I think it's pretty clear that the US, the World and the Planet cannot take another 4 years, or more, of Republican rule. I understand the desire to vote outside of the 2-party system, but I am asking everyone to take the time to educate themselves on what a McCain-Palin administration would mean for the animals, and the environment. What will a vote for Nader, or someone else, achieve in real terms? What could it cost us?
Here is a little primer, consisting of excerpted quotes from Sarah Palin, regarding these issues, taken from this site:
Palin On the Environment:
* Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. (Aug 2008)
* Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)
* We must encourage timber, mining, drilling, & fishing. (Jan 2008)
* Wolf predator control is important for subsistence hunters. (Sep 2007)
* Feds shouldn't list beluga whales as endangered. (Aug 2007)
* Provide stability in regulations for developers. (Jan 2007)
* Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR. (Jan 2007)
* Fish platform: "Resource First" philosophy. (Nov 2006)
* Supports "Roads to Resources": subsidized access to mines. (Oct 2006)
* Don't duplicate effort in monitoring cruise ship emissions. (Oct 2006)
Palin on Guns:
* Hunts and fishes, as did her father. (Aug 2008)
* Hunts as much as she can; freezer-full of wild game. (Aug 2008)
Palin On Oil and Energy:
* Produce more of our own oil & gas, for national security. (Sep 2008)
* More pipelines; more nukes; more coal; more alternatives. (Sep 2008)
* Claimed major triumph: $500 million subsidy for gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)
* Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
* Gasline Inducement Act: 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)
* Commercialize Alaska's North Slope natural gas. (Aug 2008)
* Appointed an Alaska oil and gas commissioner. (Aug 2008)
* To win, GOP must push energy independence. (Aug 2008)
* Lift moratorium on offshore drilling. (Jul 2008)
* Convinced McCain to drill offshore; not yet on drilling ANWR. (Jul 2008)
* Unlock ANWR; we're ready, willing and able to contribute. (Jun 2008)
* Bush is right: drill ANWR & develop our own supplies. (Apr 2008)
* Get ANWR open. (Nov 2006)
* Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (Nov 2006)
Care about human population control? She's for legislating reproductive choices, opposing anything other than abstinence-only programs and is against abortion rights unless the "life of the woman is in danger".
Her husband is a commericial fisherman, when he's not working in oil field production for BP.
Probably the most horrific things she supports is aerial wolf hunting. You can see a video of what that entails here.
Check out the Palin Family Animal Torture Photo Album at this site, which also offers some more info on her environmental positions.
At this point in the election year, a vote for a 3rd-party candidate is a potential vote against our future. Please consider that when you make your selection this November.
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Introduction
Please welcome Gary from Animal Writings, who will be joining me in a series of posts - a Blogversation, if you will - inspired by our upcoming attendance at the 8th annual United Poultry Concerns (UPC) Conference in Norfolk, VA at the end of March. This year the conference will examine the pros and cons of reform measures as an animal advocacy strategy.
Gary:
Thanks to Kim for letting me participate in this joint blog series.
This will be my fourth UPC conference. I highly recommend them. They are small enough to be intimate and to allow everyone to contribute. By exploring a single topic, they get past superficial headlines and bullet points and into very interesting and thought-provoking inquiries. The level of conversation and discourse is always top-notch; the speakers are respectful toward both the audience and each other and never insult the listeners' intelligence. There is a great feeling of camaraderie and plenty of opportunity to network and form friendships. The UPC forum is an ideal venue in which to discuss complicated and emotional topics. I have always felt that in past conferences I came away more informed and more appreciative of the nuances of various positions.
Kim:
Gary suggested that in advance of the conference, we could respond to the brief position statements submitted by each of the upcoming UPC forum speakers. I agreed that this would make for an interesting conversation that readers might enjoy. Our aim is not simply to agree or disagree with the speakers - although we may do some of both - but to express thoughts and reactions that may be triggered by each of the statements. We'll share them with you, and bounce them off each other, and see where it goes.
Gary:
We want to say upfront that we recognize the totality of each speaker's perspectives on animal advocacy strategy cannot be summed up in a paragraph. And we realize that each of the speaker's statements is merely one small sliver of their views on the subject. In addition, we acknowledge that each of these speakers is a tireless and dedicated activist who has worked for years if not decades on furthering the causes of animal protection, animal rights, reducing animal suffering, and bringing about a world in which our relationship with animals is based on compassion, respect, communion, and justice. We, and more importantly the animals, are indebted to their efforts.
Kim:
In our first post, to follow shortly, we'll start by discussing Paul Shapiro's statement. Then, in subsequent posts, we'll work our way through each participant's statements and end with Karen Davis.
We hope many of you will join in the conversation!
Gary:
Thanks to Kim for letting me participate in this joint blog series.
This will be my fourth UPC conference. I highly recommend them. They are small enough to be intimate and to allow everyone to contribute. By exploring a single topic, they get past superficial headlines and bullet points and into very interesting and thought-provoking inquiries. The level of conversation and discourse is always top-notch; the speakers are respectful toward both the audience and each other and never insult the listeners' intelligence. There is a great feeling of camaraderie and plenty of opportunity to network and form friendships. The UPC forum is an ideal venue in which to discuss complicated and emotional topics. I have always felt that in past conferences I came away more informed and more appreciative of the nuances of various positions.
