Ringling Brothers Circus "dresses up" the elephants in ornate material that cloaks their shoulders to hide the scars and wounds from their workers and trainers stabbing and pulling the elephants with bull hooks that hurt them and tear into their flesh. This circus promotes an image of affection toward its owned animals but that is only in front of the money-spending public. If you'd like to know the reality stay outside the circus until after all the crowds have left. You'll hear the screams of the elephants being beaten.
Most European nations have outlawed the use of captive animals in circuses. It's far past time for America to do the same. A new sensibility about cruelty to animals has been evolving in our society for some time. More immoral than outright abuse is the disguised abuse that this circus has practiced throughout its history. This wealthy corporation is so afraid of being "found out" that it sent infiltrators into animal groups to learn their plans.
I was disappointed to learn that AAA of Southern New England is promoting Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Please let AAA become one of the enlightened associations that wakes up and stands against abuse and torture of these intelligent, family oriented, and deeply emotional "animals" with whom we share this planet.
Recent video footage documents Ringling employees as they struck elephants who are forced to perform confusing and physically demanding tricks for a moment of "entertainment." These highly intelligent animals spend the majority of their lives in chains or tiny cages and are denied the fulfillment of every basic instinct.
Please. I know you went into this with good intentions. But please, please see the reality and stop supporting Ringling Brothers. Thank you.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Massachusetts approves unlimited bobcat hunting
Email to officials: Allowing unlimited bobcat hunting is archaic, atavistic and inhumane. Humanity is now in a transition moving beyond the idea of wholesale massacres of "animals" who share the planet with us. American consultants travel the underdeveloped world to try to persuade local peoples not to conduct wholesale massacres of local animals. In addition to the indisputable network-of-life argument used by environmentalists we try to persuade these peoples that they are blocking the way to potentially lucrative tourism. Why should Massachusetts, generally thought to be a state of more enlightened ideals, set such an example of animal massacre, not only for our young people but for the rest of the country and the world? Please reconsider. Thank you.
Department of Agriculture asks for comments
The Department wants to review what conditions should be used for designation of the label "natural." My email:
Any society or nation is judged ultimately on the treatment of its lowest-ranking creatures. Just because certain beings are labeled as "food animals" --- not through any moral or philosophical truth but because of custom and commerce -- does not mean there are no limits on cruelty and deprivation. Please reconsider the guidelines of treatment for livestock and poultry. Apart from moral considerations there is also the still unknown degree of risk to humans associated with eating mal-treated, tortured, diseased and injured "food animals." Thank you for considering the possibility of changing outdated and inhumane thinking.
Any society or nation is judged ultimately on the treatment of its lowest-ranking creatures. Just because certain beings are labeled as "food animals" --- not through any moral or philosophical truth but because of custom and commerce -- does not mean there are no limits on cruelty and deprivation. Please reconsider the guidelines of treatment for livestock and poultry. Apart from moral considerations there is also the still unknown degree of risk to humans associated with eating mal-treated, tortured, diseased and injured "food animals." Thank you for considering the possibility of changing outdated and inhumane thinking.
Friday, October 16, 2009
For Obama re wolf massacre
President Barack Obama October 16 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C 20500
Dear President Obama,
In many parts of the world our power as a nation is connected to a perception of us as killers, a perception that some of our policies re-enforce. When does the time come to step up the essential morality in stead of the high-flown language?
Have you thought about what it actually means that we conduct and encourage wholesale massacre of the “animals” that live on our American lands? First, consider the other man-decided deaths. Conducting war with its unthinkable killing is an activity that humanity in its most enlightened thinking has moved beyond. The question is in the air: Why stay in that primitive past?
Almost more horrible is the ongoing decision to kill those who have no voice: the “animals” who are our co-inhabitants in America and on the earth. American representatives work in many parts of the world to encourage local peoples to stop killing local “animals” because such short-sightedness blocks their opportunity for tourism, one of the most effective forms of infusing money into their economies.
