousness and morality of animal experimentation; Ringach and Jentsch refused to appear.

When attempts at dialogue and peaceful attempts to make change and alleviate suffering are frustrated, some activists are willing to use more forceful means to help animals. North American Animal Liberation Press correspondent Camille Marino makes an apt comparison: “LA citizen Richard Ramirez, known as the “Nightstalker”, was a cold, sadistic and violent serial murderer — his behavior was eerily similar to that of any vivisector. While he was actively inciting an atmosphere of terror, the media relentlessly covered the newsworthy developments. While vivisectors like J. David Jenstch and Dario Ringach are active, the animal liberation networks are committed to relentlessly cover their sociopathic reign of terror. When average citizens finally apprehended Ramirez, they beat him mercilessly for his crimes. Jentsch and Ringach have earned the right to fear retaliation for their crimes. Ramirez or Jentsch or Ringach, all are equally guilty, and warrant a response…both seem unable to control their bloodlust. They each make a potent case for individuals who need to be stopped by any means necessary.”

For more information visit, www.animalliberationpressoffice.org.

Animal Liberation Press Office
6320 Canoga Avenue #1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

www.animalliberationpressoffice.org
press@animalliberationpressoffice.org

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

THOSE WITHOUT WEALTH MAY ONE DAY PROSPER, BUT THOSE WITHOUT KINDNESS ARE UTTERLY AND INCURABLY POOR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-iZs3MwPw

10/18/09

Author and activist, Arthur Poletti, drove all the way from Chicago to be at our protest yesterday. He begged the governor to make Death Park into a deer preserve rather than a graveyard for over 300 innocent, defenseless deer. He also challenged hunting and culling supporters to read his book, God Does Not Eat Meat.

Here is the message Arthur sent prior to his arrival in Lenexa on Friday night:

If people in the media like Tanya along with city officials and hunters know I am coming to talk to the good people living in Shawnee Mission and any one else living in the great state of Kansas, especially hunters and
children, maybe I could get the opportunity to make a speech that I promise will be:

POWERFUL AND MEANINGFUL!!!!

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HAND OUT *300* FREE COPIES* OF THE BOOK TITLED: *GOD DOES NOT EAT MEAT*
TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY HUNTERS, CITY OFFICIALS, POLICE, AND THE NEWS MEDIA.

THE DESERVING HERO IN THIS *SHORT* STORY WILL SURPRISE MANY PEOPLE!!!!

THE BOOK CAN BE READ FOR *FREE* ONLINE AT THE HIGHLY ACCLAIMED AND VERY POPULAR *ALL CREATURES.ORG WEB SITE:

http://www.all-creatures.org/book/gdnem.html



I would like to be recorded by the media and or your people when I ask every deer hunter in Shawnee Mission and every deer hunter in the great state of Kansas to read the life story of:

MONDO THE DEER HUNTER IN THE BOOK TITLED *GOD DOES NOT EAT MEAT*

I HAVE A FREE SUPPLY OF FOR ANYONE THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN READING IT, ESPECIALLY DEER HUNTERS"

I will then make the following statement loud and clear.

I wonder how many deer hunters are living in Shawnee Mission and the entire state of Kansas are like the war hero and deer hunter named Mondo?

I will explain how the moral of the story applies to the PRECIOUS DEER and the hunters that are about to kill them with the following statements that I will deliver loud and clear so there is no misunderstanding of why I came to Shawnee Mission.

I hope you can get me a microphone so my short speech can be heard by everyone.

AT THE BEGINNING OF MY SPEECH I WILL ATTEMPT TO GET THE ATTENTION OF EVERYONE IN THE CROWD BY HOLDING UP MY HAND AND REQUESTING THAT EVERYONE LISTENS TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, WHICH WILL ONLY TAKE ABOUT TEN MINUTES.

THEN I WILL CONTINUE WITH THIS STATEMENT:

"IF THERE TRULY IS A GOD IN HEAVEN WHO IS THE SUPREME SYMBOL OF KINDNESS AND LIFE AND LOVE FOR ALL CREATURES WITH A SOUL THEN YOU MUST AGREE IN YOUR HEART AND IN YOUR SOUL THAT GOD ABSOLUTELY WANTS ALL THE DEER IN SHAWNEE MISSION TO LIVE A FULL SAFE LIFE IN PEACE AND HARMONY WITH THE EARTH"

"I JUST HAVE ONE MORE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU THAT I HOPE YOU WILL NEVER FORGET" A VERSE THAT IS OVER 2200 YEARS OLD.

"THE WORDS HAVE NEVER CHANGED BECAUSE THE REAL TRUTH NEVER CHANGES"

"THOSE WITHOUT WEALTH MAY ONE DAY PROSPER, BUT THOSE WITHOUT KINDNESS ARE UTTERLY AND INCURABLY POOR"

"THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME AND THANK YOU JASON MILLER AND ANTHONY MARR FOR YOUR
RELENTLESS EFFORTS TO SAVE THE LIVES OF GOD'S PRECIOUS CREATURES"

PLEASE PRAY FOR THE DEER!!

GOOD BYE

ARTHUR POLETTI

REFERENCES:

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/death-park-ks-in-cold-blood-redux/

http://www.all-creatures.org/book/gdnem.html

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Now, Let Us Stand for the Pledge of Allegiance

kafka_amerika

By Gary Corseri

10/18/09

"Maybe that's what it's all about. ... Maybe all that happens is, you get older and you know less."

--Frank Sinatra

Children:

In Amerika today we have two parties ... the Fascist Union (also known as the F.U. party) and the Phony Cooperative Baloney party (also known as the P.C.B.).

The F.U. party stands for wholesome, Amerikan values--what we used to call "rugged individualism." We don't use this term anymore because today we understand the dangers of "individualism"--especially among the lower classes. We know that smart and crafty people always get together to form cartels, meshing economic, political and social lives to pursue their own best interests—and to hell with everyone else! This is a law of Nature known as “survival of the fittest.” It’s also known as the “invisible hand” of the market. Even the great slave-holder, Thomas Jefferson, understood this when he wrote about “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness.” Notice that he did not write about “justice” and the “pursuit of truth.” Today we know that “justice” and “truth” are in the eyes of the beholder. Each person has his or her own idea of what those words mean and you can’t run the New World Order with a lot of loose threads hanging out, can you?



The P.C.B.’ers pretend they serve the interests of the “common people.” You can tell how much contempt they have for us right there—we are “common,” but they are not. Well, children, there is nothing “common” about me! And, I hope, nothing “common” about you! I am proud to be part of the crew that powers the ship. Let the captains decide where the ships are going. They have all the information and we couldn’t begin to understand it even if we tried. They tell us what to do and think through the mass media—including education--, and life is certainly a lot easier when you know what to do and think. Don’t be confused by idiots like Michael Moore. There are always some crackpots who believe they’re too good to be conditioned like everyone else. In one of the renegade Moore’s classic movies, “Capitalism: A Love Story”—a classic example of mis-alignment, one might say—he tries to make a distinction between capitalism and democracy! Yes, you are right to snicker! There really is no distinction. Democracy is rule by the people and the people obviously want capitalism or they wouldn’t keep this system in place year after year, decade after decade—as far back as any of us can remember, even back to the glorious Roman Empire of the sanctioned history books.

To prove that we are a capitalistic democracy we have to put up with the PCB crowd. They like to parade the old platitudes like “fairness,” and “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and all that Martin Luther King blather about “all God’s children,” blah, blah, blah … but everyone knows they are “in on the take.” They have to raise huge amounts of money to run their silly campaigns. A lot of them are “filthy rich” themselves and they get into politics as a hobby because they’re not clever enough to make more money and create jobs for the “working poor” they’re always crying over like spilt milk. If, perhaps, they don’t have their own money, they go hat-in-hand to the corporate bosses, cut deals—wink! wink!--, promise “the people” this, that and the other while all the time knowing they can’t or won’t deliver. Sometimes, a PCB’er breaks through. Remember President Obama? Yes, you can “boo”—it’s all right. Some people say now that he actually believed his own rhetoric. “Change we can believe in!” (Yes, you can hiss!) Would someone tell me what the hell that means?

