In an interview with CityBeat, Webber said exotic pet ownership may be shocking, but it’s not an obscure phenomenon. “I started paying attention and that’s when I realized this was the elephant in the living room. This big, enormous thing that’s going on in our country and no one is really recognizing it.”

Until now.

It’s no coincidence that the Dayton, Ohio, filmmaker aimed the camera at his own state. Ohio has some of the weakest exotic animal laws in the country, a flaw which gained national attention this summer when a bear killed his caretaker. Despite obvious and repeated negligence on the part of the bear’s owner, Sam Mazzola, authorities’ hands were tied because you can pretty much own whatever you want in Ohio. And Mazzola isn’t the only one whose choice of pets has caused problems.

“It’s like the wild, wild west in the State of Ohio,” Tim Harrison of Outreach for Animals told WKRC Local 12 in Cincinnati. Harrison is a police officer, firefighter and paramedic from the city of Oakwood. He’s also the go-to guy when it comes to exotic animals, fielding as many as 200 calls a year, and he’s one of the stars of The Elephant in the Living Room.

On the other side of the equation, the film follows Terry Brumfield, who keeps two African lions, hand-raised since they were cubs.

Webber says following the personal stories of Harrison and Brumfield “has a completely different effect on people from an entertainment standpoint, from an education and awareness standpoint, you take it personally. When people get affected in that way, that’s when the awareness starts to explode.”

The explosion of The Elephant in the Living Room comes just in time. Although this issue plays out across the country, it’s been stampeding across Ohio politics lately, especially since Governor Ted Strickland promised an exotic pets ban as part of a package deal of animal welfare reforms negotiated with the Humane Society of the United States and Ohio’s Farm Bureau.

The proposal was applauded by several animal welfare groups, but various contingents protested, from reptile enthusiasts to schools with wild mascots. Some, like Brumfield, feel their wild animals are their children; others feel they simply have a right to own whatever animal they want.

It’s likely that an exotic pet ban in Ohio would grandfather in existing animals, with the caveat that troublemakers like Mazzola could finally be held accountable. This Midwest state has been the wild west for too long; it’s dangerous for people and unfair to the animals. Tell Ohio legislators to pass the exotic pet ban.

Harrison’s opinion is clear: “When you bring a dangerous large predator, snake, bear, crocodile, anything of that nature, you’re signing a death warrant for either you or the animal … one of you is going to die.”

The website for the documentary calls it “a movie too big to ignore.” Let’s hope so.

The Elephant in the Living Room is currently screening in Cincinnati, Ohio. If you’re not in The Buckeye State, don’t worry: the movie is due for nationwide release in early 2011.

Photo credit: eMaringolo

Documentary Brings Ohio’s Elephant in the Room Out of the Shadows

Sadly, most candidates are lacking in substance and their campaign ads are more likely to tell what is wrong with their opponent instead of where they stand on the issues. I live in Los Angeles where the airwaves are full of campaign attack ads throughout most of the day. All the commercials show an out of focus bad picture of the opponent with horrible music and a few sound bites with a cheesy voice-over. Missing from all of these ads are the candidates’ platform and their stance on real issues.

The most important issues to voters in these elections are the economy, healthcare and the deficit. Large numbers of Americans are still out of work and it is a daily struggle to put food on the table. People are losing their jobs, their homes and their healthcare in one fell swoop and sometimes it seems like Washington, D.C is “printing money on demand.” I share these concerns with voters but I also have another worry – the wars.

Missing from the priorities of most voters are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These two wars have claimed the lives of nearly 7,000 U.S. soldiers and injured tens of thousands more. These two wars have killed hundreds of thousands Iraqi and Afghan civilians, but none of the politicians are talking about it.

The war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth year and the war in Iraq, which still has a considerable American presence, is in its seventh year. There are nearly 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and nearly 50,000 troops still in Iraq. Billions of dollars has been spent on these two wars, with all of that spending passing through Congress, and yet for the mid-term elections these two wars have become “the forgotten wars” that no one dares speak about.

For the sake of the soldiers and their families, I think we need to press the political candidates to talk about the wars and the future of these countries. We owe it to the soldiers to never forget them, regardless of the politics of the day or what the polls say.

