Industry Money Fans Debate on Fish

0 Compliments

lundi, janvier 29, 2007

Bloggers who criticize government may face prison
Humeur actuelle :

mécontent

Section 220 of S.1

Bloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison
Bill would allow rounding up and imprisoning of non-registered political writers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, January 18, 2007

You'd be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction on free speech in Communist China. But it isn't. The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress in the latest astounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.

Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."

In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.

Under current law any 'lobbyist" who 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report." quarterly to the government faces criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year.

The amendment is currently on hold.

This latest attack on bloggers comes hot on the heels of Republican Senator John McCain's proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards.

McCain's proposal is presented under the banner of saving children from sexual predators and encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.

Despite a total lack of any evidence that children are being victimized en mass by bloggers or people who leave comments on blog sites, it seems likely that the proposal will become legislation in some form. It is well known that McCain has a distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.

In recent months, a chorus of propaganda intended to demonize the Internet and further lead it down a path of strict control has spewed forth from numerous establishment organs:

During an appearance with his wife Barbara on Fox News last November, George Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an "adversarial and ugly climate."

- The White House's own recently de-classified strategy for "winning the war on terror" targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to "diminish" their influence.

- The Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.

- In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills." Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

- A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web - and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.

- A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.

- The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down "terrorists" who use the Internet to spread propaganda.

- The EU also recently proposed legislation that would prevent users from uploading any form of video without a license.

- We have also previously exposed how moves are afoot to clamp down on internet neutrality and even to designate a highly restricted new form of the internet known as Internet 2.

Make no mistake, the internet, one of the greatest outposts of free speech ever created is under constant attack by powerful people who cannot operate within a society where information flows freely and unhindered. All these moves mimic stories we hear every week out of State Controlled Communist China, where the internet is strictly regulated and virtually exists as its own entity away from the rest of the web.

The phrases "Chinese government" and "Mao Zedong" have even been censored on China's official Web sites because they are "Sensitive phrases". Are we to allow our supposedly Democratic governments to implement the same type of restrictive policies here?

Under section 220 of the lobbying reform bill, Infowars.net could be required to seek a license in order to bring this information to you. IF we were granted a license we would then have to report our activities to the government four times per year in order to bring you this information. Does that sound more like free speech or more like totalitarianism?

***********

Take action:

As well as calling the Senate you should go to GrassrootsFreedom.com which has a petition that you can sign against Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill.

Paul Joseph Watson contributed to this report

Actuellement j'écoute:
From Anger and Rage
Par Verse
Date de publication : 19 September, 2006

7:36

0 Compliments

lundi, décembre 11, 2006

Animal Testing
Humeur actuelle :

déterminé

Something to think about the next time somebody tells you animal tests save lives all the time and we'd all be dead without them.

* Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.

* At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.

* When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.

* Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.

* According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.

* 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.

* Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, 240 medicines are 'essential'.

* Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.

* Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.

* When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.

* At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.

* Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.

* 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.

* One in six patients in hospitals are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for use on humans after animal tests.

* Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.

* The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.

* We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.

* Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.

* Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.

* Heart bypass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn't work on dogs.

* If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don't need vitamin C, that smoking doesn't cause cancer and alcohol doesn't cause liver damage.

* It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn't in animals.

* Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.

* As one researcher points out, "the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."

There you go kids, animal testing is pointless, painful, and dangerous. It only gives us a false sense of security while giving the death sentence to countless animals.

Actuellement j'écoute:
Between Christian Rock and a Hard Place
Par Good Clean Fun
Date de publication : 24 January, 2006

4:14

2 Compliments

lundi, novembre 06, 2006

What did you do with YOUR weekend?
Humeur actuelle :

rempli

This weekend Rev. Fred Phelps' church, Westboro Baptist from Kansas, came to Des Moines to protest a whole bunch of stuff. Here's why:

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

11/02/2006 10:15 AM - 11:00 AM Apex, NC Olive Chapel Baptist Church 600 New Hill Olive Chapel Road This is for the funeral of Army Major David G. Taylor.

11/02/2006 12:15 PM - 1:00 PM Wellington, KS Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1003 W. 22nd St. This is for the funeral of Army Sgt. Willsun M. Mock.

11/04/2006 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM West Des Moines, IA Valley High School 3650 Woodland Avenue WBC will be picketing the Laramie Project at Valley High School, a film made by fags for fags about fags in support of the Sodomite agenda. These fags have made Matthew Shepard their poster boy for an alledged hate crime when he was killed by two freaks that wanted drug money from Matt. He was not the victim of a hate crime but a fool who smoked pot and didn't pay for it. Matt's mother, Judy, has made it her business to promote the fag agenda for the small price of $10,000 for speaking to fags and teenagers about becoming practing fags. She sent Matt to Hell, and makes money off his death, thus pimping him. See www.signmovies.net.

11/05/2006 08:00 AM - 08:30 AM West Des Moines, IA Valley Church 4343 Fuller Road WBC to picket the Valley "Whorehouse" Megachurch in Des Moines, Iowa, for preaching to this nation lies of peace and safety when there is NONE. If you fools weren't concerned about filthy lucre, and preached HONEST truth about God, then this nation would OBEY the commandments of the Lord Their God. Jeremiah 23:22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

11/05/2006 08:30 AM - 09:00 AM West Des Moines, IA St. Timothy's Episcopal Church 1020 24th Street WBC to picket the Episcopal whorehouse masquerading under the name of Timotheus, who have said that it is OK to have woman preachers (Think Paul: I suffer no woman to preach, 1 Timothy 2:12, the same book which was written to Timotheus from Paul by the way) & that Vickie Gene Robinson, their bishop, when he has fag-sex with his "husband", they call that a sacrament.

