Do Animal Rights Activists Care More About Animals Than Human Beings?

Animal rights activists come in for a lot of criticism, but the one argument
that seems to really get under their skin is the claim that they care more about
animals than they do about human beings. Animal rights groups and individuals
will go to great lengths to show they value human life. They argue they simply
want humans to value the lives of animals.

Do animal rights activists care more about animals than human beings? Comments
made by prominent activists and groups after the September 11 terrorist attacks
speak volumes:

  • Alex Hershaft runs a group called Farm USA that manages a national animal
    rights convention. On September 23, Farm USA issued a press release quoting
    Hershaft saying, “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.”

  • The next day, Michael W. Fox of the Humane Society of the United States
    blamed the 9/11 attacks on humanity’s crimes against nature. In an essay distributed
    via e-mail, Fox wrote that, “Our collective violence against Nature and against
    human nature, from the plight of endangered cultures, wildlife and the environment,
    to the sufferings of indigenous peoples and of domestic animals, especially
    in factory farms and commercial laboratories around the world, needs to be
    acknowledged. Until we find atonement with Nature and all beings, human and
    non-human, how can human nature find peace and not annihilate all that our
    better natures embrace?”

  • In its October issue, the widely read animal rights magazine “Animal People”
    included an unsigned editorial linking Osama bin Laden’s fanaticism to meat
    eating. More disturbing, however, was the magazine’s comparison of farm animals
    to the victims who died onboard the hijacked planes. According to the magazine,
    “Many and perhaps most of the nine billion animals sent to slaughter in the
    U.S. each year, as well as the billions killed abroad, have at least as long
    to sense doom as did the September 11 victims. Neither are the animals’ last
    cries as unlike the cell phone calls made by some of the September 11 victims
    as the typical meat-eater would like to believe. Equally disturbing to meat-eaters
    might be awareness that doomed animals, too, often put up frantic resistance,
    like the passengers who tried to retake United Airlines flight 93…”

  • Lee Ryan, a member of the British boy band Blue, put the comparison in stark
    and crude language. Ryan, who styles himself an animal rights activist, asked
    the British tabloid The Sun, “What about whales? They are ignoring
    animals that are more important. Animals need saving and that’s more important
    . . . Who gives a f— about New York when elephants are being killed.”

  • To his credit, animal rights philosopher Peter Singer did criticize the
    idea of comparing the victims of the September 11 attacks to animals killed
    for food, but United Poultry Concerns’ Karen Davis vigorously denounced Singer
    for this. According to Davis, “For 35 million chickens in the United States
    alone, every single night is a terrorist attack.” Davis went on to suggest
    that since most of those who died in the terrorist attacks were likely meat
    eaters, the attacks may have actually resulted in a net reduction in suffering.

  • Finally, just a few days ago Farm USA announced the schedule for its upcoming
    Animal Rights 2002 National Conference. Describing the goal of this year’s
    conference, Farm USA’s press release said, “Animal Rights 2002 is our movement’s
    first national conference since the terrible tragedy of September 11 and its
    aftermath. It is dedicated to exposing and challenging the terror perpetrated
    every single day against billions of innocent, sentient nonhuman animals.”

Despite the frequent claims that animal rights activist do not care more about
animals than they do about human beings, in each of these cases human suffering
from the Sept. 11 attacks is minimized, ignored, and even celebrated. At best
human suffering is used simply as a segue to talk about the real issue, which
is always the alleged suffering of animals.

Do animal rights activists care more about animals than they do about human
beings? Of course they do.

The Newburgh Conspiracy

I consider myself pretty well-read, and so was shocked the other day when I came across an online discussion about the Newburgh Conspiracy, which I have no recollection of reading or learning about previously.

Maybe it is because, frankly, I’ve always found the history of the Revolutionary War a bit boring. Anyway, the Newburgh Conspiracy was a plot hatched in 1783 by officers in the Continental Army to oust Congress in a coup and set up a military dictatorship.

The wheelings and dealings behind the scene were complex, but essentially the soldiers weren’t getting paid by the Congress — though the government still wanted the army in the field since the British still had troops in New York.

Maintaining a standing army but refusing to pay the soldiers is always an extremely bad idea.

Various factions in the Congress worsened this situation by manipulating events behind the scenes. There were minority factions in the Congress who wanted to fan the flames of rebellion in the army to make their case that the Articles of Confederation needed to be abandoned in favor of a strong central government — i.e, the birth of big government, tax and spend liberals.

