Charlotte's Web Blog

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? The Controversial Peter Singer

Recently, I had the opportunity to eat, drink and make moral calculations with philosopher Peter Singer. The average person might think hanging out with a philosopher—even a renowned and accomplished one—would be a non-event or cause a pain in the brain, as in the soreness that can develop after a college class of induction, deduction and cerebral gymnastics. But as a lifelong fiancée of philosophy, I was thrilled that Dr. Singer agreed to meet with me.

Singer has the distinction of being the epiphany-trigger in my life. My first experience with him was on paper. In 1985, I read his book, In Defense of Animals, in which he talks about “speciesism,” a prejudice similar to racism and sexism in which humans believe they are superior to other species. Singer argues that nonhumans are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration and that an animal’s ability to feel pain should give him protection under the moral umbrella that humans typically reserve for themselves. This idea was like a starter pistol, signaling me to begin my mission to help the truly voiceless and defenseless members of society. I stopped eating meat that day.

When I heard that the normally reclusive Singer—who lives in Australia and New Jersey and who is called the Father of the Animal Rights movement-- would be speaking at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles about animals and art, I figured why not take him out for a bite? Controversial utilitarians have to eat, too.

Singer is controversial mostly because of his position on infanticide and euthanasia. For example, he holds it is morally proper in some circumstances to kill a severely incapacitated infant whose life would cause immense suffering for himself and his family. Singer comes to this conclusion in the same way he comes to every conclusion: by embarking upon a utilitarian calculation.

A utilitarian deems an action right or wrong based upon the consequences of that action. He tallies the positives (hedons) and negatives (dolors) of the situation in advance and selects the course of action that is likely to result in the most positives or hedons.

Deontological moral theory is, in effect, the opposite of utilitarianism. Deontologists are hedon and dolor haters, and argue that consequences are inconsequential in the moral realm. Deontological theory states that people have certain duties or moral obligations which are based upon some absolute authority; the authority might be religion, universal reason, natural rights, natural law, or some other entity altogether. A deontologist would most likely believe it is wrong to kill an infant, regardless of the child’s level of disability, a precept that might be supported by Scripture.

In order to impress Dr. Singer, I figured I had better be on top of the “utilitarian calculation” game. No slacking. I had to be on my guard every second, ready to shift my actions to the right “utilitarian” course of action. I did not want this great philosopher to construe his time spent with me as in any way immoral.

The first order of business was to choose a restaurant. Singer had only put forth one requirement: there had to be a vegan entrée on the menu. But as a good utilitarian, I knew I had to weigh a parade of other factors. His hotel was in Santa Monica, so I chose a place nearby so as to save fuel and not contribute to global warming. I selected a totally vegan place, as a gesture to encourage exemplary establishments to be fruitful and multiply. I ultimately decided it was ok for the restaurant to be situated in Santa Monica after grappling with whether the area is more or less moral than surrounding communities.

I picked up Singer from his hotel and flipped on the car’s air conditioning because I wanted my important guest to be comfortable. In a polite way, he explained how my action was destroying the environment and suggested we simply lower the windows. I couldn’t believe it; I had already screwed up! I quietly chastised myself for failing to make the necessary moral calculation. 

My second test came when I was confronted with whether I should make a left turn; and in so doing, hold up a long line of vehicles behind me. The alternative was to drive all the way to a signal light, turn onto a less busy street, do a three-point turn into a driveway, go back to the original intersection and make a right turn, an undertaking that would take an extra five minutes. Most people in our “I’m entitled,” me-first society feel morally justified in holding up a long line of other drivers, some who may be rushing to an emergency or who may be late for a critical appointment. But would a utilitarian come to this conclusion? I decided not and opted to inconvenience only my erudite passenger and myself.

The vegan restaurant was like a beehive, bustling with customers and lean on seating. We were directed to an airless corner where we were expected to jam ourselves into a pint-sized table. Part of me wanted to put down my philosophical foot, refuse the cramped conditions and demand a roomy, nearby table. But I heeded to utilitarianism, resolved that a party of four deserved the extra space. As the heat intensified during the meal, I began to regret my decision because it was “dolor city” in that stuffy corner. 

Singer sipped on his mixture of beet, apple and carrot juice as he explained why he was leaning towards supporting Barak Obama for President. We discussed Congress’ proposed immigration legislation and how the issue is dealt with in Australia where his three kids live.

When we exhausted the media’s prized topics, we delved into the hypotheticals that make philosophy a cocktail party favorite; such as “if a trolley is rolling down a hill, should you let it kill your own child or a stranger’s child” and “is there a difference between killing someone and letting him die?” We even explored the always-popular free will debate. I asked Singer if he was choosing to have an enchilada or whether he was merely picking the entrée as a pawn of the universe. He thought he was choosing, but I argued that he was probably just a chess piece in a board game called “life.” 

After spending two hours with Dr. Singer, what struck me most about the man was his humility, flexibility and open-mindedness. He is able to examine an issue with a fresh pad of paper. He lacks the cumbersome, preconceived ideas that stalk most individuals; and he is willing, even eager, to alter his opinion when new data and better arguments come to the fore. I find many people to be the reverse: stubborn, immovable objects, bogged down by pages and pages of notes, unwilling to white them out under any circumstance.

Perhaps this illuminates the distinction between the utilitarian and deontological mind. Utilitarianism by its very nature welcomes, even mandates, ideological pliability while deontological ethics thrives on being a moral tank, oblivious to its environment.

Society reacts to the utilitarian / deontological dance. In The Sacred Canopy, Peter Berger says that people invent ideas, but forget they are the architects of these ideas, later attributing them to an outside, religious source. Non-religious precepts seem to migrate down a similar path. They become rooted social norms like a brazen statue at the center of the town square. They may emanate from a deontological or utilitarian source, but they become more deontological, immutable and transcendent as they stand erect at the center of people’s lives. The statue is virtually impervious to the elements, in part because the average townsperson leans towards resisting change. It is easy and comforting to reinforce the laws, moral rules, and codes of conduct.

Utilitarianism may receive low marks in some circles because it has been manipulated to justify actions. We have all heard excuses like, “I had to cheat on my taxes because I figured the government has enough money” or “I didn’t return the lost wallet because I figured I need the money more than the other person does.” This “figuring” or calculating is a misapplication of the utilitarian method; it does not reflect what an impartial observer would decide. It reflects only the outcome the thief seeks: to avoid taxes or keep the lost wallet.

Despite periodic misuse, utilitarianism has a critical role to play in society. It can chisel away at or altogether overturn deontological values, which philosopher Jeremy Benthem claims are merely camouflage for the popular morality of the day. Utilitarianism allows undiscovered evidence and improved arguments to emerge. It is our best hope for a improved future, and we should recognize it as such. 

I thank Dr. Singer for being a living example of the flexibility of utilitarianism. And from now on, when someone asks me to guess who’s coming to dinner, I will hope it’s a utilitarian. Especially a controversial one.

