Empathy for animals should cross the party divide
Tribune News Service
When you hear the name Richard Nixon, what's the first thing that comes to mind? My answer might surprise you: the Endangered Species Act. Nixon signed this critical bill into law in 1973 after it sailed through Congress with nearly unanimous bipartisan support, stating, 'Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.' This landmark piece of legislation is responsible for saving many species from extinction, including the peregrine falcon, the gray wolf and the bald eagle. Before Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958. While it hasn't effectively ended animal suffering during slaughter, both the Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush administrations worked to strengthen it.
Barack Obama ended government funding for experiments on chimpanzees and oversaw the recoveries of numerous wildlife species. Throughout our nation's history, consideration for other species has never been a 'liberal cause' or a 'conservative cause.' It's an issue that we've been united over far more than we've been divided. If we polled Americans and asked, 'Do you support cruelty to animals?' it's likely that almost 100% of respondents would answer 'no,' regardless of their political affiliation. Considering that PETA has worked with such right-wing figures as Senator Bob Dole and G. Gordon Liddy, it's strange when I hear someone falsely suggest that 'only the left cares about animals' or that 'PETA is left-wing.'
As a PETA spokesperson, I've been invited to appear on many conservative media platforms and have found much common ground on animal protection issues, including with hosts Tucker Carlson and Jesse Watters.
Recently, under President Donald Trump, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have committed to significantly reducing or eliminating many experiments on animals in favor of the sophisticated, human-relevant methods that PETA scientists have been urging the agencies to adopt for years. The president's appointee, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, practically quoted their appeals when he noted, 'This human-based approach will accelerate innovation, improve healthcare outcomes, and deliver life-changing treatments. It marks a critical leap forward for science, public trust, and patient care.' PETA's Los Angeles office, the Bob Barker Building, is named in honor of a staunch PETA supporter and lifelong Republican. One of the few things that GOP strategist Mary Matalin and her husband, Democratic consultant James Carville, agree on is working with PETA to oppose 'ag-gag' bills, which seek to criminalize documenting abuse of animals raised for food—the very evidence that authorities have frequently relied on to prosecute egregious acts of cruelty.
After PETA exposed extreme suffering and death at a Virginia facility that bred beagles for experiments—resulting in its closure and the rescue of nearly 4,000 dogs — Virginia lawmakers unanimously passed five PETA-backed bills providing better protection to animals bred and sold for experiments, which Governor Glenn Youngkin swiftly signed. The state has since passed additional laws requiring more transparency at publicly funded animal testing facilities and giving primates who've been experimented on a chance to retire to accredited sanctuaries. Other conservative leaders have endeavored to ban private ownership and breeding of primates and to put an end to the archaic mink fur farming industry in the US.
There's nothing 'left' or 'right' about our ability to recognize that other living beings have the capacity to suffer or about our desire to treat them humanely. Go to any dog park and you'll see guardians sharing conversations, treats and water bowls — oblivious to any political lines that might strongly divide them, simply connecting over their shared appreciation for animals. At a time when things are divisive, it's helpful to remember our mutual respect for other species. And as we work together to promote kindness to animals, we may even find that we have more for one another.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
21 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Let voters, not politicians, decide elections in democracy
Jeffrey A. Mandell, Tribune News Service The effort in Texas to hastily redraw congressional maps for partisan advantage reveals vulnerabilities in our democratic system, subject to exploitation by bad actors. As this crisis escalates into multiple states, it threatens the notion that voters should determine who wins elections. Driving the effort to rig these maps is President Donald Trump's anxiety over potentially losing control of the US House of Representatives in next year's midterm elections. To avoid that outcome, Trump asked Texas Republicans to redraw voter boundaries in order to add five more Republican seats. US Attorney General Pam Bondi's Justice Department wrote to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, falsely asserting that the current maps violate federal law. The letter demanded that Texas further exacerbate its existing partisan gerrymander by adopting an even-more-audaciously partisan mid-decade redistricting plan. Abbott obeyed, calling the Texas legislature into special session to adopt new maps. In response, most members of the Democratic caucus in the Texas House fled the state to deprive the legislature of a quorum and forestall Trump's plan. Abbott declared this action unlawful, asserting the lawmakers can be removed and replaced, and ordering their arrest. (It appears Abbott will now call a second special session, and the Democratic House members will return.) This has triggered another troubling development: Democrats have publicly proposed that 'blue' states respond in kind. They say California, New York, Illinois and possibly other Democrat-led states should immediately redistrict to create more Democratic-leaning congressional districts. And there is talk that Republicans in Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Missouri may re-tinker with their maps as well. As an advocate for redistricting reform