11/05/2006 08:45 AM - 11:00 AM West Des Moines, IA Lutheran Church of Hope (ELCA) 925 Jordan Creek Parkway WBC to picket the Lutheran mega-dog kennel called the Church of Hope. These fools have nothing to hope for- no faith- because they don't serve God. The only things these men have to look forward to is Hell, and pain forever and ever. Until then, they have a certain fearful looking for of fiery indignation like all the rest of the ungodly men. Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

11/05/2006 08:45 AM - 11:15 AM West Des Moines, IA St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church 7075 Ashworth Road WBC to picket the Catholic whore house, home of the largest pedophile machine in the world. That's enough evidence to send the entire catholic monster straight to Hell. See www.priestsrapeboys.com for more info.

11/05/2006 10:00 AM - 10:45 AM Des Moines, IA Ashworth Road Baptist Church 5300 Ashword Rd WBC to picket the false Baptist church in Ashword, who have taken on the name of John the Baptist but don't preach his words: Mattew 3: 1 ¶ In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 And the same John had his raiment of camel?s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

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

On Saturday night a bunch of friends and I went to Valley High School to counter-protest the Westboro Baptist Church. I had a sign with a Bible verse on it about love, but nobody could really see it since it was dark out and I wrote with a thin red marker. We had this sweet huge sign that said WBC Not Welcome, and it took I think at least eight people to hold it up. The WBC group kept singing hymns we didn't recognize. Cammie and I thought they made up their own hymns, you know, so they'd be about hate instead of love. We hummed really loudly and blew air horns to cover up the sound. It was pretty hilarious. Oh also, the WBC people kicked around American flags and stomped on them. I guess they're against the U.S. because we're a "fag nation"? Yeaaah.......At one point three people from our group ran over to take one of the signs, which most of us weren't too happy about, but I have to admit it was still kind of funny. One of the guys got charged with assault, unfortunately. Sunday morning we followed the WBC protestors around to all the churches they were protesting. This time we took the time to make more signs and buy American flags. It was pretty uneventful. It was kind of surprising how many people flipped US off and one guy even yelled at Ace and I, "Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time?" I'm still not sure how many people were just confused which side we were on, and how many people seriously love to hate. Anyway, it was nice to let everyone know that supposed "Christians" who preach hatred do not represent Christ at all. He actually loved everyone.

Actuellement j'écoute:
Outta Control
Par Kids Like Us
Date de publication : 26 July, 2005

8:12

0 Compliments

mardi, octobre 31, 2006

Something to Chew On
Humeur actuelle :

plein d’espoir

Eight Arguments in Favor of Eating Meat and Objections

Most of the following eight arguments came from a Contemporary Moral Issues class that I taught at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the Fall of 1995. I asked the students to give me their best arguments in favor of eating meat, and these are the results. I have also shown this list to others, and they have been unable either to support the arguments any better or to come up with another, better argument. If anything, they have criticized these arguments for being invalid (i.e., the conclusion does not follow from the premises, even if one assumes the premises to be true) or unsound (i.e., invalid, or at least one premise is not true). I wanted to object to all of the arguments that people presented just in case people might think they are good arguments. I would like to thank the UW students in general, Sylvia Rodee, and Kerry Leibowitz for their input and comments.

1. The Bible Argument:

"The Bible says we shall have dominion over the animals and I take that to mean that we can eat meat and use animals however we want. Therefore, we can eat meat."

Objection 1: If one wants to take what the Bible says to support one's position, one will have to believe that a wife must submit to her husband, homosexuals are immoral, one must not eat cloven-hoofed animals, rebellious sons must be taken to the center of town and stoned to death, etc. One cannot pick and choose between points in the Bible without being unfair and arbitrary. If there are any points or even one point in the Bible with which one does not agree, one has to be able to justify why that one point should not be accepted but that every other point should. What that justification will amount to is to be some other argument for eating meat that is not in the Bible (see the other arguments below, e.g.). Because people do tend to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they like and dislike, it may show that people have their own ideas of right and wrong regardless of what the Bible says. It also might show that most people think that the Bible is fallible.

Objection 2: What is intended by "Man shall have dominion over the animals" (paraphrased from Genesis 1:26) is subject to interpretation. Maybe what is intended is not, "Do whatever you want to the animals, like torturing, eating, bestiality, etc.", but, "Since I made humans with more reason than the rest of the animals on earth, it will be up to you to see that they are well cared for – do not harm (or kill) them unless it is necessary." So someone who likes this argument needs to tell me why we should interpret the argument in the former way rather than the latter. (See Objection 4 below.) It would seem that parents would have dominion over their children; but this does not imply that we can torture and kill them in order to eat them, right?

Objection 3: For anyone who does not believe that every word of the Bible is true, it's not convincing. Why are all of the other Holy Books such as the Qur'an, Rig-Veda, Dhammapada, Taoist texts, Book of Mormon, etc., wrong?

Objection 4: First, it would seem that God wants us to eat only vegetables: In Genesis 1:29, God says to Adam and Eve, "I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [sic] is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." It says that man shall have dominion over the animals, but it doesn't say there that we shall have them for food, as it does of fruits and vegetables. Second, there are Biblical passages which actually say that we should care for animals: For example, we should help an ass get up if it falls down (Exodus 23:5), you must rest on the seventh day so that your ox and ass can rest too (Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 5:14), you must leave a mother bird and her eggs alone – you may take her brood, but you must leave the mother bird alone (Deuteronomy 22:6-7) the just man takes care of his beast (Proverbs 12:10), if you have livestock, look after them, if they are dependable, keep them (Sirach 7) Therefore, it is very unclear just what a defender of eating meat can glean from the Bible. Also, in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, it says, "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" (Sect. 89.12-13). This text suggests that meat be eaten sparingly, but ONLY in winter, cold, or famine. This was written when there were no other options available, and certainly does not seem to apply to warm climates such as Arizona, California, etc. But even in Vermont, non-meat alternatives are available aplenty, so wouldn't this text pretty much ban meat-eating in about 99% of North America?

