I recently sat down with three associates of Animal Rights Zone — Carolyn Bailey, Tim Gier, and Ronnie Lee — to discuss my new book, The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century, and the concept of total liberation generally. You can listen to the interview here. With my new book now out, I will be doing more interviews about it and will post here.
Yesterday, October 31, 2014, I went yet again to face Marino in a New Mexico court and, yet again, she failed to show. The difference is that this time, she is out of chances and luck. The judge immediately instated the bench warrant for her arrest.
All Marino can do now is to continue to lie, to continue to spread her shabby narrative of being a victim of my “bullying” and persecution, continue to try to paint me as an “animal traitor,” and to exploit the situation to represent herself as a martyr and “political prisoner,” when in fact she is nothing but a sick and dangerous person who belongs behind bars of one kind or another.
Indeed, instead of allowing authorities to pick her up next week, this drama queen first told the world that she was going to turn herself in and go on a hunger strike until her “First Amendment rights” are restored. She will starve to death by then, because she is facing 6 months in jail for relentless harassment, slander, and stalking actions against me for over 2 years now. She will sit in a Florida jail, then be extradited to New Mexico, where she will face the final and ultimate consequences of her major campaign over the last two years – to “destroy” me.
After her weepy, tear-jerking goodbye to her dogs today, Marino then claimed that she actually tried to turn herself in and that Florida authorities refused to arrest her and honor a federal warrant for arrest. First, the warrant will not even be in the system until a few days from now, and second, I checked with the station she allegedly tried to turn herself into, and they said she never came in.
In classic psychopath style, Marino then said that this gives University of Florida the opportunity to work with me to actually arrest her. This is a typical Marino stunt, and blatant attempt to further slander me by claiming that, when she is arrested soon–and she will be–somehow I conspired with vivisectors to have her arrested. This is a lie; I never have, and never will, conspire with vivisectors, even to have the likes of Marino arrested!
This is not a “squabble” amongst two people in the animal liberation movement, this has been me suffering an intense war waged against every aspect of my personal and professional life. This is not a “he said/she said” matter; this is a case I have won, step by step for over two years, in the New Mexico courts, decided by numerous judges, in battles with her defense attorneys, and determined by overwhelming evidence against Marino.
She continues to call me an “animal traitor,” but she has betrayed me, her gullible followers, the animal liberation movement, and countless animals with her stupid statements and tactics and treacherous actions against me and numerous other activists.
It gives me no pleasure for Marino to be returned to jail, but she has brought this on herself and could have prevented this at any time. All I ever sought was peace from Marino’s violence against me, and to be left alone. But her hate and obsession with me were far too strong, and provoked her to lash out against me in increasingly damaging and threatening ways.
She forced me first to get a temporary restraining order against her, but that didn’t stop her, and her actions only escalated. She then forced me to get a 14-year restraining order against her, but that didn’t stop her, and her actions only escalated further. She then forced me to hire lawyers and enforce my restraining order, but that didn’t stop her. And on October 31, 2014, yet another judge determined conclusively that Marino is guilty of aggravated stalking and harassment against me, and issued a warrant for her arrest.
For over two years, Marino has drained me psychologically and financially. She has brought this on herself. Camille Marino made my life unlivable and no one has the “right” to do that to another person. She is an abuser, no different from the vivisectors she so lamely fights, she is nothing but a violent victimizer. And as long as she continues to attack me, I will fight back with every resource I have, and the penalties against her will become increasingly serious. Despite her insanity and obsession, she needs to walk her talk and “stay focused on the animals,” rather than harassing me and other activists in the animal rights movement.
She will be arrested some time next week. She will first be detained in a Florida county jail, and then driven by van to a New Mexico county jail, stopping along the way to collect other criminals to join her for the long ride. Upon arriving in New Mexico, she will remain in jail until the next hearing sometime in late November.
Marino’s destiny is to spend the rest of her life behind bars, if not those of a prison, those of a psychiatric institution.
