Glen Greenwald is spot on, as usual. Oh, and, of course the white kid trying to start a “race” war “isn’t” a terrorist, Glen. Only white folks with unpopular views are terrorists.
“Yet another reason is that the specific forms of activism this movement has cultivated are shrewd and compelling: As is true for so many types of violence, the savagery, torture and sadism that makes these industries so profitable will be collectively tolerated only if we are not forced to confront their reality.”
Excellent new piece by Roger Yates at On Human-Nonhuman Relations:
My position is clear: animal welfarists do welfare, and what should be much more of a concern for “the abolitionists” is the fact that their arguments do not resonate with the vast majority of animal advocates.
I really should be used to the sorts of idiotic misrepresentations of veganism and the animal rights movement that mainstream media traffic in, but I ran across THIS today…
Daniel Andreas San Diego, 33, who has ties to animal rights extremist groups, is wanted for his alleged involvement in two bombings in the San Francisco, California, area, according to Special Agent in Charge Richard DesLauriers of the Boston Division. DesLauriers spoke at a press conference Wednesday afternoon.
While conflating property destruction with “terrorism” – in violent actions in which no beings were harmed – is itself a bit of needless hysteria, it’s at least an unexceptional part of the conventional thinking; in capitalism, profit and property ownership “rights” trump even concern for human need, more often than not, so it’s not unusual that they’d unquestioningly swallow the “terrorism” meme. As usual, the anti-AR, anti-vegan brigade will want to jump on this; no, I’m not advocating property destruction, but no, property destruction in and of itself is not automatically terrorism, either – it depends entirely on what is being destroyed, and why. From MassLive’s updated report:
On August 28, 2003, two bombs exploded approximately one hour apart on the campus of Chiron, a biotechnology corporation in Emeryville, according to the FBI. DesLauriers said the second bomb may have targeted first responders.
Then, on September 26, 2003, one bomb strapped with nails exploded at Shaklee, a nutritional and beauty products corporation in Pleasanton. San Diego was indicted in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, in July of 2004.
Sounds scary, right? If bombs are exploding at biotech and cosmetics firms, it must be terrorism, because, well, we can’t let the freaky animal rights movement actually interfere with turning a profit on animal exploitation to ‘test’ cosmetics or animal experimentation, now can we? Even the updated report doesn’t claim that the events (now) cited caused harm to any sentient beings, and it’s possible that both acts are intentional acts of monkeywrenching. But the second bomb at Chiron targeted the first responders, right?
So says the FBI, and they have no interest in misleading anyone about this, now do they?
Monkeywrenching isn’t terrorism. It’s not a tactic I advocate or think is useful, but it’s lazy, hysterical nonjournalism to blindly accept the state’s claims of terrorism without actually digging any deeper.
But, of course, it gets better.
San Diego is known to cook, bake and follow a vegan diet, eating no meat or food containing animal products. In the past, he has worked as a computer network specialist and with the operating system LINUX. DesLauriers said he may make his living with these skills.
If he has continued his vegan lifestyle, San Diego also wouldn’t wear anything made from animals, such as leather.
So, let’s unpack, shall we?
If you see somebody from a distance wearing pleather (which you’ll be able to distinguish from regular animal skin by magic, or something) and you psychically discern that the veggieburger he’s eating contains no meat, dairy or egg, and he announces his Latin sounding name – which will immediately set off alarm bells, since he’s light-skinned, and won’t have a regular American name… he … MIGHT … BE … A … VEGAN … TERRORIST! Maybe just be wary of anyone in hemp shoes with a Latin sounding name, who fits the general description of…
San Diego is white with a light complexion, six feet tall, 160 pounds, wears eyeglasses…
Because, well, you know. PETA. Gives money to the ALF. Or something I heard, somewhere.
Fomenting bullshit hysteria counts as reportage? Really?
Since 1997, when Darien’s First Selectman appointed the Darien Deer Management Committee with Kent Haydock as chair, the town has pursued deer “as Public Enemy Number 1,” Priscilla Feral said, president of the Darien-based Friends of Animals.
When, oh when will humans stop arrogating to themselves the excuse to kill animals on the grounds that we have a ‘right’ or a ‘need’ to ‘manage’ their populations?