Kim:
Gary suggested that in advance of the conference, we could respond to the brief position statements submitted by each of the upcoming UPC forum speakers. I agreed that this would make for an interesting conversation that readers might enjoy. Our aim is not simply to agree or disagree with the speakers - although we may do some of both - but to express thoughts and reactions that may be triggered by each of the statements. We'll share them with you, and bounce them off each other, and see where it goes.
Gary:
We want to say upfront that we recognize the totality of each speaker's perspectives on animal advocacy strategy cannot be summed up in a paragraph. And we realize that each of the speaker's statements is merely one small sliver of their views on the subject. In addition, we acknowledge that each of these speakers is a tireless and dedicated activist who has worked for years if not decades on furthering the causes of animal protection, animal rights, reducing animal suffering, and bringing about a world in which our relationship with animals is based on compassion, respect, communion, and justice. We, and more importantly the animals, are indebted to their efforts.
Kim:
In our first post, to follow shortly, we'll start by discussing Paul Shapiro's statement. Then, in subsequent posts, we'll work our way through each participant's statements and end with Karen Davis.
We hope many of you will join in the conversation!
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Only Humans Most Animals Will Ever Know
Gary over at Animal Writings gets frequent responses to his rodeo posts, from apparent rodeo workers attempting to defend the treatment of the rodeo animals as being "humane" and "better than most people's pets". While it's obviously ludicrous that you could ever call jolting animals with high voltage, roping babies around their necks in order to drag them through mud and then slam them to the ground, subjecting them to flank straps and spurs, scaring them, jumping on them, leaving them to suffer when they break necks and bones and then killing them when they can no longer be exploited - "humane" - these people continue attempting to justify this heartless, cruel and unnecessary "sport". If this is what some people think is "humane", what does that mean for the animals?
Which got me thinking ... about the only humans most animals will ever know.
For instance, chickens at birth have their first introduction to our species when they get their beaks burned off. Then they are either confined in a battery cage where the only human contact for a year might be the occasional employee who comes around to pull out their dead cage-mates; or they are crammed into football-field sized sheds to live in their own excrement, where in a few weeks their next human interaction is being grabbed by their feet and slammed into cages (resulting in painful injuries and broken bones) while being rounded up for slaughter.
Both the egg-laying hens and the "broiler" chickens (free-range and organic included) will have their last human interactions at the slaughterhouse - after being trucked without protection from the elements or any food and water for hundreds of miles - where they will be killed with little consideration for their suffering, since chickens aren't protected under the Humane Slaughter Act (not that this act does much for any other animals included, since it is rarely enforced and there is never anything "humane" about killing animals bred for exploitation).
Now, the chickens could have other human interactions in their brief and tortured lives - humans screaming at them, stomping on them, kicking them, raping them, slamming them against walls, pulling off their heads, putting explosive devices in their mouths and rectums for entertainment, etc. These are all documented abuses of chickens by the humans paid to provide the public with eggs and "chicken".
These workers are the only humans these innocent, sentient beings will ever know. (For reference, approximately 14,000 chickens are slaughtered per minute in the US.) They will never know that humans can give them kind and comforting words. That humans can provide them with sunshine and grass and space to roam freely. That humans can help to heal their wounds and treat their illnesses. That there are humans who know exploiting them for their flesh is wrong. All they know is that humans exist to inflict pain and suffering.
If you support animal industries, you are complicit. If you are willing to spend your money on animal products or animal "entertainment", you are paying others to mistreat and kill animals on your behalf. As far the animals are concerned, you are just another one of these humans. Is that how you want to be known?
Which got me thinking ... about the only humans most animals will ever know.
For instance, chickens at birth have their first introduction to our species when they get their beaks burned off. Then they are either confined in a battery cage where the only human contact for a year might be the occasional employee who comes around to pull out their dead cage-mates; or they are crammed into football-field sized sheds to live in their own excrement, where in a few weeks their next human interaction is being grabbed by their feet and slammed into cages (resulting in painful injuries and broken bones) while being rounded up for slaughter.
Both the egg-laying hens and the "broiler" chickens (free-range and organic included) will have their last human interactions at the slaughterhouse - after being trucked without protection from the elements or any food and water for hundreds of miles - where they will be killed with little consideration for their suffering, since chickens aren't protected under the Humane Slaughter Act (not that this act does much for any other animals included, since it is rarely enforced and there is never anything "humane" about killing animals bred for exploitation).
Now, the chickens could have other human interactions in their brief and tortured lives - humans screaming at them, stomping on them, kicking them, raping them, slamming them against walls, pulling off their heads, putting explosive devices in their mouths and rectums for entertainment, etc. These are all documented abuses of chickens by the humans paid to provide the public with eggs and "chicken".
These workers are the only humans these innocent, sentient beings will ever know. (For reference, approximately 14,000 chickens are slaughtered per minute in the US.) They will never know that humans can give them kind and comforting words. That humans can provide them with sunshine and grass and space to roam freely. That humans can help to heal their wounds and treat their illnesses. That there are humans who know exploiting them for their flesh is wrong. All they know is that humans exist to inflict pain and suffering.
If you support animal industries, you are complicit. If you are willing to spend your money on animal products or animal "entertainment", you are paying others to mistreat and kill animals on your behalf. As far the animals are concerned, you are just another one of these humans. Is that how you want to be known?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