Today we know that the people cannot change anything; only the elite, the elect, the select and the carefully groomed Guardians of the New World Order have the Intelligence necessary to ensure success. They gather Intelligence from everywhere—from every corner of the globe, from every nook and cranny. No one can escape. Resistance is futile. That is why we have these cameras and microphones in the classroom, in the cafeteria, in the halls, in the library, in the lockers, in the gym, etc. … so what we say, what we do, what we think, can be constantly observed, monitored, heard, vetted, discussed, dissected, appraised, and, if need be, corrected. If need be, deleted. Remember the saying: “Our predator drones are ever watchful, vigilant, never sleeping.” (A word to the wise is sufficient!) That is why there are cameras and microphones in your homes, in your computers, in your phones, in the watches you wear, the products you buy … in the streets, in your vehicles … in fact, everywhere. It is all designed to make us better citizens of the glorious New World Order—better soldiers in the armies, better, uncomplaining workers, better consumers of so-called “junk food,” so-called “junk information.” Today we know that the Guardians are watching—and, if they want us to die sooner, well, we should all be prepared to “win one for the Gipper,” stiffen our backbones and do what’s necessary because they see the bigger picture, they know our best interests. It’s because they are watching us—and watching out for us! It’s because they know our hearts and minds and very souls—and what is good and proper for all of us—better than we do.

Now, let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Gary Corseri has published his work at Thomas Paine's Corner and hundreds of venues around the world. He has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library and Museum, had dramas on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere. His books include A Fine Excess, Manifestations (edited), and, Holy Grail, Holy Grail. He can be contacted at gary_corseri@comcast.net.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

In Response to Speaking of Research



Tom Holder will be speaking at the Society for Neuroscience conference as part of the “Animal in Research Workshop: Widening the Tent, Building Support, Creating New Allies for Animal Research”. He can be reached at 310-994-8103 or at tom@speakingofresearch.com

By Camille Marino

10/16/09

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

“The staggering hypocrisies, inanities, ironies, distortions, lies, and contradictions that pervade a barbaric society posing as civilized are numbing to contemplate. In this Orwellian world—where slavery is freedom and war is peace, where timber companies raze forests under the “Healthy Forest Restoration Act” and governments guard seal massacres under the “Seal Protection Act”—it is difficult to find truth and logic.”

Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front -by Steven Best, PhD, and Anthony J. Nocella II (Introduction to Terrorists or Freedom Fighters: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals -Edited by Steven Best, PhD, and Anthony J. Nocella II

Vivisectors, those who experiment on living beings, systematically subject nonhuman animals to torture regimens that would land the average psychopath in an insane asylum, or, at the very least, prison. These diabolical “researchers” do not hesitate to commit murder for profit, yet, in an astounding display of utter hypocrisy, they whine incessantly when individuals driven by conscience — a foreign concept to blood-money capitalists — shed light on their organized violence. Earlier this week, Thomas Paine’s Corner and Negotiation Is Over launched a campaign designed to identify those who have no compunction about victimizing the helpless. In response, Tom Holder made the following statement:

“The effect is to create a climate of fear among scientists whereby they do not feel secure enough to speak up about their research or the research of others."

Excerpt from Activists try “Climate of Fear” approach!:

“The effect is to create a climate of fear among scientists whereby they do not feel secure enough to speak up about their research or the research of others. Pro-Test for Science and Americans for Medical Progress have responded by emailing signatories and urging them to ignore any harassment (and to report it to us – contact@speakingofresearch.com), a response to which SR adds its name. Thus far we have not heard of anyone who signed being contacted by activists.”



Vivisectors Do Not Fear Activists — THEY FEAR EXPOSURE

Tom Holder and those abusers he speaks for fail to grasp an essential truth that lies at the core of this statement: If the Pro-Test Community of “researchers” were not committing atrocities that demand retribution, then they would have nothing to fear. VIVISECTORS FEAR EXPOSURE – which Jason Miller and I are eager to provide. Speaking of Research references a “climate of fear” and yet their community refuses to acknowledge that this is the “climate” that they have cultivated. Vivisectors imprison animals in perpetual horror and carve up their bodies for fun and profit. Yet, rather than accept responsibility for the terroristic atmosphere they wallow in, those who openly advocate violence want to blame animal rights activists for the” fear” they experience when their atrocities are thrust into the spotlight. These people must not be allowed the luxury of anonymity. Those who victimize the helpless — human or nonhuman — demand attention. And we are watching you. We will not go away.

Richard Ramirez, known as the “Nightstalker”, was a cold, sadistic and violent serial murderer — his behavior was eerily similar to that of any vivisector… let’s use J. David Jentsch as an example. While Ramirez was actively inciting an atmosphere of terror, the media relentlessly covered the newsworthy developments. While Jenstch is active, the animal liberation networks are committed to relentlessly cover his sociopathic reign of terror. When average citizens finally apprehended Ramirez, they beat him mercilessly for his crimes. J. David Jentsch has earned the right to fear retaliation for his crimes. Ramirez or Jentsch, both equally guilty, warrant a response… both seem unable to control their bloodlust. They each make a potent case for individuals who need to be stopped by any means necessary. It’s ludicrous to argue that the media was responsible for Richard Ramirez being violently subdued. Yet Speaking of Research wants people to believe that when vivisectors inevitably reap what they have sown, that animal rights activists are to blame.

Camille Marino, TPC’s Editor of Vegan Agitation, is an animal liberationist, an extraordinary agitator and activist, and is the founder and editor of Negotiation is Over. In her words, “It’s time to stop waving signs at cars or trying to enlighten the apathetic. The fight for the rights of non-human people is urgent and requires us to act outside the box.”

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Polemics of Carrying Capacity:

Photobucket

Thomas Malthus and his legacy of euphemistic extermination programs

by Frank Joseph Smecker

10/15/09

We are often told that we’ve exceeded our carrying capacity here on Earth (or are arriving at that calamitous denouement of the story of civilization in no time soon). It is very true that we’ve reached our carrying capacity, this planet cannot healthily sustain so many people living in current arrangements, but anyone who has closely studied the conflation of civilization, production, and capitalism understand well that human population booms are endemic to the aforementioned social formula. If the dominant economic mode were to shift gears, to one that wasn’t defined globally, and predicated upon the funneling of resources to the producer rather than the community; if community-scale projects and strict environmental protection policies were implemented to define our economic behavior, then I’m pretty sure overpopulation would not be as large of a problem as it is today. If overall social arrangements were to manifest Indigenism and parochial isolation, tribal anarchy, small-scale handicraft production and technics, and subsistence economics, then overpopulation would be an obsolete term, hands down.

With regard to a contemporary program, for instance (neo)-Malthusian measures, to solve the "population problem," such propositional theory put into wholesale praxis would essentially expand and accelerate the genocidal effects of the civilizing process. Sure that sounds like a loaded allegation and indictment upon an archaic Western archetype and his immoral conjectures, but it is true. Not only did Malthus believe that inequality was natural and good, or "at least necessary for avoiding the problem of massive overpopulation and hence starvation;" he also "denounced soup kitchens and early marriages while defending smallpox, slavery, and child murder."[1]

Malthus believed that social inequality and poverty was natural, expunging from the historical record centuries, if not millennia, of social engineering, construction and stratification of a system that manifests inequality and penury by virtue of its own design. In other words, abject poverty, famine and, social stratification that unjustly engenders inequality, are tangents of social arrangements configured by sovereign powers themselves.



These same sovereign powers set up and normalized the city-state lifestyle/culture (i.e. civilization) as a way to enhance and, make more efficient, production at the expense of human and nonhuman resources in order to enhance the luxuries of those positioned at the top of the hierarchy. Surfeit resources, profits and assets, enjoyed by few, are commensurate with expanded efficiency in production and, in turn, so will a population that is organized around growing and perpetuating said social arrangements grow geometrically. In other words, “population growth correlates with economic prosperity.” [2] Therefore, overpopulation of humans on this planet is not necessarily a natural phenomenon as much as it is a direct result of the dominant social construct, i.e. overpopulation is moreso anthropogenic than it is organic. So, for starters, Malthus had conveniently designed the theoretical framework for the dominant culture so to fix a problem induced by the dominant culture.

Second on the list of excoriations directed toward Thomas Malthus and his legacy of villainous schemes and those who propound and argue in defense of such machinations, is the hunger fallacy. Despite the fact that the world population is, at the very least, six fold from what it was in 1800, there is still more than enough food produced the world over to support the population. [3] Africa alone produces 25 percent of the world's cereals, but yet it is the most immiserated continent on the planet. This is a direct result of global trade, orchestrated by the world's richest coterie of individuals (i.e. the WTO, World Bank and IMF, et al.). Africa grows enough food to feed itself, but because its countries have been co-opted, if not coerced at the barrel of a gun by Western trade agents over the centuries, it has to export its very own solution to famine. Those countries who spurn compliance with Western trade agreements are subject to reprehensible sanctions that Arundhati Roy refers to as “New Genocide,” meaning the creation of “conditions [through economic sanctions] that lead to mass death without actually going out and killing people.” [4] Digression aside, what is transpiring in Africa is not an isolated occurrence. In India, where millions are the victims of starvation and malnutrition, there have been incidences, time and again, in which the government allows immorally imbalanced disbursement of food. One example that Arundhati Roy presents in her book, An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire, reports the Indian government allowing 63 million tons of grain to rot in its granaries. [5] Meanwhile, twelve million tons were exported and put on sale at a subsidized price the Indian government refused to offer its country’s impoverished peoples. [6] There is more than enough food to feed people – bottom line.