But no doubt more intense hate, slander, and harassment against me is still to come, she has even vowed not to be “silenced” from behind her prison bars. I just hope that everyone sees this for what it is, and that the rest of Marino’s ever-dwindling number of supporters see the light and sever their ties from this train wreck grinding through the animal liberation movement.
To support me through this prolonged struggle against a self-proclaimed sociopath, please see and donate to the Support Dr. Best website. As a movement veteran fending off a nutcase neophyte, your support and solidarity are much appreciated and help keep me speaking and writing on behalf of total liberation.
“Damaged people with nothing left to lose are your worst nightmare.” Camille Marino, Facebook, June 20, 2014
“Harassment is knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.” New Mexico. Stat. Ann. § 30-3A-2
Friends, Colleagues, and Supporters:
Some of you know already that for the last two years I have been in a personal, political, and now legal battle (more accurately referred to as a one-sided war of her against me) with my former friend, Camille Marino (see my recent interview about this conflict here).
This conflict began in July 2012, months after Marino sent a Michigan vivisector death threats in her own name and subsequently tried to pin the blame on me. As she boasted on her blog about her October 23, 2011 letter to a Wayne State University vivisector (Donal O’Leary), “I just finished sending off an email to this motherfucker [Donal O’Leary], wishing him a slow and painful death.” But privately, she phoned me and confessed, “Steve, I think I just did something really stupid.”
The operative word in both cases here is “I,” not “we.” The vivisector and police charged Marino in this matter, and the State of Michigan put Marino in a county jail for six months as a consequence. Since I did not send O’Leary any threats, whereas Marino has a long history of issuing threats to vivisectors from coast to coast, I was never even questioned regarding this matter. Nonetheless, throughout Marino’s trial, Marino and her attorney tried to shift the blame to me as the responsible party (despite her claiming she “took the fall” for me!).
This strategy failed in a huge way. On July 13 2012, a Michigan judge found Marino, and Marino alone, responsible for issuing death threats, harassment, aggravated stalking, and violating a restraining order against her. The judge further found that Marino’s speech and actions were not protected by the First Amendment (see State of Michigan, Plaintiff, vs. Camille Marino, Defendant, case no. 12-58800).
In early August, 2012, Marino called me, over a recorded prison phone system, and demanded that I appear as a witness for her in a Detroit courtroom. I declined to do so for various important reasons, not the least of which was refusing to be betrayed and set up by a coward running from the consequences of her actions. Yet to this day she blames me for events for which she and she alone is responsible.
Her bad faith blaming and hateful anger toward me became increasingly obsessive, abusive, hostile, and downright threatening in the most menacing ways, such as evoking my death in “puddles of blood,” such that that she can “taste [my] blood … and tears” and it “turns me on so fucking much” (Marino’s emails to me, August-October 2012). For the last two years, she has attacked every aspect of my professional and personal life. Although I tried to ignore her, the problem only escalated over time. (For a frightening true story of how a obsessed stalker — in this case, eerily like Marino — can uproot one’s life, see this 20/20 episode, parts one and two).
I provided documentation to the State of New Mexico of her threats and harassment, and I received a 14-year restraining order against her to leave me alone. Restraining orders are not given lightly and are reviewed by judges. Marino’s threats were so extreme that, in October 2012, the New Mexico court granted the maximum term available – 14 years protection against harassment and stalking.
In the following two years, Marino tried to avoid the black-letter of the restraining order by stalking, harassing, and slandering me in the most reprehensible ways but over the Internet. The order explicitly prohibits direct contact with me (such as phone calls or emails), but it also prohibits “abuse and threats of abuse” among other things. Some of the abuse I’ve suffered from her include her publishing pictures she took of me when I was in a depressed stage of life, pictures taken and distributed solely to humiliate and harm me. In two separate instances, I received detailed and chilling threats promising death and torture to me, my loved ones, and my cats. Marino’s innumerable offenses against me would take a massive book to describe (see my video interview about Marino’s stalking and harassment here).