Objection 5: See also Mylan Engel Jr.'s response (for which you can see my notes, by clicking on a link below – see the last sentence of the text).

2. The Tradition Argument:

"I've been brought up eating meat and never questioned it. Our culture accepts eating meat as well. Therefore, I should be able to eat meat."

Objection 1: The fact that one has been raised to eat meat is more of an explanation of why the meat-eating started, but cannot, by itself, justify the claim that eating meat is ethically good. What if one were raised to hit people on the heads with hammers anytime the desire arose? To use more real examples: "My culture states that people of color are inferior." And, "My culture states that women should be submissive and stay at home." These statements reflect the predominant opinion in the United States in the first instance as recently as two generations ago, and in the second instance, as recent as one generation ago. Are we to accept them as "proper" in perpetuity?

Objection 2: Against the cultural reason, everything a culture accepts may not be ethically good, e.g., slavery, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering, etc. It may even be argued that one who has never questioned their tradition (like eating meat) is not immoral, or is amoral (though I have doubts about whether this kind of argument would work). However, once one questions whether or not one should eat meat (as anyone who has ever asked me why I don't eat meat has done), and sees that they have no sound and valid reason to continue their current behavior, this seems immoral.

Objection 3: This argument allows us to eat humans: All that is required is that one is raised in a cannibalistic tradition.

3. The Taste Argument:

"I love the way meat tastes. I won't deprive myself of this. Therefore, I should be able to eat meat."

Objection 1: This argument allows us to eat humans: That is, it leaves open the possibility that a person can say, "I love the way human meat tastes. There's nothing that tastes quite like a human!" This principle (something's tasting good) is not something that one would want to be true in general and is something that does not justify the current treatment of animals – this principle could be an argument to eat anything and treat the being/thing (i.e., eatee) as badly as you like.

Objection 2: Think about what it would sound like to argue as follows: "I like the way it sounds," when someone asks you why you're hitting infants on the head with a hammer. "There's nothing quite like that sound, and I really like it (and maybe add tradition in here), so I don't see why I should give it up". Or, "I just like the way it smells when I put human flesh to flames!" Or, "I just like to see human flesh burning." One who makes this argument leaves open the possibility that any sensation that brings pleasure (whether or not that sensation has been cultivated from tradition) is something that it's OK to enjoy, no matter what it takes, costs, entails to enjoy it! "My life is more pleasant with slaves."

Objection 3: Taste probably is linked with or caused by tradition: Imagine never having eaten meat before, at 21, and having a meat eater say to you, "Go ahead, have some dead roasted cow on a bun – it's great!" Therefore, this argument might need to justify or usually goes hand in hand with the Tradition argument. (See also my objections to the Tradition argument.)

Objection 4: If this argument can justify current practices of raising and killing non-human animals for food, then it justifies raising humans in the same way.

4. The Teeth Argument:

"Our teeth are made for eating meat. All animals that have teeth like ours eat meat. So we should be able to eat meat."

Objection 1: Just because our anatomy is able to do something does not imply that we should do that thing, or that it is morally acceptable to do that thing. Biologically, I am able to spit. But it is not usually considered morally acceptable to spit in other peoples' faces, other things being equal (it especially does not follow just from the fact that I am able to spit). Hitting or torturing people is another example.

Objection 2: Our teeth aren't really "made" to eat meat. We cannot, for example, walk up to a cow and start gnawing. Contrast plants. Even ignore the hide – we cannot eat the meat without cooking and making it as soft as plants too. Moreover, we'd acquire lots of diseases if we were to eat uncooked meats.

Objection 3: Though we may have similar teeth as some carnivores, there remains one major difference between non-human animals and us (See the Darwinian/Machiavellian Argument and Objections below).

Objection 4: This argument allows us to eat humans. If it follows from the biological fact that my teeth can eat meat, then this argument does not give us any moral reason to not eat humans.

Objection 5: If this argument can justify current practices of raising and killing non-human animals for food, then it justifies raising humans in the same way.

5. The Nutrition Argument:

"We need the protein that is provided in meat. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat."

Objection 1: This argument allows us to eat humans. What if I want to get my protein from human flesh? What if alien beings need their protein – should we need to willingly submit to being their protein source? This argument does not give us any moral reason to not eat humans. Again, if this argument can justify current practices of raising and killing non-human animals for food, then it justifies raising humans in the same way.

Objection 2: Protein is necessary, but getting protein from cattle, pigs, chickens and fish (let alone dairy products and eggs) is not necessary. Why kill these animals if it is not necessary? The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recently called for a New Four Food Groups (whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes), which lists meat and dairy products as optional and not necessary. (Vegetarianism: Answers to the Most Commonly Asked Questions, a pamphlet published by the North American Vegetarian Society).

Objection 3: It is not difficult (at the very least, not in North America and Europe) to obtain protein from other sources (than those mentioned in Objection 2 above). It may be inconvenient for some, but it is not difficult.

6. The Darwinian/Machiavellian Argument:

"The process of evolution has placed humans, the stronger, in a position to be able to use the weaker (non-human animals) for our eating and other pleasures. Other animals besides us eat meat (i.e., other animals) – are they immoral? E.g., if the lion eats the zebra, that isn't morally wrong. So it's a natural instinct we have to eat meat. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat."

