One of the great things about living on the East Coast must be that jump you get on us West Coasters, who don't get crankin' 'til about 3 hours later. There are many occasions when I'm sent stories to write about, but I always check Bloglines first, and sometimes someone in New York, Florida or elsewhere will have blogged about it already. Sometimes I have something to add, and sometimes all I can do is point at some excellent entries:

Animal Person: NYT on Nonhumans as Property
(regarding the article "Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?")

Green Is The New Red: Death Threats to Biologists “Not Necessarily a Crime”
(Christians make death threats against researchers and it's not "necessarily a crime", while animal advocates are hit with the AETA)

I'll be blogging from the East Coast myself in just over a month, and we'll see how that works out...

Labels: AETA, companion animals, pets

Here's some worthwhile stories from the past few days that I couldn't get to while working on Carnival of Empty Cages #5 and prepping for an interview I'm shooting on Monday (for a documentary I'm working on - more news on that at a later date):

Proving that popular culture can offer a (rare) hook into more meaningful discussions:

ABC News: 'Happy Feet' Not So Happy - Penguins Endangered by Melting Ice, Overfishing

Proving that the resurgence of fur is not going to go unchallenged...

Daily Mail | Femail: Fur is back...and the fashion industry should hang its head in shame

...nor is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

Green is the New Red: Activists Target U.S. Rep. Over “Eco-terrorism” Legislation—And Get Quick Results

Factory farm cruelty, though legal, is outraging the public, thanks to undercover video:

WKYC.com (NBC): Special Prosecutor investigates handling of pigs on northeast Ohio Hog Farm

And congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, vows to re-examine the (already rarely enforced) Humane Slaughter Act:

WKYC.com (NBC): Congressman reacts to pig farm story

Of course, as a vegan himself, he surely knows there's no such thing as humane slaughter, but is playing along to get something happening among his colleagues in Congress. As WKYC's program shows, no one wants to see animals treated the way they are in factory farms, and that means legislators have to pay attention.

WKYC's first news program airing the cruelty received tremendous response, and was acknowledged in the follow-up piece, proving the power of the well-placed letter. In fact, they referred viewers to their site, asking concerned citizens to send letters to Rep. Kucinich, so he could share them with other members of the House. Maybe you'll do the same.

Labels: AETA, animal cruelty, Dennis Kucinich, factory farming, fur, global warming, overfishing, penguins

KTVZ.com | Central Oregon's Local News

On top of a fresh victory (soon to be appealed), animal lovers have good cause to celebrate.

In the wake of an amazing Fur-Free Friday demonstration in downtown Portland, Schumacher Furs has announced that, after 112 years of business in the area, it will pull out of the city's core and may leave Portland altogether. Of course, this implies they will attempt to re-launch elsewhere, presumably somewhere a little less progressive, but that ruse will only work until no place is a comfortable haven for fur peddlers.

Finding a new place to call home might prove challenging, as Shumacher doesn't exactly make one feel the warm fuzzies. Between the sign posted on the inside of his store window (at left) to his insistence that the new "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act," signed by President Bush on Monday, be enforced against the picketers, the man who trafficks in animals' pelts has got a chip on his shoulder. I guess one reason he's leaving the city is what he sees as lack of support from the police department. But they've assigned an officer to every weekly protest and they've even made the occasional arrest! Rather, he calls the activists terrorists.

Having participated in the protest for a few hours during my October Portland visit, I can personally assure you that there was no trace of terrorism going on anywhere out front of the place (otherwise I'm sure a protester would have been arrested by the one of police officers hanging out nearby every Saturday). I tell you what I did witness, though. Schumacher himself got fairly confrontational with a guy in the protest group who appeared to be autistic and was thus a little more vocal than most of the other protesters, and this intimidation came from the same guy who claims in the story, "I do not feel safe coming in my own store." He's obviously just jumping on the AETA bandwagon, but even that train might leave town.

I just read a new story about a federal judge constraining George W. Bush's ability to designate groups as terrorists. One would hope this refers to the AETA, which he signed into law yesterday, but -- the courts taking as long as they do to catch up sometimes -- the decision comes as a rebuke for his post-September 11, 2001 executive order that blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as "specially designated global terrorists" after the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed.

The judge argued the order was unconstitutionally vague, according to the ruling released Tuesday. I will hold out hope that this judge, or at least one cut from the same cloth, will knock down the AETA. It is just as vaguely worded, and certainly threatens our constitutional freedoms. Los Angeles-based Last Chance for Animals has vowed to fight the law.

Speaking of LCA and fur in the same post, this would be a good time to post one of the photos sent to me today by fellow activist Jan Smith, who participated in the organizations's Fur-Free Friday protest in Los Angeles. I had expressed my hopes that the L.A. event would have a great turn out, and I'm happy to say that I wasn't disappointed:

Activists who participate in demonstrations and protests are having a peaceful and meaningful impact, so give yourselves a pat on the back, and keep up the good work!

UPDATE: More on this story in Wednesday's The Oregonian (further proof of Schumacher's prickliness):

"We're leaving downtown Portland because we feel that it's losing its appeal for people to shop in" said Schumacher, 51, rattling off a list of what he called his customers' complaints. "The panhandling, the musicians on the street, the urination in the parking garages. Yes, the protests. But the whole place is not conducive to running a retail operation."