When exploring the implications of a (neo)-Malthusian program, one must ask, as Richard Robbins advises, “what social interests or purposes might be advanced by their acceptances?” Clearly, Malthus envisioned a world where the elite and upper class decide and act upon population control by advancing measures that materialized from within the very former and latter statuses. It should also be noted that Malthus was not concerned with population growth, he was concerned with the rising number of poor in England at the time and, why they should or should not exist and, “what should be done about them.” [7] Malthus erroneously, and egregiously – might I add, saw poverty not as a consequence of “expanding industrialism, enclosure laws… or the need of manufacturers for a source of inexpensive labor…” but rather as a phenomenon that emerged from “the laws of nature…” [8]

The Malthusian premise is one that presumes poverty exists by virtue of overpopulation, which is often postulated as the fault of fundamentally flawed human beings – which is dehumanizing to say the least. And, his theory (and any other theoretical fledglings of similarity) exempts the privileged elite from any accountability for fomenting and perpetuating the framing conditions and social arrangements that engender overpopulation and poverty in the first place.

If there really were something inherently poor and laggard in large populations, then affluent places like London or Manhattan would elicit fear of overpopulation. But the truth is, such sentiment is not directed internally toward ‘civilized’ regions of high densities of people, but rather it is directed externally toward areas and regions that are sought after for resources – areas that need to be ‘managed’ and ‘civilized.’ These are areas that, unlike densely populated areas of developed countries, are impoverished and immiserated on account of sanctions, development projects, foreign debt, illicit purloining of resources, and more, perpetrated and/or effected by foreign institutions – the very institutions that not only wreak tremendous social and ecological havoc, but also castigate such ‘victim’ countries as being ‘poor’ and ‘problematic’ and as ‘jeopardizing’ the globe with overpopulation. This is pathologically depraved behavior.

Furthermore, in today’s economic climate, one who recognizes the limits of economics within an ecological context of invariable finite materials is often referred to as a ‘neo–Malthusian.’ But because one recognizes the intrinsic limits to growth does not also mean that such a realization is concomitant with Malthusian theory, or rather: Just because one recognizes the limits to growth does not mean they are a neo-Malthusian.

The crux is, there are limits to growth. The planet is comprised of finite resources. Any intelligent creature is aware of this unalterable truth. However, these facts do not warrant one group of people to assume a higher positioning over another as a means to decide who lives, who is ‘useful,’ who gets what and when and where. The truth is, as many maintain, the whole carrying capacity discussion is either a.) not discussed honestly, or at all, or b.) it is approached with a narrow set of ‘solutions,’ all of which intend to perpetuate the status quo – which translates into either not solving shit or, solving the problem in a way that keeps those in power in power to enjoy their luxuries and privileges.

More importantly, owing to the fact that overpopulation is commensurate with economic growth (which confers tremendous power and wealth upon economic architects and directors i.e. the state and financial and corporate institutions) – we should, as Derrick Jensen suggests, honestly acknowledge how different our discourse and theoretical solutions would be if we changed the language from ‘overpopulation’ problems to ‘overconsumption’ problems? Here is where we find the fundamental flaws inhered within the ‘panaceas’ that are prescribed to fix this entire conundrum. We can’t address this issue as an ‘overconsumption’ problem because mitigating consumption growth would destroy the capitalist economy. So, unforgivably, we go with ‘overpopulation.’ Does anyone see the fundamental flaw yet? Does anyone else see what’s wrong here?

According to Jensen, "The United States constitutes less than 5 percent of the world’s population yet uses more than one-fourth of the world’s resources and produces one-fourth of the world’s pollution and waste." And, if you "compare the average U.S. citizen to the average citizen of India, you find that the American uses fifty times more steel, fifty-six times more energy, one hundred and seventy times more synthetic rubber, two hundred and fifty times more motor fuel, and three hundred times more plastic." Nonetheless, our concepts of overpopulation are usually not comprised of "those who do the most damage, the primary perpetrators (there can’t be too many [middle-class] Americans, can there?), but instead their primary (human) victims."[9]

There is much absurdity and arrogance, as Jensen asserts, in the call for the poor to stop having children but not minding the rich driving around in SUVs, watching plasma-screen TVs while living sedentary lives in 3500 square foot homes, etc. ad nauseam. Also, to quote Jensen in depth:

"...there are those who claim—equally absurdly, and equally arrogantly—that all talk of carrying capacity is racist and classist. To even use the phrase carrying capacity in this crowd is to invite hisses and catcalls, as well as spat epithets of Neo-Malthusian. I suppose the argument is that because some of those who want to protect this exploitative way of living use carrying capacity as a means of social control against the poor—as an American Indian activist friend said to me, “The only problem I have with population control is that you and I both know who is going to do the controlling”—then the notion of carrying capacity itself must be racist and classist. This seems similar to me to suggesting that because Hitler claimed (falsely) that Germany was being attacked by Poland, and that therefore the Germans needed to attack, and that because this same argument has routinely been used (just as falsely) by the United States as well as other imperial powers, that anyone who claims self-defense is lying. These people seem to forget that the misuse of an argument does not invalidate the argument itself. Worse, this argument, that the very concept of carrying capacity is a fabrication designed for social control, as opposed to a simple statement of limits, serves those in power as effectively as does ignoring or de-emphasizing resource consumption when speaking of overshooting carrying capacity, because it goes along with the refusal to acknowledge physical limits (and limits to exploitation) that characterize this culture. What would it take, I’ve heard peace and social justice activists ask, to bring the poor of the world to the fiscal standard of living of the rich? Well, another thirty planets, for one thing. It’s a dangerous—and stupid— question. Within this culture wealth is measured by one’s ability to consume and destroy. This means that attempts to industrialize the poor will further harm the planet. Because industrial production requires the exploitation of resources, the wealth of one group is always based on the impoverishment of another’s landbase, meaning that on a finite planet, the creation of one person’s (fiscal) wealth always comes at the cost of many others’ poverty. Those reasons are why the question is stupid. It’s dangerous because it serves as propaganda to keep both activists and the poor playing a game that doesn’t serve them well, and which they can never win, instead of quitting this game and working to take down the system.” [10]

There is a term called lactational amenorrhea, which is the absence of menstruation due to lactation. As long as a mother is nursing her neonate (i.e. infant) each and every time the child wants to feed, fertility is postponed. Basically, the female body temporarily shuts off its procreational facilities because the body is taxed to its limits regarding nutrient allocation for not only the infant but the mother as well. In other words, "If you continue with exclusive breast feeding for your baby's first six months, your risk of becoming pregnant is less then 2 percent." [11]

Many indigenous mothers would sleep with their infants through the night so that their child would be able to nurse even during sleep. This beautiful communion between mother and child was practiced nightly for upwards of six months, if not more. [12] This practice, which is being forever lost in the dominant culture, in tandem with sustainable living practices, conduced to a natural, safe, sane and non-exploitative program of population control.

One must ask, what sort of culture would replace such population control measures with something like the Malthusian model. The answers tell us that only an exploitative culture, hell-bent on production by means of degradation of another's landbase, thence elevating one's luxuries on account of another's impoverishment, would discard sane and sustainable ways of living to achieve prosperous ends.

1.) R.L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999).
2.) Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (4th Ed.), (Boston: Pearson, 2008), p. 153
3.) R.H. Robbins, Global Problems…, p. 150.
4.) Arundhati Roy, An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire, (Cambridge: South End Press, 2004), p. 88.
5.) N.A. Mujumdar, “Eliminate hunger now, poverty later,” Business Line, 8 January 2003.
6.) “Foodgrain exports may slow down this fiscal [year],” India Business Insight, 2 June 2003; “India: Agriculture sector: Paradox of plenty,” Business Line, 26 June 2001; Ranjit Devraj, “Farmers protest against globalization,” Inter Press Service, 25 January 2001.
7.) R.H. Robbins, Global Problems…, p. 156.
8.) Ibid.
9.) Derrick Jensen, Endgame Volume I: The Problem of Civilization, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006), p. 115.
10.) D. Jensen, Endgame Vol. I..., pp. 115-116.
11.) Katie Singer, The Garden of Fertility: A Guide to Charting Your Fertility Signals to Prevent or Achieve Pregnancy - Naturally - and to Gauge Your Reproductive Health, (New York: Avery, 2004), p.68.
12.) K. Singer, The Garden of Fertility..., pp. 67-70.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Let’s Demonstrate Some Animal Liberationist Unity



J. David Jentsch: Office phone: (310) 206-0718 / Office fax: (310) 206-5895 Office email: jentsch@psych.ucla.edu

October 14th, 2009

by Camille Marino

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

J. David Jentsch sent out this letter which appears on the PetaSucks forum requesting their community of animal terrorists come together.