Are You the Terrorist Next Door?

I was an ordinary American until November 27, 2006 when I became a terrorist or more accurately what I call a “stand-by terrorist.” Perhaps I cannot truly own this newfound nickname until the government decides to prosecute me for word crimes, if that day ever arrives. Until then, I just think of myself as being on stand-by, just as are most--if not all--Americans, whether they realize it or not.

You may wonder how words can amount to a terrorist act in the land of the free and home of the outspoken. It is not widely known, but Congress recently passed legislation called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which can be used to prosecute civil disobedience and speech as “domestic terrorism” when an animal-related business loses profits and property. The Act also protects corporations that pollute and destroy the environment.

You may ask, what does this have to do with me because I’m no nature fan or animal lover? Well, it could eventually have very much to do with you because the AETA--a natural child of the Patriot Act--is likely to be the first of many assaults on the social justice movement in favor of corporations and other moneyed interests. If you think you may want to use your free speech someday to criticize something, anything, then you had better be very concerned.

You should also be concerned about whether law enforcement protects you from the Bin Ladens of the world or fritters away your hard-earned tax dollars investigating pacifists. The American Civil Liberties Union says the FBI uses “counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate (nonviolent) domestic political organizations that criticize business interests and government policies.” An FBI special agent recently told me that planting undercover agents at legal, peaceful events--with hopes that they will somehow learn about illegal activities--is a favored tactic of the bureau.

What are the parameters of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and who could be tangled in its web, slapped with prison time and branded a terrorist? Could Oprah Winfrey--the beloved and successful talk show host--and her former vegetarian guest, Howard Lyman, be prosecuted as terrorists if they were to repeat anti-beef comments made to Winfrey’s 15 million viewers in 1996?

It is indeed possible because the AETA is overbroad, vague and subject to the whims of law enforcement, as evidenced last year when six young, New Jersey website operators became the first individuals convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges. The young people were part of the Stop Huntington Cruelty (SHAC) campaign, which targeted the Huntington Life Sciences (HLS) animal research labs. The website operators did nothing more than assert their First Amendment rights: they posted videotape of tortured dogs inside HLS and reported the legal and illegal handiwork of activists, which eventually caused the corporation to lose profits and to be dropped from the New York Stock Exchange. The FBI were unable to catch the underground activists, so they targeted the website operators, who are serving up to six years in prison for their speech.

If the government fails to catch a thief or saboteur, should it be allowed to pursue the CNN reporter who delivers the news? Or an outspoken op-ed columnist? Or six kids from New Jersey with a website? The AETA ignores Shakespeare’s recommendation, “Don’t shoot the messenger,” potentially stigmatizing a “speaker” with the most heinous, post-9/11 label in America: terrorist.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey invited ex-cattle rancher Howard Lyman to talk about Mad Cow disease on her television show. Lyman knew first-hand how cows--even diseased ones--were fed being to other cows and how their diets were supplemented with ground-up dogs, cats and road kill. He explained the meat production process, and Winfrey offered that she would never eat another burger. The audience cheered. On the following day, cattle futures plummeted, and the financial disaster was labeled the “Oprah Crash.”

Estimated losses to the beef industry were $10 - $12 million, and a group of cattlemen filed a lawsuit against Winfrey and Lyman under a Texas food disparagement law. They wanted compensation for loss of profits. Winfrey and Lyman won, but only after spending over a million dollars on legal fees. In his book, Mad Cowboy, Lyman says that those who sued “apparently believe that the First Amendment… was not meant to be interpreted so broadly as to allow people to say unpleasant things about beef.”

If Winfrey and Lyman were to make these comments today, and viewers hit the streets, embarking upon civil disobedience, vandalism, even breaking into factory farms and rescuing frightened death row cows from slaughter, could the pair be held liable as AETA conspirators? It is entirely possible.

But nothing this extreme needs to occur because the penalty section of the AETA explicitly states that a person can violate the law and go to prison even if there is no property damage, no loss of profits, no fear to any persons, and no injuries. In other words, if Lyman were to say to Winfrey, “Gee, I hope someone rescues those poor tortured, cows before slaughter,” his comment could be interpreted as a violation of the AETA, more specifically as a “conspiracy to interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise.” Without a transcript from the show, one cannot know what casual exchanges floated between Winfrey and Lyman that day. It may seem far-fetched to envision the pair in prison, branded terrorists--especially since Winfrey is affluent and popular--but it is not far-fetched within the parameters of this poorly drafted legislation, which leaves much open to interpretation by law enforcement and the court system.

Just as the AETA chills speech, it has disturbing ramifications for those who commit slightly illegal misdeeds. The Act can transform misdemeanors into federal crimes, and it can turn ordinary Americans--who, for example, post illegal signs or engage in graffiti--into domestic terrorists.

Let’s assume a high school senior enters a national science fair, and his project involves decapitating live mice. His mother objects to the experiment as cruel and immoral, but the son ignores her. She takes matters into her own hands by stealing the mice and placing them in a loving home, then smashing the remainder of the project and shoving it in the trash. Science fair projects are specifically protected under the AETA, as are vivisection labs, factory farms, slaughterhouses, zoos, furriers and rodeos. The mother has intentionally damaged her son’s animal-related property, which means the U.S. government may arrest her as a terrorist and throw her in jail.

Let’s take another case. A small boy is murdered, and his older sister is devastated. Because law enforcement officers fail to read the killer his rights and bungle other aspects of the case, he goes free. A year later, the sister discovers the killer owns a horse boarding facility in a neighboring state. She drives to the location and paints his fence with the words, “He murdered my little brother. Don’t board your horses here” in attempt to ruin his business and warn customers about the danger. The girl has intentionally caused damage to an animal enterprise. Under the AETA, her graffiti can be prosecuted as a terrorist act.

As a final example, a journalist writes an article about combating the AETA. He suggests peppering the country with signs that read “ALF.” “ALF” is an acronym for the Animal Liberation Front, a group that has vandalized companies that use and kill animals. When “ALF” is scribbled on a fence, building or sign, the FBI is automatically called to investigate. This is routine because the bureau considers the group the number one domestic terrorist threat, even though the ALF has never injured a human or animal.

Investigating the acronym “ALF” would be a laborious task if thousands of signs throughout the country had to be checked. The sign placement strategy would run law enforcement ragged, educate the public about the absurdity of the AETA, and further water down the word “terrorist” so that all Americans could come to realize how they themselves qualify as “terrorists on stand-by.”

At some point, it is likely an animal enterprise owner or employee would play “the fear card.” A butcher, for example, could claim to be frightened by an “ALF” placard adjacent to his shop, alleging an impending attack by angry animal rights activists.

