Alex Hershaft: Farmers Worse than bin Laden

After holding their tongues for a few days, the usual suspects in the animal rights movement are falling all over themselves to see who can make the most absurd comment comparing the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States to the alleged suffering of animals.

Today’s exhibit is Alex Hershaft, who recently distributed a press release urging animal rights activist to march in Washington, DC on September 29 and 30 at two peace rallies. Hershaft discusses possible sign slogans (“Stop Human and Animal Terror!”) and then offers what he calls “the thoughts that moved us to” join the peace protests, which actually maintain that animal agriculture is much worse than the Al Queda terrorist network believed to be behind the terrorist attacks. According to Hershaft,

Worldwide, every day, 125 million innocent, sentient animals are dreadfully abused and butchered for food.

These tragedies are perpetrated by a worldwide animal agricultural terrorist network that is much more threatening to planetary survival than the Al Queda network, because it kills more people and animals, because it kills them unrelentingly every day, because it is pervasive and accepted.

For every human being who dies of warfare, crime, or terrorism, 10,000 innocent, sentient animals die a violent death. A march/rally advocating nonviolence without an animal contingent would be greatly diminished.

A worldwide animal agricultural terrorist network? Is this the same Alex Hershaft who was complaining that the Washington Post was portraying animal rights activists at AR 2001 as extremist nuts?

Source:

WFAD and Peace rallies in nation’s capital. Alex Hershaft, press release, September 23, 2001.

WorldNetDaily, Anti-Abortion Groups Wants Redbook to Spread Junk Science

Some anti-abortion groups are not happy with the September 2001 issue of Redbook. In an article, “Seven cancer facts you need to know,” Redbook raises the issue of whether a woman’s risk of cancer is affected by having an abortion. The article dismisses the claim as a “persistent rumor” that is not based on sound science.

Writing for WorldNetDaily.Com, Diana Lynne outlines what she apparently believes is a widespread conspiracy to hide from women the very real cancer risks from abortion. Lynne points to 28 studies published since 1957 linking abortion with breast cancer.

Those studies certainly exist, but Lynne leaves out an important point — none of them find statistically significant links between breast cancer and abortion. Most of the studies only include very small numbers of women, and typically only find increased risks of cancer in the 20 to 40 percent range.

That level of increased risk might sound impressive, but in epidemiological terms it is all but insignificant. Epidemiological methods simply aren’t able to reliably measure such very small levels of increased risk. If a large study found that women had a 100 percent or 200 percent increased risk, then there might be cause for concern and further research, but a 20 to 40 percent increase in such small studies is essentially the same as saying there is no link at all.

Meanwhile, Lynne reports that in north Dakota, a lawsuit is going to trial in which the plaintiff is trying to force the Red River Women’s clinic to inform women about studies linking breast cancer and abortion. The sad thing is that this might succeed since there is a long history in both the media and courts of treating such small increased risk levels as if they are capable of reliably implying causation (much of the research claiming that cell phones might cause brain cancer, for example, is based on similarly low levels of increased risk).

Source:

Redbook magazine ‘bending the truth’? Diana Lynne, WorldNetDaily.Com, September 11, 2001.

Broadband Providers Need to Educate, Allow Subscribers to Better Protect Their Systems

Wired has a story about broadband providers simply cutting off access to users whose systems become infected with Code Red or Nmida. Wired mentions that Speakeasy and DSL Inc. simply yank access to users whose systems are infected with such viruses/worms.

This is a big problem, but an even bigger problem is that most broadband providers a) do almost nothing to educate their users about the security problems associated with broadband service, and b) actually forbid users from using the best security methods to ward off infestations and attacks.

I’ve been through the process both with DSL and cable and neither provider even so much as hinted that I might want to think about any sort of software or hardware solution to prevent attacks on the computer(s) hooked up to my broadband connection. Both providers had information on firewall software buried deep in their web sites, but I assume they were afraid providing any security information might turn off potential customers.

Since I am very concerned about security, I run a small NAT router. The problem is that this is in direct violation of my agreement with the cable company which strictly forbids using any sort of router.

That restriction is added because they don’t want people using the cable access to run web, ftp, and game servers. The problem with servers is a legitimate concern — the first week the students cam back to the university here, my cable connection was almost nonexistent because the bandwidth was being used by students setting up bandwidth-munching servers.

But it’s stupid to simply ban routers because of this. Routers, after all, don’t make it difficult to find the people abusing the system. Talking with a tech support guy about the problem, he said they could identify neighborhood-sized areas where the traffic was thought he roof and then run port scans to determine who was violating the terms of service.