We must stand in unity with each other and the exploited animals. I am strongly urging every reader to choose at least ten random names from this Directory of Pro-Test Supporters and send a letter expressing your outrage at their heinous display of organized aggression toward nonhuman animals. I am providing three letters that have been circulated. The other authors and I want everyone to feel free to cut and paste and make contact.



LETTER ONE:

Dear ___________

Your name appears on a public online document in support of the subjugation, mutilation and murder of innocent nonhuman animals. Whether you are an active vivisector or simply an advocate, you need to understand the serious nature of your participation in this unconscionable activity.

The animal rights community understands that you want people to believe welfare laws ensure ethical treatment of animals. We also understand that it is the height of hypocrisy to band together with a community of heartless deviants and call for “humane” cruelty. Perhaps you also believe in humane rape, or ethical pedophilia… what about benign mutilation???

By signing your name you are actively participating in a nonhuman holocaust.



If you truly support “science” and encourage the maniacal sadism employed by vivisectors, then I strongly suggest that you volunteer for your own comfortable cage, in a lovely nondescript laboratory. You will receive plenty of attention from the benevolent researchers in white coats… sawing off your skull cap, inserting electrodes into your brain, sticking needles in your eyes, learning to perform for a drink of water or perhaps a morsel of food. There’s also the added excitement of restraint apparatus and being injected with chemicals or poisoned to observe the effects. You can choose your area of concentration… perhaps you would prefer to be victimized by neuroscientists or biomedical abusers. Why not volunteer for pain research – there’s no dispute here… the object is the cause pain and distress in a helpless victim!

So, by all means, either volunteer yourself, your children or your domestic animals to be “research” subjects. Yes, you can have an all-expense paid vacation into the wonderful world of mutilation, misery and death!

Or STOP advocating the torture of the innocent. The Pro-Test Petition is nothing more than legalized terrorism of disenfranchised animals.

This makes YOU a terrorist.

Sincerely,

Camille A. Marino

LETTER TWO:

To Whom It May Concern,

I am ashamed to be part of a species that objectifies animals, seen as commercial products to eat, wear, and exploit for entertainment and testing. However, of all the inherently cruel conditions humans inflict on animals, nothing is more destructive and immoral than vivisection, unparalleled in both its cruel intent and apathetic nature. To subject animals to unnatural medical conditions and practices for the purpose of theorizing potential human treatments is not only scientifically illegitimate but it is also fundamentally inhumane. As a means of fostering social validation, vivisectors consistently promote the idea that animals are responsible for producing lifesaving equipment and treatments and that those who are against vivisection are opposed to medical advancements. That illogic would be laughable if millions of animals were not tortured to support such. Indeed, to grant animals the power to cure and prevent disease while experimenting on those same animals is a contradiction in both practice and thought. With respect to such idiotic assertions, when do you establish the innately flawed practice of animal experimentation as the fault when people die as the result of unpredicted drug reactions?

From a pragmatic standpoint, if we could adequately determine the effects of drugs using animals in general, then, as I see it, human trials would be completely unnecessary. Therefore, if we acknowledge that data from animal testing cannot be extrapolated to humans, as demonstrated by the need for human testing trials prior to a general administration of drugs, then why are animals used at all? To determine a general idea relative to safety of them? If animals cannot be used to predict a human outcome in general, then how can they be used to predict safety? It’s a ridiculous premise, one on which you place the lives of humans and the death of animals with a publicity machine using deceptive statements and misleading assertions fabricated by unscrupulous “scientists” to garner social approval. Indeed, to establish your legitimacy, you constantly promote the idea that those opposed to animal testing are supportive of human suffering. What an insidious remark, effective in its subtlety to gain public endorsement while at the same time fostering a hatred towards anti-vivisectionists, labeling us as misanthropists. I can assure you, I am neither ethically challenged nor stupid: your false assertions are nothing but pathetic attempts to rationalize a morally deficient industry where you capitalize on the fear of people and exploitation of animals.



Allow me but another moment to correct your disclaimers that animals are treated well, absent suffering and pain. The arrogance of such proclamations is astounding. Humans are unable to adequately describe pain in other species other than to accept its existence; to attempt such is based on pure conjecture and open to interpretation. Furthermore, tens of thousands of animals are deliberately denied pain relief while in obvious states of such, the theory being that introducing pain relief would compromise testing results. How can you honestly submit that introducing diseases to animals, subjecting them to pain, suffering, and agony, denying them companionship and comfort, and imprisoning them for life is done from a position of caring? Your claims are nothing but disingenuous rhetoric meant to deceive unknowing people: if you honestly cared about the well-being of animals, you would adamantly oppose vivisection.

Animal experimentation is unnecessary, unjustified, and unprincipled, its only function to financially benefit those who exploit animals; you are not invisible and your actions are indefensible. Animals have rights to live free from pain and suffering regardless of your objections to acknowledge such, and as long as you profit on the torture of animals, complicit in their abuse and death, I will continue campaigning on their behalf.

Stacey Rakic Larson
Denver, Colorado

LETTER THREE:

Dear ___________:

PLEASE end the brutal mutilation, the maiming and wounding of animals. Please OPEN your ears to their screams of agony – please make use of less invasive ways of doing research! Cruelty, like the Chinese peasants who rip off the skins of dogs, cats and other animals, leaving them to die on a heap in the hot sun for MONEY, these people are without feeling, dead, desensitized…. are you in the same league, in this instance driven for RECOGNITION, hiding behind the words: “It’s in the interest of mankind”. Well, WE DO NOT WANT THESE FAVOURS FROM YOU!!!!

Close DOWN those laboratories from hell! How would you react if we inserted tubes into YOUR brains in an effort to figure out exactly how we can destroy the braincells rampantly urging you to insist on torturing helpless animals?

We, like the millions worldwide are outraged and totally opposed to this foul form of exploitation of innocent animals who do NOT deserve this treatment.

WE HAVE HEARD THE VOICES OF DESPERATE ANIMALS’ CALLING! AND WE CANNOT FIND A WAY TO JUSTIFY THE ANGUISH THEY SUFFER AT YOUR HANDS! WE WANT TO SEE THEM SAVED!

Become human/humane for ONCE in your lives!!

Thank you,

FROM A GROUP JOINED TO THE MILLIONS WORLDWIDE OPPOSED TO ANIMAL TESTING.

Camille Marino, TPC’s Editor of Vegan Agitation, is an animal liberationist, an extraordinary agitator and activist, and is the founder and editor of Negotiation is Over. In her words, “It’s time to stop waving signs at cars or trying to enlighten the apathetic. The fight for the rights of non-human people is urgent and requires us to act outside the box.”

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

DEATH PARK, KS: In Cold Blood Redux



[Local media coverage of In Cold Blood Redux:

http://www.fox4kc.com/wdaf-story-deer-joco-bucket-of-blood-101409,0,7194114.story

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Group-Makes-Voice-Heard-At-Protest/pWnp7pmfi0mcHNyhp1ogSQ.cspx]

By Jason Miller

10/14/09

Per the Kansas City Star, "The Johnson County Park and Recreation District announced today that it will donate the meat from deer killed at Shawnee Mission Park to Harvesters, which will offer the venison to its 550-plus agencies that feed the hungry...."

Contrary to misguided media portrayal and distorted public perception, we nonhuman animal defenders DO care about exploited, suffering, and impoverished human beings. However, we also recognize that humanity's war on nonhuman animals is the root of all the exploitation, oppression, racism, classism, and patriarchy that plagues our species. Hence, many of us have elected to devote much of our time and energy to fighting for nonhuman animals because they are the most defenseless sentient beings and have the fewest champions. There are myriad individuals, private entities, and public programs serving poor and victimized human beings. Many other people champion humans in need; my allies and I fight primarily for nonhuman animals.

As a personal aside, I have spent hundreds of hours volunteering with local homeless shelters and have helped support those organizations through both monetary and food donations. Two years ago, I spear-headed and organized the Harvester's donations drive at my place of employment. And as a vegan, I have taken the single biggest step one human being can take to reduce the obscene over-consumption of potable water and grains necessary to produce "meat," a food of affluence. Worldwatch predicts that our insane demand for "meat" will double by 2050 due in large part to the rise of capitalist consumerism in India and China.

In short, we don't need to slaughter wildlife in a family suburban park to feed the needy. We’ve many other ways and means to help the poor. Sorry, Randy, Michael, Lloyd and company, but your attempt to mask the putrid stench of a fetid cesspool with a few squirts of air freshener is an abysmal failure. How stupid do you think the public is?