It is a violation of the AETA to intentionally induce fear (of bodily harm) in those associated with an animal enterprise, even when no property is damaged. The “victim”--or the butcher, in this case--would determine what constitutes fear, and it would be easy for him to prove nefarious intentions since everyone knows animal advocates would like to see butchers out of business. Posting illegal signs is common in most neighborhoods, such as when advertising garage sales and political candidates, yet fines are rarely imposed. In the case of “ALF” placards, the “graphic artists” could be arrested as terrorists; the journalist who originated the idea could also be at risk.

It is important to know that AETA terrorism charges cannot be brought against someone when the “target” is unaffiliated with an animal enterprise. If the son’s science project had involved no animals, if the murderer had owned a bicycle shop instead of a horse ranch, and if the illegally posted signs had advertised an estate sale, the FBI would not be called. This demonstrates how the AETA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which states that all people must have equal protection under the law.

Why should biomedical corporations and their executives--as well as other animal industries that bestow hefty campaign donations upon Washington politicos--be provided with a special law? Aren’t there more (or equally) deserving “targets” in need of activist protection, such as abortion clinics, anti-union employers, gay-run businesses and houses of worship? Should there be an Abortion Clinic Terrorism Act, a Union Employer Terrorism Act, and a Gay Community Terrorism Act, among others? Or would these niche laws further impede efforts to identify real terrorism, as the AETA does?

There have been over 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors since 1977, including seven murders. There have been over 2,100 acts of union violence between 1991 and 2001, including bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

In 2004 alone, there were over 4,500 racially motivated incidents in America, while there were another 1,480 based on religious bias and another 1,460 based on sexual orientation. Animal and environmental groups have committed far fewer acts, yet they are pinned with the “terrorist” tag, while those who shoot abortion doctors or burn down synagogues are perceived only as felons.

By the same token, it is unfair to drag a mother off to prison as a terrorist due to bad luck, in that her son decides to embark upon an animal project. If she had destroyed his chemistry vials, she would not be facing terrorism charges. Her compassionate response to animal abuse should make her a hero, not an Al-Qaeda operative. It is dangerous to dilute the word “terrorism” so it loses all meaning, so it describes the most caring and justice-loving members of our society, and so it theoretically applies to the entire citizenry, many who sweat nervously in “standby” waiting rooms.

The AETA may lead to consequences its originators did not foresee. It may embolden aboveground activists who no longer need to limit their activities to that which is legal. After all, they are viewed as terrorists either way. Why should they cheer from the sidelines when they can run with the ball?

Inequitable and oppressive laws can propel pacifists into action, as depicted in the movie, Catch A Fire. The film relates a true story about an apolitical black man who is wrongly accused of being a terrorist by South African authorities in 1980. After enduring arrest and interrogation, he comes to the realization that it is only right to be a “terrorist,” so as to combat the entrenched apartheid of the day. He becomes a rebel fighter, planting an incendiary device at an oil refinery. Ironically, the government--convinced it is keeping him under control by choking him with the heavy hand of the law--wakes him up to injustice and ignites him into action. Animal liberation is no less a noble cause, and a similar result could be expected. Who could be next to catch a fire?

America is about nothing if it is not about fairness and free speech. The AETA does not comport with this image. It is unjust and unconstitutional, and it interferes with the prosecution of real terrorism against the American people.

Once we faced a “red scare”; now we are bombarded with a “green scare.” The time has come to ask yourself: Do you really want to be on stand-by or do you want to take a stand?

And are you now, or could you someday be, the terrorist next door?

My Adventure Presenting Animal Rights Philosophy to the FBI

On April 13, 2006, I received a strange phone call at my Los Angeles home from an FBI Special Agent Instructor. I’ll call him Andy.

It was strange because the FBI had never before contacted me. Did I breach some obscure statute? I remembered a book of “absurd laws,” which said that in my neighborhood it was illegal to spit on the sidewalk, drive in a housecoat or allow animals to mate publicly within 1,500 feet of a school or church. Had my little, white terrier been committing impure acts at Erwin Elementary?

It turned out Special Agent Andy wanted me to fly to Quantico, Virginia (near Washington D.C.) to lecture law enforcement executives and managers from around the world about animal philosophy, keeping in mind “the mindset and methodologies of terrorists and the government’s response.”

It was an unusual request—even for an animal rights advocate, such as myself, with a doctorate in philosophy--so I did what anyone would do: I contacted my family, friends and criminal attorney.

I don’t really have a criminal attorney, but I have a friend who regularly handles high-profile cases. He furrowed his bushy brow and cautioned, “Don’t do anything. Let me check this out first. The FBI railroad innocent people all the time.”

My anxiety multiplied when an animal person said, “only traitors talk to the government” and a non-animal friend advised me to take a lawyer with me and to refuse to “name names” when “testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee.”

“I don’t have any names,” I protested, but then remembered a particularly annoying local journalist who had infuriated much of the Los Angeles community. Nah, I thought, it would be inappropriate to use the FBI for the purpose of revenge.

A Los Angeles Police Department friend offered the only encouragement, “It is an honor to be invited. Don’t worry. I’ll tell them you’re not a subversive and not to arrest you until after our tennis match next week.” She laughed.

I felt the real purpose behind the FBI’s invitation had to do with their misguided aim to infiltrate the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which cannot be infiltrated because it is an ideology rather than an organization. There are no meetings, mailing lists or membership cards. Anybody can claim to be a member of the ALF when rescuing animals, destroying “tools of torture” (such as research equipment) or financially depleting a corporation that abuses animals; as long as he or she does not injure a human or nonhuman in the process.

The FBI has designated the ALF as America’s number one domestic terrorist threat, in spite of the fact that those acting on its behalf have never physically harmed anyone. The same cannot be said of unions, who have reportedly instigated 2,193 acts of violence in the last ten years—including near fatal injuries--and anti-abortion activists who have made 13,256 attacks in the past three decades against doctors and clinics, including murders, kidnappings and bombings. By comparison, ALF-attributed actions are quite rare. 

In 2003, hate crimes totaled approximately 7,400 and recognized violations of environmental laws by corporations hit 450. Senator Barak Obama says he is baffled as to why the ALF is the foremost target, since the FBI itself has stated that ALF-attributed crimes are on the decline.

In Congressional Quarterly, Justin Rood argues that the US government is silencing free speech from the political left while ignoring those on the radical right, and the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that the government is attempting to quell controversial ideas by targeting mainstream animal and environmental groups, peace activists and others who participate in lawful protest when in fact they “should be investigating real terrorists.”

As an animal advocate for the past 25 years, I have only heard of two illegal animal-related actions, and both were committed by carnivores indifferent to the animal movement. One contemplated attributing his lawless act to the ALF, and the other might have done so under the right circumstances.

The first “villain” was an elderly attorney, who broke into his own home to rescue his two, pet pigeons after it had had been padlocked by health department officials. The man had been told that he would be thrown into jail without the possibility of bail if he were to set foot on the property. His equally villainous university professor friend manned the getaway car. Neither were vegetarians. Neither was young or agile. And prior to this, neither had committed what the FBI might call a “terrorist act.” They cut off the oversized padlock and rescued two, healthy pigeons on an autumn night in 2005. They have escaped arrest to this day, but are not on the run.