Again, throughout this blitzkrieg of stalking and harassment, I resolved to remain silent and hoped that my silence would not fan the flames of her mental illness. Surely, I thought, Marino eventually would move on to other things, but she hasn’t. For example, Marino tried to get my recent talk about animal rights at the July 2014 AR2014 conference in LA canceled, and, after it was apparent that it would not be cancelled, she did everything she could to sabotage my appearance there (as she has done since 2012 at so many of my speaking events throughout the world).
Subsequently, I felt forced to hire a New Mexico attorney to help me get Marino out of my life by enforcing the restraining order against Marino and documenting her blatant violations of it and her systematic campaign of harassment and stalking against me.
On Sept. 16 2014, the Doña Ana County New Mexico court agreed that Marino was continuing illegal harassment and ordered her to stop (see the court order here). All the evidence brought to court was so severe that the court sentenced her to 179 days in jail, of which she would serve only 21 days if she removed everything from the Internet that she posted about me. She has been ordered to appear before the New Mexico court on October 31, 2014.
As part of her pathology, Marino is now claiming that I and the state of New Mexico are violating her free speech rights, which Marino interprets as being freedom to say false and hateful things about me, trying to get my professional talks canceled, threatening to “destroy” and “dispose” of me, contacting my university colleagues and administrators, etc., ad nauseum.
There were two recent cases of stalking, in California and New Jersey, where courts explicitly told the stalkers that the Internet is not a refuge to bully people. New Mexico is now implicitly saying the same thing: free speech is great, but bullying and harassment is still illegal. Despite her grandiose self-representations, she is not a “political prisoner”: there is nothing courageous, noble, or even “political” in the modus operandi of sending death threats to vivisectors and going to jail for reckless and senseless actions against vivisectors and former friends alike.
One can instructively compare her lies about her stalking and harassment with the text of the September 2014 court order and stern judgment against her.
Marino is now again begging for people to send her thousands of dollars more ($20, 000 to be exact!) so she can pay legal fees that would, she hopes, allow her to keep slandering, stalking, and harassing me, while seriously impeding the cause of animal liberation. She has begged for legal defense funds many times before over the last two years, receiving an ample amount of money and earning the ire of activists throughout the world who accused her of mishandling their donations and came to seriously rethink their opinion of Marino and the effectiveness of her campaigns.
Marino’s insistence to appeal the September 2014 decision against her, and to take her loss back to court for an indefinite period to come, means that I must also pay legal fees for an indefinite time to come, which is extremely difficult for me to afford. I have already spent many thousands of dollars to protect myself from her, and I just put the title to my car up as a lien for my attorney to be assured of more payments.
The tragedy of Marino’s vengeance is the public spectacle that she created (all for vivisectors and other exploiters to relish and mass circulate!), her lies and self-aggrandizement to gather a following, and her soliciting her following to pay her legal fees for no good purpose but to waste money much better spent on credible campaigns and organizations.
I lament that I am asking for donations too. I don’t have adequate funds to pay my attorney to defend my case, now that Marino has appealed the September 16th ruling against her. I would not ask you to help except that I don’t have a choice but to ask; Marino has drained me of many thousands of dollars and I need quite a few more to prevail against her throughout the appeal process. You can donate funds here.
I will be transparent with funds received and how they’re spent. If I receive more than I need to pay legal fees and costs, I’ll refund the surplus to anyone who asks for it in their donation. Please see this site for more information and to make donations.