In response to the deer slaughterers’ cynical, deceitful attempt to lend moral legitimacy to their stubborn insistence on massacring hundreds of innocent, defenseless beings, I paid a visit to Death Park (formerly known as Shawnee Mission Park) tonight to give the public a visual representation of the gallons of blood that will flow from the veins of the majestic, semi-tame deer who are to receive bullets to the head as they come to eat the grain the their killers have so “generously” provided.

Behold, Death Park:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyPR4A-mv0]

And yes, that's real blood. I procured it from a local meat processor. However, no animals died for the purpose of my action. I merely paid a small fee for a slaughtered animal's blood--blood that would've been destroyed anyway.

Stay relentless for the deer!

Call and/or email the people below to demand that they stop the slaughter and implement Anthony Marr's comprehensive, viable, and cost effective nonlethal deer management plan!

Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson http://www.governor.ks.gov/comments/comment.htm
785-296-6240

Kansas Dept of Wildlife Big Game Coordinator Lloyd Fox
620-672-5911 or 785-296-2281

Johnson County Parks Director Michael Meadors and PR Director Randy Knight
Michael.Meadors@jocogov.org and Randy.Knight@jocogov.org
913-438-7275

Johnson County Board of County Commissioners:
BOCC-Commissioners@jocogov.org

Annabeth Surbaugh 913-715-5000
Jim Allen 913-715-0432
C. Edward Peterson 913-715-0431
David Lindstrom 913-715-0433
Ed Eilert 913-715-0434
Doug Wood 913-715-0435
Calvin Hayden 913-715-0436

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Researchers to animal-rights activists: We're not afraid

Photobucket

October 9, 2009

By Thomas G. Watkins

Simulposted with CNN

(CNN) -- Three research scientists have taken a rare public stand against animal-rights activists, describing them as terrorists for their threats and acts of violence in commentaries published in the latest issue of The Journal of Neuroscience.

Three researchers say they are going to stand up against animal-rights activists who use extreme tactics.Since 2003, "we have seen our cars and homes firebombed or flooded, and we have received letters packed with poisoned razors and death threats via e-mail and voice mail," wrote Dario L. Ringach, a professor of neurobiology and psychology, and J. David Jentsch, a professor of psychology. They work at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"Adding insult to injury, misguided animal-rights militants openly incite others to violence on the Internet, brag about the resulting crimes, and go as far as to call plots for our assassination 'morally justifiable,' " they wrote. In telephone interviews with CNN, both men said they had been subject to harassment, threats and violence.

Last March, "they blew up my car while it was parked in front of my home at 4 a.m.," said Jentsch, who uses rodents and nonhuman primates in his research into how brain chemistry influences mental disorders. His 2006 Volvo was destroyed. The Animal Liberation Brigade, which took responsibility for the attack in a Web site posting, announced "when we come back, it's not going to be the car, hint, hint," Jentsch said.

He said an FBI investigator described the incendiary device as "sophisticated."

"We have to take them on directly"

The practice long followed by many researchers of keeping quiet and hoping the activists will go away does not work, said the 37-year-old scientist. "We have to take them on directly; that's what we plan to do ... I'm not going to be afraid of these people; they're thugs." Jentsch said the university has provided him with round-the-clock security, along with a handful of other researchers who have been threatened. He acknowledged that having no children may make such a stand easier to take.



"People ask me all the time: 'What should people who have children do?' " he said. "My only answer is -- what a horrible position to put someone in where they have to choose between their family and their career, their desire to make the world a better place through their science." That was the decision faced by Ringach, who previously worked with primates. Three years ago, when his 6-year-old and 2-year-old children were asleep, 30 to 40 masked activists arrived at their house and banged on the doors and windows, he said. "I just called 911," he said. "I really was terrified; my kids were clinging to my wife."

Ringach gave up his work with animals.

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006

As a result of that incident, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006. It's a federal law that prohibits interference with animal enterprises, including research. But it is being challenged as unconstitutional and, "so far, I'm not sure it has had an effect on their activities," Ringach said.

The activists have not limited their attacks to primate researchers. Last year, at the University of California at Santa Cruz, a researcher who works with mice was awakened at dawn with his wife and their two children when their house was firebombed. They escaped. That day, another researcher at the same school -- who works with flies and has not been identified publicly -- had his car set afire, said Ringach. "They're really against all types of research," Ringach said.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research said it was aware of 317 incidents of extremist activity by animal rights activists from 1997 to 2008, including firebombings of researchers' homes and cars, breaking and entering, vandalism, stealing property and acts of intimidation. Scientists bear part of the responsibility for not having explained to the public why their work is important, Ringach said. "I would really like to have an honest and civil debate about animal research," he said. "The problem is it's very difficult to do when every day I have to look under my car and see if something is there."

Laura Eimiller, an FBI spokeswoman, noted that rewards of up to $115,000 have been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the bombings. She said law enforcement officials consider the attacks to be acts of domestic terrorism.

Taking it to the next level

Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a surgeon and spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, an animal-rights group, said it is the researchers who are the terrorists. "They take these sentient and intelligent beings and lock them up in sealed cages ... and eventually kill them and chop them up in little pieces."

Asked whether he supports the use of violence in furthering his goals, he likened his mission to those of anti-apartheid and civil rights activists.

"I understand why they're willing to do things like that when all attempts at public discourse and reason and discussion have been quashed," he said. "I understand why people would take it to the next level."

In a separate commentary in The Journal of Neuroscience, the Society for Neuroscience's outgoing chairman of the Committee on Animals in Research, Jeffrey H. Kordower, called for the National Institutes of Health to ensure the safety of researchers against animal-rights activists. The federal government requires recipients of NIH grants, primarily universities, to have plans to protect patients undergoing clinical trials and to protect animals used in research. But there is no plan to protect researchers, he said in a telephone interview.

The request "has fallen on deaf ears," said Kordower, a neurologist who directs the Research Center for Brain Repair at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. Though no one has been hurt, "the ... potential is that someone will be hurt in the near future," he said.

Dr. Sally Rockey, acting NIH deputy director for extramural research, defended her organization's efforts. "As we have previously stated, the NIH is extremely concerned about acts of domestic terrorism against biomedical researchers," she said in a written statement. "In collaboration with the biomedical community, we have developed resources to help our grantee institutions prepare for and manage crises. NIH will continue its commitment to this policy in the interests of the safety of the researchers whose work it supports."

The issue is a critical one if science is to advance, said Society for Neuroscience President Thomas J. Carew.

"Responsible animal research has played a vital role in nearly every major medical advance of the last century, from heart disease to polio, and is essential for future advances as well," he said in a written statement. "Today, it is unacceptable that, in the pursuit of better health and understanding of disease, researchers, their families and their communities face violence and intimidation by extremists."

Charges and countercharges

Vlasak said he had submitted a letter to the editor to The Journal of Neuroscience that said, "As unfortunate as it may be, all successful liberation struggles have had to incorporate the use of force in addition to rational and educated argument; after all, an oppressor never gives up his power until left with no alternative."

Vlasak said Journal editor John Maunsell rejected the letter, telling Vlasak in an e-mail, "We will not publish responses from commentators that appear to condone or encourage violence."

That sparked this missive from Vlasak back to Maunsell: "David Jentsch can torture and kill nonhuman primates year after year in his laboratory to allegedly study human addiction, but I refer to the historical use of force to overthrow oppression and you censor my letter?

"You wallow in hypocrisy, and refuse to acknowledge the suffering of any being besides those of your own species. Your attitudes and behavior will ensure the struggle continues, and hopefully escalates to encompass ever-more effective strategies." Vlasak provided CNN with copies of his e-mail correspondence with Maunsell. A spokeswoman for the journal said it does not comment on potential submissions.

In a joint comment e-mailed to CNN, Jentsch and Ringach said, "It is not acceptable for Dr. Vlasak to talk about civilized public discourse out of one side of his mouth and describe violence against us as just and reasonable out of the other. "People like him have deceived the public about the nature and benefits of biomedical research and, at the same time, we think his behavior has hindered the work of legitimate animal rights/welfare groups.

"It is critical that 'mainstream' groups sever their ties with violent individuals within their movement and publicly repudiate the acts of animal-right extremists and those that incite them from the sidelines. When that happens, scientists and animal advocates can get together to have a reasoned and civilized dialogue about these important issues."

The outspoken researchers are not alone. More than 10,000 people -- many of them scientists -- have signed a "Pro-Test Petition" that credits animal research with having "contributed ... to major advances in the length and quality of our lives." It adds that "violence, intimidation and harassment of scientists and others involved in animal research is neither a legitimate means of protest, nor morally justified."

