December 26, 2009

Simulposted with the North American Animal Liberation Press Office

Just in Time for the New Year: Announcing the release of the largest update of fur farm addresses in nearly 15 years.

After five months of research and investigation, VoiceoftheVoiceless announces the release of a landmark document: The Blueprint – the largest update of fur farm addresses in nearly 15 years.

The Blueprint: Fur Farm Intelligence Project Report is the product of a two-month, 13,000-mile investigation of over 75% of the fur farms in the country. It represents the largest collection of fur industry intelligence to date.

The Blueprint is a 62-page supplement to the recent 10,000-word narrative on the eight-state Fur Farm Intelligence Project investigation, featured in Bite Back Magazine #15.

Included in the 62-page document:

*Massively updated state-by-state fur farm address list
*Photos of nearly 100 mink, fox, and lynx farms.
*Anonymous reports and photos from clandestine visits to fur farms and industry research sites.
*Massively updated closed farm database.
*Detailed data and status updates on over 200 fur farms.
*Dozens of newly discovered, unpublished fur farm addresses.

The Blueprint: Fur Farm Intelligence Project Report was compiled with the intent of mapping the entire supply-side and infrastructure grid of the industry: from auction houses to feed suppliers, fox farms to research facilities.

The Blueprint contains new addresses and updated data on:

*Fox farms
*Mink farms
*Lynx farms
*Fur industry research farms
*Fur feed suppliers
And much more.

20 years of collected fur farm data has culminated in this document.

The Blueprint can be downloaded here:

Voice of the Voiceless.org

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

The following Psalm brings to my mind how human traffickers prey upon the poor.  They are the wicked who sit in ambush in the villages, watching for the helpless and seizing the poor, thinking that God will never see it.  Yet God does see this and He does hear the cry of the afflicted.  He will deal with the wicked and bring justice for the oppressed.  He is using people right now to carry out these things.  Thank you to all who are involved in rescuing slaves who are helpless, oppressed and afflicted, and for bringing justice upon the wicked so that they may strike terror no more!

1 Why, O Lord, do you stand far away?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?

2 In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor;
let them be caught in the schemes that they have devised.
3 For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul,
and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord.
4 In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him;
all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5 His ways prosper at all times;
your judgments are on high, out of his sight;
as for all his foes, he puffs at them.
6 He says in his heart, “I shall not be moved;
throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity.”
7 His mouth is filled with cursing and deceit and oppression;
under his tongue are mischief and iniquity.
8 He sits in ambush in the villages;
in hiding places he murders the innocent.
His eyes stealthily watch for the helpless;
9 he lurks in ambush like a lion in his thicket;
he lurks that he may seize the poor;
he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.
10 The helpless are crushed, sink down,
and fall by his might.
11 He says in his heart, “God has forgotten,
he has hidden his face, he will never see it.”

12 Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand;
forget not the afflicted.
13 Why does the wicked renounce God
and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”?
14 But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation,
that you may take it into your hands;
to you the helpless commits himself;
you have been the helper of the fatherless.
15 Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer;
call his wickedness to account till you find none.

16 The Lord is king forever and ever;
the nations perish from his land.
17 O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted;
you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear
18 to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.

Psalm 10

Rebuilding my bathroom so thought id show my kind of wallpaper

Friends Link : News http://diyhomedepot.istoreblog.com/ http://diyhome.idatablog.com/

I just came across a couple more websites about modern-day slavery that are worth checking out.  According to their website, The A21 Campaign “stands for abolishing injustice in the 21st century. Anyone can join – everyone can make a difference.”  Vision Abolition is defending the defenseless by being “dedicated to three goals: preventing the sale and sexual exploitation of human beings wherever it occurs; rescuing those victims, especially pregnant women, children and women with children; and restoring those victims to full, productive lives. The problem may be non-denominational, but the solution is clearly God in action transforming one life at a time.”

Please take a look at these organizations and again, see how you can get involved in abolishing modern-day slavery.  We should not be so comfortable and complacent in our own freedom that we forget those who are trapped in slavery.

My prayer to God is, as the psalmist said: “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.  Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”  Psalm 82:3-4

Check out this post over at Feministe about the trafficking of Native American women. (Warning: it’s pretty fucking upsetting.) The original article says some pretty troubling things that make me, as a sex worker, really fucking angry, both at so-called “advocates” and at the people who are abusing and ignoring the abuse of Native women.

“If it was a bunch of white, blonde hair, blue-eyed girls, believe me, there would be an end to this,” said Vednita Carter, executive director of Breaking Free, a St. Paul-based nonprofit serving women involved in prostitution.

I think this is dead, dead on. And it’s what pisses me off the most. All women are exploited under sexism, sure, but women of color have been especially and uniquely exploited by White dominance. The shit that white men have done to women of color in the name of what? “civilizing the natives” (aka stealing their land and colonizing them) is deserving of a special hell.

Then, the article makes a point that is what really gets me. As a sex worker, it really pisses me off.

Although the legal system treats prostitution and trafficking differently, the report often uses the terms interchangeably, as many advocates believe that prostitution can never be considered fully consensual. The prostituted woman is the true victim of the crime, they argue.

“There’s a general acceptance that prostitution is a lifestyle choice, when it’s actually a federal crime against women,” Koepplinger said.

Let’s start with the idea that the law treats trafficking and prostitution differently. In theory, they do. I’ve read enough of the actual written code. In practice, I call bullshit on that statement. The law sees everyone as a criminal. If you look at some of the fall-out from Operation Cross Country, it’s pretty clear that this effort to rescue victims of trafficking was more interested in arresting workers. Underage people were arrested.

If you look at the work of the Sex Workers Project and others, it’s arrest first, ask questions later (maybe). The law in practice lumps everyone together, regardless of how they ended up selling or trading sex.

Now let’s move onto the idea that advocates want to use sex work and sex trafficking interchangeably because no one can truly consent to sex work. Oh man, no fucking way! Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

I’ve said for a long time that there are degrees of privilege and consent. I don’t think anyone ever completely truly enters sex work as a choice because one’s position of privilege (or lack thereof) shapes the experience. I suppose a cis-gendered straight wealthy white man who works for himself, then maybe, just maybe. I have a huge, huge problem with the idea that you can be a sex worker just and only because you like sex or whatever. It’s not black and white. There are not The Privileged and The Exploited. There’s a whole lot of variation.

So maybe, just maybe, instead of treating everyone like a criminal or like a victim, you could look at the degree of privilege and exploitation that shapes the experience. Painting someone like me and someone like a trafficked Native woman the same because we both sell sex is really, really insulting to the experiences of the trafficked woman.

And it’s incredibly damaging to trafficked women. Instead of going after what drives the sexual exploitation of women, they go after the simplistic “drive” for trafficking: demand. I think an educational campaign targeted at men who purchase sex might help. Might. But I think the more important question is how to we address the legacy of colonialism, as well as racism, poverty, the exoticization of women of color, addiction, and the myriad of other issues creating barriers for these women.

I just get really, really angry about the conflation of sex work and sex trafficking, and not because I don’t want to be painted as a victim. I think it distracts from the horrific problem that is the exploitation and coercion of trafficking.

It’s really just way more complicated than “oh, you poor victims of the patriarchy” or “shut up, you privileged white girls”. So can we please stop arguing about who is which of those and talk about the nuances?

By Cara Sulieman

A CLAN chief is plotting to take back land that he claims once used to belong to his family.

Ranald MacDonald, chief of the MacDonald’s of Keppoch branch, is hoping to use an ancient law to regain ownership of the entire area of Lochaber.

And he claims that the law stands in his favour – with the government failing to abolish an Anglo-Saxon system of ownership.

The chief wants to use Ur Duthchas – Gaelic for clan territory – to achieve his aims and has now submitted a petition to the Scottish Parliament in the hope that they will agree with him.

Mr MacDonald became the chief of the clan after a legal battle that he took all the way to the Court of Session in 2004 where the judges decided that he was the rightful successor.

“Complex subject”

Part of his aims for the group is to regain the land that he believes was unlawfully taken away from them when the feudal system was introduced by the Normans after their 1066 invasion.

