One part of me feels violated, another enticed. Those wiley polititians are up to their old tricks but now they've entered the Space Age of Nano iPods and Google.

Twice in just over a month this blog has attracted the attention of political campaigners apparently in search of mentions of their campaigns in the Blogosphere. Once they locate the attractor blog they pollinate it with, of all things, a form letter.

The first letter arrived last month in the comments section of a post I wrote about Arizona's (successful!) ballot initiative that increases the space required to house pregnant pigs and calves before killing them and chopping them into meal-sized pieces. The letter writer clearly didn't read the post, but neither would I if I was buzzing from blog to blog in search of a home for my spam.*

The second came via email just yesterday in response to my most recent post about not one, but three political campaigns (I'm just asking for it, aren't I?). This time I attracted the big boys, Congress. Namely, 2004 presidential contender Representative Dennis Kucinich. And, god bless'im, he's campaigning for animals and animal rights activists.

But before you read this email from Dennis "The Progressive Menace" Kucinich (and I mean that in the most positive way), give some thought to the implications of this new political tactic. Every blog post you publish, whether it expresses your opinions, your daily activities, your loves or your hates, enters the public sphere for all to scrutinize, record, tally, and respond to for whatever good or evil they may intend. I've gone to great lengths to keep my name from junk mailers of the credit card, mail-order catalog, and magazine subscription varieties. But this blogging business opens up a whole new and virulent can of worms that is starting to worry me.

From: Veith, Catherine
To: [me]
Date: Dec 1, 2006 10:03 AM
Subject: Rep. Kucinich and the AETA

Hello Jeff,

Congressman Kucinich has asked that I pass along to you his statement regarding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Please post as you see fit. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
~Cate Veith
Special Assistant
The Office of Congressman Dennis Kucinich
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202.225.5871 office
202.225.5745 fax

Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

I stand with every Member of the House in defense of the rights of individuals to be free of bodily harm or injury under all and any circumstances. But, the fact of the matter is, existing Federal law already includes any place which does Federal research.

So the question is, why create a new and specific classification here?

We, of course, need to protect peoples' right to conduct their work without fear of assault. But, a larger question remains yet unanswered by this Congress: How should animals be treated humanely?

There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment of animals but, these do not go far enough. My concern about this bill is that it does nothing to address the real issue of animal protection but, instead targets those advocating animal rights. This legislation will have a real and chilling effect on people's Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

I am not talking about people who would threaten anyone with death because they don't agree with them, but there are individuals who love animals, who don't want to see animals hurt, who have a point and a right to speak out. I think for that reason, this bill has not yet reached its maturity.

I understand what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do, but I don't think that they will reach the end they are hoping to achieve unless this Congress makes a clear statement about ethical principles with respect to animals and how we treat animals in research and other enterprise.

These are very serious questions that millions of Americans care about. I understand the intent here, but I think that you must be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to research with or treatment of animals that is inhumane.

Bringing up a bill like this under procedures that only allow limited debate, and no amendments, no matter how well intentioned, is problematic.

I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free speech to commit violence. The Supreme Court Justice said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. No one has the right to yell "fire"' in a crowded theater. We have heard those kinds of admonitions.

I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another person's property or person, but I am for protecting the First Amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest.

Balancing Constitutional concerns against the protection of people and property is never easy. Unfortunately, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act goes too far in the wrong direction.

Yeehaw! Vote for Dennis!

* A related and increasingly common tactic used more often for non-political purposes appears in this comment, also made to the pig stretching initiative post. It seems to be a desperate attempt by bloggers to increase traffic to their own blogs without having to actually strike up a real dialogue with their fellow bloggers. Does anyone else get this?

Labels: animal rights, blogs, election, politics

Clearly, some policy reforms are more plausible than others. Take for example the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act," passed by the House last week and now awaiting the President's signature. You know all those animal liberationists running around releasing mink, vandalizing McDonalds restaurants, and threatening vivisectors? Well we already have laws targeting them. But...why miss a golden opportunity to shore up your political base by expanding the reach of these laws in the name of the War on Terror?

Sure, civil libertarians may quibble with the sweeping breadth of the new bill (animal rights tactics that threaten a company's profits - e.g., nonviolent civil disobedience - will be treated as terrorism), but you're not likely to find many politicians willing to risk political capital on a bill like this (silly Rep. Kucinich!).