Objection 1: If the stronger are always able to use the weaker however they please simply because they are more powerful, then we are in trouble (in my opinion). This argument justifies child abuse, killing and/or putting infants, the senile, comatose, etc. in nasty conditions, etc., and suggests no principle that we can use to limit their pain and/or death(s). This is an "anything goes" principle, which definitely should be questioned. How, for example, can we limit this "do anything" principle to only include non-humans?

Objection 2: As for the "other animals eat meat" point: Other animals are acting solely because of natural instincts, and in the wild, must kill what they're killing in order to stay alive. They are unable to reflect on what they are doing. We are not in a situation where (1) we can only act from natural instincts (admittedly we do have some instincts), and (2) it is necessary to eat non-human animals. We should question this "animal instinct" in ourselves. Non-human animals, in my opinion, cannot question their actions as humans can. This feature makes us different.

Objection 3: If beings from another planet are stronger than us, according to this argument, we should have no moral problem with their wanting to eat us, how they would treat us, whether they would raise us to kill and eat us, etc. This, at least to me, is an uncomfortable notion.

7. The A-moral Beings Argument:

"Non-human animals are a-moral beings. Non-human animals cannot question their actions like humans can, and this is what makes humans special. If beings cannot question how they live, then they have no intrinsic worth or rights. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat."

Objection 1: Non-human animals are not the only beings who cannot question how they live/act: fetuses, infants, comatose, senile, or severely retarded persons cannot as well. How can we still, on this argument, reasonably claim that these beings have intrinsic worth or rights? Note that if one responds, "because they have value to other humans," one can reply with questions like, "What about human beings that no one cares about, or humans that want to die because their life isn't or can't be meaningful anymore (euthanasia)?"

Objection 2: If other humans do care about how animals are treated, what then? For example, what about pets that people care about, and what about vegetarian humans who are concerned about non-human animals – doesn't this concern give these animals moral worth (though not necessarily rights) on this response?"

Objection 3: It's ironic that one would argue that humans are moral beings and can question what they do, and argue from there that we have a good reason to treat non-human animals poorly and kill them because they lack this power. From objections to the Darwinian/Machiavellian Argument, I believe that this power is exactly what makes us unique and is what makes us have a greater, and not a lesser, responsibility to other beings.

Objection 4: Non-human animals are moral beings, from the standpoint that they can suffer. One does not even have to argue that non-human animals (or even human animals) have any rights at all (contrary to those such as Rush Limbaugh who apparently thinks that every vegetarian argument is based on the notion that non-human animals have rights) – one just needs the facts that we cause them to suffer in the process, and that this suffering is not necessary.

8. The Intelligence/Rationality Argument:

"Humans are more intelligent and more rational than non-humans. These characteristics give us the right or opportunity to be able to use non-humans for food. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat."

Objection 1: There are unintelligent, irrational humans – how can we exclude these beings from poor treatment/death without being arbitrary?

Objection 2: If we are more intelligent and rational than non-human animals, then (1) we have more of a burden to behave rightly (with The A-moral Argument (7), we're "moral" beings), and (2) having the capacity for rationality comes to having good reasons to do something, not having (m)any reasons against doing something, and acting on those things for which there are good reasons to do or not to do. We are more bound by these characteristics to act rightly than non-humans are. Unfortunately (from the meat-eater's perspective), we're burdened with rationality and intelligence, whereas lions are not, and can, to my knowledge, eat without questioning.

afterword (bonus stuff): miscellaneous Questions for someone who argues for vegetarianism:

1. What about population control of animals used for meat, after vegetarianism? If we didn't eat a lot of meat, we'd have way too many cows and pigs, so do we not need to control the population? Reply: Yes, but we're able to sterilize and control the population. We made the population, so there's no need to make more pigs if we're not going to eat them; or, put it this way: if we do not eat them, they will not be produced for us.

2. Argument for deer hunting: Isn't it humane to control overpopulation and/or starving of the deer? Suppose that it's established that killing an animal for food was immoral. Would it not be equally immoral to stand by and allow animals to overpopulate and starve? This is an argument that is used to justify deer hunting. Reply: There are other questions that have to be asked and answered here:

1) Who put these animals into this condition?

2) What should be done about the overpopulation? And

3) Does this defeat the arguments that we shouldn't eat meat, in general?

Answer to (1): There are lots of deer because we killed their predators. To now say, "Other animals aren't killing them fast enough and they're overpopulated, so we should be able to kill them" seems ironic, if not strange (especially given that there are other options). Also, because of the way in which we farm and raise steer to eat, we need many more fields than we would if we were vegetarians. What's the connection? Apparently deer like to mate and breed in areas next to fields – the beds are nicer. If we converted to vegetarianism, there would be more woods, and fewer boundaries between the fields for the deer to multiply, so we'd have fewer deer anyway. This leads to the:

Answer to (2): Obviously, hunting does not always lead to less suffering of the deer. Missed shots or arrows partially in them cause suffering and perhaps slow death. If our main concern is suffering (which I HIGHLY doubt), we should make it a law to shoot them with tranquilizing guns first, and then blow them away on the spot! But wait, there are other options: (a) We could look into other farming techniques and change the amount and kind of field edges there are (again, this would happen if more people were vegetarians), which would naturally lead to fewer dear; (b) We could look into introducing more predators into nature that, through natural instincts, would start to take care of the problem on their own by thinning out the weaker deer; (c) We could sterilize some deer; (d) We could round up the deer and keep them in large fenced in areas where we could control their population that way. These are options I've thought of on my own in about an hour. Imagine if we talk to people who deal with and care about deer for a living? Should we appeal to tradition in order to defend hunting? I'd have the same kinds of replies you see above to Argument 2. Don't forget that in all this "care" for the poor starving deer by hunting them (J), humans die in hunting as well.