And he claims that an entire 2000 square miles of land that makes up Lochaber rightfully belongs to him.

But he only expects to be able to reclaim some of the land.

On the clan’s website, Mr MacDonald writes: “We can reclaim it, at least some if not all of it. Although that is a complex subject, and riddled with spurious obstacles.

“My contention is on firm legal ground, and is further strengthened by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000.”

He claims that as a result of the abolition of the feudal system, the clan can step in and take their land.

Aboriginies

A similar law to ‘clan territory’ – Udal Law – exists in Shetland and Orkney where it was brought over by the Vikings.

When the Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act was brought in, it did not supersede Udal Law, which is still used in some parts of the islands.

And Mr MacDonald thinks that ‘clan territory’ – which was never discussed during the writing of the bill – should be given the same standing.

He even compares the MacDonald of Keppoch clan to the aborigines of Australia, who have won back ownership of land since it was taken from them by the British colonists.

He said: “There are parallel examples of indigenous peoples successfully reclaiming there ancestral lands – the New Zealand Maoris, the Australian Aboriginals and the North American Native Indians.

“Take Australia for instance. The British ignored the original inhabitants of the land – the Aborigines and Common Law Ownership known by its legal term ‘native title’ and claimed the land for the British Crown under the British legal term ‘terra nullius’ – implying that nobody owned the land.

“In other words, the Aborigines land was seized by force by the British Crown.

“The legal term ‘native title’ is equivalent to the Scottish legal title ‘an dutchas’, and can be used to challenge the Crown lands in Scotland today.”

“Hereditary”

Mr MacDonald, 79, also points to examples of communities who clubbed together to buy land.

The island of Gigha was bought from the laird by its 107 residents in 2002.

He adds: “The Act has meant that communities in Scotland, especially the Western Isles area, have already been able to purchase the lands of their ancestors where they were born and lived in all of their lives.

“An dutchas is an ancient form of land tenure and is hereditary for the clan. It is the very basis of what a Clan means. The clan lands and the clan, the family are inseparable.

“It is the original legal form of land tenure and was and still is hereditary. That legal form of land tenure has never been abolished.

“Our clan has not had someone to stand up for them, and be counted in a fast changing world of commercialisation and corruption.

“The sooner our clansmen with legal expertise in Scottish & International Law bring their expert knowledge and skill to bear on this vitally important question the more likely that a successful outcome will be the result.”

The Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament considered Mr Ranald’s petition last week.

They have now asked for advice from the Scottish Government, Registers of Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Land Court and writer Andy Wrightman before they re-consider it in the New Year.

• Slavery: forced to work without pay under threat of violence and unable to walk away.
• 27 million slaves in the world today.
• Slavery is not legal anywhere but happens everywhere.
• The majority of slaves can be found in India and in African countries.
• At least 14,500 slaves are trafficked into the US each year.
• Slaves work in fields, brothels, homes, mines, restaurants – anywhere slave owners can feed their greed.
• Human trafficking is the modern-day slave trade.
• $90 is the average cost of a human slave around the world.
• Slave owners use many terms to avoid the word slavery: debt bondage, bonded labor, attached labor, restavec, forced labor, indentured servitude, and human trafficking.
• It is possible to end slavery in 25 years.  Everyone has a role to play – government, business, international organizations, consumers, YOU.

Check out these top 10 facts about modern-day slavery and where it is happening around the world at the Free the Slaves website.  Learn how you can get involved in bringing freedom to slaves and join Free the Slaves in their plan to end slavery!

Widget – (n.) |ˈwijit| A widget is a placeholder name for an object or, more specifically, a mechanical or other manufactured device. It is an abstract unit of production. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “An indefinite name for a gadget or mechanical contrivance, esp. a small manufactured item” and dates this use back to 1931.)

There are three main ways to kill animals for human use. All of these ways result in humans using animals as resources, even though eating animals or their secretions is clearly not necessary. Since all farm animals are eventually killed, those who produce milk or eggs are used as resources during their life, and again after their death. Domesticated animals are considered legal property, to be bought and sold, similar to an iPod, and used as resources like a head of lettuce, or copper. However, in some (non-legal) cases animals are considered persons; with names, celebrated birthdays, and Christmas stockings, and, although purchased originally, would never be thought of as property or sold, but as family. This is not limited to dogs and cats- pigs, goats, sheep, chickens, ducks, geese, and many other traditionally “food” animals are kept as “pets” in our society. People are charged with felony animal cruelty for committing the same acts against companion animals as we commit en masse to billions of so called “food” animals every year with little or no concern. We are clearly confused about how we ought to view and treat domestic animals.

Wild animals are usually considered as “common” resources, property of everyone, but an injured deer struck by an automobile can invoke sympathy and a sense of “personhood” from the same hunters who purposely kill deer on a regular basis. Most of us have compassion for suffering animals in our immediate presence, yet think nothing of killing, or paying someone else to kill, animals in general so we can use them merely as resources. It is only when we deem an animal as a person, for example a “pet” or companion animal, that we find a moral obligation to treat particular animals as people, not property, and choose not to eat, milk, or steal eggs from, that specific animal. If animals are property to be used as resources, why treat them different than any other resource? If animals are worthy of humane treatment, how can we treat them as resources? Could we treat a human as a resource, as property, and be humane? We are lying to ourselves if we think that there is a way to use animals as resources and be humane, regardless of the method, especially when all methods ultimately kill them in the end. It is because of our confusion about where animals lie on the property—>personhood spectrum that it is hard to know what’s honest, fair, and what’s just plain ol’ trickery when it comes to our use of animals as resources.

Factory farming is the most honest way to kill an animal for his or her flesh.

The factory farmer says simply, “You are my property. I’m going to use you as a resource, from the day I breed you, to the day I kill you. You are of economic importance to me, and that is it. I will use you as I see fit, like the property you are, and there is no reason for me to do anything but that which serves an interest of mine. And like a clock or a car, no one is to tell me how to treat my property. I will cut off your beak, gouge out your horns, mutilate your genitalia, violate you sexually, etc., with no regard for you as an individual” If we are to use animals simply as resources at all, factory farming is the most honest way to approach the use of the animals they kill- as nothing but resources. Factory farmers kill for money, and that’s all there is to it. Animals are born widgets.

Hunting is the fairest way to kill an animal for his or her flesh.

The hunter says, “If I catch up with you, I will turn you from common property into my property by killing you. I’m going to use you simply as a resource. I’m not going to imprison or torture you, just kill you. I’ll even give you a (very small) chance of escaping and surviving.” Besides the fact that many of the “wild” animals hunted are bred by wildlife authorities, the animals that are hunted at least get to live out some of their truly natural life before being stalked and killed. Also, the animals hunted are usually not slow-moving and docile like domestic cows or pigs, but agile and quick animals (for the thrill of the chase). Because of the animal’s ability to easily evade us, humans have devised tools and methods to make up for certain shortcomings of our physical abilities. The sadistically violent and inhumane methods hunters use to lure, trap, track, stalk, kill, disembowel and dismember carcasses are stunningly atrocious and not very honest or fair, but I don’t think the animal would engage in a “fair” fight even if the hunter were bold enough to challenge… Hunting is not fair, it’s just the fair-est of the three. However, the more tools one uses, the less fair it gets. The fairest hunter would leave the gun, bow, or knife at home and use his or her highly advanced physical predatory prowess to chase and catch a wild animal, tear into the animal’s jugular with his or her razor sharp human incisors in the most “humane” way possible, and rip open the tough hide with his or her extremely sharp human claws. Most hunters have access to all the slow-moving, plant-based food they could ever eat and don’t have to purposefully kill animals. Seeds cost less than bullets. While hunters might be the fairest, they still reduce the animals they hunt to being nothing but resources. Serial-killers kill for pleasure. Whether it’s the “thrill of the chase”, the taste of the flesh, or the decapitated head on the wall, hunters kill for pleasure, and that’s all there is to it. Hunters transform animals from wild to widgets.

