jonjan
October 21st, 2004, 06:24 PM
Hi,
I want to share an article I researched and wrote on the animals and our ability to help them. I believe the article gives a very important insight into the immense importance of the 2004 elections and of politics and political action in general. I'm hoping this article can be emailed and posted as widely as possible; I'm sure it would help us to understand better the causes of animal suffering, as well as give us additional ways to help the animals, and work more effectively...
Please re-post this article widely and often, and forward it in emails... let's get this info shared widely!
for posting reasons, the article itself is just less than 1500 words
Jon Janssen
-----
(please only take the info as it is.. no claims are being made about any Party being free of financial conflicts. this is just data. be conservative with generalizing from it)
The Importance of Politics to the Animals and Our Efforts... election 2004 and beyond
There are currently bills in several states to define very broad acts of animal and environmental right activism as being “terrorist” activities. Activities that could be included as “terrorism” include engaging in demonstrations, signing petitions, peaceful protesting or even leafleting. Also, contributing money or giving any form of contributions to organizations that do the above could also be punishable. And specifically mentioned, journalists could be prosecuted as terrorists if they enter a facility (any facility that is potentially harming the environment or animals) to photograph or record any wrongdoings for the purpose of informing the public or defaming the facility for such acts.
The "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" (AETA) creates the definition of "Animal Rights or Ecological Terrorist Organization" and defines the punishment. The definition in many of the bills is vaguely defined as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."
And as if the wide sweeping definition wasn’t enough, many of these bills also include requirements that ‘violators’ personal information be posted to a website (similar to sex-offender sites) for 3 years minimum. And consider that these bills have already been introduced in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, Washington, Ohio, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Hawaii, and are expected in Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Mississippi.
http://www.hsus.org/ace/20465
The site of the group pushing these bills mentions, “This bill does not inhibit one’s right to free speech or gather in protest to express one’s opinion on environmental issues.” http://www.alec.org/viewpage.cfm?pgname=2.59951
However, in May of this year, the Bush Administration had already taken Greenpeace to court for boarding and protesting on a ship that was carrying illegally logged trees. Fortunately, a federal judge threw out the administration’s charges (which were based on an 1872 law to stop brothel and bar owners from boarding ships and enticing sailors to come ashore). http://cbs4.com/siteSearch/local_story_138104601.html
If the very vague animal and eco terrorism laws gain acceptance, corporations causing harm won’t need to depend on irrelevant laws from 1872 any more; the new laws will make it much easier for abusive businesses to prosecute photographers who record and publicize abuses, or anyone else who “obstructs or deters any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources.” How are we supposed to help protect abused animals if this law makes it illegal to interfere with the abuses, or publicize them?
It’s important to note that the group pushing these is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC www.alec.org). The majority-Republican ALEC pushes certain bills efforts to defeat efforts to reduce air pollution, defeat efforts to address drunk driving, defeat environmental laws, and even defeat laws protecting people’s living wages. http://www.alec.org/viewpage.cfm?pgname=4.0
This brings us to the importance of the upcoming elections. They are likely more important than many of us currently realize…the next elected President will have tremendous effect on animals. The President chooses whom he appoints to key government offices, and they then choose whom they appoint underneath them. These are the people who largely create the policies and funding and enforcement for the laws and regulations affecting animal protections, businesses involving animals, and the laws regarding our ability to help the animals.
The 9-12-04 ARO newsletter had an article from Humane USA PAC, endorsing John Kerry for President, due to his majority pro-animal efforts, and due to George Bush’s votes against the animals and his denouncing of Kerry’s pro-animal accomplishments, especially regarding hunting. http://www.humaneusa.org/article.asp?article_key=109&n=1
Humane USA’s article points out that G.W. Bush appointed Matt Hogan, a former chief lobbyist for a trophy hunting organization, to the position of deputy director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a clear conflict of interest. Unfortunately, G.W. Bush has filled several key offices by appointing people who have financial ties with the exact businesses that are supposed to be regulated by those government offices.
Another case is Ann Veneman, who was appointed as Secretary of the USDA by G.W. Bush. Veneman was previously on the board of directors at a biotech food company (Calgene) (which would be regulated by the USDA). After Veneman was in office, she filled the chief of staff position by appointing Dale Moore, who had been the executive director for legislative affairs of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. And, the person who was appointed to Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations for the USDA, Mary Waters, was a senior director and legislative counsel for one of the nation’s largest food processors (ConAgra Foods). The Deputy Secretary, James Mosley, who oversees the day-to-day activities of the USDA, also was formerly a partner in Infinity Pork LLC, which raised 50,000 hogs yearly. Two other USDA officials, including the head of the Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion, previously worked for the National Pork Producers Council. http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org/pdfs//289_USDA%20Inc..pdf
So the very people regulating the food processing, “cattle” practices, and biotech food industries, are the same people who were top executives in those industries, specifically in government relations positions.