The complete article can be viewed at:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/animal.rights.threats/

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Monday, October 12, 2009

[Conversation with a Dolphin on How to Save the World] - by Anthony Marr

dolphin_with_calf

Dolphin brains are larger than ours (1600 CC vs1450 CC). Who are we to say what they can or cannot think? Anthony Marr's latest creation: [Conversation with a Dolphin], was the jewel of last Friday's Animal Voices talkshow.

dolphinbrain-p-00370

If you missed it, just go to his space
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
where it is set on auto-play, or go to
http://files1.mailboxdrive.com/mp3s-new/a/anthony_marr@yahoo.com/944268.mp3.
Its transcript will be blogged at
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
and www.ThomasPainsCorner.org.

Dr. Steven Best:

Steve_Best_5-1

and Jason Miller:

Jason_Miller01

will be Anthony Marr's guests on Animal Voices this Friday, when we will be charting a course for humanity.

Animal Voices is aired every Friday 3-4pm ET/12-1pm PT:
- global: online live at www.CoopRadio.org
- radio: CFRO Radio 102.7FM Vancouver + 17 stations in BC, Canada.
- archived in www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
- call-in # 604- 684- 7561

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Pro-Test Was Kind Enough to Provide a Directory of Vivisectors



Daniel Vasella -- Head Office Novartis International AG CH-4002 Basel Switzerland Tel: +41 61 324 11 11 Fax: +41 61 324 80 01

By Gerald Hoffman & Camille Marino

10/11/09

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

When animal rights activists have published the names and contact information of individuals who torment, mutilate, and kill animals, they have been accused of employing tactics of harassment and intimidation. But vivisectors currently have no rational basis to fear actual violence being directed at them or their families, since the animal rights movement has been amazingly restrained in its response to the atrocities that are committed daily against animals. It is clear that it is not violence but transparency that vivisectors have an interest in avoiding. To simply expose what they do to animals and to communicate it in plain language and vivid images is often enough to bring condemnation from much of the general public.

Publishing names and contact information allows for communication; it allows for exactly the kind of “productive dialogue” that Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella recently has feigned support for. I say “feigned” because in the same statement that Vasella urged animal activists to engage in “productive dialogue” he also suggested that anyone who sent him critical emails was associated with criminal activity. Productive dialogue is difficult at best when attempts to initiate it are deemed criminal. Clearly, dialogue is not a sincere goal of Mr. Vasella. It’s common knowledge that vivisectors evade dialogue and have consistently refused to debate Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Dr. Steve Best, Dr. Ray Greek and countless others.





J. David Jentsch: Office phone: (310) 206-0718 / Office fax: (310) 206-5895 Office email: jentsch@psych.ucla.edu

Further evidence of how vivisectors despise transparency can be found in how they describe attempts by activists to obtain public records. Acquiring public records provides a window into the macabre world of the animal laboratory. Vivisectors have spoken out loudly against such tactics. Dario Ringach and David Jentsch recently described public records requests as “legal, but harassing”. That is, they acknowledge that there is nothing illegal about the tactics of activists, that activists pursuing such documents are acting within the law, but Ringach and Jentsch still feel harassed simply because what they do to animals is being shared with an audience more compassionate than their colleagues. Indeed, animal advocates can share this information with the very people who in most cases are funding the experiments via their taxes. This openness is perceived as a threat.

Unable to operate secretively, a certain number of vivisectors have opted to take a public stance and to purportedly defend themselves and their colleagues. P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker authored The Animal Research War as a way to characterize the vivisectors in this so-called war as victims. In addition, to high profile animal tormentors such as Conn, Parker, Ringach and Jentsch, a petition in favor of animal research has been circulated by pro-vivisection organizations and has thus far garnered over 10,000 signatories.

The public nature of this petition means that vivisectors and their supporters are now publishing their own names online; a tactic scoffed at when done by animal rights activists. Activists should not hesitate to take advantage of this petition and to use it as a directory. The petition is essentially a list of people who are without shame, who are willing to take a public stance in favor of the continued suffering and death of animals in laboratories. The signatories are people who not just support but who are actively advocating the continuation of violence toward animals.

The petition is both a directory of people whose minds need to be changed (and in many cases whose behavior needs to be changed) and is an open call to violence by vivisectors against nonhuman animals. While vivisectors present themselves as victims (perhaps because someone chalks their name on a sidewalk or calls them a “killer” after they do in fact kill); in truth they are the aggressors.

Please select as many names from the petition as you see fit and contact these individuals as soon as possible. Some common names may be difficult to trace to the particular individual but many names will not be difficult (particularly if they have listed educational credentials or academic titles with their name).

It is only just the someone who opts to take a public position in favor of violence toward animals receive some negative feedback from more compassionate individuals such as the many dedicated activists who read this blog. Anyone who openly advocated racism, sexism, or pedophilia would be thoroughly criticized…this is an appropriate response to those who advocate vivisection.

Do not hesitate to call the bluff of Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella when he claims to seek “productive dialogue” and begin contacting the names on this list.

View the full list of signatories to the petition here.


Camille Marino, TPC’s Editor of Vegan Agitation, is an animal liberationist, an extraordinary agitator and activist, and is the founder and editor of Negotiation is Over. In her words, “It’s time to stop waving signs at cars or trying to enlighten the apathetic. The fight for the rights of non-human people is urgent and requires us to act outside the box.”

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Death Park: Behold the Face of Death as It Will Appear in One of the Wealthiest Counties in the US



"The man who kills the animals today is the man who kills the people who get in his way tomorrow." ---Dr. Dianne Fossey, Woman in the Mists (she was killed by someone who killed animals yesterday.)

PRWEB press release

(PRWEB) October 10, 2009 -- As the leaders of the affluent and progressive Johnson County, Kansas (in the suburbs of Kansas City, MO) prepare to slaughter over 300 innocent, defenseless deer in a family park, Bite Club of KC's Jason Miller presented them with a severed deer head he dubbed Victoria--so named for the Catholic saint who was beheaded.

Procured from a meat-processor's garbage and publicly unveiled on 9/25/09, Victoria the deer has now become the macabre symbol of Death Park, formerly known as Shawnee Mission Park. Despite the animal advocates of Bite Club presenting local and state officials in Johnson County, Kansas with a viable, cost-effective nonlethal deer management plan, said leaders stubbornly insist on annihilating over 300 does, bucks and fawns with a hail of bullets.

From the lush, scenic gem of Johnson County to a bloody, viscera-laden slaughter-house, Shawnee Mission Park is set to become Death Park.

Here is a link to a description of world-renowned wildlife defender Anthony Marr's nonlethal plan to create a deer preserve instead of annihilating the deer: http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/slaughter/

You can help stop this senseless, barbaric and unnecessary massacre: Bite Club of KC is calling for a business and tourism boycott of Death Park--and all of Johnson County, Kansas--until they agree to create the deer preserve; and for the public to vote the elected members of the Johnson County Board of Commissioners and their appointees at the Johnson County Parks Board out of office--if the deer are massacred; and for readers to contact the people below to demand that they build the deer preserve instead of snuffing out the lives of hundreds of majestic creatures.

Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson http://www.governor.ks.gov/comments/comment.htm
785-296-6240

Kansas Dept of Wildlife Big Game Coordinator Lloyd Fox
620-672-5911 or 785-296-2281

Johnson County Parks Director Michael Meadors
913-438-7275

Johnson County Board of Commissioners BOCC
913-715-0430

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

SAUSAGE

Photobucket

By Vi Ransel

10/8/09

For the purposes of this article, and for general purposes, think of the banks, insurance companies, agricultural concerns, large retailers, chemical companies, the auto industry, media, etc. as all being in the same business. Stay with me here. Though these separate businesses sell different products, debt, protection, resin stuff made in China, poisons, cars, entertainment, etc., they are all in the business of selling something. Further, they are selling something at the lowest cost, to them, possible. Don't argue with me. Quality - usually nil, always programmed to self-destruct ASAP - is irrelevant, their purpose is not to produce a quality product. Customer satisfaction isn't even on the table, despite their lying lip service. Go ahead. Call customer service. You'll get served.

The chief and only concern of these business concerns is throughput - how fast they can change raw materials and labor into products which creates sales which turn into money. Through put is the rate at which production becomes profit. This is the sole and legally mandated purpose of these businesses, which happily give you the business.

And while at work within the capitalist system, they are a special kind of capitalist. While your barber and the local Mom and Pop grocery store may be capitalists, they have not organized their businesses in the same way as banks, etc. These larger businesses are organized in the most efficient (ruthless) manner possible, to deliver profit as fast as possible and in as large an amount as possible - for only one purpose - the enrichment of their shareholders, not quality, not customer satisfaction, the enrichment of their shareholders, often on the edge of legality and ethics, without legal obligation to workers/labor, communities, culture, "their" countries or the environment.