The second “terrorist” was, in fact, a remorseful vivisectionist who would sneak animals off the premises before slaughter and place them in loving homes. If his superior had questioned the disappearance of  “specimens,” the researcher, in order to retain his job, could have simply pointed his finger at the ALF.   

Decision day arrived, and my criminal attorney gave me the flickering yellow light, warning me that my visit to the Academy would prompt the FBI to open a file on me.

“Well, I plan to open a file on them, too,” I assured him. “But, I promise not to put any falsehoods in my file if they don’t put any falsehoods in theirs.”

“Go if you want. It’s legit, but take my number in case.”   

My plan was to serve as an ambassador for the animal rights movement and to convey through my lecture the truth about how animals suffer under human oppression, as well as to present philosophical arguments as to why animals are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration. I wanted my audience to understand that anti-terrorism resources should be used to combat dangerous groups who fly planes into buildings, rather than renegade gerbil lovers. It would not be realistic to suggest that animal-related “crimes” be ignored, but I argued they be deprioritized in an age when chemical, biological and nuclear warfare are possible.

An ominous feeling tented the empty road and thick woods in Quantico, and the sound of guns slammed through the air. I met Special Agent Andy, a fine host for the FBI, at the first security checkpoint, and he immediately drove me past a sign, which read, “Danger. Field Firing in Process.” Was this disclaimer the result of an accident? Perhaps a speaker had been shot in her compact rental car. I scanned for stray bullets.

Andy took me on a brief tour of the grounds, pointing out a pretend town called Hogan’s Alley with fake storefronts, including a bank in which actors are hired at $12.00 per hour to play “robber,” “hostage” or “drug dealer” with FBI trainees.

I laughed, “Do the actors ever win?” Andy gave me a stern look, “We take that very seriously. It is not good to get shot even in playtime.”

Andy had a penchant—as did all the agents I met—for comparing their work with crime shows and movies. At one point he mentioned, “We (the FBI) are more like Barney Miller than James Bond. More paperwork than adventure.” In many ways, the afternoon was a crash course in TV trivia.

The presentation room was a small lecture hall with a podium, microphone and display screen for the speaker, and fixed seats on ascending levels for attendees. I was told that two FBI psychologists would sit in on my lecture. Although the psychologists were charming, I felt their aim was to scrutinize me, to learn how to squash the animal rights movement. I felt the others were there to learn. 

My presentation began with undercover video footage inside a vivisection lab. It showed a man in a white coat pounding on a Beagle puppy and forcing tubes down several dogs’ throats; the animals were clearly in distress. I surmised cleaning liquids or pesticides would be poured down the tubes since they were routinely tested at this lab. In another clip, monkeys screamed while their penises were electrocuted by scientists.

Andy shouted from the back of the room, “The FBI will prosecute this sort of cruelty if videos like this are brought to our attention.”

I pointed out that obtaining undercover video is illegal in itself, even more so with the advent of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which states that a person can be prosecuted if he or she causes over $10,000 worth of economic damage to a corporation that uses animals. Showing undercover video could cause investors to sell their stocks, decimating profits. Those who unveil the video could face time in prison and fines.

In addition, I told the crowd that it was unlikely the barbarous treatment of dogs and monkeys in the footage was against the law. And even if it was, prosecution tends to result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Because animals are property, and the law generally finds it acceptable to use and kill animals for human gain, imposing prison terms and steep fines on large corporations—who have even larger lawyers--is rare.

During my lecture, I was able to get several law enforcement executives to admit openly that they would break the law, if necessary, to rescue an animal in distress, although they did not specifically agree to break into a research lab or factory farm. This was quite an accomplishment because prior to the presentation, Andy had privately told me that any FBI agent who did not or could not (for ethical reasons) uphold all US laws would be fired. My audience was mostly non-FBI so they surely kept their jobs.

Andy was keen on discussing “solutions” for bridging the gap between “them and us,” although he hinted that the Bureau’s favored tactic was to develop a network of spies within the animal movement who would report illegal actions. I told Andy this strategy was sure to fail because I had been a loyal animal rights person for 25 years, and had only heard about two so-called criminals: the aforementioned renegade researcher and pigeon man, neither connected to the movement.

I was pleased with Andy’s desire to better the relationship between law enforcement and animal rights activists and offered the following suggestions. First, I said that law enforcement could advise the President and Congress to support legislation that improves the situation for nonhumans and to enforce existing anti-cruelty laws. The FBI could also place “weeding out animal cruelty” higher on its “to do” list.

Secondly, I suggested that the FBI work on bettering its image and investigate real terrorists rather than plunging into what is perceived as a modern-day Inquisition. It was both curious and alarming that every person who found out about my speaking engagement “freaked out.” This mistrust no doubt largely stemmed from the problematic history of the FBI; which is detailed in Richard Gid Powers’ book, Broken: The Troubled Past and Uncertain Future of the FBI. Powers argues that the Bureau hones in on any issue that “represent(s) the fears and hatred of the masses or classes,” rather than investigating those crimes that most offend the law or pose the gravest danger, an allegation that coincides with what animal and environmental supporters call today’s “Green Scare.”

Beginning with the FBI’s inception in the early 1900’s, Powers’ book moves through the FBI’s “witch hunts” against “whomever might be the public enemy of the day.” There was the “White Slavery Scare,” which was embarked upon due to a racist fear by Whites about the increasing power of Blacks, the “Adultery Scare,” and the notorious “Red Scare,” among others.    

Today, a substantial number of people feel the Patriot Act is used for political reasons, and the ACLU charges that the FBI is spying on and examining the records of thousands of law-abiding US citizens. Andy says these allegations are untrue and that the Bureau supports free speech and lawful protest. He adds that simply tapping a phone takes excessive manpower; therefore, would only be reserved for someone who is a substantial threat.

My third suggestion was that law enforcement officers make good “situation ethics” decisions. Even though Andy insisted laws are not malleable, I know there is always the exercise of discretion and could tell lecture attendees agreed by their nodding heads. I pointed out situations in which police officers have leeway to make decisions that directly affect the life or safety of animals.

For example, during the Katrina disaster, some officers allowed people to evacuate with their animals; others did not. At a burning apartment building in Tennessee in 2003, police and firefighters refused to allow a man to rescue his trapped dog who was clawing at the glass of a sliding door. The man eventually ignored law enforcement’s orders and rescued his dog. He was handcuffed and charged with misdemeanors, outraging the public and arguably tarnishing the reputation of local law enforcement. If the man’s two-year-old daughter had been clawing at the glass, would law enforcement have told him to “stand back and let the child die?”