“Humane” farming is the most fiendishly dishonest and hypocritical way to kill an animal for his or her flesh.

The “humane” farmer says, “You are my property, but I’ll treat you like a person for a short while. I’ll consider some of your basic wants and needs, and possibly even befriend you. You will come to trust me. You will trust that I will feed you and keep you safe. I will still control your breeding, violate you sexually, and mutilate your genitalia, but hopefully you won’t hold it against me. As long as it serves my superficial interests, I’m going to use you as a resource; as merely chattel property and then kill you.” “Humane” farmers recognize some moral obligation to animals, and might act on it somewhat and for a short time, until it serves their superficial interests to negate that obligation by ending the life they claim to care so much about. A better term would be “temporarily less inhumane” farmers. Sure, as a chicken, I’d choose the “temporarily less inhumane” farmer, but in the end I know I’ll die at both of their hands, so neither is really a good option. It seems as though “humane” farmers are at once friend and enemy. They are the ultimate backstabbers. They are your best-friend that fucked your wife- for years. They are the “it’s just business” talk from the company you’ve been “downsized” from after 30 years. They are the tranny from “Crying Game”. “Humane” farmers are Judases. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing, excuse the lame pun, but it fits well. These farmers actually have themselves convinced that they are in the best interest of the animals they kill. (I don’t think the animals are buying it, but what can they do?) Some farmers even go as far to say that they are keeping the animals safe from predators. I don’t think the chicken cares who steals her eggs, or who he or she gets eaten by… and I think I’d rather take my chances on the other side of the fence, thanks. They are deceiving themselves and they are taking many otherwise intelligent people with them. “Humane” farmers treat animals slightly better than factory farmers to try and reconcile deviating from their own recognized moral obligations to the animals they kill for money, and that’s all there is to it. “Humane” farmers pretend to care about their widgets, but in the end, the animals are widget’s nonetheless.

So what is a person to do? Be honest with yourself about how you think you ought to view animals. If animals are nothing but resources, widgets, then we owe them no moral obligation, and factory farms and hunting are for you! If we do owe them some form of moral obligation, let’s not lie to ourselves and hide behind a crude facade of friendliness and humanity which ultimately amounts to slightly less torture with the same deadly end, and instead treat all animals as persons, not as resources. If we consider a dog and a cow both people, we won’t eat or wear either. If we consider a cat and a pig both merely property or resources for humans to use, we will use both however we please. But to eat one and not the other is not honest, or fair. To pretend that we have the interests of the animals at heart when our true interests lie on our plates is cruelly deviant, and we are only lying to ourselves and displaying our confusion about our relationship to animals when we differentiate between animals arbitrarily. As George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, “Some animals are more equal than others.” Though Orwell was not [metaphorically] talking about animals in Animal Farm, this statement holds true of our relationships with animals. Most consider all humans equal, but some animals are considered people and some are considered property and used as resources. We are deceiving ourselves if we think we can continue thinking like this. Until we choose how we are to categorize animals, property/resources or persons, we will always be debating how we should be using them. Unless we choose not to use them at all, and then the debate is over.

If this seems too black-and-white, consider slavery, racism, sexism, heterosexism. Are there grey areas here? Consider the humane slavery analogy; would anyone entertain an argument from a “humane” slave owner who advocates the enslavement of some people to benefit the greater good? It is easy to see through that argument, once one recognizes our moral obligation to humans directly contradicts our use of them as resources. “Humane” slavery is an anachronism which is just as oxymoronic as “humane” farming. If one recognizes our already existing and widely accepted moral obligation to animals, no logical moral conclusion can be drawn that includes using animals as resources.

Peace is coming for you. Go vegan and speed up the process.

UPDATED: 3:25PM EST

Georgia Supreme Court halts Carlton Gary’s execution

There seems to be no halting the execution this evening for accused “Stocking Strangler”, Carlton Gary. Despite untested DNA evidence, testimonies of unmatching bite marks as well as footprints, the execution, thus far goes forward as scheduled.

Latest News:
Execution set for “Stocking Strangler”
Details emerge about Gary’s suicide attempts, lavish attire
Will be at the scene:

News Leader 9 will be in Jackson, GA as the execution takes place. Reporter Andrew Wittenberg will be live from the prison, while News Leader 9’s reporter Taylor Barhill works in Columbus to get local reaction.
Andrew Wittenberg: http://twitter.com/wtvmandrew
Taylor Barnhill: http://twitter.com/wtvmtaylor

From ledger-enquirer.com:

Columbus witnesses to Gary execution depart for Jackson

By TIM CHITWOOD, CHUCK WILLIAMS and ALAN RIQUELMY – Staff Writers

A group that included law enforcement and family members of Carlton Gary’s victims left from Columbus left at 2 p.m. to travel to Jackson, Ga., for Gary’s execution.

Gary is scheduled to be executed at by lethal injection at 7:00 p.m. in the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson. Gary was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder of three women in Columbus, Georgia.

Gary’s attorneys have been working all day trying to get a stay.

He was implicated in other slayings to show a pattern of behavior, as the same killer is believed to have committed all seven stranglings, and to have attacked two Columbus women who survived. Investigators also have linked Gary to similar crimes in New York.

//

Columbus Police Chief Ricky Boren, Assistant Police Chief Charlie Rowe, Maj. Lem Miller, Sheriff John Darr, Sheriff’s Office Maj. Randy Robertson and District Attorney Julia Slater were in the group scheduled to attend the execution.

They left from the Columbus Public Safety building in two vehicles.

Boren acknowledged the possibility of a stay.

“We’re still waiting,” Boren said. “They have until 7 to place a stay.”

Gary was convicted in 1986 of three of the seven “Stocking Stranger” murders in Midtown Columbus during 1977 and 1978.

“I am glad that these family members of the victims will finally see justice,” said Rowe, who like Boren was an investigator involved in Gary’s 1984 arrest.

Media witnesses will be Tim Chitwood, Columbus Ledger-Enquirer; Jim Grimes, Manchester Star-Mercury; Stephanie Green-Williams, AM 1300 WIMO; and Andrew Wittenberg, WTVM.

Court battle continues

With condemned Stocking Strangler Carlton Gary’s scheduled execution only hours away, the volley of court motions between his defense attorneys and prosecutors continued today before the Georgia Supreme Court.

Today Gary’s defense attorney, Jack Martin of Atlanta, filed a response to prosecutors’ arguing that the man convicted in three of Columbus’ seven rapes and stranglings of elderly women in the late 1970s is not entitled to a stay of execution to consider new evidence, because the evidence is not new.

Martin wants the court to review evidence that he claims either was not available to the defense during Gary’s 1986 trial or was presented inaccurately, specifically:

– Before DNA testing was available, semen found at the crime scenes was tested to see whether the rapist readily secreted blood-type markers in his other bodily fluids. The prosecution had a crime-lab technician say the perpetrator was either a “weak-secretor” or a “non-secretor.” Gary later was shown to be a “strong, normal secretor,” Martin says, yet the jury was led to believe this evidence did not exclude him as a suspect, and the defense was provided no funding for an expert to counter the prosecution’s witness.

– A bite mark mold made from a wound on victim Janet Cofer’s left breast does not match Gary’s teeth, yet this evidence was never made available to the defense during Gary’s trial and did not turn up until 2005, when then-coroner James Dunnavant found it in a file cabinet in his office. The defense has a forensic odontologist who will testify that the bunched lower teeth shown on the mold don’t fit Gary, who has not had any dental work on those teeth since the stranglings.

– Shoe prints found at some crime scenes were too small to match Gary’s shoe size, and defense attorneys did not know this until a former GBI agent who had been assigned to a strangler task force in the 1970s contacted them after Gary had been tried and convicted.

Martin’s response to prosecutors was filed as part of Gary’s appeal from Butts County Superior Court, which has jurisdiction over Georgia’s death-row prison in Jackson, where Gary’s to be executed by lethal injection at 7 p.m.

His Butts Count appeal is a writ of habeas corpus, filed in civil court. Habeas corpus is an avenue prisoners use to challenge their incarceration, essentially asking the court to justify their imprisonment in light of the evidence and the trial record.