Officials from City Hall to the Portland Business Alliance, while making it clear they're sad to see downtown lose any merchant, particularly such a longtime institution, called Schumacher's claims, in effect, bunk.

They pointed to recent commitments by Macy's and Nordstrom to revitalize their downtown stores. More broadly, Schumacher's comments stand in stark contrast to what many view as a thriving downtown, from the recent maturing of the Pearl District to the start of a projected $2 billion South Waterfront district.

City Commissioner Randy Leonard, who said he'd offered to help Schumacher and his wife, Linda, after the protests started last November, recalled how quickly he came to regret the move.

"I honestly had never been involved in anything in which I felt like the folks I was trying to help did not want to be helped," Leonard said.

"The Schumachers carry at minimum -- at minimum -- equal responsibility for what happened outside their store," Leonard said. "I think the case could be made they did what they could to fan the flames at every opportunity."

Heh-heh. From the City Commissioner, no less. Schumacher clearly has issues of his own devising.

Labels: AETA, fur

Green Is The New Red.com had the earliest coverage I noticed on the passage of H.R. 4239, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, proving that Dennis Kucinich should have won the last election. After all, he is the only one in Congress who spoke out against the act. All the AETA needs now is the signature of the man who currently occupies the White House, and I don't see that being much of an obstacle for its passage.

Labels: AETA

Lee Hall has a piece on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act at Dissident Voice that is appropriately scary for a Halloween Tuesday...

Don't know about it yet? Please read the article today and, for more helpful info, click on the NoAETA.com banner located over in the left sidebar for the time being.

Business interests are attempting to box in activists who advocate on behalf of animals. If the animals can't speak, and people can't speak on their behalf, the AETA spells very bad news.

I've been told not to worry about this, that the act won't hold up to constitutional claims of free speech. But the burden should not be on activists to prove they are not terrorists simply for speaking their minds, even if their words and otherwise legal actions do cost businesses thousands of dollars. The only way free speech should be penalized for costing a business money is if the speakers are shown to be slandering that business.

Well, animal agriculture and the pharmaceuticals industry know that animal activists are not slandering them, or there would already be numerous suits charging them. Instead, they and the politicians that don't want to be seen as not supporting an anti-terrorist bill are cramming this insane, anti-American piece of legislation down our collective throats.

We can't be complacent. There are clearly powerful and wealthy forces at work to preserve the status quo, and they are working behind the scenes to tie the hands of the compassionate minority, like changing the rules of a very serious game to favor them.

Again, please check out the NoAETA.com banner currently in the left sidebar and find out what you can do to stop activists from being silenced.

Labels: AETA

Following is the basic form of the letter I sent to my congressional representatives regarding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (S. 1926 & H.R. 4239), modified as necessary to fit the appropriate recipient:

Dear _____________,

I generally feel you do a fair job of representing my views in our nation's capital, so I'm sure this message will find a sympathetic ear, but I want to make sure my voice is heard.

I am gravely concerned about pending legislation that threatens America's foundation of free speech, as found at the very beginning of our Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Any of these rights expressed by a citizen could well bring financial harm to corporations or individuals who stand to benefit from oppression, regardless of industry, which is why Sen. Inhofe's/Rep. Thomas Petri's Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (S. 1926 & H.R. 4239) was crafted specifically to shield animal-use corporations from legal protest. If S. 1926/H.R. 4239 is enacted, non-violent objection and civil disobedience, boycotts, and even influential media campaigns could become classified as terrorist activities if linked to a "loss of profits" for agribusiness, research laboratories, fur farms, circuses, and other "animal enterprises."

The subjective phrase "loss of profits" apparently includes overhead to restore lost or damaged property or records, expenses for duplicating suspended or invalidated experiments, etc. Will S. 1926/H.R. 4239 focus on property crimes alone or criminalize lawful whistleblowers and undercover cruelty investigators as well? Why should animal enterprises be protected from free speech while other industries do not receive this protection? They shouldn't, of course.

Disciplinary measures already exist for vandalism, trespassing, or other unlawful behavior. The vast majority of animal protection advocates never engage in illegal activity. But, even if they did, they should be prosecuted under present laws.

Demonstrations against intensively confined animal feeding operations or distribution of literature outside an animal circus is no more terrorism than anti-war or women's health protests. Will Congress propose similar Terrorism Acts to cover all areas of opposition? Are we ready to step that much closer to fascism in our beloved country?

This bill establishes a model for repressive legislation to silence all social justice movements that have the potential to cause losses to corporations that profit from oppressive activities activists seek to end. I sincerely hope you are among those legislators who disagree with this shameful attempt to equate activists with terrorists. S. 1926/H.R. 4239 is an insult to the true victims of terrorism.

In fact, I am baffled as to why government representatives feel the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is necessary, much less constitutional. I would feel far more secure if our nation focused more on legitimate domestic security threats instead of wasting time on this matter and hundreds of billions in foreign countries.

As your constituent, I respectfully ask you to oppose this abhorrent attack on our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (sponsored by members of our government, no less!). Surely the right of citizens to speak truth to power trumps the privilege corporations enjoy to make a profit. Remind lobbyists that our government is for the people, of the people, and by the people, not for animal enterprises, of animal enterprises, and by animal enterprises.

Thank you for your valuable time and consideration in this serious matter.

Warm regards,

Eric Prescott

(I substituted the appropriate representative and bill number depending on whether the letter was being sent to the House or the Senate)

Find your representative.

Labels: AETA