Here’s one of the very large, and wide-branching, effects of the revolving doors between the regulated industries and the regulators… The USDA’s allocation of EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) funds to factory farms. EQIP was established in 1996 to help lessen the farm-related pollution of water, air, and soil. In 1996, EQIP funds were only available to ‘animal operations’ of 1,000 animals or less, the funding was $2 billion over 10 years, and the funds were split evenly between ‘animal producers’ and crop producers. The 2002 Farm Bill under G.W. Bush, and his new USDA, changed EQIP. Specifically, the 1,000-animal restriction was eliminated, so now even the largest animal operations can receive taxpayer EQIP funding, even ones breeding 50,000 animals a year. Bush’s new changes also allocated 60% of the funds specifically to livestock and poultry producers, instead of being split evenly with crop producers, and the funding was raised from $2 billion over 10 years, to $11 billion over 10 years. http://nationalhogfarmer.com/mag/farming_usdas_conservation_plan/
It’s useful to note that since 1990: the Poultry and Egg industries have donated at least $9.5 million to politicians, and 70% of those donations went to Republicans, the Livestock industry has donated $24.2 million, 76% to Republicans, and the Dairy (inseparable from veal) industry has donated $19.6 million, 59% to Republicans.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=A05
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=A06
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=A04
One USDA scientist had discovered airborne bacteria from farm wastes and it’s risks to public health. He was prohibited at least 11 times from publicizing his findings.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1358
It certainly fits in with a Bush administration directive issued in February 2002. The directive instructed USDA staff scientists to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on “sensitive issues” including “agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences, e.g. global climate change; contamination of water by hazardous materials (nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens); animal feeding operations or crop production practices that negatively impact soil, water, or air quality.”
Consider The Humane Society of the US’s Scorecard they compile for congress, based on how the politicians vote on animal-related legislation.
con't...
I want to share an article I researched and wrote on the animals and our ability to help them. I believe the article gives a very important insight into the immense importance of the 2004 elections and of politics and political action in general. I'm hoping this article can be emailed and posted as widely as possible; I'm sure it would help us to understand better the causes of animal suffering, as well as give us additional ways to help the animals, and work more effectively...
Please re-post this article widely and often, and forward it in emails... let's get this info shared widely!
for posting reasons, the article itself is just less than 1500 words
Jon Janssen
-----
(please only take the info as it is.. no claims are being made about any Party being free of financial conflicts. this is just data. be conservative with generalizing from it)
The Importance of Politics to the Animals and Our Efforts... election 2004 and beyond
There are currently bills in several states to define very broad acts of animal and environmental right activism as being “terrorist” activities. Activities that could be included as “terrorism” include engaging in demonstrations, signing petitions, peaceful protesting or even leafleting. Also, contributing money or giving any form of contributions to organizations that do the above could also be punishable. And specifically mentioned, journalists could be prosecuted as terrorists if they enter a facility (any facility that is potentially harming the environment or animals) to photograph or record any wrongdoings for the purpose of informing the public or defaming the facility for such acts.
The "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" (AETA) creates the definition of "Animal Rights or Ecological Terrorist Organization" and defines the punishment. The definition in many of the bills is vaguely defined as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."
And as if the wide sweeping definition wasn’t enough, many of these bills also include requirements that ‘violators’ personal information be posted to a website (similar to sex-offender sites) for 3 years minimum. And consider that these bills have already been introduced in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, Washington, Ohio, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Hawaii, and are expected in Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Mississippi.
http://www.hsus.org/ace/20465
The site of the group pushing these bills mentions, “This bill does not inhibit one’s right to free speech or gather in protest to express one’s opinion on environmental issues.” http://www.alec.org/viewpage.cfm?pgname=2.59951
However, in May of this year, the Bush Administration had already taken Greenpeace to court for boarding and protesting on a ship that was carrying illegally logged trees. Fortunately, a federal judge threw out the administration’s charges (which were based on an 1872 law to stop brothel and bar owners from boarding ships and enticing sailors to come ashore). http://cbs4.com/siteSearch/local_story_138104601.html
If the very vague animal and eco terrorism laws gain acceptance, corporations causing harm won’t need to depend on irrelevant laws from 1872 any more; the new laws will make it much easier for abusive businesses to prosecute photographers who record and publicize abuses, or anyone else who “obstructs or deters any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources.” How are we supposed to help protect abused animals if this law makes it illegal to interfere with the abuses, or publicize them?