in Wisconsin, I believe nothing good can come from Trump's redistricting arms race. This is happening solely due to his unwillingness to abide by democratic norms, which is nothing to emulate (as some are beginning to recognise). Rather, this should be an opportunity to think anew about the process and standards used to draw the representative districts that underlie our democracy. The constitutional guarantee of 'one person, one vote' means each of us should have an equal say in who represents us in government and makes the laws by which we all live. We uphold this principle by redistricting at the beginning of each decade, using new census data to divide our population into electoral districts, for everything from city councils to state legislatures to the US House of Representatives. Drawing district lines has always been entwined with efforts to game the system for advantage. These efforts, called gerrymandering, can take many forms. But all wrest power away from voters by fixing electoral outcomes, transforming campaigns that should be contests of ideas into preordained charades. Voters have little say because the district lines are drawn, using incredibly precise partisan data, in ways that preclude actual competition. Yet the harm from allowing Texas to ram through Trump's plan will be compounded if blue states retaliate with new maps to balance the net partisan impact. This, too, would threaten the foundational concept — the credo of our nation — that we, the people, choose our leaders. There is a better way. Districts can and should be drawn both to avoid significantly advantaging one political party over another and to increase electoral competition. Whenever it is otherwise, elected officials have less incentive to be responsive to voters. Law Forward, the pro-democracy law firm I head, is currently urging the Wisconsin courts to evaluate the state's congressional map, which was purposely drawn to give Republicans an advantage. We believe the state's courts should recognise competition as a relevant criterion in evaluating maps. And courts across the country should follow suit. Court intervention is not the ultimate solution. Every state should adopt independent, nonpartisan redistricting models. The Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition is holding hearings around the state, engaging voters in discussion about how maps should be drawn and what factors should be considered. Several other states have adopted nonpartisan redistricting models that are working. We should demand this approach be expanded, not restricted or scrapped. What's happening in Texas is a travesty for democracy. The consequences affect every American. We, as voters, must demand better.
Middle East Eye
4 days ago
- Middle East Eye
Israeli army unit 'tasked with smearing and targeting Palestinian journalists in Gaza'
Israel's army has a special intelligence unit dedicated to smearing and targeting Palestinian journalists in Gaza, according to a new investigation by Israeli-Palestinian magazine +972. Referred to as the 'Legitimisation Cell', the unit was formed in October of 2023 at the onset of the genocide that Israel is waging in the Gaza Strip. The +972 investigation, which interviewed three intelligence sources, revealed that the unit was meant to portray Palestinian journalists in Gaza as 'as undercover Hamas operatives, in an effort to blunt growing global outrage over Israel's killing of reporters'. The report comes days after the Israeli military assassinated Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif in an air strike, following a months-long campaign seeking to portray the journalist as a military operative in an attempt to justify his targeted killing. The attack on Sunday night also targeted and killed Al Jazeera correspondent and Middle East Eye contributor Mohammed Qreiqeh, alongside camera operators Mohammed Noufal, Ibrahim Zaher and Moamen Aliwa, and freelance journalist Mohammed al-Khalidi. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Legitimisation Cell has played the role of a public relations body meant to declassify and produce counter-narratives when media criticism of Israel is heightened, a source told +972. This information has subsequently been shared with media outlets and 'also passed regularly to the Americans through direct channels', the report added. The report revealed several ways in which the unit has operated to manufacture doubt against the credibility of Palestinian narratives. For instance, on 17 October 2023, an explosion hit Al Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza City. The Gaza health ministry said it was caused by an Israeli air strike and killed more than 500 Palestinians, while Israel blamed a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket. The following day, the Legitimisation Cell released a phone call recording of so-called 'Hamas operatives' suggesting that the explosion may have been caused by a misfire from the Palestinian group. Palestinian colleagues pay tribute to six journalists murdered by Israel Read More » However, according to +972, the speaker quoted in the phone call recording was a Palestinian human rights activist who 'insisted he had never been a Hamas member', and was having a 'benign conversation with another Palestinian friend.' A 2024 investigation by Forensic Architecture investigating the cause of the strike disputed Israel's claim, instead finding that the explosion was likely caused by an Israeli interceptor rocket. Israel has systematically targeted and struck Gaza's healthcare infrastructure since October 2023. On Wednesday, a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) staff member stated that there is 'not one fully functioning' state hospital left in Gaza. In October 2024, the Israeli military named six Palestinian journalists in Gaza as targets, claiming they were involved in militant groups. The list included Sharif and another prominent Al Jazeera journalist, Hossam Shabat, who was assassinated in March of 2025. Israel has targeted and killed at least 238 Palestinian journalists in Gaza since October 2023, according to local authorities.