We, including you -- President Obama -- speak continually of our high ideals and our humanity. How can you reconcile these ideals with allowing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to sit motionless during the murders of an entire wolf pack in one of our revered places, Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies? What was the wolves’ undoing? They ate a sheep. What is the cost of a sheep compared to killing an entire pack which had become known throughout our country and the world? One of the pack’s mothers was radio-collared. The wolf cubs have been left to die.
The transition time of humanity’s life on the planet is not arriving or coming in a distant future. It is here. Will we live in the transition or cement our feet into the unknowing past? How do we measure the interests of emperor-rich ranchers with those of our disastrously dwindling fellow creatures? According to a god or to mysteries the planet exists as a living organism with its own life, necessities and essential patterns. Wiser ones talk about the tipping point for the planet and therefore for humanity. Why would we think the killing of fellow “animal” inhabitants does not figure into the question?
In as much as we must eventually use means other than killing to figure out how to exist with our fellow human beings, why would it not be the same thinking for “animals”? Why is all land on the globe owned by humans or human-sourced entities?
Does anyone think the planet can exist denuded of “animals” except for those imprisoned in zoos and laboratories for our entertainment and experimentation?
Is it the destiny of humanity to kill all life because the human mind can not do other than consider “animals” as a momentary or permanent obstacle to human power and aspiration?
Please.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C 20500
Dear President Obama,
In many parts of the world our power as a nation is connected to a perception of us as killers, a perception that some of our policies re-enforce. When does the time come to step up the essential morality in stead of the high-flown language?
Have you thought about what it actually means that we conduct and encourage wholesale massacre of the “animals” that live on our American lands? First, consider the other man-decided deaths. Conducting war with its unthinkable killing is an activity that humanity in its most enlightened thinking has moved beyond. The question is in the air: Why stay in that primitive past?
Almost more horrible is the ongoing decision to kill those who have no voice: the “animals” who are our co-inhabitants in America and on the earth. American representatives work in many parts of the world to encourage local peoples to stop killing local “animals” because such short-sightedness blocks their opportunity for tourism, one of the most effective forms of infusing money into their economies.
We, including you -- President Obama -- speak continually of our high ideals and our humanity. How can you reconcile these ideals with allowing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to sit motionless during the murders of an entire wolf pack in one of our revered places, Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies? What was the wolves’ undoing? They ate a sheep. What is the cost of a sheep compared to killing an entire pack which had become known throughout our country and the world? One of the pack’s mothers was radio-collared. The wolf cubs have been left to die.
The transition time of humanity’s life on the planet is not arriving or coming in a distant future. It is here. Will we live in the transition or cement our feet into the unknowing past? How do we measure the interests of emperor-rich ranchers with those of our disastrously dwindling fellow creatures? According to a god or to mysteries the planet exists as a living organism with its own life, necessities and essential patterns. Wiser ones talk about the tipping point for the planet and therefore for humanity. Why would we think the killing of fellow “animal” inhabitants does not figure into the question?
In as much as we must eventually use means other than killing to figure out how to exist with our fellow human beings, why would it not be the same thinking for “animals”? Why is all land on the globe owned by humans or human-sourced entities?
Does anyone think the planet can exist denuded of “animals” except for those imprisoned in zoos and laboratories for our entertainment and experimentation?
Is it the destiny of humanity to kill all life because the human mind can not do other than consider “animals” as a momentary or permanent obstacle to human power and aspiration?
Please.
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Nobel for President Obama
For the New York Times comment column: "The Nobel Committee showed uncommon thoughtfulness in this entirely appropriate award. President Obama has displayed a consistent vision for change in the U.S. and in the world, a vision for a more enlightened civilization. The proof of that vision -- unfortunately -- lies in the rabid opposition expressed by the right wing, corporate and otherwise. He is an embattled president. In encouraging and supporting him the Nobel group has aligned strongly with ideals for a kinder and wiser future for all of humanity."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Letter to Eddie Bauer: Dear Eddie Bauer -- I have warm feelings and considerable respect for your brand and was interested to read about its history. The announcement said:
"Eddie Bauer launches its Heritage Collection in a tribute to Eddie's passion for the outdoors and the sportsman tradition." More advanced clothing and accessories are introduced to make the outdoorsmen -- including "hunters" -- comfortable and safe.