Any help is much appreciated. Thank you sincerely,
Dr. Steve Best
UPDATED JULY 19, 2014
Ann Parkes is a good friend of mine, a veteran animal rights activist, a brilliant and dignified woman, and yet another victim of neoliberalism, class oppression, and state repression. Below and in her own recorded video statement, is a shocking story of capitalist war against the disadvantaged and the subsequent campaign of harassment, threats, and intimidation the UK Social Services, police, and State unleashed against Ann Parkes for daring to challenge their deplorable treatment of those in need and those who dare to speak against the agents of repression. Ann Parkes is a brave and noble woman fighting a courageous battle on behalf of her sick husband (Alfred Parkes), her embattled family, and her own right to dissent. This is her story.
Statement on Behalf of Ann Parkes:
As a global community of Human Rights Advocates, we are beginning to question the legitimacy of Social Services, particularly at Solihull Council. The travesty of justice through their derelict duty of care towards the Parkes Family of Solihull is incomprehensible, aside from reprehensible.
Mr. Ian James, Director of Social Services, accompanied by Fiona McGill, systematically ignored emails pertaining to a disgrace that occurred at Jubilee Gardens whilst Mr. Alfred Parkes was in their care.
This has been an ongoing but preventable saga since January 2013. Social Services is simply a service to the people they represent. In the case of the Solihull department, their intention has not been one of care, compassion and integrity, rather the opposite. Antagonistic, bullying, abuse of power towards a citizen and absolute derelict duty of care. Collectively James and McGill not only refused to investigate blatant impropriety regarding the staff but denied knowledge of the fact. Emails in our possession suggest a cover up connected to flagrant lies.
Mrs. Parkes aside from experiencing the police arriving at her home, requested specifically by Fiona McGill in an attempt to prevent her posting this sorry saga on social media, has been forced to endure despicable disregard by those who are paid to serve the people. This disgraceful abuse of power prompted Mrs. Parkes to follow up visiting the police station herself, only to discover there was no record or log regarding the two officers involved, which leads us to believe it was a favor owed or bestowed. Attempting to personally speak with James and McGill at Solihull Council, in an endeavor to resolve these issues, she was promptly asked to leave by security. Is the UK becoming a “police” state of oppressors? Many people are watching this story from around the globe, in disbelief and horror.
To support Ann, please send letters to:
firstname.lastname@example.org (Shadow Health Secretary); email@example.com (Jeremy Hunt, Health Sec.); firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com (Lorely Burt, MP/Solihull); firstname.lastname@example.org (John Hemming, MP); email@example.com (Director of Solihull SSD); firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; John.o’firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Ann’s battles with Solihull Social Services and to receive justice from the UK Police State continue to this day; please view her recent video which speaks to her recent battles to receive fair treatment over health care in the UK:
Also, please sign this petition to “Hold Solihull MBC Accountable For Abuse of Power & Corruption”
Willis, my feline soulmate, died exactly a year ago today, and will never leave my memories and heart. I love you Willis, rest well my son.
Originally posted on Notes toward an International Libertarian Eco-Socialism:
An excerpt from Ronald Aronson’s Jean-Paul Sartre: Philosophy in the World (1980), which mentions some changes in Sartre’s thought and orientation following the revolutionary upsurge of May 1968 in France (p. 317-9). Sartre’s provocative turn expressed here retains all of its relevance 40 years on.
“But as he absorbed the experience of May, he decided that the intellectual should first ‘suppress himself as intellectual’ in order then to put his skills ‘directly at the service of the masses’. […] This new posture was most sharply and provocatively defined in his interview with John Gerassi in 1971.