As a finale to my lecture, I questioned why the only difference between a criminal and a terrorist--according to the US Code of Federal Regulations as listed on the FBI website--relates to the latter’s desire to further “political or social objectives.” The word “terrorist” evokes the image of an evil person while the word “criminal” has a less pejorative connotation, even when the offenses are the same.

One can only assume that “furthering political or social objectives” frightens those in power, who crave to maintain the status quo. Perhaps those who control society—such as corporations, government entities and media conglomerates--fear the ideology of an animal liberationist could catch hold and topple them from their golden thrones, reducing their animal product profits and a overturning a lifestyle which requires nonhumans be seen as means to a human end. Is this the true reason behind branding the ALF as “terrorists?”

After the lecture, Andy asked me, “Could you come back and speak again?”

“I doubt it. Unfortunately, I don’t fare well on long plane rides.”

He added, “Well, maybe you could give me the name of someone who could.”

I grinned and replied, “I knew you’d ask me to name names. I have no choice but to report this in my secret file.”

Haste, Waste and Mammoth Misconceptions

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-2 to build a costly ($40 - $60 million) elephant enclosure at the LA Zoo. Only Councilmembers Dennis Zine and Bill Rosendahl voted with activists who wanted the exhibit closed and the three elephants freed...

_______________________________

How logical it would have been to save both the elephants and taxpayer dollars by voting against the proposed 3.5-acre elephant exhibit and sending our imprisoned pachyderms to paradise in a spacious sanctuary in Northern California. But City Councils do not always make logical decisions as we painfully discovered on Wednesday morning.

 

The second most rational approach would have been to postpone the decision for a few weeks until results had been tallied on Assemblyman Lloyd Levine’s pending bill which would require California elephant exhibits to have more acreage than the LA plan provides.

 

Postponement would also have given Neighborhood Councils an opportunity to poll their stakeholders and make a formal recommendation to the city. Many councils have the elephant issue agendized for their May meetings due to a presentation about the topic at the LANC Congress earlier this month.

 

Unfortunately, haste, waste and misconceptions about the needs of massive animals have prevailed while the voiceless pachyderms and obviously equally voiceless taxpayers have been shoved aside.

 

______________________

First update on the elephant situation 4-21-06:

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's elephant bill is slated for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 25, 2006. One wonders whether the LA City Council is trying to slip something over on their constituents by sneaking it onto a supplemental agenda at the last minute.

 

The language of the agenda is biased and inaccurate and serves merely to reinforce their own action of wasting $40 million plus in taxpayer dollars in order to perpetuate cruelty to elephants.

 

The Council agenda states that the recommendation is to support Levine’s legislation "AS LONG IT IS AMENDED TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION WHICH IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH."

 

Based on scientific research? 

AZA standards are that elephants need no more than 1800 square feet outdoors and 400 square feet indoors.

 

This leaves barely enough room for an elephant to turn around. Why all this discussion about 3.5 acres if they are supporting the pathetic standards of AZA, which is arguably nothing more than a rubber stamp organization?

 

According to Catherine Doyle, founder of Los Angeles Alliance for Elephants, “It is ridiculous to promote AZA space standards. AZA space standards for elephants establish an area less than half of the area legally required by the city of LA for horses.

The List No. 1 of Uses Permitted in Various Zones in the City of Los Angeles, 2003 states: "Equine Keeping ­ 17,500 square foot minimum lot area; 4,000 square feet of lot area per animal."


AZA allows a minimum 1800 sq ft outdoors for elephants, with 900 sq ft for each additional animal. 1800 sq ft is the size of a 3-car garage.  Indoor requirement is 400 square feet per, which is a 20x20 space for an animal that ranges from 8,000 to 13,000 pounds. It is better (for the City Council) not to take a position on what is essentially a poorly thought out resolution. I feel support of that resolution would be an embarrassment to the city and a solid step backwards in the care of elephants ”

_____________

Second update on the elephant situation 4-25-06:

I went to speak to the City Council about agenda item 81. This relates to AB 3027, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's Elephant Protection Act.

 

Councilmember LaBonge opted to send this matter back to the Government Relations committee. Perhaps he realized the resolution was a mistake.

The speech I was planning to deliver is below. I hope the Los Angeles City Council will shelve this issue indefinitely.....

 

-----------

Councilmembers,

Your proposed resolution on Assemblyman Levine's elephant bill is in actuality nothing more than an attempt to eviscerate this humane legislation and needs to be identified as such in the clearest possible terms.

 

Your agenda erroneously states that the standards put forth by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (the AZA) are based on scientific research. This is completely untrue. Ask any expert. The AZA is a rubber stamp organization, and they admit themselves that there is no husbandry science to back up their space requirements.

 

AZA standards only require 1800 square feet for one elephant. This is the size of a modest-sized home, except that humans get to go out of their own houses. The AZA's indoor requirement is only 20 x 20 or 400 square feet, the size of a two-car garage. Think about your own garage; is this large enough for an elephant? Many of you live in houses larger than what the AZA considers adequate space for an elephant.

 

Zoning laws in Los Angeles require more space than this to keep a horse. One must have a minimum of 17,500 square feet. Councilmembers, an elephant is nature's largest land animal; it needs far more space than a horse.

 

Councilmember Zine is the closest thing to an elephant expert on your council. So please listen to him. He spent time in Africa and understands that elephants travel great distances and need a large area in order to be psychologically and physically healthy. Keeping elephants in what amounts to close confinement is simply not acceptable in the 21st century.

 

This vote is no small matter; it is a vote that will be remembered for a long time. I urge you to fully embrace Levine’s bill in its present form or to refrain from a vote altogether.

 

Thank you.

Good News and Bad News on the Animal Front

The Good News: Stuckey out of luck?

According to the Daily Breeze, Mayor Villaraigosa has fulfilled his campaign promise to fire Mr. Guerdon Stuckey, the General Manager of Animal Services. Although the Mayor's office has not confirmed the report, the animal community is cautiously optimistic.   

Negative press about this issue has stalked the Mayor for the past two months. A majority of L.A. animal advocates have come to the conclusion that Mr. Stuckey is unable to move the city in the direction of "no kill."

Sixteen Directors of Animal Welfare (DAWs)--who were appointed through the Neighborhood Council system--sent a joint letter to the Mayor last week requesting his removal.

If the Daily Breeze article is accurate, the Mayor should be thanked. The Mayor's next step is to hire a competent and caring General Manager for Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS).

_____________________________

The Bad News: CAO Report is a huge (or elephantine!) disappointment. 

Many in the animal community, including the Directors of Animal Welfare, want to see the local elephant exhibit closed and the three L.A. zoo elephants--Ruby, Gita and Billy—moved to a sanctuary. A 75-page CAO report came back stating that the taxpayers should fund a $33 million three-acre L.A. exhibit. Not only would this be disastrous for the elephants (who need at least 100 acres), but it would be burdensome for our city which is currently $268 million in debt. Some City Councilmembers have expressed their desire to see the elephants sent to a sanctuary. It is hoped that Mayor Villaraigosa will do the right thing for these beautiful and deserving creatures who are counting on him. 