Gary also has a second, criminal appeal pending before the state Supreme Court. It’s from Muscogee Superior Court, which last week twice denied defense attorneys’ motions for a stay of execution to DNA-test evidence from the stranglings to see if it matches Gary.

Prosecutors have filed responses in opposition to those appeals, in detail arguing that judges repeatedly have considered and rejected Gary’s motions for the courts to review new evidence in the stranglings..

Both of Gary’s appeals seek a stay of execution. If the state Supreme Court rejects them, Gary’s attorneys may appeal those denials to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Nov. 30 declined for a third time to consider Gary’s case.

Authorities say the execution can be halted only by a judge’s order, not by defense appeals.

Arrested in 1984, Gary was convicted in three of the seven stranglings that terrorized Columbus in 1977 and ’78 – those of Florence Scheible, 89, on Oct. 21, 1977; Martha Thurmond, 69, on Oct. 25, 1977; and Kathleen Woodruff, 74, on Dec. 28, 1977.

LORD~ You know. YOU know. Let Your will be done.

In his book, Not For Sale, David Batstone writes the following:

The book of Ecclesiastes is one of the extraordinary pieces of ancient wisdom literature.  The author beautifully expressed the desperation of the powerless:  “I saw all the oppressions that are practiced under the sun.  Look, the tears of the oppressed — with no one to comfort them!  On the side of their oppressors there was power”  (Eccles. 4:1).

In our world today, 27 million individuals live as slaves.  Frankly, power is on the side of the oppressors at the moment, but a wave of abolitionists is on the rise.  They will wipe away the tears of the oppressed and deliver justice to the oppressors.

The movement gains momentum each time a new individual joins.  If you are unsure what you can do, offer your time, talent, and money to one of the following groups.

He then lists many organizations working to abolish modern-day slavery, some of which are listed on my websites page and at this blog.  Maybe you could choose one that resonates in your heart and join their mission for justice and the abolition of modern-day slavery.

“The LORD works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed.”  Psalm 103:6

“O LORD, you hear the desire of the afflicted; you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.”  Psalm 10:17-18

God often uses people to carry out His purposes.  Let’s be willing to be used by Him.

When there’s a single thief, it’s robbery.  When there are a thousand thieves, it’s taxation.  ~Vanya Cohen

FDR once said that taxes are dues that we pay for privileges in n organized society, but really is it? or is it just another way to keep a working an more dependent to the Government?

Income Taxes, is the most evil of all taxes cause it just takes what you earn by coercion and theft, to give for an altruistic cause or on some in their pockets.

Who would be a fool to give what he worked hard for to others at the expense of his family?

He should be earning those robbed coins!
Let’s compare two men. Both of them earn about 480,000 dollars a year.Both have 10 mouths to feed. One of the man pays about 40 percent of income taxes, let’s say. The other guy lives in a country where there is no income taxes.

The other guy who doesn’t have to pay his income taxes, enjoy(not only he, but his family) enjoys the full fruits of his labor a year. Maybe he can save spare for business or fr their own leisure.Would you then be so pumped up to work hard everyday?and when emergency comes you are ready?

The other guy who has to pay the taxes get’s his salary robbed by 19,200 dollars a year. Let’s say that country provides Free Education, and all like a Big Brother. Well would you then choose to relax? and notwork so hard? So where is the Individual Responsibility? but let’s say the Government he is in is corrupt. He works hard everyday, trying to make ends meet. He doesn’t enjoy the fruits of his labor. Then an emergency came, lets say, a son of his would die. He doesn’t have the money then. The corrupt Government rob it from him. Well, what would he be prompted to do? Kill himself because of problems? Commit Crime because of that?

And would you then think that even if you worked hard it doesn’t pay, well that’s Liberals say, but really the problem is in that Unethical Taxation that is called Income Tax

It’s time to wake up and try to abolish this evil kind of Taxation.

Or else this phrase can be true. “You’re Taxed to Death”

I saw a post about this new book on Feministe. At first, I thought, oh, how cool. I identified with the book because of my economic background and the dream I have about my education.

But then I thought about it more, and I don’t. The primary breadwinner in my family was self-employed (the secondary held a good old-fashioned blue collar kind of job). I am self-employed. And as I’ve been rethinking class, I realize I’m in the same class as I was growing up. Only I have more economic freedom and disposable income. (This primary breadwinner was essentially unemployed for long stretches at a time. While I was in high school, this person’s “company” made zero dollars. Whenever I eat cabbage now, I think about the fear of my parents’ house being repossessed. We ate a lot of cabbage then.)

Whenever people (and by people, I probably mean bloggers) talk about class, they very rarely define what they mean by class. Is it the amount of money you earn? Your education? I’m kind of (okay, really) Marxist about this. And this piece I read (fuck, I wish I could remember the name!) talked all about how class should be defined as the relationship to the means of production. This broke class down into seven major classes. The self-employed being the most tenuous of them all. On one hand, you can have people like the breadwinner growing up, who was independently employed, but went through periods of relative unemployment (without the benefit of being able to receive unemployment), to people like me, who are comfortable enough, to people like the so-called “high class callgirls” who supposedly make thousands of dollars a call.

Which I think then is grounds for better talking about how class functions in sex work. People like me are often ripped apart by abolitionists because we’re “privileged”. Now, I think if anything, moving to become independent was for me, a class move. For the first (god, how long have I been a whore?) four years of my tenure in sex work, I worked for someone else. Either an agency, a strip club, or “freelanced” with various entertainment groups. While I had say over my working conditions, I didn’t have nearly as much as I do now. No one else was making a profit off of me.

So, I think there should be a more sensitive definition of what we’re talking about when we’re talking about class and sex work. I mean, I’ve heard some people say that your body is your means of production, but I kind of feel that’s what Marx would say about any worker. But anyone who has been a sex worker or knows one can tell you that you don’t just need a body to be a sex worker. You need a space to do your work in (the in-call, the dungeon, the out-call, the strip club), you need a system of screening clients, you need the actual supplies (do you need platform heels, condoms, or whips and restraints?), and of course, client management skills. All but the last one you can either own or have provided to you by your employer. Yeah, company-owned heels are generally unheard of, and most workers have to supply their own condoms. But the first two really make a difference in how your experience of sex work shapes up.

When I worked for a strip club and an agency, I owned neither the space or the system of screening clients. Someone else owned (and profited off of both). So while I was guaranteed a somewhat steady stream of clients, or at least a time and a place to show up and make money, I lost a substantial portion of my income to the owner. That’s why I became independent: I want to control my space and my clients. And I’m lucky enough to have the privilege to do that.

But that’s kind of the issue with dialogues about sex work: everyone is so fucking hung up on the sex part and they forget the work part.

This is a class-based debate, I believe, about workers’ rights. And I think it’s just, if not more, important to talk about than the kind of money you make. Because seriously, the vast majority of us aren’t high-rollers. I wish I could be that kind of worker, but I can’t. (Honestly, being a former self-injurer with a lot of visible scars in places most people don’t look at has a lot to do with that. So yeah, I’m not as privileged as you’d think.)

The following is the final written statement given by Matthew Eric Wrinkles:

“I wish I knew then what I know now. That is, as Einstein said, ‘only a life lived for others is worth living.’

“Fifteen years ago I took the lives of people I loved, my wife, my friends. I did so voluntarily taking drugs to the extent I became an addict of the worst kind. I caused enormous pain to many. I am not proud of the man I was. But I am no longer that man.

“In the past 15 years I have come to grips with the extent of the harm I caused. Although tonight I pay for my actions w/ my life, it has been the last 15 years that has been the truth punishment. Living w/ the knowledge of the pain I caused was the severest punishment possible.

“Tonight my children lose their natural father. My friends lose me. My brothers grieve. More victims are created.

“As Albert Camus said: To kill a man in a paroxysm of passion is understandable. To have him killed by someone else after calm and serious mediation and on the pretext of duty honorably discharged is incomprehensible.”

Final/Special Meal:
Prime rib with a loaded baked potato, pork chops with steak fries, and two salads with ranch dressing and rolls.