Photo credit: Christine O’Donnell Facebook

The Politics of War

No thanks, buddy.

The upcoming election has brought us some seriously sexist shit, and it looks like the trend is continuing. GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck didn’t say those exact words, but he came close. Buck is in a bit of a pickle over his refusal as a Weld County District Attorney to prosecute an obvious rape case in 2006, along with offensive comments he made about the victim.

The victim had asked a former lover over to her apartment because she was intoxicated and scared. He arrived and raped her while she, slipping in and out of consciousness, said “no” and tried pushing him away. Despite the fact that both the victim and suspect agree upon what happened and police recommended prosecution, Buck publicly called the case facts “pitiful” and claimed that, due to their consensual sexual encounters over a year prior, reasonable juries would see this as a case of “buyer’s remorse.” In a private meeting with the victim, Buck lays blame squarely on her shoulders, telling her, “It would appear to me that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no … the appearance is of consent.”

Buck voices his suspicion that the woman had an ulterior motive fueled by a previous pregnancy with the suspect, which she either aborted (his story) or miscarried (her story). What’s interesting to me is that Buck believes it’s entirely possible the woman fabricated a rape because she had an abortion (which she denies), yet doesn’t consider the equally-if-not-more plausible possibility that the suspect raped the victim out of revenge and resentment.

The theory that once a woman has said yes to sex, she has relinquished her right to revoke consent, is one of the most insidious and common types of victim blaming. Another is the refusal to acknowledge that it’s still rape if a woman is drunk and/or knows her attacker. Worse yet is the belief that if you don’t specifically say “no” forcefully and repeatedly, you’ve effectively said “yes,” even if you’re unconscious. And then there’s my personal favorite, the revenge fantasy: the pervasive notion that hundreds of spiteful women, drunk with feminine power, run around filing false police reports and launching an all-out legal war on dudes they consensually but regretfully boned.

Ken Buck managed to combine all of these dehumanizing fallacies into one dazzling rape apologist shitshow, while simultaneously blaming his Neanderthalian attitude on unsympathetic juries. It’d almost be impressive if it weren’t so infuriating. It appears that, for Ken Buck, rape isn’t about the actual crime, it’s about the woman’s ability to be a true victim.

Even though this incident occurred five years ago and Buck apparently “learned” from it (soon after, he helped implement a sexual assault team to better handle future cases), it matters in this election because the comments speak to his overarching view of women and their right to bodily autonomy. He opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He initially supported Prop 62, a Personhood Amendment that would criminalize abortion and common forms of birth control. And now, it appears he believes it’s reasonable to treat “certain” survivors of sexual assault with distrust and skepticism. Can those of us who might not pass Buck’s rape victim litmus test count on him to fairly represent us in office, or will voters have a case of … buyer’s remorse?

Photo Credit: Adsworth

GOP Candidate Ken Buck’s Dismissal of Rape Victim Reveals Further Evidence of a Pattern of Misogyny

As Lauren Kelley writes on Poverty in America, Quinn’s stance means that a bill which could help as many as 1.3 million workers doesn’t get the chance for a straight up or down vote. Quinn says she just wants to wait and see what the results of a Partnership for New York City study. But their studies already seem a little dubious, since they put the number of Big Apple workers without paid sick leave at only 375,000, a quarter of the number put forth by Bureau of Labor Statistics data. What, exactly, is this study going to say to influence her mind? Is this just stalling? And is it really right for one person’s questioning to hold up a bill that has such significant majority support?

Groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice New York, NOW (National Organization of Women), and Planned Parenthood have continued to pressure lawmakers to pass the paid sick leave bill, which NARAL NY President Kelli Conlin points out would allow pregnant women to take days off to receive essential prenatal care. Since women also often hold the position of primary caregiver, lacking paid sick days to take care of a child or other family member hits them especially hard, and a single working mother can frequently ill afford to take an unpaid day off.

Paid sick leave isn’t just good news for workers who currently lack it: it’s also great news for public health. When the swine flu was dominating scary media headlines, we constantly heard the admonition: don’t come to work if you’re sick. But people come to work sick with various contagious illnesses on a regular basis, because they simply cannot afford not to, people who, say, prepare your food. I’d like my fries disease-free, please.