Answer to (3): The arguments not to raise animals for meat do not seem to be affected at all by the hunting argument. Supply will meet demand in the steer/pigs/chickens, etc. case, and the demand has been questioned . . .

3. What about fish, clams, lobster, etc.? Is it immoral to eat these animals as well? Reply: This is a question of degree, just as if someone were to say, "If it's moral to give one dollar to a charity, then why not two; if two, why not three, etc. until you argue that you must give everything to charity. To argue that you owe nothing to world hunger because you cannot decide between one dollar and everything is certainly ridiculous! It's up to us to decide whether or not to forgo seafood and draw the line at animals and plants. One other thing to consider: I am aware of studies that have been done with lobsters where it seems pretty obvious that they're not excited about being put into boiling water. J

4. What's the difference between killing plants and killing animals? Reply: It is much more obvious that animals suffer more than plants, so on the "matter of degree" scale, plants lose. One can pretty easily argue that it's a matter of reducing the most suffering, even if plants do suffer.

5. What's a good argument in favor of vegetarianism? Reply: I've read arguments that are based on (1) claims that animals have rights (Tom Regan) and (2) utilitarianism, weighing the suffering and pain caused to the animals versus the amount of pleasure created for humans, which concludes that the amount of nonhuman animal suffering exceeds the pleasure of humans (Singer). I think the argument for animal rights is weak, because I'm not convinced that even people have rights (if we do in fact have rights, which rights do we have and how do we know that we have those rights, how far do those rights extend, do nonhuman animals have rights, do ecosystems have rights, and how do we know these things, etc.?). Singer's argument is much better, but even better than that is Mylan Engel Jr.'s argument, which I have notes on and which you can read by clicking here.

6. What about all the animals that are killed in order to grow and produce plants? Stephen Davis, on this website: http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html makes the following objection. What Regan, an animal rights advocate who argues for veganism, does not address is the number of animals (e.g., rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes) that are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. Davis claims, "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets." So the vegan position is inconsistent.

REPLY1: Davis is arguing against Regan's view of animals, that they have rights, and I'm not committed to arguing that animals or anyone has a right to anything; so, in short, it may be a good argument against someone who holds Regan's view that all animals have rights. However, since I don't have this position, it isn't strictly necessary that I address this objection. Nonetheless, see REPLY2 where I will do so anyway. J

REPLY2: First, my argument related to animals is that we should not unnecessarily cause suffering or killing to animals (or plants, for that matter). So, the fact that rabbits, mice, etc. die during the growing and reaping of grains CAN be argued to be necessary, since we must at this point either eat animals or plants, and as far as we know we're causing much less suffering of plants by eating them than we do by slaughtering cows, pigs, etc. Second, I'd argue that Davis' argument may be a good argument for farmers' needing to be very careful when they operate. For example, maybe they should put mice, rabbit, etc. repellant chemicals around the field edges, etc. Third and lastly, this could also imply that if we can ever do without plants and can eat totally synthetic food that will harm neither plants or animals, then we are morally required to eat the synthetic food.

One last brief note on how this issue relates to animal experimentation: If it is possible for the anti-animal rights, anti-vegetarian contingent to argue that there is some important dissimilarity between nonhuman animals and humans (e.g., they can't feel pain or pleasure and we can, or their biological systems are radically different from ours), then we should not be experimenting on them, since the idea of experimentation is to find out how drugs/treatments work on nonhuman animals' suffering (and their bodily systems) in order to decrease the suffering of humans with similar disorders.

© 2001-2005 by David J. Yount

Actuellement j'écoute:
Can't Stop the Truth
Par Path of Resistance
Date de publication : 18 April, 2006

3:01

5 Comm.

0 Compliments

lundi, juillet 31, 2006

Republicans get estate tax cut by pairing it with an increase in minimum wage.
Humeur actuelle :

agacé

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans muscled the first minimum wage increase in a decade through the House of Representatives early Saturday after pairing it with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates.

Combining the two issues provoked protests from Democrats and was sure to cause problems in the Senate, where the minimum wage initiative was likely to die at the hands of Democrats opposed to the costly estate tax cuts.

The Senate is expected to take up the legislation next week.

Still, Republican leaders saw combining the wage and tax issues as their best chance for getting permanent cuts to the estate tax, a top Republican priority fueled by intense lobbying by farmers, small business owners and super-wealthy families such as the Waltons, heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune.

"This is the best shot we've got; we're going to take it," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, a Republican. The unusual packaging also soothed conservatives angry about raising the minimum wage over opposition by Republican business allies.

The House passed the bill 230-180 before leaving for a five-week recess.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid vowed Democrats would kill the hybrid bill, along with its 10-year, $300 billion-plus cost.

"The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again," Reid said. "Blackmailing working families will not change that outcome."

Republicans countered that Democrats opposed the bill to keep the issue alive for the November elections.

But Republicans also reveled in putting moderate Democrats in the uncomfortable position of voting against both the minimum wage increase and the estate tax cut -- and an accompanying bipartisan package of popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes.

The Republican package would increase the wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years.

Under current law, the estate tax is phased out completely by 2010, but jumps back to 55 percent on estates larger than $1 million in 2011.