L.A.'s Pet Project: By the Numbers

Warning: Do not read this post unless you are seeking statistical information about animal deaths at Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) shelters. I have tried to write this clearly, but numbers can be confusing and onerous.

In a nutshell: LAAS General Manager Mr. Guerdon Stuckey routinely states that there has been a decrease in animal shelter deaths within the past year; however, the facts seem to point to an increase.

LAAS admits to killing 24,932 animals this year and 29,560 last year. Yet, according to its own records, 9251 animals (that were inputted into the system) are unaccounted for this year, as were 4218 animals last year. It could be assumed that they were euthanized, but not added to the final tally. If this is the case, the number of animals killed this past year would total 34,183, while the number in the previous year would total 33,778, meaning that animal deaths are on the rise, and Los Angeles is moving away from becoming a no-kill city. 
___________________

Members of the Animal Community complain that they have been unable to obtain statistical information regarding the number of animals killed at L.A.'s public shelters.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's campaign website states that "at least 44,000 animals a year are killed in our shelters while the department perpetuates a reputation for conflict and confrontation with the animal community." (www.Antonio2005.com)

The protest group Animal Defense League (ADL-LA) estimates the deaths to be around 50,000 per year.

Minutes from L.A. Animal Commission meetings reveal that animals are not always logged into the system, and volunteers tell "off the record" tales about how computers are sometimes manipulated to make the department look favorable.

I have requested the official LAAS statistics many times throughout the past year from the following persons or departments: General Manager (GM) Guerdon Stuckey (three times), former Assistant GM Regina Adams (three times), the Mayor's office (one time), LAAS shelters (two times), and an LAAS associate (one time); but I never received anything until now, in spite of the fact that it is declared "public information." The statistics that I now possess did not come from the city but from a source outside of the city who was obviously more persuasive and resourceful than me.

The official 25-page report has internal inconsistencies. On page 23, the record shows that in the fiscal year ending in June 2005, 24,932 animals were killed; and in the previous fiscal year, 29,560 animals were killed.

However, on page 3 of the same report, it states that 57,930 animals were brought into the shelter during the past fiscal year, and of this number, 18,902 were adopted while 4,845 were redeemed. By adding 18,902 and 4,845, one gets a total of 23,747. If one subtracts 23,747 from the number of animals brought into the shelters, one gets a total of 34,183 animals (killed and/or missing on page 3). This is a different number from the 24,932 animals that the department states they killed (on page 23). It seems that 9251 animals have vanished. Were they killed but not added to the final tally? Although released wildlife might account for some of these animals, wildlife experts who work with the shelters say the number of released wildlife would be trifling. Page 23 of the report substantiates this claim; it states a small number of wildlife end up at LAAS. One can assume that LAAS killed 34,183 animals this past year.

A similar discrepancy can be found in the previous year: 57,437 animals were taken into the shelters, while 18,752 were adopted and 4,907 were redeemed. When one adds 18,752 and 4,907, one gets 23,659. By subtracting this from 57,437, one arrives at 33,778 (killed and/or missing on page 3) rather than 29,560 (on page 23). This points to a discrepancy of 4218 animals. Where are the 4218 missing animals from last year? One can assume that LAAS killed 33,778 animals during the previous fiscal year.

Do the discrepancies in the report point to incompetence or a willful attempt to alter numbers? And why are there a greater number of missing animals during the most recent fiscal year? Does this indicate the department is "getting worse"?  

_____________________

Other questions about the report...

The ordinance passed in 2000 by the L.A. City Council requires a higher license fee for those who do not wish to spay-neuter their dogs. Yet the official LAAS statistics do not track the success or failure of this ordinance. It would be wise to delete ineffective categories that exist in this report--such as "livery stable" and "horse or mule market" which are followed by zeroes since they have no relevance to Los Angeles--and to replace them with a category that could monitor the success of the spay-neuter ordinance. 
_________________________

The statistics show that 375 unweaned puppies and 5192 unweaned kittens were killed this past fiscal year. This is surprising since the LAAS shelters have been known to auction puppies for as much as $1000 each. The auction money goes to L.A.'s general fund; it is not used to help the animals. Volunteers/foster parents should prepare these babies for adoption, thus potentially eliminating the need for this category, at least with respect to dogs. 
__________________________

There is data corresponding to the number of dogs that were killed by LAAS between 7/1/04 and 6/30/05. It is interesting to note the breed categories LAAS utilizes and to confirm -- contrary to what the public may believe -- that small dogs are euthanized. This shows the importance of adopting all breeds from the shelters.

American Staff – 766
Boxer – 78
Chihuahua – 232
Chinese Sharpei – 98
Chow Chow – 739
Cocker Spaniel – 100
Dalmatian – 115
German Shepherd – 584
Jindo – 140
Labrador Retriever – 581
Pit Bull – 281
Rottweiler – 807
Shepherd – 1370
Staffordshire – 2234
Terrier – 184
Others - 944
_________________

According to a periodic review of the website www.petharbor.com -- which tallies the number of animals in the L.A. shelter system -- the total number of animals housed on any particular day (within the six city shelters) seems to fluctuate between 1200 and 1310 animals.

When LAAS is at 1200, it seems reasonable to assume that it is not filling its cages to capacity. Why would it euthanize animals when there is space to house them? This suggests that some shelter managers and workers may adhere to a "killing routine" rather than evaluate the "animal situation" on a daily basis in order to spare as many lives as possible. Undercover shelter video footage corroborates the unnecessary killing: in this secret video, cages are shown storing paper products rather than giving hope to homeless dogs and cats.

______________________

If you have any additional information or comments about the statistics or practices of Los Angeles Animal Services, I hope you will post them on this blog. 

Mayor Villaraigosa and the Truth about Cats and Dogs

The earth is starting to tremble in the Los Angeles animal community because Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has refused to honor his January 2005 campaign promise to fire the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services Guerdon Stuckey, and this broken promise has drawn attention to a potential scandal involving a loss of $1.1 million to the city over the next three years. Even fiscally responsible Angelenos who don't care about cats and dogs can be officially outraged.

Animal advocates might have let the mayor out of the doghouse on his pledge if Stuckey had reformed the department, fostered relationships with the community and saved animal lives. But according to an October 27, 2005 L.A. CityBeat article, a poorly negotiated contract by Stuckey for a spay-neuter van "may have robbed the city of half its needed spay-neuter services" and will endanger animal lives.

Due to a shortage of van operating hours combined with the high spay-neuter quota, anesthetized animals will have to be whipped on and off the operating table at great risk to their health. The District Attorney has been asked to investigate.

Many animal community moderates--such as the dignified and caring former L.A. Animal Commissioner Erika Brunson--who were originally unwilling to jump on the clamorous "we want Stuckey fired" bandwagon, are now steering their own wagons through the streets picking up angry passers-by, such as the fiscally responsible crowd.