The ban on routers, then, simply makes the average home users system less secure, while really doing very little to fight the bandwidth hogs. Rather than fighting routers, broadband providers should be encouraging people to buy them as an important part of general network security.

McCartney Plans Firefighter Benefit — Should Denounce His Terrorist-Supporting PETA Friends as Well

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Paul McCartney is one of many celebrities trying to help raise money to benefit the families of firefighters killed while trying to save people from the two World Trade Center towers.

McCartney notes that his father was a fireman in Liverpool during World War II, and his benefit concert scheduled for October in New York City is a welcome aid. But there’s another thing McCartney could do for firefighters — publicly distance himself from the extremist animal rights activists, including within People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who endorse so-called direct action, including arson.

Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front have long used arson as a means of terrorism against people involved in animal enterprises, including farms and medical research laboratories. The activists have longed claimed that arson is a non-violent means of protest since they only torch buildings they think are unoccupied. But as the events at the World Trade Center put in stark contrast, whenever there is a fire of any kind, firefighters, police and others often end up putting their lives in immediate danger. Along with the attack on the World Trade Center, many still remember the New York firefighters who died while trying to rescue people from a burning building — it later was revealed that the people the firefighters died trying to evacuate had exited the building earlier.

Yet despite the dangers posed to rescue officials by arson, such activities by the ALF have found plenty of support within the mainstream of the animal rights movement. Although PETA is careful to keep its distance from actual acts of terrorism, it paid part of the defense of |Rodney Coranado|, who was convicted of fire bombing a research laboratory at Michigan State University, and lately people who work for PETA, such as … have come out strongly in favor of such acts of terrorism.

If McCartney truly cares about the lies of firefighters, as he almost certainly does, why does he continue to associate with an organization which endorses activities that regularly put the lives of those firefighters at risk?

Source:

McCartney plans firefighters’ benefits. Reuters, September 21, 2001.

When It Comes to the Treatment of Women, Pakistan Not Much Better Than Afghanistan

After the 9/11 terrorist attack, the United States government began openly and privately courting Pakistan for obvious strategic reasons. According to an MSNBC report,

Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, also has incentives to cooperate. For siding with the U.S. against the Taliban and bin Laden, Islamabad stands to get as much as $3 billion in debt relief, emergency aid for refugees and the removal of sanctions that were imposed when they tested nuclear weapons and staged a military coup. That would enable Pakistan to also get military aid, including spare parts for its F-16’s, Tow missiles and armed personnel carriers.

Before we climb into bed with Pakistan, however, lets remember that Pakistan shares many of the features that President George W. Bush so eloquently noted plague Afghanistan, especially in the way its legal system treats women.

Two years after General Zia-ul-Haq took power in Pakistan in 1977, Pakistan’s criminal code was modified with what are called the Hudood Ordinances. These encapsulate some of the anti-female attitudes that are so derided in Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, extra-marital sex is illegal and the age of majority for women is 16 or the onset of puberty, whichever comes first. In practice what this means is that if a 30-year-old man has sex with a 12-year-old girl, rather than prosecute that as statutory rape, Pakistani authorities will in fact go after the 12-year-old girl as well. There are a couple dozen girls 12 and up in Pakistani prisons due to precisely such charges.

And unbelievably the girl cannot even testify in her own defense at such a trial. As a 1999 State Department report on Pakistan noted,

Likewise, the testimony of women, Muslim or non-Muslim, is not admissible in cases involving Hadd punishments. Thus, if a Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman in the presence of several women, he cannot be convicted under the Hudood ordinances because women cannot testify. Similarly, if a Muslim man rapes a woman in the presence of non-Muslim men and women, he cannot be convicted because women and non-Muslim men cannot testify.

And these folks are going to be our new allies?

Sources:

U.S. Department of State Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999: Pakistan. Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Washington DC, September 9, 1999.

James Cromwell: Just Another Hypocrite PETA Celebrity

James Cromwell, the actor best known for playing the farmer in the 1995 film “Babe,” has lately been very active in the animal rights movement. He has worked with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and was among a number of people arrested at a PETA-sponsored protest of Wendy’s this summer. And like a number of other PETA-affiliated celebrities, Cromwell is a rank hypocrite, condemning people who eat meat but turning around and defending other uses of animals when it impacts his lifestyle.

In a profile in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cromwell says that, “I’m a vegan with an asterisk.” The asterisk? Among other things, Cromwell enjoys wearing leather shoes and dairy products in baked goods.

So it is okay to kill a cow to produce leather for Cromwell’s shoes, but wrong for you or I to eat the meat produced from that same animal. Come on, Cromwell, why be so wasteful? Lets use the whole animal.

Source:

Television column. The Plain Dealer, September 23, 2001, p.33.