Final [spoken] Words:
“Not at this time, let’s get it done. Let’s lock and load. It’s plagiarized, but what the hell.”

Eric Matthew Wrinkles was executed by lethal injection early Friday, December 11th at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, IN. Wrinkles was convicted of breaking into a home at night while wearing camouflage and face paint and killing his estranged wife, Debra Wrinkles, and her brother and sister-in-law, Tony and Natalie Fulkerson in 1994.

Eric Wrinkles apologizes to family on Oprah

Most comprehensive coverage on Fox 7 and the Tristate Homepage. There was live coverage from 11:45 that Thursday evening and continued (albeit with a few rerun interviews to buy time) until word that Wrinkles was pronounced dead. The announcement came just before 1am CST when his death was announced to have occured at 12:39am.

Chris Keller, journalist for nwitimes.com, tweeted live coverage from inside the media holding area of the Indiana State Prison.

Jake’s DTV Blog summarizes local news coverage.

Information about Eric Wrinkles, coverage, etc.

MSNBC Lockup Indiana State Prison episode in which Wrinkles was featured.

Just Courage is another inspiring book by Gary Haugen,  president of International Justice Mission.  He states, “Nothing presents a more compelling and authentic witness of Christian faith in this era than the struggle for justice.”  This book is a call to have courage, join the battle for justice and follow Jesus by helping those in need.  Click here to watch an inspiring video promo and read a more detailed preview of Just Courage.

This book has encouraged me to do something in this “struggle for justice.”  So here I am, out of my comfort zone, writing this blog, when I find it difficult to even put my thoughts into words. But I hope that through this, more people will become aware of slavery and do something to help end it.

I don’t  enjoy writing about modern-day slavery.  It is dark, dreadful, awful, wrong, heartless, wicked, and evil.  I’d rather not even think about it.  But I can’t not think about it.  Now that I know about this extremely cruel oppression and injustice, I have to say something about it.  People need to know that others are suffering so terribly under the hands of oppressors.  They need help.  They need to be rescued.  They need to be cared for.  They need to know about Jesus.  As Christians, we have a responsibility to have compassion on these people.  Jesus said that whatever you did for the least of these you did for me and whatever you did not do for the least of these you did not do for me (see Matthew 25:31-46).  Will you take courage and join the struggle for justice?

“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”  Micah 6:8

“Be strong, and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the LORD!”  Psalm 31:24

Miller (left) poses with “Bambi,” one of the props that he and activists Anthony Marr (right)–the most hated anti-hunting activist in North America–and Anthony Damiano used in a campaign Miller spear-headed against a deer cull as they gathered in Kansas City to found the Global Ant-Hunting Coalition, of which all three are board members.

An interview with Jason Miller exploring radical dissent and animal liberation

11/3/09

By Frank Joseph Smecker

Jason Miller, Senior Editor and Founder of the radical blog, Thomas Paine’s Corner, is a tenacious forty-something vegan straight edge activist who lives in Kansas and who has a boundless passion for animal liberation and anti-capitalism. Addicted to reading and learning, he is mostly an autodidact, but he has also studied liberal arts and philosophy at the University of Missouri Kansas City.

An accomplished and prolific essayist on social and political issues, his writings have appeared on hundreds of alternative media websites over the last few years. He is also a press officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office and the founder of Bite Club of KC, a grassroots animal rights activist group.

Miller and Damiano….

Frank Joseph Smecker: You founded Thomas Paine’s Corner in March of 2005 as an act of commitment to “ending the unnecessary suffering of oppressed and exploited sentient beings and to the total liberation of human animals, nonhuman animals, and the Earth.” Can you explain, in further depth, the content managed on the site and its relationship to the direct action that is needed to halt the dominant culture’s destructive behavior?

Jason Miller: Thomas Paine’s Corner (TPC) exists as a platform from which our editors, writers, and I can educate, promote, persuade, convince, criticize, and help evoke profound social change. TPC also helps amplify the press releases of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office by simulposting many of them. These anonymous communiqués from underground activists demonstrate TPC’s support for the “direct action that is needed to halt the dominant culture’s destructive behavior,” as the NAALPO press releases deliver the communiqués in a format that both informs the world of the action and explains why the activists did what they did.

I do tend to focus heavily on animal liberation issues with the pieces I publish on TPC, but our content includes a wide array of human and Earth liberation essays, polemics, articles, rants, critiques, and poems as well. As you noted in your question, my editors and I promote Steve Best’s concept of total liberation of human animals, nonhuman animals, and the Earth. You can get a much better idea of what this entails by visiting the Total Liberation section of TPC at http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/total-liberation/.

FJS: Evidently, you’re a proponent of animal liberation; can you explain why animals need liberation, what animal liberation entails and, its alliance to the total liberation of all sentient beings on the planet?

JM: This question goes to the heart of my unwavering dedication to the animal rights movement. Our species annihilates 50 billion nonhuman animals per annum—10 billion in the US alone…

FJS: That’s incredible…

JM: I know…

FJS: In a really horrific sense…

JM: I know. Nearly defenseless against humans, the most dangerous and destructive species ever to stalk the planet, nonhuman animals suffer egregious exploitation. Circuses, rodeos, vivisection labs, factory farms, zoos, puppy mills, public and private areas where hunting and fishing are permitted, and numerous other entities and places objectify living, sentient beings, using and abusing them as they see fit to derive profits and pleasure. It is morally abhorrent that our species subjugates, tortures, and wantonly massacres millions upon millions of individuals from other species day after day—and we could readily live without the benefits that we derive from these heinous acts or we could attain those benefits in other ways.

Animal liberation naturally aligns with other liberation movements because the exploitation and oppression of nonhuman animals occur to such a broad extent and because humans are able to perpetrate these reprehensible acts so readily—due to the defenselessness of the animals and because law, culture and society endorse, condone, and promote these abject cruelties. Slavery, exploitation, and oppression of humans trace their roots to the objectification and subjugation of nonhuman animals that began some 12,000 years ago when we started “domesticating” them. Many of the tools (i.e. shackles and branding) we used to enslave people are still in use today for enslaving “farm” animals. To learn far more about the undeniable parallels between human and nonhuman animal exploitation and enslavement, I highly recommend Marjorie Spiegel’s book entitled “The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery.”

If we are to break the chains of economic tyranny, patriarchy, racism, classism, imperialism, and other forms of human oppression, we need to get to the root of dominionism and liberate nonhuman animals—allowing them to live free of human-inflicted enslavement, torture, and death.

FJS: It’s been said that in order to exploit someone you must first silence them. This can be done by stripping one of their subjecthood and objectifying them as a resource to be used and managed. Can you talk about how science and industry objectify nonhuman animals and the rest of the animate world? And what are the implications of this?

JM: Science and industry don’t have to objectify nonhuman animals or nature. Our sociocultural indoctrination has already done that for the vivisectors, factory farmers, and their ilk. As a species, we have created layer upon layer of myths, falsehoods, delusions, and dogmas to convince ourselves of our superiority and separateness. Blinded by hubris and deluded by profound narcissism, we’ve convinced ourselves that we are little demigods, endowed with the right to plunder, exploit, consume, pollute, torture, and kill with virtual impunity.

FJS: Define speciesism.

JM: Speciesism is the deeply flawed belief that the human species is superior to all other species. Like racism, the more powerfully embedded such a belief is in society, the more immense the suffering of those individuals deemed “inferior.” The widespread prevalence of speciesism in our dominant culture gives morally stunted people a ‘license to torture and kill’ nonhuman animals.

FJS: So why protect animals? I mean, I know why, but many attempt to excuse speciesist behavior with this benighted question.

JM: Right. Why not protect animals? Or another question: Why protect Homo sapiens, a species of animal that’s destroying the planet? Rhetoricals of course…..

We need to protect nonhuman animals for several reasons:

1. They are sentient—they have central nervous systems and feel pain, just as we do. We have no right to enslave, torture, or slaughter them.