The "Reasons to fire Stuckey Email Series" has been circulating for months. Reason number 61 warns the Democratic mayor--who may hope to land in the Governor's office someday—that animal advocates will begin cc'ing the California Republican Party with their complaints. Villaraigosa could be one misstep away from tarnishing his dapper suit with controversies much like those that haunted the Hahn administration.

The mayor says he has decided not to fire Stuckey at this time because the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)—a "direct action" animal rights group that has not injured a human or animal since its inception in 1972–recently planted a smoke bomb at Stuckey's apartment building, making him look like a victim. He says he will not fire an employee who is being threatened or vandalized. 

It is understandable that the mayor would want to protect city workers. But in an attempt to be tough on crime, Villaraigosa is being weak on his convictions. If he truly believes Stuckey should be fired, why is he allowing himself to be controlled by the Los Angeles ALF?   

If Villaraigosa intends to be a strong leader, he must do what he feels to be right, despite the acts of a few on the "fringe." Democratic leaders did not turn away from unions, in spite of the fact that there were 2193 incidents of union violence against people and property in this country between 1991 and 2001, including those related to bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries. 

Republicans did not become pro-choice after doctors who performed abortion operations were killed. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 13,256 "incidents" against abortion clinics or doctors since 1977, including seven murders, 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, and 41 bombings. The pro-life movement remains firm in its beliefs.

Despite media hype that makes it seem scary, the ALF's credo prohibits injury to humans and animals. The ALF recently took credit for sending cabs, pizzas and prostitutes to the home of an unsuspecting animal services veterinarian. Although one may disapprove of these tactics, they resemble high school pranks more than crimes. 

Villaraigosa's new "ALF policy" is good news for those city employees who fear job termination. Anyone whose porch falls victim to a puff of smoke cannot be fired. At-risk employees who fail to command the attention of the ALF might be tempted to place a suspicious package on their own doorstep.

The City Council has become so concerned about the ALF and the L.A. protest group called the Animal Defense League that it has approved a plan which provides taxpayer dollars for surveillance equipment at the private homes of animal services employees. With high tech cameras, these workers can weed out door-to-door salesmen and pesky in-laws—again on the taxpayer's dime--under the pretense that the big bad wolf, also known as the animal activist, might show up with a feral cat flyer, order them a fake cab or protest on the sidewalk with a sign. Although city workers have a right to feel safe, this measure amounts to another questionable use of limited resources for a city that had 31,000 violent crimes last year.

The mayor continues to react to the "ALF threat." He recently removed Erika Brunson from the Los Angeles Animal Commission and replaced her with surveillance expert Glenn S. Brown. The Commission, which is endorsed by the humane community, provides a compassionate and intelligent voice for the powerless victims of our public shelters: the animals The current commissioners—except for Mr. Brown--may not be experts on installing cameras to detect fake pizza deliveries, but they are experts on how to combat the violence perpetrated against the dogs, cats and other animals that we have a responsibility to protect. 

If Mayor Villaraigosa fails to honor his promise to fire Mr. Stuckey and to hire a compassionate and experienced General Manager who can implement a no-kill plan and reform the department, he may find that the animal community is politically-speaking, more bite than bark. A decision to retain Stuckey is likely to become a permanent smudge on Villaraigosa's finely tailored lapel.

The animal community expects the mayor to do the right thing. But in case he doesn't, they have forwarded this article to the Republican Party.

No Kill Animal Shelter Proposal for Oakland, California and California Animal Commission

I spent the past year researching the animal shelter situation throughout the U.S. I have interviewed over 100 individuals from government, the humane community, rescue groups and animal services departments. I have learned that “no kill” is an achievable goal.

Four months ago, I completed a proposal for the city of Los Angeles and a few weeks ago I completed a proposal for Oakland. I also recently asked Governor Schwarzenegger to establish a California Animal Commission which would assist cities and counties in achieving the “no kill” goal. I have not received a final word from the Governor’s office, but am hopeful. The Commission would provide suggestions and proposals to localities who want assistance.

I put many hours into my 54 page "no kill" report for Oakland. Most of these ideas have been successful elsewhere.  The central elements of the proposal can be found at www.CharlotteLaws.org  or click here for the exact page on the new Animal Commission Website.

Please urge Oakland to move towards "no kill" and ask Governor Schwarzenegger to establish a Commission. If you live outside of California, please take these ideas and initiate an effort in your state! Thanks.

Another Doomsday, Another Dollar: Shifting Science towards Peace and Ecology

In his book, Our Final Hour, Cambridge professor and Britain’s “Astronomer Royal” Martin Rees predicts humanity has no more than a 50/50 chance of survival into the next century and that by 2020 a million people will perish due to scientific error or terror. Some would call him prescient, while others would interpret his words as alarmist, resembling a layer cake with environmental fears on top of nuclear fears on top of chemical and biological threats, ad infinitum. With a sci-fi flare, he warns of runaway technology, human clones and an ability to insert memory chips into the brain.

Doomsday predictors get much the same respect as the “toxic fumes” sign at the local service station; they impart their wisdom, yet we yawn. Situations which seem grim and overwhelming, even potentially lethal, tend to be ignored. Attention on more immediate and “American” concerns, such as consumer goods and personal advancement, monopolize our daily thoughts. This is arguably foolhardy and indicative of the “another doomsday, another dollar” mentality.

Rees is not a lone voice on the scientific stage. The “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” reports we have seven minutes until our final bow at midnight. Other reputable experts surmise that a “gray goo” or nanotechnological catastrophe poses the greatest threat. This involves the invention of miniature, self-replicating machines that gnaw away at the environment until it is devoid of life. It need not be deliberate sabotage—as in technological warfare by one nation against another--but could result from a laboratory mishap.

Astronomers speak of fugitive asteroids that could destroy major sections of our planet within the next 30 years. Others point to atom-crashing tests and their potential for a lethal strangelet scenario. Strangelets are malformed subatomic matter, which could distort all normal matter and dissolve the earth in seconds.

There are streams of alerts from environmental experts who tell us natural disasters are on the rise. They warn of climatic change and tell us the world's species die at a rate 1000 times greater than they did prior to human existence due to habitat destruction and the introduction of non-indigenous species into the ecosystem. Their conclusion? If we do not reverse the damaging trend, Earth itself will be extinct.

Should we open our minds to doomsday predictions? And if we accept them, what is the next step to insure or increase our chance of planetary survival?

In his book, Science, Money and Politics, Daniel Greenberg follows a trail of suspicion. He condemns what he believes to be the self-serving, greedy scientific community with its bungled research, conflicts of interest and findings that never see the light of day due to suppression by corporate sponsors. But this seems to be an overly cynical, embellished perspective; there are surely many scientists dedicated to discovery and social responsibility, apart from any personal gain. And we should not forget that offering controversial insights can be at a cost; proponents of “radical” theories often expose themselves to public and professional ridicule.