Humans have massively overpopulated the planet, far beyond the Earth’s capacity to sustain our resource usage. Let’s manage the human population, please. Leave sentient nonhumans alone.
Not sure how I missed this, but the usual silliness at PETA usually doesn’t bear much comment. That said, this does:
Re: Ward Chanley. While Clinton is not a strict vegan, we nonetheless congratulate him on rejecting meat, dairy, and eggs. He has chosen a healthier, more compassionate diet that causes far less suffering than his previous diet had. PETA is thrilled that Clinton, a man of such prominence, has chosen a plant-based diet, and for this, we have named him PETA’s 2010 Person of the Year.
This in response to my comment on the story, here:
Given that Clinton admits to eating fish on his so-called “plant based diet” (http://www.fitsugar.com/Bill-Clinton-Eats-Plant-Based-Diet-Loses-Weight-Hopes-Healthier-Heart-11150638), PETA’s award for “promoting” veganism isn’t actually, you know, promoting veganism.
…are PETA’s comment moderators really this tone-deaf? From the actual piece, here’s the bolded, pullquote:
Because he uses his influence to promote the benefits of following a vegan diet, PETA is pleased to name Bill Clinton its 2010 Person of the Year.
So, let’s unpack, shall we?
PETA awards a silly, “Let’s get PETA mentioned in another news cyle” nonaward to Clinton because he’s high profile, for supposedly “promoting” veganism, which the former President admittedly doesn’t even do, since he isn’t vegan, and isn’t promoting veganism. At most, you might claim that Clinton is “promoting” the health benefits of pescetarianism.
When this obvious disconnect is pointed out, well, of course a PETA response furthers the idiotic claim that the former President has “rejected” meat … because, you know, fish are vegetables.
This, folks, is why the animal rights movement as promoted by PETA makes zero progress. It doesn’t actually mean anything.
New from Priscilla Feral at Friends of Animals:
Friends of Animals’ brief supported a filing for an injunction submitted and argued by Attorney Jay Tutchton of WildEarth Guardians on behalf of an alliance of non-profits litigating to return federal protection to the wolves of the northern Rocky Mountains. The case asserts that Congress used an unconstitutional method (slipping a rider onto a must-pass budget bill in April) to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah. http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2011/november/back-from-pasadenath.html
So, the Next Blog link on Blogger is meant to take you to blogs like mine (if you like mine, heh) that should spark your interest. What does the link actually do after parsing my posts? It cycles between an animal shelter (no problem so far), and an anti-animal rights blog (sigh),
and nothing else. Really, Google? Why bother parsing my content at all, in this case? Edit: it looks like this is fixed now. Sheesh.
Nathan Winograd, on the lies used to receive grant funding (requiring that no healthy, adoptable animals be killed, the Maddie’s Fund grant) for kill shelters, that still kill roughly half of the animals they take in:
We know it is a lie because as the number of animals killed who are claimed to be healthy dropped to zero, the number of so-called “untreatable” animals killed has increased. For example, the number of animals killed deemed “untreatable” increased from 576 to a whopping 3,486. Likewise, the number of “treatable” animals killed also spiked, from 31,568 to 37,888. Maricopa County officials also excluded 4,107 animals who they claim were killed at the request of the people surrendering them. Their lives were not counted in reporting results, the statistics—and the animals—swept under the rug. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: pounds and “shelters” do not create No Kill by killing as they always have, but simply recategorizing animals as “unadoptable” or “untreatable” and then killing them. We achieve No Kill by actually saving their lives. In fact, the latest report is an analysis in failure.
“Shelters” that take in grants from the no-kill movement that haven’t bothered to change their kill rates one bit? This is the very essence of our myopic approach to animal “welfare.” Donate to no-kills. Adopt from traditional “shelters.” Do not buy from breeders. Ever.
Priscilla Feral, President of Friends of Animals, writes a quarterly column in FOA’s magazine, Actionline. The Spring 2011 column is especially worth a read. Feral draws apt connections between the fetishism of guns and violence endemic in our culture and our culture’s use/oppression of nonhumans.