2. Many species of nonhuman animals are far more intelligent, emotionally developed, and socially complex than most people realize. They deserve the opportunity to live free of human-inflicted subjugation, suffering, or death.

3. Our species has triggered the Sixth Great Extinction and it is our responsibility to mitigate it to the extent we’re able.

4. Contrary to our delusions, we are not separate and distinct from nature. Despite the numerous artificial barriers we’ve created, there’s no escaping the fact that we’re part and parcel of the web of existence, or life if you will, on this planet. Each individual, each herd, each flock, and particularly each entire species that we annihilate or eradicate further disrupts the ecological balance that we’ve already adversely impacted in significant ways.

FJS: You’re vegan, is this correct?

JM: I am a vegan.

FJS: Why veganism?

JM: My reasoning is relatively simple. I do not objectify nonhuman animals. I view them as individuals and sentient beings with rich emotional, social and intellectual lives, each bearing the basic rights to exist free from human exploitation, subjugation, torture, and murder. Eating rotting animal flesh, which is what “meat” actually is, is as abhorrent to me as cannibalism would be to most of the “meat” eating world.

FJS: I have a great recipe for a tofu potpie; would you like me to share it with you?

JM: Sure. Veganism is an integral part of my spiritual beliefs, so I generally eat to live and could subsist on nearly anything that gave me the nutrients I need. BUT, I’m certainly not one to turn down an offer of good vegan food.

FJS: Alright, here we go:

- First, make your piecrust; pre-bake the bottom layer of the crust for 10 minutes on 450˚ F.
- Then, cube the tofu and fry it in olive oil until it gets nice and crispy. Add some nutritional yeast, flaky not powdered (and some garlic/onion powder for some flavor).
- Cut up one onion and sauté it. Add chopped celery and carrots and peas respectively. Add some tamari (optional), garlic, etc.
- Next you want to make the gravy. This gravy kicks ass, btw. What you need to do is toast ½ cup of nutritional yeast and ½ cup of flour in a skillet on medium high until you can smell it – but don’t let it burn! Add some olive oil until absorbs all of the flour/yeast and continue to toast. Slowly add water – a little at a time until you reach your desired consistency (keep heating to thicken, add water, etc.). Add tamari and a dash or two of hot sauce (I prefer Frank’s Red Hot Sauce) and other spices.
- Now, put the cubed and crispy tofu over the bottom of the crust. Next, add the layer of sautéed veggies then the gravy, allowing the gravy to settle over everything. Then add the crust-lid, i.e. the top crust.
- Last, bake the pie for 30 minutes at 350˚ F or until the top crust begins to brown.

JM: Thanks.

FJS: My pleasure – let me know how it comes out.

Sorry to jump tracks there; at any rate, where do you believe our desire to protect and defend the wild comes from?

Miller recently innovated “tactile activism” in a campaign he and hundreds of his allies waged against a deer “cull” in Death Park (fka Shawnee Mission Park).

JM: I think that answer would be different for each person. My desire to protect and defend the wild (and nonhuman animals in general) stems from my hair-trigger sensitivity to injustice, the empathy and compassion I developed through the course of my personal struggles, and from the realization that our species is inextricably connected with the rest of nature.

FJS: Personally, I support any movement working toward stopping the destruction of the planet, by any means necessary. Not only are you an advocate for direct-action needed to stop the injustices and cruelty perpetrated by those in power, but you propound and support militant direct-action. Can you explain why?

JM: Our species is waging a war on the Earth and nonhuman animals. We need to defend them by any means necessary. Whether an individual engages in militant direct action (MDA) or not, if a person is seriously dedicated to total liberation, they must at least support MDA and those who engage in it.

FJS: The U.S. has singled out the A.L.F. and E.L.F. as domestic terrorist groups. Why do you believe this is so? What is your response to this?

JM: The corporate state complex of the US has targeted underground militant direct action groups that fight for nonhuman animal and environmental justice as terrorists for two principal reasons. One is that their actions are effective. Secondly, groups like the A.L.F. represent an existential threat to the predominating cultural meme of dominionism and to the precious profits of the corporate state complex. So of course they label them as terrorists and attempt to neutralize them with state repression.

My response is that those exploiting the Earth and nonhuman animals are the true terrorists and groups like the A.L.F. and the E.L.F. are freedom fighters.

FJS: Can you talk about the comparative qualities and aspects between modern-day liberation movements and historic factions such as the abolitionists of the 18th and early 19th centuries, the freedom fighters, Nazi resistance groups, and other estimable groups who risked much to put an end to oppression and violent exploitation?

JM: Modern day liberation movements are fighting with the same sense of moral purpose and employing some of the same underground, militant tactics as Abolitionists and Nazi resistance groups. Sometimes force and violence are necessary to defend and free the innocent from powerful, malevolent people.

FJS: Why do you believe so many radicals, leftists, progressives et al. overlook the importance of Animal and Earth Liberation?

JM: Unfortunately, many radicals and leftists—people who would be nearly ideal allies for animal and Earth liberationists—are hardened humanists. Their anthropocentrism inflicts them with a human-centric myopia that prevents them from recognizing that defending nonhuman animals, the Earth and oppressed humans are struggles that we need to integrate. Many leftists take the position that we need to focus on human suffering and exploitation first and then focus our efforts on animal rights and environmental justice. Why pick and choose which sociopathic tendencies of our species we work to eradicate? We need to go after speciesism and dominionism as tenaciously as we do racism, classism, and patriarchy.

FJS: You’re a pretty radical thinker – which is great to be. Were you always so radically inclined? Or was there a specific catalyst for your change of perspective; was it a sudden epiphany? For me, the transition from being a “good little capitalist” to a radical writer and thinker, recognizing the atrocious imbalances intrinsic within the dominant culture’s power complex, was a painful experience. Was this the case for you?

JM: No, as in no I’ve not always been “radically inclined.” My indoctrination into our planet-murdering capitalist socioeconomic and cultural paradigm was pretty thorough. I spent my first 26 or so years on this planet as an allegiance pledging, money-driven, relatively narcissistic, speciesist, meat-eating, property-worshipping, anthropocentric, NFL obsessed “good citizen” of the American Empire. I didn’t flee to my position “far from the maddening crowd.” I walked at a very slow pace. My evolution to anarcho-veganism was gradual; there was no epiphany. It was painful though in that the catalyst was my self-inflicted descent into spiritual, emotional, social, and financial hell. Yet hitting rock bottom was the best thing that could’ve happened, as my intense soul-searching, tenacious struggle to pull myself back from the brink of self-annihilation, and loss of nearly everything and everyone in my life enabled me to shatter the shackles of the dominant culture. I reconstructed my worldview from scratch—and it bears little resemblance to that of my inculcation.

FJS: Are you ever castigated as an extremist?

JM: I’m often castigated as an extremist.

FJS: What’s your response to this?

JM: My response to this gross mischaracterization is that our planet and animal murdering system is extreme, as are its ardent proponents and its recalcitrant, unrepentant enablers and participants.

FJS: It’s so easy to get overwhelmed by today’s atrocities and I really like what Derrick Jensen has to say about this, which is: “We’re so fucked. But life is so good.” What makes you most happy? How do you remain grounded despite a surfeit of calamitous problems we face in these times?

JM: Following my conscience, fighting for my core beliefs, and being with nonhuman animals and with people who share my worldview are sources of great happiness for me. I stay grounded by knowing my purpose in life (which is defending nonhuman animals and the Earth as a polemicist, thinker, publisher, and activist) and fulfilling it.

FJS: Who have you been influenced by?

JM: My influences are far too numerous to name without writing a book. As an autodidact and one who is addicted to reading, many people have mentored me in the abstract—through the pages of their books, but I also have forged my eclectic and holistic worldview with the help of a number of excellent mentors, teachers, and allies. Dr. Steve Best, a leading theorist of the animal liberation movement whom I met several years ago, was my most recent mentor and remains a very close ally and confidante.

FJS: As a writer, I often wonder how significant of a role we (writers) all have in the struggle for emancipating the planet from the fetters of a dominating culture. Can you talk about the importance the role of the writer plays in influencing effective activism?