Gulf Today
5 days ago
- Gulf Today
Once again, politicians are choosing their voters
Maresa Strano, Tribune News Service Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast. In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they're ready to 'fight fire with fire' with their own partisan gerrymanders. It's a tempting strategy. But gerrymanders for a good short-term cause are still unfair to voters, and this tit-for-tat constitutional hardball is just another stop on the longer road to democratic collapse. If party leaders insist on running from competition, then it's time for voters to run toward it. And in many states, the best tool available to do that is the citizen-led ballot initiative — a way for ordinary people to demand fair representation when legislators won't deliver it. Ballot initiatives allow voters to bypass gridlocked and unresponsive legislatures and change the rules of the game directly. In states that allow them, citizens have enacted reforms that legislators refused to touch: Michigan's citizen-led independent redistricting commission cleaned up partisan gerrymandering; Maine's switch to ranked-choice voting elevated and protected moderates like Rep. Jared Golden and Sen. Susan Collins; Arizona's public campaign financing system increased competitiveness. These reforms didn't come from the top down; they were bottom-up demands for a democracy that works. Initiatives work. They help realign public policy with the public interest where the gaps are largest and make elected officials more accountable. And when they're used to fix the deeper structural problems — like single-member districts, winner-takes-all elections — they can even make themselves less necessary over time. That's why we need them now. So we won't need them as much in the future. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to statewide ballot initiatives. Only about half of the US states allow citizens to place new laws on the ballot. The rest — including Texas — leave voters in a Catch-22: They need structural reform to make government responsive, but can't get reform because government isn't responsive. Right now, voters in states that have a statewide initiative process but haven't yet adopted independent redistricting commissions should start organising for that — or, even better, for multi-member state legislative districts elected via proportional representation, which would make gerrymandering obsolete. Voters in places like Nevada, Missouri, and Florida don't need to wait for their state legislatures, the courts, or Congress to upgrade their systems. By contrast, Texas's roughly 19 million registered voters currently have no pathway to change that that doesn't begin inside the statehouse. And polling suggests Texans aren't thrilled with the status quo. A recent survey found that 63 percent of Texas voters view the redistricting push as unnecessary. Another Texas poll from 2010 found 68% support for adopting a statewide initiative process. Several bills to create one in Texas have been introduced in recent years. For now, though, the people's hands are tied. Creating a new ballot initiative process is no easy task. It bumps into the Catch-22 as before. In every state without ballot initiatives, creating a process for them requires a constitutional amendment, which, absent a constitutional convention, must be initiated by the legislature. However, there's a difference between political reform groups asking lawmakers to vote to create an independent commission and a large, broad-based coalition asking them to give the public a new way to propose ideas in the future. That second ask — about democratic process, not specific policy outcomes — might be harder to reject without political consequences. We've been here before. Between 1898 and 1920, amid corruption, inequality, and political capture, 21 states enshrined initiative systems into their constitutions. Many lawmakers supported the change not out of principle, but because they saw the writing on the wall. Ballot initiatives aren't perfect. They can be expensive, distorted by special interests, or weaponized to harm vulnerable communities. But in moments of democratic backsliding, they're one of the only tools voters have to rebalance the system and reclaim their power. Let's use and expand their use now — strategically and responsibly — so we can build a democracy that no longer needs them.