For the enrichment of their shareholders they purchase "our" representatives, "our" courts, "our" presidents and "our" laws, in fact they MAKE the laws. They set up regulatory agencies as a buffer between them and their "valued" customers and have "our" representatives staff these agencies with their executives, who are, of course, totally objective. They own the machines we vote on and the secret software that runs them, the machines that count our votes and the technicians who maintain them. They've already bought the "news" - TV, magazines, newspapers, radio - and entertainment outlets, so it might be on the edge of possibility that they like to see themselves portrayed positively by their products/property.

The busy workings of these businesses are very much like Busby Berkeley's films, where hundreds of scantily-yet-flamboyantly clothed young women danced, or arranged themselves like synchronized swimmers in patterns, which when viewed from above appeared perhaps like a slowly moving pinwheel, a large flower, a mandala, etc. The intricate workings of these businesses, all conducting their business simultaneously, with precisely the same business structure produce exactly the same thing. No. Not goods and services. Profit. They'd just as soon hand you a plastic diaper as a three-pound cheeseburger, an I-pod, a car, a home loan, health insurance or a claymore mine. If they didn't have to "give" you something in return for your money, that would be perfect. It would save them the time of putting a gun to your head and just stealing it. None of that expensive propaganda created by advertising agencies needed to induce you to buy what you can't afford and probably don't really want, let alone need.

These businesses don't need a conspiracy. They are all working, competing with the same game plan, to do exactly the same thing - with no other concern but scoring profit - not their workers to their customers, not communities, except perhaps their own, not the culture, not "their" country, not their physical environment itself.

The air and the water may be filthy with their "by products" (What a bland word for "poison.") whether the mercury in the slurry in the water table after the tops of the majestic, historical Appalachian Mountains are blown off in search of - No. Not coal. - profit; or the gelatinous ocean of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and hog shit choking the communities near CAFOs - confined animal feeding operations - to say nothing of the effects of the eye-watering ammonia stench; or the invisible radioactive irritants that still create cancer clusters around Three Mile Island and the Nevada Test Site.

It is permissible, in the pursuit of profit, to create a hollow culture of voracious acquisition via the commercial seduction of children with sex, violence, sugar and fat, plastic debt cards, electronic distracters and the anxiety that one can never be "hot" enough, but which can be remedied by the purchase of the products of the pusher. No molester with a puppy, a kitten or a bunny in his car ever had it easier.

The grinding up of labor and spitting it out is just business. There's nothing personal about reducing human beings to human resources, a sausage of faceless commodities which produces wealth in feudal-like servitude, six of them for every job opening, to be downsized and outsourced, used and discarded like condoms, toilet paper and outdated electronics in the process of throughput, with no obligation whatsoever to their welfare, no obligation even to think of them as human beings, though they produce that throughput, that profit, that property.

Hollowing out communities by decimating small, local businesses (and jobs), pushing a button at the end of the day and sucking the community's money away to headquarters in another state - or another country - is standard operating procedure. Refusing to share the local tax burden, demanding the reconstruction (at community expense) of traffic flow, creating one job for every three destroyed in small hardware, restaurant, drug, clothing, and grocery stores, et al is business as usual. And any move to block this invasion is taken to court immediately where they claim discrimination under their 14th Amendment rights as citizens. Rights?! Citizens?! What happened to the rights of the people in communities not to be ground down to infinitesimal meaningless debris in the quest by these businesses for profit? And then, when the profit is no longer increasing sufficiently, these businesses move out, leaving only a hollow shell of what was once a community behind them.

These businesses are constantly in motion, constantly searching out newer and greater levels of profit via the lowest labor and materials costs possible, downsizing, outsourcing, importing lower cost labor on H-51 visas, forcing "Free" Trade Agreements down the throats of resource-rich nations, penetrating their markets and privatizing the water their people drink, the land they farm, the seeds they plant, their source of income, their healthcare and either drive them to leave their homes and come to America to work as slaves, or ensconce them in factories in their homelands subcontracted to American businesses and make them slaves in their own homes in the relentless drive to turn the entire planet into profit via the vast and interlocking sausage-making machine for creating profit.

There are approximately five big businesses that dominate each sector of the marketplace, and they are all competing like hell to beat each other out by any means possible to become the only business in their sector. Soon all food will be the property of Monsanto, all finance will be through Goldman Sachs, all retail goods will be purchased at Wal-Mart, all media will be programmed according to the tastes of Rupert Murdoch, all restaurants will be McDonald's, and so on. And our Potemkin democracy will be administered for them by the owners of our voting process, E.S.&S.

Soon these business will begin to look at one another, acquisition sparkling in their eyes. These businesses, actually these business structures, this way of doing business, is at the bottom of every American crisis - financial, heathcare, even moral. They have appropriated our rights as citizens, just as they have appropriated the value of our labor and our common resources which creates their wealth. They have bought "our" representative government. They have the power to "live" forever while accumulating more and more and more profit as property - without limit.

These businesses are corporations, which are nothing more than lifeless legal structures designed to change goods and/or services into profits for their shareholders. They have appropriated all the rights, but taken on none of the responsibilities of citizens. Corporations concentrate power. Democracy disperses power. Corporations are property. Property as power, when concentrated in the hands of a few, inevitably becomes power over the majority. In the face of the ever-increasing concentration of corporate power, what chance do you think democracy stands? Or has the concept become as "quaint" as the Geneva Conventions against torture?

Are you prepared for a reversion to tyranny, not of a king or an all powerful church, but a financial aristocracy of our own "moneyed corporations?" Will you stand with Patrick Henry and demand liberty, or would you rather be handed a three-pound cheese burger and keep your mouth shut?

Vi Ransel, TPC’s Senior Editor of Anti-Capitalism, is a researcher and poet of exceptional caliber. Very little is known about her.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Join Anthony Marr's Anti-Hunting Alliance and let's roll!


Which of the following 3 alternatives would you wish for these fawns?








If you prefer the 3rd alternative, please join the Anti-Hunting-Alliance (AHA) currently being forged by Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE - www.HOPE-CARE.org), which initially will seek to accomplish the following:

1. Support local campaigns against the culling and bow-hunting of deer in urban, suburban and park environments.

2. Integrate the local deer-battles into a national Deer War.

3. Launch massive internet and media campaigns on local and national levels.

4. Launch federal-level class-action legal challenges against the state-level Hunter Harassment laws for violating the freedom of speech and property rights of non-hunters and anti-hunters as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (listen to the Jan Haagensen interview by Anthony Marr on Animal Voices in www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr).

Photobucket

There will be a higher aim with the success of some or all of the above objectives: To terminate Recreational Hunting and Trophy Hunting, period.

Please contact Anthony Marr via MS messaging or email (Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org) and let's roll!

Photobucket

Anthony Marr, founder and president
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.MySpace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.YouTube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.ARConference.org
www.AnimalVoices.org

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

DEATH PARK: Closed for cruelty!

death park

Today, Bite Club of KC renamed Shawnee Mission Park. It is now known as Death Park and we closed it for cruelty.

Watch it on YouTube:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr2osliD9Pw]

Here is the Kansas City Star's take:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1489397.html

Ignoring our nonlethal deer management plan that would cost the same or less as "culling," Johnson County and Kansas state officials have elected to slaughter over 300 does, bucks and fawns using bullets and arrows in a suburban family park! It's NEVER too late to do the right thing--that means you, Michael Meadors, JCPRD Parks Board, and Kansas Department of Wildlife.

Help us stop the October Massacre! Contact Meadors and other state and local officials to demand that they implement Anthony Marr's nonlethal deer management plan:

Mark Parkinson, Governor of Kansas -- Giovernor@ks.gov (785) 296-3232

Johnson County Board of Commissioners -- BOCC-Commissioners@jocogov.org or (913) 715-0430

Michael Meadors, Director of Parks -- Michael.Meadors@jocogov.org (913) 438-7275

Lloyd Fox, Big Game Program Coordinator, Kansas Dept. of Wildlife - lloydf@wp.state.ks.us (620) 342-0658

Mike Hayden, Secretary of Wildlife and Parks - (785) 296-2281

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

You wallow in hypocrisy, and refuse to acknowledge the suffering of any being besides those of your own species....



David Jentsch, who addicts non-human primates to PCP and methamphetamines before killing them...

Re: Journal of Neuroscience response: "Jentsch, Ringach: fraudulent speciesists"‏
From: Jerry W. Vlasak, MD (jwvlasak@pol.net)
Sent: Sat 10/03/09 1:54 PM
To: John Maunsell, Journal of Neuroscience (JNeurosci@hms.harvard.edu)
Cc: Watkins, Tom (Tom.Watkins@turner.com)


Mr. Maunsell: So let me get this straight: David Jentsch can torture and kill non-human primates year after year in his laboratory to allegedly study human addiction, but I refer to the historical use of force to overthrow oppression and you censor my letter? You wallow in hypocrisy, and refuse to acknowledge the suffering of any being besides those of your own species. Your attitudes and behavior will ensure the struggle continues, and hopefully escalates to encompass ever-more effective strategies.