The primary objection to the bill is that it just costs too much; New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also raising a fuss about “unfunded mandates on businesses.” But people’s health isn’t something to be cheap about. And almost everybody but Bloomberg and Quinn seem to recognize that this popular legislation needs to be passed into law. Tell Quinn to put it up for a vote now.

Photo credit: Lara604

It’s Time for the Big Apple to Back Paid Sick Leave

Lincoln, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee who is gearing up for a tough re-election battle this fall, has been fighting for the funds since July when they were removed as a compromise deal from a small business stimulus bill.  The Obama administration had promised to approve the package, which was designed to provide “disaster aid” to farmers who lost crops in 2009, by Aug. 31.

August has come and gone, and there’s no sign of the package. But before we get all sad for the poor farmers down the street whose crops were ruined, let’s examine this plan. America’s biggest, least sustainable farms — many of them in Blanche’s Arkansas — would benefit most from the plan, while smaller, more damaged farms would be left high and dry. Why? The funds would not be distributed based on losses, but on how much they received or should have received under a federal subsidy program based on farm size. As the New York Times explained last week, it’s an “unjustified” windfall, as farms with as little as five percent loss would receive an additional chunk of 90 percent of the subsidy in aid. Bigger, more profitable farms — the ones least damaged by rains — are far more likely to qualify. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the top 10 percent of wealthiest farmers would receive about two-thirds of the money, and about a quarter of the funds would (curiously) go to Arkansas farms.

Lincoln herself told the Arkansas News, “If you have a large farm, you had a large loss, which means you’re going to have a large assistance.”  She lambasted critics of the plan, saying they just do not understand farms: “I think it’s just another example of how those folks truly, I don’t think, understand production agriculture and how important it is to our economy and how important it is to feeding the world.”

Well, “these folks” understand the major problem with the aid: It applies to all farms unilaterally rather than proportionally to the hardest-hit farms. Southern rice and cotton farmers, who faced damages after heavy rainfall last year, have pleaded for aid, even if their losses were minimal. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) considers the package “a six-figure windfall for hundreds of plantation-scale, highly subsidized rice and cotton farms across the South.” Even large corn, wheat, and soybean farms would benefit. EWG President Ken Cook wrote to the Office of Management and Budget earlier this week to urge the White House not to push the package, arguing that  it should only give aid to farms with a 30 percent threshold of losses.

Payments and politics shouldn’t go hand in hand, especially in times of such economic distress. The administration should reject Lincoln’s plan. After all, an initiative that merely rewards Lincoln’s supporters is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer dollars. These funds should go towards supporting the farmers who need help the most.

Photo credit: takomabibelot via Flickr

Sen. Lincoln’s Farm "Aid" Plan Falls Flat

Rhode Island, for instance, stands a very good shot at enacting marriage equality depending on who gets elected governor. New York, as well, might see marriage equality hang in the balance depending on who wins both the governor’s office and a number of State Senate seats.

And Minnesota, too. Which is why so much attention has been on this year’s Minnesota gubernatorial race, where candidates have staked out clear positions either in favor of same-sex marriage, or strongly opposed to same-sex marriage.

Both Target and the National Organization for Marriage are supporting a candidate in the race, Tom Emmer, who thinks that gay marriage is not only immoral, but that it should be constitutionally blocked. And both Target and the National Organization for Marriage are throwing substantial resources behind electing Tom Emmer.

In Target’s case, the company gave $150,000 to an organization in Minnesota supporting Tom Emmer. And while Target gave the money because they think Emmer is better for their business bottom line than the candidate who supports marriage equality, Mark Dayton, no donor to a campaign gets to say, “Oh, I’m only giving money to support 1/6 of this candidate’s platform.” Like it or not, Target’s $150,000 contribution was in support of the full breadth of the Emmer candidacy, not just one or two select issues.

