Politics and Law
Illinois: Where Hog Farming Dollars Trump Environment and Human Health
Published October 20, 2009 @ 06:56AM PT
Illinois is a hog farming state. If you live in more rural areas of Illinois, you probably know at least one hog farmer. Having grown up there, I directly know at least three, with at least one of these operations being a CAFO -- run by members of my own family. Only Iowa, North Carolina, and Minnesota are home to more hog farms (and hogs) than Illinois.
So given the numbers and the pull of Illinois' pig farmers and its trade group, the Illinois Pork Producers, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by the story I just learned of this morning. Two and a half years ago, in a rural area near Springfield, a farmer was preparing to start an operation in which he would raise 3,750 pigs for slaughter at a time. Neighbors objected. And they were dismissed. And now the court has ruled that they owe the hog farmer damages.
Man Charged for Strangling Rat
Published October 16, 2009 @ 06:49AM PT
Well, there's a headline I didn't expect to be writing anytime soon. Nevertheless, it's what a Florida newspaper reported yesterday: "Man Accused in Rat Strangling Charged with Animal Cruelty." In the midst of an oh-so-mature fight with his wife over the last cigarette, the 22-year-old went after the animal: he "grabbed a white rat from their aquarium, smashed its head against the tank and then strangled it to death." (Of course, the article calls the rat "it" and gives us no idea what the gender of the animal actually was.)
Decompressing Sheep? Boiling Monkeys? Illegal, But Condoned
Published October 14, 2009 @ 06:43AM PT
Six weeks ago, I wrote about the cruel and illegal decompressing of sheep at the University of Wisconsin, which the Madison-based group Alliance for Animals has been trying to put a stop to. At the time of that early September writing, it appeared that district attorney Brian Blanchard agreed about the illegality of the horrid practice and might actually take on the researchers.
No such luck. Blanchard has concluded [PDF] that the experiments themselves are not illegal but that every time a sheep has died during the decompression experiments, the law has indeed been broken. But he doesn't much care. Sure, it's illegal and immoral and wrong, but ultimately, Blanchard has decided that though he could do something, even if not much, "it would not be a wise use of the resources of this office to pursue" action against the university. What he does think should happen next is jaw-dropping.
Maddow v. Berman
Published October 08, 2009 @ 04:19PM PT
I like Rachel Maddow. I do not like Rick Berman -- or his deceptive Center for Consumer Freedom or Berman/CCF's mouthpiece David Martosko (who gets a shout-out from Berman, and gets called out by Maddow, during the following interview; see the list at the end of this post for previous posts related to these shady characters). And the two videos that follow further confirmed which party I like and which I despise. The first five minutes of video 1 are of Rachel Maddow giving us an intro to Berman and some of his many front-group organizations, and the remaining five minutes feature an interview between Maddow and the creep himself. Video 2, under five minutes long, is the last half of the interview.
Berman's a bit of an evil genius, and he's been spinning and equivocating and deceiving for a long, long time. But Maddow held her own and didn't let him pull all his usual crap. Good for her. (You can also view these videos on the show's site: part 1 and part 2.)
-----
-----
-----
Previous Berman/CCF/Martosko-related posts:
Justice Scalia: Champion of the "Right" to Torture Animals
Published October 06, 2009 @ 12:57PM PT
Antonin Scalia thinks people's "right" to giddily watch animals rip each other apart is more important than those animals' right not to be ripped apart.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the court needed to consider "the right of people who like cockfighting, who like dogfighting and who like bullfighting to present their side of the debate."
Justice Antonin Scalia was having none of it. In the area of free speech, Scalia said, "it's not up to the government to decide what are people's worst instincts."
Scalia also pointed out that opponents of animal fighting may feel more free to use the images to express their views than proponents. "People who like bull fighting, who like dog fighting, who like cock fighting ... that side of the debate is entitled to make its point as forcefully as possible," he said.
Their "side of the debate"? "Entitled to make its point as forcefully as possible"? A Supreme Court justice thinks there's a debate about whether humans should be sadistically training animals to maim and kill each other for humans' amusement, about whether we should pit animals against each other and cheer and bet money on their suffering and gruesome, violent deaths. A Supreme Court justice thinks that those who enjoy encouraging violence and inflicting extreme suffering on those more vulnerable are "entitled to make [their] point as forcefully as possible" by selling videos of that violence, to show how fun it really is.
You know what, Scalia? There are also people who truly believe that acts of pedophilia don't really hurt children. Should they be able to make their point "as forcefully as possible" too? Are their "rights" as people who like molesting children something we should consider when we make laws meant to protect children?
But according to these initial reports, it doesn't appear the other justices are falling all over themselves to stand up for animals either. No decision is expected until next year, but it doesn't look good. I'll be interested to read (and will pass along) the more detailed accounts of, and reactions to, what went on today later.
See this morning's post for more on this issue.
---
Photo retrieved from Wikimedia Commons
Animal Torture, the Supreme Court, and Absurdity from the NYT and LAT
Published October 06, 2009 @ 07:19AM PT
If you read Sunday's post from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), you already have a grasp of what's happening at the U.S. Supreme Court today (if you haven't checked out that series of FAQ, I encourage you to do that now; we'll wait here for you). Today the Court hears arguments about a law that made illegal the sale of depictions of animal cruelty.
Both the Los Angeles Times and the New York TImes have published editorials opposing the criminalization of these videos, placing sadistic animal cruelty into a category that defies logic. And both (like other organizations that have taken the same position) have lost a huge chunk of my respect for that.
The Supreme Court and Animal Cruelty: Q&A with the ALDF
Published October 04, 2009 @ 01:31PM PT
The following post comes courtesy of our friends at the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF); keep an eye out for another post related to this issue coming soon as well.
---
On October 6, the United States Supreme Court will directly address the issue of animal cruelty for the first time in more than fifteen years. Last week, ALDF invited our supporters to send in questions about United States v. Stevens, a case involving the sale of dogfighting videos. In this Q & A session, ALDF Attorney Matthew Liebman answers your questions and clarifies the complexities of this important case.