Regardless of skepticism, the “Pascal’s Wager” game plan seems a good bet. This essentially means we should not gamble with eternity, but instead urge the scientific community to take precautions since Armageddon allows no second chance. Better to err on the side of life, even if it means some black holes will go unexplored and some research grants will be pulled.

Precaution means building contingency plans--such as shields and containment measures--into emerging technologies so that if an experiment goes awry, a safety net will kick into place. It means the scientific community should better police itself. It means committees or boards—both local and international—should be established for oversight and regulations, much like Albert Einstein proposed in 1947 to maintain worldwide peace. Many nation-states and multinational corporations are known for fighting even minimal efforts to regulate dangerous technology, and they must be countered.

There are pragmatic hurdles to be negotiated when trying to impose rules on private parties or on authorities in renegade lands, but the ozone hole “near disaster” demonstrates how the world can cooperate when it comes to life-and-death matters. As cultures dovetail, as communications rise, as borders become more porous, and as the world figuratively shrinks, it will be easier to impose structure and scientific parameters on nations that seem combative today

Science must shift its course and find new mountains to climb. It looks to us for cues. Due to our materialistic bent as a culture, our cursory endorsement of “progress” and our captivation with the Prometheus-like aura of technology, we subtly ask the scientific community to scale those mountains that are the highest (great accolades can be received), the easiest (the path of least resistance) or the most profit-oriented (grant money from special interests or an emphasis on reducing labor so companies can realize greater proceeds) rather than those that are the most ecological and peace-enhancing.

The research community has rivers of creativity and forests of energy that could instead be directed towards rivers and forests. It could move towards ecological preservation and restoration, peaceful alternatives to conflict and a furthering of life on this planet.

We will know a cultural transition is underway when news reports following fires, earthquakes and other disasters address the impact on natural systems and nonhuman species, rather than just the human and economical consequences, such as the number of homes lost. Our capitalstic culture thrives on fact that nature is cost-free, which in turn, reinforces the notion that it is expendable and devoid of value. This reality must change. Our reality must change. And science must change. It must shift towards peace and ecology. It's as plain as doomsday.

From Democracy to Omniocracy

Clint Eastwood recently plunged into the murky political pond with his statement, "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."

What is extremism, and is it easy to hold such a stance? Is the political scale truly circular, so that the "far right" clasps hands with the "far left"? Finally, does the left-right continuum serve as a constructive paradigm upon which society can be structured?

If someone screams, "I am a moderate; we should all be moderates" at the top of his lungs and flails around like a lunatic, would he be considered an extremist? An "inappropriate" display of emotion could be "extreme," even when devoid of "extreme" content.

Today's "extremists" are in good company: Jesus, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Baruch Spinoza all bore this label at one time. Jan De Witt and his brother Cornelius—seventeenth Century Dutch politicians—were hacked to death by the populace, largely due to their "radical" and "unsavory" political perspective. Their crime? They were proponents of democracy. Their body parts were displayed in storefronts all over town.

Who shall we call extreme? The vigilantes who did the lynching? The shopkeepers who showcased the body parts? The De Witts with their pro-democracy stance? Both? Neither?

Do "extreme" beliefs emanate from a mechanical thought process, as Eastwood suggests, rather than an intense philosophical journey? It arguably requires reflection and hypercritical analysis to defend ones theories against the cloned, echoed and mass produced opinion of the common folk; it requires conviction to risk social ostracism and other forms of retaliation. 

The "approved" or popular view is more likely to be perfunctory. Why think when one can plagiarize? Why go out on a limb when one can cling onto the tree or never climb in the first place?

And who are these "far right" and "far left" "idiots" to whom Eastwood refers when he makes his own arguably "extreme" comment? Perhaps he perceives those on the edge as moralistically shrill, as manifesting a tone level of fear and anger. Perhaps this is how the "right" and "left" overlap or come full circle in his mind. But this is a gross generalization, since the "extremes" are subjective and the political continuum fallacious.

The left-right distinction began in France to indicate nothing more than where the political parties sat during Parliament; soldiers were positioned in the center to prevent disagreements from resulting in bloodshed. It has morphed into a Democratic-Republican or liberal-conservative scale.

There is no objective definition for "Democratic," "Republican," "liberal" or "conservative." Real Democrats and Republicans, for example, do not necessarily reside on one particular side of the divide; they move in divergent directions on assorted issues.

In addition, political spectrums vary. One could say, for example, that all governments—democracy, fascism, communism—inhabit the "left" while anarchy or a lack of control rests on the "right." One could argue instead for an up-down continuum with free-market capitalism at the top and communism at the bottom. 

Suppose we accept the flawed, but commonly accepted paradigm of a left to right political continuum, as Eastwood offers. If we define the "left" as the group that protects the voiceless, the powerless, and the forgotten, then the natural progression would be to protect the truly voiceless – animals and nature.

Nonhumans are excluded from our political system, without representation. They have no standing in court; yet corporations do. In fact, nonhumans are virtually omitted from the conversation in our anthropocentric and speciesist society.

A move "left" arguably means to move away from Democracy – which is really just a rule by the elite (humans) – to an Omniocracy (which I describe as a government of, by and for all living beings). The European Union has added nonhumans to their Constitution, as have Switzerland and Germany. New Zealand, India and Reggio Emilio, Italy have outlawed using animals in ways we normally think acceptable in the U.S. (boiling lobsters alive, keeping fish in small bowls, vivisection, etc.).

We are trailing behind other nations, but it might be difficult to amend our Constitution in our What's the Matter With Kansas? country at this time. It might be easier to start with certain states. You may be wondering what would stuffing a few extra words in a state Constitution really do. Well, words are a powerful tool and an important start.

Lastly, does this move to the left spit us out on right? Probably. One could argue that traditional "right" politics/economics prompts a gap between the rich and poor, thus culminates in the rule by a few, such as corporations. To implement policies that foster the idea that nonhuman species have value "in and of themselves," a "top down" government or rule by a few (although not corporations) again seems required. 

People are self-interested (as are all species) thus cannot be expected to vote against their desires. Legislators, however, are different (or should be) because they attain self-worth from helping others, being fair and inclusive, and consulting the "big picture." Plato got this part of his Republic right in my estimate.

Omniocracy requires abolishing the left-right continuum and forming a new paradigm to balance pragmatic concerns with the needs of all. It would be similar in structure to the representative government upon which we now rely. There will naturally be conflicts of interest between species and individuals; but government's job will be to mediate and arbitrate these "disputes." 

We are taught democracy is the most inclusive, just and beneficent political system in the world. It is time to re-evaluate, without letting "extremist" labels scare us. Successful ideas advance through three stages: first ridicule, then discussion, finally adoption. I say we start the discussion to which Eastwood's words have provided a starting point.