And that couldn’t please the National Organization for Marriage more. They are also engaging in the Minnesota gubernatorial election, and this past month dropped a boatload of cash down into the state to air advertisements trashing Mark Dayton as a dangerous heathen for supporting gay marriage. The National Organization for Marriage tossed $200,000 into the ring, joining with Target to trump up the candidacy of Tom Emmer. Here’s the text from their advertisement:

Marriage in Minnesota is under attack. Tom Emmer wants to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman… Emmer believes that Minnesota voters should have the final say on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have done …When the candidates for governor ask for your support, ask them if they will guarantee your right to vote on marriage.

Target and the National Organization for Marriage, sittin’ in a tree for Tom Emmer.

Because of a greasy, ugly political loophole, the National Organization for Marriage doesn’t have to disclose who helped them raise the $200,000 to throw down this anti-marriage equality advertisement. It can be kept as much of a secret as where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, or the recipe for Coca-Cola. Anonymous briefcases full of cash, thrown in support of a candidate who wants to ban gay marriage, and who has himself financially supported a religious ministry advocating violence toward LGBT people.

Target, at least for the time being, isn’t so lucky. They had to have their political contribution reported, and once it came out that Target was supporting a candidate with such vicious views toward the LGBT community, the outrage was immediate and intense, and is still going to this day. Target’s reputation with the LGBT community has essentially been shot in the face, with little sign that the gays will be rushing back to embrace the company any time soon.

There are those who think that Target is getting roughed up unnecessarily here, given that the company has really great LGBT policies and has given money to LGBT organizations and groups. I go back and I read that line above from the National Organization for Marriage in their advertisement. “Tom Emmer wants to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman… Emmer believes that Minnesota voters should have the final say on marriage.”

And then I think about how even if I were to agree with Tom Emmer’s tax policy, how could I financially support someone who sees civil rights as something that should be put up for a vote? Yet that’s what Target has done.

And by default, today they’re standing on the side of the National Organization for Marriage, instead of on the side that would treat all their customers and employees, regardless of their sexual orientation, with dignity.

Photo credit: joannabethpdot

What Target and the National Organization for Marriage Have In Common

As Laurie Goodstein writes in the New York Times, construction on mosques and Islamic centers in communities geographically far removed from the site of the 9/11 attacks have been met by protests and harassment, in locales from Tennessee to California to Wisconsin. In Temecula, CA, protesters brought dogs because they say Muslims hate the canines — but the bigger impact of this is to increase the intimidation factor against Muslims attempting to practice their faith.

In Murfreesboro, TN, a Republican primary candidate for Congress, Lou Ann Zelenik, has been using criticism against an Islamic community center to drum up support, to which Talking Point Memo’s Evan McMorris-Santoro snarkily responds, “There’s already a mosque in Murfreesboro, so Zelenik is stuck with being outraged over just the after-school programs and classrooms part of the equation here.” Kyle on Right Wing Watch writes about protesters screaming at Muslims coming to prepare for Ramadan at a Connecticut mosque; one of the harassers shoved a placard at a group of young children and yelled, “Murderers.” Police were called to intervene, and Muslim leaders are concerned about escalating attacks during the Ramadan holiday. There was also bombing of a mosque in Florida adds to such worries.

And, of course, the anti-Muslim hostility continues in less direct forms of confrontation, such as designating 9/11 “International Burn a Koran Day.”

The New York Times article points out that, despite the attacks buildings associated with the Islamic faith, a strong interfaith response has also stood up to defend Muslims right to practice. The Islamic Center near the site of the World Trade center is one such place that has been defended by Christian, Jewish, and atheist groups. At the least, they stand of for the First Amendment right of everybody to practice their religion, while many see that mosques and community centers that preach peace and understanding are positive influences.

The antipathy and harassment directed toward Islamic centers across the country — even ones whose primary sin is to provide afterschool programs — reveals that much of the right-wing hysteria against the Islamic center in Manhattan cannot be attributed to simply a desire to defend the site of a tragic event.

Although in this instance vehement denunciations of the Lower East Side Islamic center (which will include a variety of assets to the community, from a swimming pool to an auditorium to restaurants and bookstores) have managed to plant seeds of concern into a larger cross-section of people, the trend of anti-Muslim attacks nationwide comes out of bigotry — and a little capitalizing for political purposes.