The bill passed Saturday would exempt $5 million of an individual's estate, and $10 million of a couple's, from estate taxes by 2015. Estates worth up to $25 million would be taxed at capital gains rates, currently 15 percent and scheduled to rise to 20 percent. Tax rates on the remainder of larger estates would fall to 30 percent by 2015.

The maneuver was aimed at defusing the minimum wage increase as a campaign issue for Democrats while using the popularity of the increase to achieve the Republican Party's longtime goal of permanently cutting estate taxes.

That left Democrats fuming.

"Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum wage workers, 'We'll raise your minimum wage but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America,"' said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.

Actuellement j'écoute:
Heaven and Hell
Par xDisciplex A.D.
Date de publication : 13 February, 2001

5:15

4 Comm.

0 Compliments

mercredi, juin 28, 2006

Surveys are for lame-os.......
Humeur actuelle :moderate

..........like me.

A Bunch of Firsts

1. Who was your first, maybe your only prom date?
I didn't go to prom, I thought it was lame. Plus, my parents wouldn't let me.

2. What was the first cassette tape you ever purchased?
I don't think I ever did. In the days of tapes, my folks didn't let me listen to much music.

3. What was the first C.D. you ever purchased?
I think it was The W's

4. What was the first book you ever remember having had read to you?
It was probably some Berenstein Bears book.

5. What is the first book you read on your own?
Haha, I can't remember that because I was only 2 and my mom told me about how I taught myself to read back then. I can't remember not being able to read.

6. Who was the first person you bought an x-mas gift for last year?

It was probably either my sister or one of my parents.

7. Whom would you pick first to be on your track team, a grandmother with a walker and one bad eye or a middle-aged, fat man with a heart condition and asthma?
I'm not sure which one would be least likely to die, so it's kind of hard to pick. I suppose it would be funnier to watch a fatty try to run, so I'll pick him. Watch the blubber fly.

8. Who was your first kiss?
I'm not sure which one counts, because the first technical one was this little boy we were playing aliens and astronauts with...my sister and his brother were the aliens, and we were the astronauts...he told me we were married so we had to and then he surprised me with a kiss. The first one that counts is confidential information.

9. Where did you have your first automobile accident?
Right in my neighborhood. I rammed into the side door of a van and it turned out to be one of my friends from school.

10. What was your first car?
The Dodge Shadow.

11. What was the first concert you attended?
Five Iron Frenzy at Frank's, ha. The first one I was really into was Isis and Knut (I have no idea how that's really spelled) at the Botan.

12. Which would you pick first a bottle of Boones Farm or a Corona?
Sick, neither.

13. Who did you have your first knock down drag out fight with?
Probably Cammie, we're pretty brutal. We pulled hair and bit each other.

14. Who was your first best friend, and are they still your best friend? This girl named Morgan in preschool, and these three brothers that lived in our neighborhood. I don't know what happened to any of them.

15. Who was your first date?
I don't know if I ever technically had a date.....I just hang out with people and get in a relationship when we're ready....

16. Where did you go on your very first date?
Ehhhhhh........

17. Which would you pick first, a Foo Fighters concert or a Brad Paisley concert?
Foo Fighters

18. Who would you pick first to set by you on a long bus ride, a Jehovahs witness or a wanted criminal?
I know too many wanted criminals, so I'll mix it up a bit with a Jehovah's Witness.

19. What was the first video game you ever played?
Probably Pac-Man or Tetris. Wait, are those considered arcade games? I don't know, it's all the same to me.

20. What exciting thing happened at your fist sleepover?
I don't remember my first sleepover....but we probably ate pizza and candy.

21. What was your first choice pick of a college to attend?

Drake

22. Which would you pick first to have a make out session with: John Cusack, Drew Barrymore, Collin Firth, Kate Hudson, The New Superman (whats his face from Iowa), Orlando Bloom, Sandra Bullock, or Jessica Simpson?
Ickkk.

23. Which would you pick first, dress shoes or sneakers?

Sneakers, der.

24. What was your first big public embarrassment that you ever remember having?
People at church laughing at me for being "cute" and me getting really mad that nobody took me seriously. I don't think I even did anything that funny. I was about four. I can't remember what I said....this story sucks, sorry.

25. What was your first job?
I was a library page at Urbandale Library.

26. What was the first movie you ever saw in a theater?

The Sixth Sense (My parents disapprove of movie theaters so my first movie was when I was in college.

Actuellement j'écoute:
What It Meant: The Complete Discography
Par Judge
Date de publication : 21 June, 2005

5:27

1 Comm.

0 Compliments

mercredi, mai 24, 2006

My old landlord stole my bike.
Humeur actuelle :murderous

He won't respond to my calls. Of course. Ideas, anyone?

Actuellement j'écoute:
Age of Quarrel/Best Wishes
Par Cro-Mags
Date de publication : 23 August, 1994

7:05

6 Comm.

0 Compliments

jeudi, février 23, 2006

Especially for Bridgette.
Humeur actuelle :Bridgetteicious

1) Who is the last person you high-fived?
Aaron, I think.

2) If you were drafted into a war, would you serve?
I'd be hightailin' it to Canada.

3) Do you sleep with the t.v. on?
Every night.

4) Have you ever drank milk straight out of the carton?
When I was a little kid and we had those tiny cartons at school, yes.

5) Have you ever won a spelling bee?
No, but I got 100% on almost all spelling tests I've ever taken.

6) Have you ever been stung by a bee?
three or four times. Different kind of bees hurt more than others.

7) How fast can you type?
like Speedy Gonzales.

8) Are you afraid of the dark?
Nope.

9) What color are your socks?
white

10) Have you ever made out at a drive-in?
I may have made out while listening to At-The-Drive-In, but I don't think so........