Championing prisoners' rights - you know, the little stuff like voting or protection against rape - may not be politically expedient but these issues do seem to be becoming thinkable. 16 states have already loosened their disenfranchisement policies in the past ten years, and with 80 percent of Americans in support of restoring voting rights to former felons, surely politicians are clamoring to introduce such legislation, right? Uh-huh.

On Saturday night I attended an event artfully dubbed "Whores Not Wars." It was at once an anti-war and pro-sex worker fundraising event for Food Not Bombs and the local Sex Workers Outreach Project:

...featuring provocative live performance art, whore stories, lap dances, sexy soldiers, and anti-war, pro-whore activities...Prepare to be titillated, disturbed, outraged, pleasured, stimulated, and shocked! Bastardized military gear, pro-peace costumes encouraged!

Legalization of prostitution and the de-stigmatization of sex work are top priorities for this group of current and former sex workers. Without saying anything about the group's abysmal success at organization-building, I can say with some confidence that achieving their stated goals will be a herculean political task. It's easier to imagine prostitutes at the center of a political scandal than at the center of legislation to protect their rights.

The political process has a way of pushing minority voices to the margins...and then outlawing them. Once they're outlawed, it sometimes takes away their rights to protest, or vote. It's times like these that social insurgents might want to reevaluate the targets of our campaigns. "Rights" don't always come down from the government but sometimes have to be taken up in other spheres like the economy, education, and religion. This is not to say that change will come necessarily come more quickly there, but some issues seem more apt for political campaigns than do others.

Follow-up (11/22/2006): Animal protectionism is on the ballot in the Netherlands today and stands a damned good chance of winning. That country's Party of the Animals is widely expected to become the "first animal rights party in Europe to have its own lawmaker," as it has been polling between 130-140,000 votes (50,000 are needed to gain a seat in the legislature) [1]. It certainly is amazing how a proportional-representation system can change the possibilities.

Labels: animal rights, politics, social movements

There's a revolution brewing in Arizona, a revolution that threatens to dismantle the very fabric of our families, communities, and our economy. And if you think it can't happen in your community, watch out. These revolutionaries are on the move!

Extreme liberal agitators have invaded Arizona's political process with a proposition that goes way too far. Now sit down before you read the language of the proposed law. You may start to wonder which planet these people come from.

A person shall not tether or confine any pig during pregnancy or any calf raised for veal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:

1. Lying down and fully extending his or her limbs; or
2. Turning around freely.

That's right. They want pigs and calves to stretch out and turn around! Clearly, this must not be allowed. Fortunately, the good people with "No on 204" are waging a campaign with the kind of clarity, simplicity, and common sense that this issue deserves. Their advertisements cut right to the heart of the issue:

Why Oppose Prop 204?

1. Unnecessary. Arizona farmers and ranchers are honest/hardworking people that treat animals humanely and provide them a safe and healthy environment.

That's important. Honest/hardworking people have a right to confine their pigs/calves any way they want. In fact, it's in the best interest of those pigs/calves to face forward in the same narrow/metal cage their entire lives. Just how long do you think they would survive in the wild?

2. Foreign Meat. Prop 204 is part of a national political campaign going state-by-state to slowly break down farms and ranches in America.

Ok, this one might be a little confusing. What does "foreign meat" have to do with this state-by-state campaign of terror? What they mean to say - and right they are! - is that as soon as you get American pigs/calves turning and lying around with legs outstretched (they might as well be sipping martinis!), dirty/dark-skinned ranchers from afar are going flood our markets with cheap/foreign meat, and you won't be surprised to know that they raise dirty/dark-skinned meat too!

The state-by-state campaign is a different thing entirely, which brings us to rebuttal number three:

3. Using Arizona. Out-of-state animal rights groups brought Prop. 204 to Arizona just like they did to Florida in 2002.

Just like those rabble-rousing/liberal carpetbaggers forced their anti-slavery and civil rights ideas on Dixie, they're at it again with their wild ideas about the humane treatment of animals. Hogwash. That's the slogan of the No on 204 campaign, and it's dead on. Hogwash. The Humane Society of the U.S. and Farm Santuary, the two biggest contributors to the Prop. 204 campaign, are from Washington, DC and upstate New York, respectively. Ok, sure, our No on 204 campaign receives a major portion of its funding from two Washington, DC-based groups (American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers Council) but really, that's different. Really. Very different.

The battle over pig stretching in Arizona is not humane for agribusiness. The welfare of animals is Communist propaganda designed to put honest/hardworking corporations out of business. Join me at the polls to vote no on Prop. 204 and yes to animal cruelty.

Labels: animal rights, politics