Interestingly, Muslims have been praying at a “Pentagon mosque,” which was also one of the sites of the 9/11 attacks, all this time without a murmur of opposition. “It’s almost as if the entire ‘ground zero mosque’ controversy was whipped up out of nothing by a right-wing tabloid and politicians in search of a wedge issue … ” Justin Elliot writes at Salon. Oh, is that mid-term elections coming up?

Photo credit: dbking

Mosques Subject to Protests and Harassment Across the Country

With mid-term elections closing in, politicians are out doing their hand-shaking, baby-kissing thing. They’re also collecting campaign contributions, including nearly $14 million contributed so far, just to the 2010 election cycle, by the oil and gas industry. That kind of money says Don’t forget us when you’re in office. Unfortunately, wildlife doesn’t have the luxury of buying loyalty from representatives. That’s why Defenders of Wildlife is calling on Congress to donate all oil company campaign contributions to help save wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico.

Some people argue that oiled birds are better off dead because it takes so many resources to clean, rehabilitate and release — as much as tens of thousands of dollars per bird — and then many of them don’t even make it. But if I had to choose between throwing millions of dollars at that effort, or funding my representatives’ campaigns, my vote would be on the wildlife. Every time.

But it’s not just the birds and other animals showing up covered in oil that need help; the disaster threatens the survival of entire species. Earlier this week, a batch of critically endangered baby Kemp’s ridley sea turtles was released into the Gulf of Mexico. Todd Steiner, director of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, thinks it was a mistake. “We believe they’re going to get into the oil and die.”

How long could it take before the waters are healthy again for marine life? Well, 20 years after the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska, oil is still impacting wildlife in the area.

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed its sixth oil-related lawsuit against the government this week, and plans to file at least two more. They’re calling for a new analysis on the impact of offshore drilling on endangered whales and sea turtles because the last report said that drilling really didn’t pose much of a threat to wildlife. Miyoko Sakashita, the Center’s oceans director said, “Like Obama’s April 2 statement that ‘oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills’ … the government must revisit its slipshod analysis that oil drilling poses no risk to the Gulf’s endangered species.”

Instead of fueling politics with money from Big Oil, our government should be focusing on restoring the Gulf and protecting wildlife from corporate interests. Tell your representatives and senators to donate any and all campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry to support local Gulf charities working to save wildlife. Now is the time for government officials to start doing the right thing.

Photo credit: LDWF Biologist Rescues Oiled Sea Turtle

Congress Should Donate Oil Company Campaign Contributions to Save Gulf Wildlife

I have no doubt that Japan is grateful for the ocean’s bounty. So grateful, in fact, that the government continually lobbies against international protections for endangered marine species like the bluefin tuna, and flaunts their disregard for international law when it comes to whaling. The holiday not only comes on the tail of the discovery of the shark massacre, but it’s also just days after the start of Japan’s summer whaling mission in the Northwest Pacific ocean, where they plan to kill 100 minke whales, 100 sei whales, 50 Brydes whales and 10 sperm whales.

Although Marine Day has a patriotic, national security bent, it is, according to the Japan Maritime Public Relations Center, a time to “realize our obligations to the oceans.” Which is pretty ironic, considering how one-sided Japan’s relationship is with the ocean ecosystem.

But it’s not surprising that Japan wants to promote its love of the ocean through colorful fish tanks and sushi dinners on Marine Day. They’ve tried to suppress the truth about the dark side of their relationship with the ocean before, pinning whaling on “cultural traditions” instead of owning up to the politics and economics driving the hunts, and even going so far as to censor screenings of The Cove, the Oscar-winning documentary about the annual dolphin slaughter in the village of Taiji.

Seems like Japan is hoping to redefine their relationship with the ocean through a few fish tanks and day off of work. Marine Day is government propaganda at its best. It’s a good thing none of those fish in the Ginza shopping district jumped for their freedom like the dolphin at Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium who leapt out of her tank during a show in early July — that might have ruined the image of a happy co-existence between Japan and marine animals.

As an island nation, Japan has every reason to celebrate respect and gratitude for the ocean, but instead of a meaningless national holiday, they’d be better off changing their destructive policies before the ocean has nothing left to give. 

Photo credit: ajari

Japan’s Ironic National Holiday