Jerry Vlasak, MD

John Maunsell, Journal of Neuroscience wrote:

Dear Dr. Vlasak,

I regret to inform you that we will be unable to publish your comments. We will not publish responses from commentators that appear to condone or encourage violence.

John Maunsell
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Neuroscience

From: "Jerry W. Vlasak, MD" jwvlasak@pol.net
Date: October 2, 2009 3:32:14 AM EDT
To: "JN_Features@sfn.org" JN_Features@sfn.org
Subject: Journal of Neuroscience response: "Jentsch, Ringach: fraudulent speciesists"


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Date submitted: 2 Oct 2009
eLetter ID: jneuro_el;33255
J. Neurosci. eLetter for Ringach and Jentsch 29 (37): 11417


-----------------------------------------------------------------



Name: Jerry W. Vlasak, MD>
Email: jwvlasak@pol.net
Title/position: physician
Parent ID: 29/37/11417
Citation: We Must Face the Threats
Dario L. Ringach and J. David Jentsch
J. Neurosci. 2009; 29: 11417-11418 (Commentary)
http://www.jneurosci.org:80/cgi/content/full/29/37/11417


-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Jentsch, Ringach: fraudulent speciesists"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

!-- article ID: 29/37/11417 --

David Jentsch, who addicts non-human primates to PCP and methamphetamines before killing them, and his cohort at UCLA, Dario Ringach, recently had the audacity to label animal liberation activists as "terrorists" in a Journal of Neuroscience editorial. Future generations will look back on these antiquated, cruel and unnecessary experiments and label Jentsch, Ringach and their colleagues as the real terrorists.

The use of non-human animals without their consent for medical experiments is primitive and unethical; fortunately, those of us treating human disease in the 21st century are able to utilize modern techniques for investigation that are far more reliable and productive than animal experimentation.

While the use of force for stopping Jentsch and Ringach is far from ideal, liberation activists' frustration is easy to understand when all logic and peaceable means have failed to stop such fraudulent atrocities perpetrated on animals in UCLA laboratories. Jentsch, in particular, who is not a physician, has refused repeated requests by medical doctors such as myself and Dr. Ray Greek to civil, public debate on the use of non- human animals in experimentation. Like other vivisectors, Jentsch also routinely refuses requests by impartial mainstream media to view the grotesque experiments he performs on non-human primates.

As unfortunate as it may be, all successful liberation struggles have had to incorporate the use of force in addition to rational and educated argument; after all, an oppressor never gives up his power until left with no alternative. The struggle for animal liberation mimics that of struggles against Apartheid, human slavery and virtually all other struggles for freedom.

Jerry Vlasak, MD is a board-certified surgeon specializing in trauma and critical care, TPC’s Senior Editor of Animal Liberation, and a press officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. He is a former vivisector who has seen the agony of animals in laboratories. He debates the scientific invalidity of animal experimentation around the world, speaks out about the benefits of a vegan diet and offers lectures on the right of all sentient beings to live free of pain and suffering. His essays and interviews have been published in numerous journals and magazines and he has been interviewed on radio, TV and in print by journalists worldwide regarding animal rights. He resides in Los Angeles. You can reach him at press@animalliberationpressoffice.org

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

A Manifesto for Earth

Photobucket

Image: Earth by ~DreamSoft-Rocko

By Ted Mosquin and Stan Rowe

This Manifesto has been published in the quarterly journal: 'Biodiversity' Volume 5, No. 1, pages 3 to 9, January/March 2004. The journal is owned by The Tropical Conservancy, a charitable organization whose address is 94 Four Seasons Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K2E 7S1. Subscriptions rates and back issues at URL: where an electronic version of the Manifesto will be available in the near future. A pdf file of the Manifesto (with graphics) can be downloaded at www.ecospherics.net/pages/EarthManifesto.pdf

Preamble

Many artistic and philosophical movements have produced Manifestos, proclaiming truths that to their authors were as manifest as their five-fingered hands. This Manifesto also states self-evident truths, as obvious to us as the marvellous five-part environment - land, air, water, fire/sunlight, and organisms - wherein we live, move, and have our being. The Manifesto is Earth-centered. It shifts the value-focus from humanity to the enveloping Ecosphere - that web of organic/inorganic/symbiotic structures and processes that constitute Planet Earth.

The Ecosphere is the Life-giving matrix that envelops all organisms, intimately intertwined with them in the story of evolution from the beginning of time. Organisms are fashioned from air, water, and sediments, which in turn bear organic imprints. The composition of sea water is maintained by organisms that also stabilize the improbable atmosphere. Plants and animals formed the limestone in mountains whose sediments make our bones. The false divisions we have made between living and non-living, biotic and abiotic, organic and inorganic, have put the stability and evolutionary potential of the Ecosphere at risk.

Humanity's 10,000-year-old experiment in mode-of-living at the expense of Nature, culminating in economic globalization, is failing. A primary reason is that we have placed the importance of our species above all else. We have wrongly considered Earth, its ecosystems, and their myriad organic/inorganic parts as mere provisioners, valued only when they serve our needs and wants. A courageous change in attitudes and activities is urgent. Diagnoses and prescriptions for healing the human-Earth relationship are legion, and here we emphasize the visionary one that seems essential to the success of all others. A new worldview anchored in the planetary Ecosphere points the way.



Statement of Conviction

Everyone searches for meaning in life, for supportive convictions that take various forms. Many look to faiths that ignore or discount the importance of this world, not realizing in any profound sense that we are born from Earth and sustained by it throughout our lives. In today's dominating industrial culture, Earth-as-home is not a self-evident percept. Few pause daily to consider with a sense of wonder the enveloping matrix from which we came and to which, at the end, we all return. Because we are issue of the Earth, the harmonies of its lands, seas, skies and its countless beautiful organisms carry rich meanings barely understood.

We are convinced that until the Ecosphere is recognized as the indispensable common ground of all human activities, people will continue to set their immediate interests first. Without an ecocentric perspective that anchors values and purposes in a greater reality than our own species, the resolution of political, economic, and religious conflicts will be impossible. Until the narrow focus on human communities is broadened to include Earth's ecosystems - the local and regional places wherein we dwell - programs for healthy sustainable ways of living will fail.

A trusting attachment to the Ecosphere, an aesthetic empathy with surrounding Nature, a feeling of awe for the miracle of the Living Earth and its mysterious harmonies, is humanity's largely unrecognized heritage. Affectionately realized again, our connections with the natural world will begin to fill the gap in lives lived in the industrialized world. Important ecological purposes that civilization and urbanization have obscured will re-emerge. The goal is restoration of Earth's diversity and beauty, with our prodigal species once again a cooperative, responsible, ethical member.

CORE PRINCIPLES
Principle 1. The Ecosphere is the Center of Value for Humanity
Principle 2. The Creativity and Productivity of Earth's Ecosystems Depend on their Integrity
Principle 3. The Earth-centered Worldview is supported by Natural History
Principle 4. Ecocentric Ethics are Grounded in Awareness of our Place in Nature
Principle 5. An Ecocentric Worldview Values Diversity of Ecosystems and Cultures
Principle 6. Ecocentric Ethics Support Social Justice

ACTION PRINCIPLES
Principle 7. Defend and Preserve Earth's Creative Potential
Principle 8. Reduce Human Population Size
Principle 9. Reduce Human Consumption of Earth Parts
Principle 10. Promote Ecocentric Governance
Principle 11. Spread the Message

Why this Manifesto?

This Manifesto is Earth-centered. It is precisely ecocentric, meaning home-centered, rather than biocentric, meaning organism-centered. Its aim is to extend and deepen people's understanding of the primary life-giving and life-sustaining values of Planet Earth, the Ecosphere. The Manifesto consists of six Core Principles that state the rationale, plus five derivative Action Principles outlining humanity's duties to Earth and to the geographic ecosystems Earth comprises. It is offered as a guide to ethical thinking, conduct and social policy.

Over the last century advances have been made in scientific, philosophical and religious attitudes to non-human Nature. We commend the efforts of those whose sensitivity to a deteriorating Earth has turned their vision outward, to recognition of the values of the lands, the oceans, animals, plants and other creatures. And yet, for lack of a common ecocentric philosophy, much of this goodwill has been scattered in a hundred different directions. It has been neutralized and rendered ineffective by the one, deep, taken-for-granted cultural belief that assigns first value to Homo sapiens sapiens and then, sequentially, to other organisms according to their relatedness to the primary one.

The recent insight that Earth, the Ecosphere, is an object of supreme value has emerged from cosmologic studies, the Gaia hypoth