JM: I’m a bit biased on this topic because I’m a writer too. However, I also engage in on-the-ground activism, so that adds a bit of objectivity to my response. Emancipating the planet and its other sentient inhabitants is a revolutionary undertaking. Polemicists, propagandists, theorists, and philosophers, who are writers of course, have been essential participants in every major revolution and social movement in history. Thomas Paine catalyzed the American Revolution with his widely-read pamphlet, Common Sense. Without Marx, Lenin would’ve had no philosophy on which to base his praxis. William Lloyd Garrison was instrumental in both the Abolition and Women’s Suffrage Movements. There are myriad other examples.

FJS: What role do corporations play in the exploitation and destruction of the world and its inhabitants? What role does the state play in all of this?

JM: The corporate-state complex bears nearly all the responsibility for the exploitation and destruction of the world and its inhabitants. While it’s important for individuals to evolve towards anarchist, vegan, and anti-capitalist worldviews and ways of being, the system and its most unrepentant and malevolent overlords are our enemy. Most people have years of indoctrination to overcome in order to evolve, but many can change and join us. Nearly every individual is a potential ally. We need to work to educate and convert individuals while assailing the corporate-state complex, an entity which utilizes pernicious propaganda and hollow materialistic incentives to lure most people to act as accomplices in its profit-seeking, murderous agenda.

FJS: How does the notion of an industrial collapse impact your strategies regarding the defense of the wild?

JM: Actually, I hadn’t really considered industrial collapse as I’ve waged this prolonged and intense battle to protect the deer in Shawnee Mission Park (which is well-chronicled at Bite Club of KC http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/). My line of thinking is that as long as industrial civilization is extant in its present form, I want to do what I can to defend as much of the wild and as many nonhuman animals as I can from its metastatic toxicity.

FJS: What do you believe the future holds for dissidents and direct-activists confronting the corporatist-statist union?

JM: I suspect the future for dissidents and direct-activists will become increasingly challenging as we confront the corporatist-state complex. As the existing socioeconomic paradigm (unsustainable, unjust and unstable as it is) continues to wobble and deteriorate, governments will become increasingly repressive, even in so-called liberal democracies like the US and the UK. Applying tools like the Patriot Act, the AETA, the FBI, grand juries, and massive deployments of well-armed law enforcement personnel (i.e. at the G-20 in Pittsburgh), the corporate-state complex has put serious constraints on dissent. The Green Scare has paralyzed many activists with fear. Nevertheless, we need to persist.

Frank Joseph Smecker, TPC’s Editor of Radical Earth Defense, is a social-worker and writer from Vermont who has an ardent and committed passion to work in defense of everything wild. Mostly an autodidact, he is also currently in school matriculating toward a degree in psychology. He is an accomplished writer; his essays, interviews and articles, decrying the atrocities of industrial civilization and capitalism, have appeared in many publications. He is also a blog writer for the Vermont Commons Journal (for Independence from Empire).

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Love146 is an organization that is working to abolish child slavery and exploitation through prevention and aftercare.   They quote Martin Luther King Jr. as saying, “Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.”  Love is their motivation.

Lamont Hiebert, co-founder of Love146, speaks about Love146 and  the devastating facts of modern-day slavery and human trafficking around the world in this 10 minute video.  Please watch it.  It is heartbreaking, but it will open your eyes to the overwhelming injustice of slavery.  I hope, after hearing the story behind the name Love146, you will want to get involved in the fight for justice.

Please take some time to look through the Love146 website.  It is packed with information about child slavery, stories of slaves and abolitionists, videos, and ways you can get involved in bringing hope, love and restoration to children who have suffered so terribly in slavery.

To use an appropriate gambling analogy, Senate Majority Leader upped the ante today when he not only refused to apologize for equating opponents of “health care reform” with opponents of abolition, integration, and women’s suffrage — he actually stood by the remarks.

“At pivotal points in American history, the tactics of distortion and delay have certainly been present,” Reid said. “They’ve certainly been used to stop progress. That’s what we’re talking about here. That’s what’s happening here. It’s very clear. That’s the point I made — no more, no less. Anyone who willingly distorts my comments is only proving my point.”

There’s no distortion going on here. Reid explicitly equated Republicans with those who opposed abolition, integration, and women’s suffrage. Meanwhile, Republicans were the ones who abolished slavery, secured women’s suffrage, and favored integration. It was Reid’s own party in the south that seceded from the Union and caused the Civil War to preserve slavery. It was Reid’s party that prevented women’s suffrage from becoming a constitutional amendment when it was first introduced by a Republican in 1878. And it was Reid’s party that fought racial integration.

But more importantly, this tale is not over. It was Reid and Senate Democrats who elected West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman, the president pro tempore of the Senate. They placed a man known to have been a member of America’s most infamous white supremacist terrorist organization third in line to succeed America’s first black president. That’s not a distortion, Sen. Reid. That’s what we in the — oh, how should I put this? — reality-based community like to call a fact.

Well, don’t you know about the Byrd? Well, everybody knows that the Byrd is the word!

Chairman Steele wants Senate Democrats to strip Reid of his leadership position if he doesn’t apologize. Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Democratic Conference Secretary, has made it clear that they have no more intention of doing that than of stripping Robert Byrd of his leadership position for once belonging to a racist hate group. But if Senate Democrats won’t strip Reid of his leadership position, then Nevada voters — who oppose health care reform and therefore must be racists — can and should do it. They should elect Danny Tarkanian to the U.S. Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level” yesterday, according to Fox News. Reid compared Republican opponents of the monstrosity known as “health care reform” to abolition, racial integration, and women’s suffrage opponents:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ’slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ’slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

There are many angles from which to attack Reid’s outlandish remarks. Republicans could, for example, point out that Democrats have consistently gone ape every time abortion has been compared to the Holocaust or President Obama has been compared to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Now their Senate Majority Leader is turning around and comparing Republicans to those who opposed abolition, racial integration, and women’s suffrage.

Republicans could also point out that we were told the historic election of a black president meant that we were moving toward a post-racial America. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Democratic Party have increasingly exploited America’s racial divisions and sought to portray their political opponents as racists.

But I think the best way to approach this is to point out the obvious, as the Fox News reporters have and as Michelle Malkin (among others) has. The obvious is that Sen. Reid was right: There were those who opposed abolition, racial integration, and women’s suffrage. And they were Democrats. Yes, the best way to approach Sen. Reid’s idiocy is to give him — and the rest of the country — a refresher lesson in American history and the history of the Democratic Party.

Much more beneath the fold…

Let’s rewind to 1856 and the election of James Buchanan, the 15th President of the United States and the last Democrat to hold the office before the outbreak of the Civil War. Maybe Sen. Reid has forgotten that James Buchanan ardently defended the right to own human beings as slaves, and maybe he has forgotten how Democratic President James Buchanan responded to secession:

Following the election of 1860, seven deep South states left the Union, and Buchanan was presented with the final crisis of his administration. In his message to Congress in early December 1860, issued prior to secession, Buchanan showed his sympathy for the South by blaming the sectional crisis on the North’s interference with slavery. He urged northern states to repeal their laws which hampered the return of fugitive slaves. . . .

Once secession began, Buchanan sought to retain the loyalty of the upper South and to avoid a confrontation with the departed states until they found their way back to the Union. He hoped that Congress or the Peace Convention, which assembled in Washington in February 1861, would find a solution to the crisis. He also recommended that a constitutional convention be held to pass amendments protecting slavery in the territories and in slaveholding states. However, nothing came of these compromise efforts.

All emphasis is mine. To briefly recap: When southern states threatened to secede from the Union, Democratic President James Buchanan blamed the northern states for causing the sectional divides and urged those states to make it easier for fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters. It was Democratic President James Buchanan who proposed constitutional amendments to reaffirm the institution of slavery, not only in the southern states but in the territories. It was Democratic President James Buchanan whose sympathy for the south and relative inaction after secession led to the Civil War.

And who led the Union to victory against the secessionist south, while finally securing the abolition of slavery? Oh, that’s right, it was Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States and the first Republican president. Maybe Sen. Reid remembers him from his grade school history lessons.