It’s important to note that the group pushing these is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC www.alec.org). The majority-Republican ALEC pushes certain bills efforts to defeat efforts to reduce air pollution, defeat efforts to address drunk driving, defeat environmental laws, and even defeat laws protecting people’s living wages. http://www.alec.org/viewpage.cfm?pgname=4.0
This brings us to the importance of the upcoming elections. They are likely more important than many of us currently realize…the next elected President will have tremendous effect on animals. The President chooses whom he appoints to key government offices, and they then choose whom they appoint underneath them. These are the people who largely create the policies and funding and enforcement for the laws and regulations affecting animal protections, businesses involving animals, and the laws regarding our ability to help the animals.
The 9-12-04 ARO newsletter had an article from Humane USA PAC, endorsing John Kerry for President, due to his majority pro-animal efforts, and due to George Bush’s votes against the animals and his denouncing of Kerry’s pro-animal accomplishments, especially regarding hunting. http://www.humaneusa.org/article.asp?article_key=109&n=1
Humane USA’s article points out that G.W. Bush appointed Matt Hogan, a former chief lobbyist for a trophy hunting organization, to the position of deputy director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a clear conflict of interest. Unfortunately, G.W. Bush has filled several key offices by appointing people who have financial ties with the exact businesses that are supposed to be regulated by those government offices.
Another case is Ann Veneman, who was appointed as Secretary of the USDA by G.W. Bush. Veneman was previously on the board of directors at a biotech food company (Calgene) (which would be regulated by the USDA). After Veneman was in office, she filled the chief of staff position by appointing Dale Moore, who had been the executive director for legislative affairs of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. And, the person who was appointed to Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations for the USDA, Mary Waters, was a senior director and legislative counsel for one of the nation’s largest food processors (ConAgra Foods). The Deputy Secretary, James Mosley, who oversees the day-to-day activities of the USDA, also was formerly a partner in Infinity Pork LLC, which raised 50,000 hogs yearly. Two other USDA officials, including the head of the Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion, previously worked for the National Pork Producers Council. http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org/pdfs//289_USDA%20Inc..pdf
So the very people regulating the food processing, “cattle” practices, and biotech food industries, are the same people who were top executives in those industries, specifically in government relations positions.
Here’s one of the very large, and wide-branching, effects of the revolving doors between the regulated industries and the regulators… The USDA’s allocation of EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) funds to factory farms. EQIP was established in 1996 to help lessen the farm-related pollution of water, air, and soil. In 1996, EQIP funds were only available to ‘animal operations’ of 1,000 animals or less, the funding was $2 billion over 10 years, and the funds were split evenly between ‘animal producers’ and crop producers. The 2002 Farm Bill under G.W. Bush, and his new USDA, changed EQIP. Specifically, the 1,000-animal restriction was eliminated, so now even the largest animal operations can receive taxpayer EQIP funding, even ones breeding 50,000 animals a year. Bush’s new changes also allocated 60% of the funds specifically to livestock and poultry producers, instead of being split evenly with crop producers, and the funding was raised from $2 billion over 10 years, to $11 billion over 10 years. http://nationalhogfarmer.com/mag/farming_usdas_conservation_plan/
It’s useful to note that since 1990: the Poultry and Egg industries have donated at least $9.5 million to politicians, and 70% of those donations went to Republicans, the Livestock industry has donated $24.2 million, 76% to Republicans, and the Dairy (inseparable from veal) industry has donated $19.6 million, 59% to Republicans.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=A05
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=A06
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=A04
One USDA scientist had discovered airborne bacteria from farm wastes and it’s risks to public health. He was prohibited at least 11 times from publicizing his findings.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1358
It certainly fits in with a Bush administration directive issued in February 2002. The directive instructed USDA staff scientists to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on “sensitive issues” including “agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences, e.g. global climate change; contamination of water by hazardous materials (nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens); animal feeding operations or crop production practices that negatively impact soil, water, or air quality.”
Consider The Humane Society of the US’s Scorecard they compile for congress, based on how the politicians vote on animal-related legislation.
con't...