11) When is the last time you chose a bath over a shower?
I don't have a choice because my bathtub is not equipped with a showerhead.

12. Do you knock on wood?
Shut up.

13) Do you floss daily?
Yep.

14) Do you wanta Fanta?
I'd rather have an IBC root beer.

15) Can you hula hoop?
Sorta.

16) Are you good at keeping secrets?
Not at all.

18) Do you know the Muffin Man?
Yeah, he lives over there on Drury Lane.

19) Do you talk in your sleep?
Yep. One time I was also sleeping with my eyes open and my dad came in to my room to ask me something and I responded in gibberish. I guess he thought I was messing with him because he asked me about it in the morning in kind of an offended tone and I was all, "dude, whaaa? It's chill!" I wish I actually talked like that.

20) Who wrote the book on love?
1 Cor 13

21) Have you ever flown a kite?
No doy.

22) Do you ever wish on fallen lashes?
When I was a little kid.

23) Do you whiten your teeth?
I prefer them brown and crusty. I don't even brush.

24) Can you smell what the Rock is cooking?
Smells like bacon.

25) Have you ever asked for a pony?
Who would I ask? I never believed in Santa Claus as a kid and I knew my parents couldn't afford one. I was strangely practical for a wee lass.

27) Can you juggle?
Not really.

28) Missing someone now?
I miss lots of people.

36) Have you ever crawled through your window?
I don't think I could........

37) Have you ever eaten dog food?
(sic)

38) Do you like roller coasters?
Yep.

39) Do you wish you could live somewhere else?
NYC, Boston, Denver, or anywhere warm

[Current clothing]
green and white striped polo shirt, jeans, New Balance shoes, glasses

[Current mood]
medium rare

[Current taste]
water

[What you currently smell like]
My hoodie probably still smells like fried food from the onion rings I attempted to make the other day, but I think I smell like unscented lotion.

[Current hair]

Shoot, girl, you know me. Pigtails and bangs, wouldn't have it any other way.

[Current thing I ought to be doing]
getting back to work

[Last movie you saw]
Goodfellas

[Last thing you ate]
pbj

[Last person you talked to on the phone]
Andy

Actuellement j'écoute:
Rise from the Ashes
Par No Turning Back
Date de publication : 20 September, 2005

6:40

2 Compliments

jeudi, février 09, 2006

I'm glad to see your prioties are in order.

By Catherine Komp
Republished from New Standard News

"Terrorist" label is an intentional misnomer without legal basis.

Analysts and advocates take issue with applying the term “eco-terrorist” to nonviolent animal- and environmental-defense activists and highlight the driving force behind the campaign to elevate the crimes and their perpetrators.

Feb. 7 – In an attempt to shield private property and development from saboteurs, business lobbyists are pushing new laws that would further criminalize the actions of radical ecological activists. Government officials and corporations are applying the rubric of anti-terrorism to penalize those who destroy company or government property when protesting mistreatment of animals and the ecosystem.

Last month, federal grand juries in Oregon and California indicted 14 people on various conspiracy charges for their alleged involvement in the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) – underground groups responsible for dozens of acts of property destruction as a strategy for protecting vulnerable species.

While some federal officials and media reports liken the defendants to domestic terrorists, others, including some legal experts and free-speech groups, say the label is an intentional misnomer without legal basis.

The Actions

In Oregon, a 65-count indictment charges11 defendants with involvement in seventeen arson and property-destruction attacks between 1996 and 2001. The incidents involve meat processing plants, lumber companies and other public and private targets.

Defendants in California are accused of conspiring to use fire and an explosive to damage property of the US Forest Service Institute of Forest Genetics, a fish hatchery, cellular telephone towers, and electric power stations. Though their alleged plot was reportedly foiled by a federal informant, two of the defendants face up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

Over the past quarter century, the ELF and ALF have taken responsibility for numerous crimes of arson, vandalism and property destruction against institutions the groups say harm people, animals or the environment.

The FBI says that these and related groups have committed more than 1,100 “criminal acts” since 1976, causing more than $110 million in damage.

In an October 2001 press release, the ALF claimed responsibility for one of the activities listed in the Oregon indictment: releasing 200 horses and setting four timed incendiary devices in Litchfield, California. The group accused the BLM of rounding-up wild horses for slaughter to clear public land for cattle grazing.

Similarly, ALF spokesperson Dr. Jerry Vlasak said the motive behind the arsons of a ski resort expansion in Vail, Colorado in 1998 was to prevent the destruction of land inhabited by the lynx, which was added to threatened species list after the attacks.

After the recent arrests, FBI Director Robert Mueller called animal rights and environmental “extremism” one of the Bureau’s highest domestic terrorism priorities.

But the activists say they are on a mission to defend, not terrorize. Vlasak said property destruction is used after other avenues of environmental and animal-rights activism are exhausted.

“There are people working on legislation, there are people working on public education, there are people holding protest signs, but those things alone will not achieve the end result of animal liberation,” Vlasak told The NewStandard.. “So people who are willing to break the law to stop animals being exploited are just one part of a liberation movement.”

As a policy, the decentralized, anonymous groups do not harm humans during their activities. Rather than directly instilling a sense of fear in individual humans, the ALF and ELF engage in acts of property destruction as a means of raising the costs of doing business until they are a deterrent to conducting practices the activists oppose.

From Buzz-word to Legislation

The groups railing against so-called “eco-terrorism” cite the public interest in their campaigns, yet private interests influence their policy initiatives.