Sartre here gave the simplest answer yet to his constant question: what should the intellectual do? – he should act. To be a radical intellectual was above all to be committed to put oneself bodily in opposition to the system. In conversation with Gerassi he reviewed his own political history going back to the…
View original 507 more words
It’s no secret that US citizens live in a police state in which the government, particularly through the USA PATRIOT Act, grants itself unlimited powers of surveillance, but the leaking of a top-secret document has shed new light on the mind-boggling scale of the monitoring of communication. On June 6, The Guardian reported (see below) on the chilling extent to which the state can and does invade citizens’ privacy through a top-secret program used by the National Security Agency (NSA). The Guardian revealed not only a top-secret court order to telecom giant Verizen to release the phone records of millions of Americans, but also a program called PRISM which allows the NSA to access stored user data on nine major server providers: Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Skype, AOL, PalTalk, and Apple. PRISM is the main source of information in 1 out of 7 NSA intelligence reports. Tapping directly into the central servers of these internet companies, the NSA and FBI are extracting emails, documents, audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs. PRISM not only makes privy to the state stored user data, but enables it to monitor live communications as they unfold. In exchange for legal immunity, corporations are obliged to accept a “directive” from the FBI to grant the state open access to all US communications; some corporations like Apple, however, have resisted government invasion, as has Twitter.
All of this is done, of course, under the guise of national security and the phony “war on terror” which fronts for the real war — the war against democracy. As reported by The Washington Post, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said “information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.” This is dubious given the history of US state repression and FBI operations against US citizens, activists, and social movements. The state argues PRISM focuses on communications to and from foreign countries as it grants open access to virtually all communications with the country. The state also argues that it only examines packets of date and not data content, but content is easily obtained.
These new revelations underscore the integral interrelations of Big Business and Big Brother in the US corporate-state complex and the extent to which “privacy” is obsolete in the era of the Internet and social networking. Activists beware; dissent with care.
The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.
The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims “collection directly from the servers” of major US service providers.
Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.
In a statement, Google said: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data.”
Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. “If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge,” one said.
An Apple spokesman said it had “never heard” of PRISM.
The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.
The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.
It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.
Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.
The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.
Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Yourprivacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.
It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.
Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.
The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies.
Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users’ communications under US law, but the PRISM program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies’ servers. The NSA document notes the operations have “assistance of communications providers in the US”.
The revelation also supports concerns raised by several US senators during the renewal of the Fisa Amendments Act in December 2012, who warned about the scale of surveillance the law might enable, and shortcomings in the safeguards it introduces.
When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA’s inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.
A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.
The document is recent, dating to April 2013. Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA, which prides itself on maintaining a high level of secrecy.
The PRISM program allows the NSA, the world’s largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders.
With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users.
The presentation claims PRISM was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a “home-field advantage” due to housing much of the internet’s architecture. But the presentation claimed “Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage” because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US.
“Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them,” the presentation claimed. “It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States. There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all.”
The new measures introduced in the FAA redefines “electronic surveillance” to exclude anyone “reasonably believed” to be outside the USA – a technical change which reduces the bar to initiating surveillance.
The act also gives the director of national intelligence and the attorney general power to permit obtaining intelligence information, and indemnifies internet companies against any actions arising as a result of co-operating with authorities’ requests.
In short, where previously the NSA needed individual authorisations, and confirmation that all parties were outside the USA, they now need only reasonable suspicion that one of the parties was outside the country at the time of the records were collected by the NSA.
The document also shows the FBI acts as an intermediary between other agencies and the tech companies, and stresses its reliance on the participation of US internet firms, claiming “access is 100% dependent on ISP provisioning”.
In the document, the NSA hails the PRISM program as “one of the most valuable, unique and productive accesses for NSA”.
It boasts of what it calls “strong growth” in its use of the PRISM program to obtain communications. The document highlights the number of obtained communications increased in 2012 by 248% for Skype – leading the notes to remark there was “exponential growth in Skype reporting; looks like the word is getting out about our capability against Skype”. There was also a 131% increase in requests for Facebook data, and 63% for Google.
The NSA document indicates that it is planning to add Dropbox as a PRISM provider. The agency also seeks, in its words, to “expand collection services from existing providers”.
The revelations echo fears raised on the Senate floor last year during the expedited debate on the renewal of the FAA powers which underpin the PRISM program, which occurred just days before the act expired.
Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware specifically warned that the secrecy surrounding the various surveillance programs meant there was no way to know if safeguards within the act were working.