Fast forward to 1870. The Massachusetts Republican State Convention seated two suffragettes as delegates that year. Two years later, the Republican National Convention expressed openness to women’s suffrage, and in 1878 Republican Sen. A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment, which would eventually extend suffrage to women. In 1892 women were seated as alternate delegates and a woman spoke before the Republican National Convention both for the first time. The first woman elected to Congress was Montana Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. The first woman appointed to the Supreme Court was Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Of course, we know that the 19th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1920. Why? Well, it might surprise Sen. Reid to learn that Democrats in the Senate that he now leads defeated the 19th Amendment not once, but four times. Despite being introduced in 1878, the 19th Amendment didn’t pass the Senate until some 41 years later when Republicans had regained complete control of Congress.

But maybe Democratic President Grover Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, said it best when he wrote in the April 1905 edition of Ladies’ Home Journal:

Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by man and woman in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence.

We could go on. We could discuss William Jennings Bryan, who is well known for starting the Democratic Party on its march toward socialism but who is lesser known for blocking the Democratic National Convention from adopting a resolution opposing the Ku Klux Klan in 1924. We could point out that the Democratic Party did nothing to reverse its historic opposition to liberty and justice for African Americans until Franklin D. Roosevelt realized they could be politically useful.

We could also point out that the man who tried to use the filibuster to block civil rights was Strom Thurmond, originally a Democrat. We could even point out that while the Democratic Party boasts about electing the first black president, it is quiet about placing a former Klansman — West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd — third in line for the presidency by electing him the president pro tempore of the Senate.

We could point out so much more, but we’ve already made our point. The point is that while Harry Reid may want to lump his political opponents in with the worst figures of American history, the truth is that it was his own party — the Democratic Party — that resisted abolition, resisted racial integration, and resisted women’s suffrage. But we shouldn’t be angry that the Senate Majority Leader has slandered us. We should thank Sen. Reid for giving us the opportunity to give the American people a history lesson on slavery, segregation, sexism, those in the Democratic Party who supported those evils, and those in the Republican Party who resisted them.

Cross-posted to RedState.

International Justice Mission is a Christian organization and, as stated on their website, “a human rights agency that secures justice for victims of slavery, sexual exploitation and other forms of violent oppression. IJM lawyers, investigators and aftercare professionals work with local governments to ensure victim rescue, to prosecute perpetrators and to strengthen the community and civic factors that promote functioning public justice systems.”

I believe so strongly in what they are doing to help bring justice and freedom to slaves that I wanted to introduce you to them!  Please check out their website to find out more about them and how you can get involved in their mission to seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow (Isaiah 1:17).

“But why don’t you just eat free-range?” This may be one of the most frequently asked questions I get asked by people, almost on a daily basis, upon learning that I am a vegan. The following is a quick and simple guide to why “free-range”, “organic” or “humane” animal products are not an ethical alternative to their factor farmed counterparts and why supporting animal welfare reforms is not in the best interest of the animals.

First, animal welfare reforms and “humane” animal products provide little to no significant protection to the interests of animals.

The labels under which animal products may be sold are often misinterpreted and/or misunderstood as to what they truly stand for.

For example, Free-Range chickens and turkeys must have access to the outdoors, but no other criteria, such as the density of birds in the area, the frequency, the duration of how much outdoor access or the quality of the land that is accessible is provided or defined. Surgical mutilations, like dehorning, castration, and debeaking, without any pain relief is permitted. To receive approval for this label, producers must submit affidavits to the United States Department of Agriculture.

Certified Organic animal products simply means that the animals must be allowed outdoor access, and cows, sheep and goats must be given access to pasture, although the amount, duration and quality of outdoor access is undefined, and there is no way to tell that the animal actually was able to get outside at all. Animals must be provided with bedding materials and while the use of hormones and antibiotics is prohibited, surgical mutilations like castration, dehorning, and debeaking without any pain relief are allowed. These are the requirements under the National Organic Program regulations, and compliance is verified through third-party auditing. Currently, there are no federal or state programs to certify aquatic animals, including fish, as organic.

If an animal product is labeled Certified Humane, the animals must be kept in conditions that allow for exercise and freedom of movement, which prohibits crates, cages and tethers. Although outdoor access is not required for birds or pigs, it is required for other species. All animals must be provided with bedding materials. Hormone and non-therapeutic antibiotic use is prohibited, but surgical mutilations, like dehorning, castration, and debeaking, without any pain relief are permitted. Certified Humane is a program of Humane Farm Animal Care and compliance is verified through third-party auditing.

For eggs to be labeled Cage-Free, they must not be caged, which usually results in overcrowded warehouses with virtually no difference in treatment between them and battery-caged hens. Unlike birds raised for eggs, those raised for meat are rarely caged before being transported, so this label on chicken meat products has no relevance to how they are treated.

Grass-Fed Ruminant animals are fed a diet soley of grass and forage, with the exception of milk before they are weaned. These animals have access to the outdoors and are able to engage in some natural behaviors, such as grazing. Surgical mutilations, like dehorning, castration, and debeaking, without any pain relief are permitted. Companies must submit affidavits to the United States Department of Agriculture that support there claims in order to receive approval to put this label on their products.

Natural and Naturally Raised labels are not relevant to animal treatment.

Male chicks from free-range egg farms are still killed after being hatched because, not being able to lay eggs, they are of no use to the industry. The same goes for organic dairy farms; male calves do not produce milk and would cost the companies money to keep them alive, so they are sold and slaughtered for veal.

Essentially, “humane” slaughter is still slaughter, and “kind” slavery is still slavery.

Second, animal welfare reforms and the consumption of “humane” animal products do nothing to abolish the property status of animals.

If animals have any rights, it is the right not to be the property of someone else. This is because beings who are property, slaves, have no real rights. Any rights they do receive is consequential and the reforms are only implemented because it benefits someone else, almost always the owner. When a being is the property of someone else, this reduces them to being nothing other than an object or commodity; a something and not a someone.

Essentially, the problem is not the treatment of the animals, but the fact they are being used in the first place. As long as they are being used as means to human ends, they are viewed as commodities, as property.

If anything, animal welfare reforms just further perpetuates the property status of animals, and as long as animals are considered pieces of property, the interests of the owner will always override the interests of the property.

Third, animal welfare reforms and “humane” animal products make people feel better about animal use.

Someone may abstain from eating or using an animal product if they knew that the animal suffered to make it, but after an animal welfare reform has been implemented and given the thumbs up by organizations like The Humane Society of the United States or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, they may go back to eating or using that product.

Making the public feel better about animal exploitation does nothing to help animals.

Fourth, animal welfare reforms may actually increase animal suffering.

If there are 10 animals being exploited and 10 units of suffering are being imposed on each, this is a total of 100 units of suffering. An animal welfare reform is implemented and decreases the suffering of each animal by 1 unit, but now that people feel better about using this “humane” product, the number of animals exploited increases to 12, resulting in 108 units of suffering. The overall suffering increases.

Fifth, even if animal welfare reforms and “humane” animal products were not deeply problematic on an ethical level, from a practical standpoint, the concept is deeply flawed.

If everyone wanted to keep eating the same amount of animal products that they do but only “humane” there would not be enough room to farm the amount of animals needed to keep up with the demand. The whole reason factory farms came around was for the growing demand of animal products and the little space there was to farm them. “Free-range” and “humane” animal products simply cannot sustain themselves on a large-scale.

Some may argue that the whole world will never go vegan and that we should focus on reducing the suffering of farm animals while they are here.

By promoting something other than veganism, like bigger cages for egg laying hens and more humane slaughter for cows, we are sending the message that anything less than veganism is morally consistent with animal rights.

Animal welfare leads to the public feeling better about animal use, which leads to the continued use of animals. By promoting animal welfare on the grounds that “humans will always exploit animals” is just adding to a constant cycle of more welfare reforms and more animal exploitation.

If we want to make progress for animals, we must strike at the roots of the problem, not just alleviate the symptoms.

Going vegan and promoting veganism is the only way to do this.