One of the originators of the term “eco-terrorism,” Ron Arnold, is the founder of the “wise-use movement,” a loose network of groups opposing environmental regulation and pushing for more industrial development on public lands. Arnold, who once told the Toronto Star that he wished to “eradicate the environmental movement,” currently serves as vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a pro-business research organization. He has pushed the concept of the eco-terrorist threat in his published writings, media appearances and congressional testimony.

Another industry-backed advocacy group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, heads the movement for ecological terrorism laws. Heavily funded by restaurant, alcohol and tobacco interests, the organization has pressed the FBI to investigate radical groups, like the ELF and ALF, as well as mainstream organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). David Martosko, the Center’s research director, testified at a Senate hearing in May 2005, saying, “The threat from domestic terrorism motivated by environmental and animal rights ideologies is undocumented, unambiguous and growing.” Among the Center’s other priorities is fighting against healthy-eating and anti-smoking campaigns.

Business lobbies have also drafted model legislation to addresses radical environmentalist crimes. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative public-policy organization funded by more than 300 corporations, collaborated with the US Sportsmen’s Alliance, an advocacy group for hunters, fishers, and trappers, to write the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act. If passed into law, the Act would consider arson, property destruction or trespassing acts of domestic terrorism – if committed by animal-rights activists.

The groups also wish to criminalize acts providing “financial support or other resources,” including lodging, training or transportation to aid eco-terrorist activities. An online registry of convicted offenders that would include personal information and photographs is another recommendation in the draft bill.

So far, the lobbying effort against eco-terrorism on the federal level has failed. In 2003, Representative Chris Chocola (R-Ohio) introduced the Stop Terrorism of Property Act, which would have codified “eco-terrorism” as a federal crime, but with 54 co-sponsors, the bill died in committee. On the state level, however, lawmakers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina, Arizona, Washington and Hawaii are pushing various versions of the ecological terrorism legislation.

Defining a Terrorist Threat

Though Justice Department officials publicly refer to the ALF and ELF defendants as “terrorists,” none is formally charged under terrorist criminal statutes, nor are the terms “eco-terrorism” or “domestic terrorism” in either indictment. Legally, “domestic terrorist” refers to a specific category established in the federal criminal code, USC 2331, as enhanced by the USA PATRIOT Act.

The federal government’s elastic public use of the term “eco-terrorism” has drawn some criticism from the public and officials.

According to William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, the legal framework for terrorist-related crimes as well as public perceptions of domestic terrorism have been redefined since the September 11 terrorist attacks. He noted that prior to the passage of the Patriot Act, what might now be considered “domestic terrorism” cases could be tried under conventional criminal laws – like conspiracy to harm others and conspiracy to commit murder.

But Banks commented that while ELF and ALF activists might be considered protesters and in some cases, criminals, they do not meet his threshold for domestic terrorism because they do not perpetrate violence against civilians in order to instill fear.

There is, however, some legal precedent for categorizing animal-defense groups as “terrorists” in the 1992 federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act, which defines “animal enterprise terrorism” as the “physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise,” including research labs, testing facilities, zoos, aquariums, and circuses.

This week, six activists with a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty will be tried under this Act in New Jersey, charged with using their website to incite violence against the animal research company Huntingdon Life Sciences, which reportedly kills about 75,000 animals every year for research.

The Magic Word

Some lawmakers, seeking to put eco-terrorism in perspective, have criticized the targeting of environmental activists as unwarranted.

At a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works last May, Senator Barak Obama (D-Illinois) cited the FBI’s own assertions that crimes by the ELF and ALF had been decreasing. Obama suggested that the FBI’s 2003 statistics showing more than 7,400 hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation, and 450 environmental crimes by industries violating clean air and water laws and improperly transporting and disposing of hazardous waste, demonstrated that there were much bigger threats.

“While I want these [ELF and ALF] crimes stopped,” the senator said, “I do not want people to think that the threat from these organizations is equivalent to other crimes faced by Americans every day.”

Free-speech advocates say that aside from misguided crime-fighting priorities, there are serious repercussions of the “eco-terrorism” dragnet, especially in light of the recent evidence of FBI and law enforcement surveillance of protest groups.

Larry Frankel, legislative director of the Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the language of the bill introduced in his state stigmatizes only certain political viewpoints. For example, he said, under the proposed statue, people who blockade a road to stop old growth logging could potentially be eco-terrorists, “but if an environmental law firm was preparing a brief to go to court, to file an injunction to stop [the logging], and someone came in and trashed their offices so they couldn’t get the brief done, they wouldn’t be guilty of eco-terrorism.”

Frankel believes this is a pattern to stifle political activism. “People will not want to come out to engage in protest activity because they’re afraid of being arrested as a terrorist and that the government will use these terrorist fighting tools to impose harsher sentences on people who are merely engaged in protest activity and not terrorist activity.”

Betty Ball with the Boulder, Colorado-based Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center agreed, saying her organization has seen membership and donations drop since the FBI called one of their civil disobedience actions at a military base an “act of terrorism.”

Stu Sugarman, an attorney in Portland, Oregon, who has represented numerous Earth Liberation Front defendants in the past, said the prevalence of the word “eco-terrorist” is an example of successful government propaganda. And he fears that use of the term by federal officials and the press could affect the judges and juries considering the fates of the current defendants.

He noted that another popular term for groups like the ALF and ELF, “saboteurs” suggests “somebody who’s really not going to cause that much damage; certainly somebody who’s not going to harm people… But a terrorist is somebody who goes out and tries to kill people.”

“Terrorism is a magic word,” said Sugarman. “It’s like child abuse or drunk driver. It immediately conjures up the image of a really bad person who we want out of society.”

[I'm listening to the Fight Like Hell EP and it's awesome.]

3:26

1 Comm.

0 Compliments