“The problem is: we here in the Senate and the citizens we represent don’t know how well any of these safeguards actually work,” he said.
“The law doesn’t forbid purely domestic information from being collected. We know that at least one Fisa court has ruled that the surveillance program violated the law. Why? Those who know can’t say and average Americans can’t know.”
Other senators also raised concerns. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon attempted, without success, to find out any information on how many phone calls or emails had been intercepted under the program.
When the law was enacted, defenders of the FAA argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA’s inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.
When the NSA reviews a communication it believes merits further investigation, it issues what it calls a “report”. According to the NSA, “over 2,000 PRISM-based reports” are now issued every month. There were 24,005 in 2012, a 27% increase on the previous year.
In total, more than 77,000 intelligence reports have cited the PRISM program.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, that it was astonishing the NSA would even ask technology companies to grant direct access to user data.
“It’s shocking enough just that the NSA is asking companies to do this,” he said. “The NSA is part of the military. The military has been granted unprecedented access to civilian communications.
“This is unprecedented militarisation of domestic communications infrastructure. That’s profoundly troubling to anyone who is concerned about that separation.”
A senior administration official said in a statement: “The Guardian and Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law does not allow the targeting of any US citizen or of any person located within the United States.
“The program is subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. It involves extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-US persons outside the US are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about US persons.
“This program was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.
“Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.
“The Government may only use Section 702 to acquire foreign intelligence information, which is specifically, and narrowly, defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This requirement applies across the board, regardless of the nationality of the target.”
More great writing from Jim Robertson, check out his blog and his excellent book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport
Originally posted on Exposing the Big Game:
I didn’t mean to set off a pissing match in my last blog post by quoting a group’s recent statement to the Missoulian, “We at Wolves of the Rockies understand and acknowledge the importance of hunting as a tool for managing wolves, and we stand beside the ethical hunter in doing so.” I’m sorry if I misinterpreted that statement, but I thought it made their position on wolf hunting pretty clear: they support it.
And I think it’s obvious what they’re saying with the lines, “We are not advocating the end of wolf hunting. We have only asked for a slight modification to the state wolf management plan to accommodate other legitimate values in this specific locale. Remember, Montana’s wildlife is owned by ALL the people, not just hunters.”
It sounds to me like they feel that wolf “management” through hunting and trapping is acceptable, as long as it doesn’t conflict…
View original 546 more words
An informative and disturbing documentary on the war on South African rhinos and economic markets, mythologies, crime syndicates, government corruption, high-tech massacre technologies, and vicious mercenaries driving the immanent extinction of this magnificent species. The urgency of the crisis is vividly dramatized, as are the violent urges deep in the human condition, and the armed struggle taking place right now in Africa and elsewhere in the struggle to save animals from extinction and as a vital part of the politics of nature.
“It’s a creature from a bygone age, older than mankind itself. Greed and corruption, myth and superstition, had brought the rhino to the brink of extinction.
For millenia its best protection, the rhino’s horn is now its worst enemy. If the killing doesn’t stop than the last rhino in the wild could disappear in just a few years.
These days rhino poachers come by a helicopter armed with powerful tranquilizers and a chainsaw. The cruelty of the attack is just breathtaking. A philosopher once said that we can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. If so what kind of men are doing this?
In 2010 more than 300 rhinos were killed for their horns. With acts of such heartless cruelty taking place every day now, that annual total will almost double in 2012. It amounts to the wholesale slaughter of one of this continent’s most praised natural assets, by means both crude and sophisticated.”
“Interview with Steve Best,” Asinus Novus
“Steve Best in Italy: From Philosophy to Action,” by the blog (and more), Asinus Novus. The writers provided a nice summary of my talks and main ideas.
A Key Meeting,” Arielvegangfashinblogspot.com; a refreshingly intelligent, fair, and incisive essay on my work, thank you Ariel.
“Now Enough,” Barbara Balsalmo