While I can understand why the company categorizes the "hunter" consumer with those who climb mountains, hike and pursue similar activities, I am asking you to think anew about the place humanity now occupies in evolutionary time -- in regard to "hunting." Our relationship to nature is in the process of transition from the idea of "conquering, eliminating, exploiting, and killing" to one of conservation and care. "Hunting" already has evolved far beyond its role in human history. Only in a few tribal areas is it necessary for survival. Consider the scene of a relatively affluent human outfitting himself/herself with technically superior clothing, luxury tents, and war-derived weapons, infra-red, radar and other such equipment. The human transports himself in supreme comfort to a remote area where he establishes himself in the same luxury he enjoys in his condo or house. With his perfect clothing and deadly equipment he goes out to "hunt" mammals, often baiting them with food. This is not "hunting." This is technological conscious killing for -- what reason?
The illusion that he aligns with his ancestor? Even an ancestor of 100 years ago would be astounded and would question why he considers this bravery.
He must kill or his family will starve? Only in a few tribal areas. The man who buys equipment from companies like Eddie Bauer consumes 99.999999 per cent of his animal flesh from plastic-wrapped supermarket trays.
It makes you feel more like a man to kill something walking in the woods or approaching carefully scented bait food? This atavistic idea is analogous to killing as a blood lust sensation practiced in the Coliseum. One difference from the Coliseum: this killing is practiced in secret -- no one observes you in the woods except those you intend to kill. No public knows about it except through your own personally controlled stories.
What am I asking Eddie Bauer to do? During the planetary transition to care and conservation -- which has to happen for survival -- could you at least put up some signs that discuss "hunting" in an expanded more dimensional light? Open up a discussion on your web site? Print some pamphlets to promote photographic hunting instead of killing?
Thank you -- China Altman
"Eddie Bauer launches its Heritage Collection in a tribute to Eddie's passion for the outdoors and the sportsman tradition." More advanced clothing and accessories are introduced to make the outdoorsmen -- including "hunters" -- comfortable and safe.
While I can understand why the company categorizes the "hunter" consumer with those who climb mountains, hike and pursue similar activities, I am asking you to think anew about the place humanity now occupies in evolutionary time -- in regard to "hunting." Our relationship to nature is in the process of transition from the idea of "conquering, eliminating, exploiting, and killing" to one of conservation and care. "Hunting" already has evolved far beyond its role in human history. Only in a few tribal areas is it necessary for survival. Consider the scene of a relatively affluent human outfitting himself/herself with technically superior clothing, luxury tents, and war-derived weapons, infra-red, radar and other such equipment. The human transports himself in supreme comfort to a remote area where he establishes himself in the same luxury he enjoys in his condo or house. With his perfect clothing and deadly equipment he goes out to "hunt" mammals, often baiting them with food. This is not "hunting." This is technological conscious killing for -- what reason?
The illusion that he aligns with his ancestor? Even an ancestor of 100 years ago would be astounded and would question why he considers this bravery.
He must kill or his family will starve? Only in a few tribal areas. The man who buys equipment from companies like Eddie Bauer consumes 99.999999 per cent of his animal flesh from plastic-wrapped supermarket trays.
It makes you feel more like a man to kill something walking in the woods or approaching carefully scented bait food? This atavistic idea is analogous to killing as a blood lust sensation practiced in the Coliseum. One difference from the Coliseum: this killing is practiced in secret -- no one observes you in the woods except those you intend to kill. No public knows about it except through your own personally controlled stories.
What am I asking Eddie Bauer to do? During the planetary transition to care and conservation -- which has to happen for survival -- could you at least put up some signs that discuss "hunting" in an expanded more dimensional light? Open up a discussion on your web site? Print some pamphlets to promote photographic hunting instead of killing?