Whether or not this plot could have succeeded will never be known, but only a speech and rousing gesture by George Washington prevented the plot from going forward.

Anyway, now I’m curious if anyone out there knows of any speculative fiction/alternate history stories and/or novels that treat what might have happened had the coup went forward.

Is Tom Ridge Calling up the Psychic Hotline?

New York Magazine reports on a number of psychics who claim that the Federal government has contacted them for help in the ongoing terrorist investigation. If this sort of claim had been made say 10 years ago, I’d have dismissed it out of hand, but the reality is that until 1995 the CIA was throwing American tax dollars at psychics as part of an exploration of the potential intelligence uses of “remote viewing,” so it’s not inconceivable that this could be going on.

Psychic Prudence Calabrese claims that she has been in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but then again Calabrese also claims she has been in contact with 3-foot-tall alien as well. The FBI denies using Calabrese, but New York Magazine quotes an unnamed former Justice Department lawyer as claiming that Calabrese has been taken seriously by the government before.

Lyn Buchanan, who was one of the psychics involved in the CIA research, claims that the CIA renewed its contacts with him after the 9/11 attacks.

(And aren’t you glad the CIA spent that money on psychics rather than trying to apprehend Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s?)

Source:

Psychic Ops. Geoff Gray, New York Magazine, January 21, 2002.

African Brain Drain — Cause or Effect?

The BBC ran a story in October about a study of the African brain drain. The study, conducted by the Pollution Research Group at Natal University in South Africa, claimed that a third of all skilled professionals in Africa have left that continent to pursue careers in the West. The study put the total cost to African countries of this brain drain at $4 billion. But the study seems to have cause and effect reversed.

Specifically, the report claims that as a result of the brain drain, African economic growth has been hampered and poverty increased. No, sorry, but it’s the other way around. Lack of economic growth and rampant poverty — often caused by political repression and a lack of freedoms — is what motivates African professionals to flee their own countries.

Consider South Africa. In 2001 South AFrica’s Education Minister Kadar Asmal accused Great Britain of unfairly raiding South Africa for teachers, and president Thabo Mbeki himself has called for a reversal of the outflow of scientists and engineers from South Africa to the West. This from a man who has defended pseudoscientific ideas such as the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS, and whose political party has tried to clamp down on criticism from South Africa’s press.

The amazing thing is not that Africa loses about 23,000 qualified academic professionals each year, but rather that even more don’t choose to leave given the sorry state of African governance. When are people like Mbeki and Asmal going to stop blaming others for their predicament and start focusing on righting their own ship?

Source:

Brian drain costs Africa billions. The BBC, October 17, 2001.

Man Blames 9/11 Trauma in Murder Case

CNSNews.com reports that a man on trial for murder in New York plans to argue that he suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome from witnessing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which combined with alleged statements by the victim, led him to bludgeon and stab to death his business partner.

Nathan Powell’s lawyer will argue that he flew into a rage and killed his business partner, Jawed Wassell, on October 3, 2001 after Wassell supposedly made pro-Taliban comments. Prosecutors argue that story is largely fiction, and what enraged Powell was that Wassell planned to reduce Powell’s share of the profit in a movie that the two were partners in.

ACLU Defends Satan

It’s the sort of story the nuttier Christian fundamentalists are going to have a field day with — the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening a federal lawsuit against a Florida town that has posted signs forbidding Satan to enter.

The signs read,

Be it known from this day forward that Satan, ruler of darkness, giver of evil, destroyer of what is good and just, is not now, nor ever again will be, a part of this town of Inglis. Satan is hereby declared powerless, no longer ruling over, nor influencing, our citizens.

I just want to know how the ACLU plans to establish standing. Are they going to go into court and complain that Satan is feeling unfairly discriminated against? If Satan is in the United States, is he even here legally? Will the INS try to pick up Satan before he can testify in his defense?

The other thing I’ve been curious about is whether or not this ban applies to Satan’s minions. Maybe she’s got a point about Satan, but if she’s stopping all Satanic forces isn’t that supernatural profiling? (BTW, how come webloggers never have minions? I need to get me some minions!)

I love the ACLU — heck I’d even donate to them if they were willing to defend my right to own fully automatic weapons without a license — but sometimes you have to just let some nutbags be nutbags.

(BTW, I hereby declare that all claims that the tooth fairy may have over my dentition are hereby null and void. If I hear any flapping of wings near my pillow, I’m a comin’ out blastin!)