Thank you -- China Altman
Monday, August 31, 2009
Cheney: I can lie for war. You cannot investigate abuse.
In recent news Cheney agressively attacked the Obama administration’s decision to investigate the abuse of prisoners held by the C.I.A. He said the investigation should not happen because it was intensely partisan and politicized.
-0-
Ahem, Mr Cheney when you and your autocratic government decided to lie in order to bring about a fraudulent war of destruction in Iraq, you appear convinced that these partisan and politicized actions were correct since they were directed by you and your cronies. As co-president it was okay for you to politize an invasion/mass destruction. On the other hand looking into illegal and horrible abuse of prisoners during the fraudulent war is, according to you, "bad" politicizing by the new legally elected government.
From his actions we see Cheney is having an extremely hard time giving up his position as the most powerful vice president in American history. He evidently was a co-president or a puppet master. The degree to which he behaves as if he were still in charge can be correlated by the degree to which he thinks he can still cloak his official actions. He illustrates the imperialism he practiced: How can you lesser ones look at what "I" -- mighty and righteous -- did? Does he want to keep his actions covered to keep his mind's view of his power intact? Can it be he knows his fellow citizens will not look favorably upon his secret practices? Can it be a crisis of his "conscience?" Is he trying to come to terms with mortality? Hard to imagine that, especially since this supremely pragmatic power-obsessed man has now amassed one of the great towering fortunes through the part played by his Haliburton Company in the war he contrived and the adjunct financial deals like Guantanamo, awarded outright -- with no bidding -- to Haliburton.
Can it be that Cheney keeps trying to control the "facts" because he fears conviction and time behind bars? Probably not. Due to the nature of our politics the too-bad thing is that his constant whinging, scolding and threatening will keep him safe just as his vast ill-begotten fortune will keep his descendants safe for hundreds of years. Meanwhile in America soldier graves increase. Growing steadily in number are other parts of his political legacy: desperately injured solders, the homeless and the abandoned poor. Iraqi people struggle with the destruction of their country and the massacre of their people, the thousands of injured survivors, the kind of horrors that can be healed -- if ever -- by time measured in centuries.
-0-
Ahem, Mr Cheney when you and your autocratic government decided to lie in order to bring about a fraudulent war of destruction in Iraq, you appear convinced that these partisan and politicized actions were correct since they were directed by you and your cronies. As co-president it was okay for you to politize an invasion/mass destruction. On the other hand looking into illegal and horrible abuse of prisoners during the fraudulent war is, according to you, "bad" politicizing by the new legally elected government.
From his actions we see Cheney is having an extremely hard time giving up his position as the most powerful vice president in American history. He evidently was a co-president or a puppet master. The degree to which he behaves as if he were still in charge can be correlated by the degree to which he thinks he can still cloak his official actions. He illustrates the imperialism he practiced: How can you lesser ones look at what "I" -- mighty and righteous -- did? Does he want to keep his actions covered to keep his mind's view of his power intact? Can it be he knows his fellow citizens will not look favorably upon his secret practices? Can it be a crisis of his "conscience?" Is he trying to come to terms with mortality? Hard to imagine that, especially since this supremely pragmatic power-obsessed man has now amassed one of the great towering fortunes through the part played by his Haliburton Company in the war he contrived and the adjunct financial deals like Guantanamo, awarded outright -- with no bidding -- to Haliburton.
Can it be that Cheney keeps trying to control the "facts" because he fears conviction and time behind bars? Probably not. Due to the nature of our politics the too-bad thing is that his constant whinging, scolding and threatening will keep him safe just as his vast ill-begotten fortune will keep his descendants safe for hundreds of years. Meanwhile in America soldier graves increase. Growing steadily in number are other parts of his political legacy: desperately injured solders, the homeless and the abandoned poor. Iraqi people struggle with the destruction of their country and the massacre of their people, the thousands of injured survivors, the kind of horrors that can be healed -- if ever -- by time measured in centuries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)