Day: October 16, 2002

Did I Miss the Falwell Memo?

I have read more commentary on the whole Falwell “Mohammed was a terrorist” statement and the ensuing riot in India than I probably should have, and I still don’t get it.

Time out here for a second. Over my short adult life I’ve seen “Piss Christ” defended on national television, seen plays that depicted Jesus as gay, and read book as assigned reading material in classes that described Christianity as an oppressive religion concoted by patriarchal forces. Hell, we live in a country where people can and do refer to the president as a dictator, thief, traitor and even worse.

But all of a sudden when Falwell calls Mohammed a terrorist everyone is shocked and amazed like this is something outside the norm of American discourse? We finally find a sacred cow in America and it turns out to be Islam? I don’t think so.

And as far as the riot in India, how hard is that to explain? They were nutty religious extremists. That’s what nutty religious extremists do — they kill other nutty religious extremists over things that make no sense to otherwise sane people.

Emo Philips gets the last word here.

Duh — North Korea Never Abandoned Its Nuclear Weapons Development

In 1994 the Clinton administration reached an agreement with North Korea — we would give them billions of dollars and they would halt development of nuclear weapons. We gave the billions, but what do you know, the North Koreans proceeded fulls team ahead with their nuclear weapons program (in fact, the program apparently didn’t get into full swing until after the Clinton-brokered agreement). And, of course, North Korea has in recent years been aggressively working on long-range missiles that could reach the United States (Clinton eased sanctions against North Korea after it promised to stop testing its long range missile program). I can’t wait to see the spin whereby Clinton says he spent every waking moment worrying about North Korea and had a plan on the table to deal with this before that evil Bush administration scuttled his master plan.

Fantasy Supreme Court League

Here’s a cool twist on fantasy sports — a Fantasy Supreme Court League,

In the Fantasy Supreme Court League, “players” will attempt to predict the outcome of 9 cases that will come before the Supreme Court in its 2002-2003″ season, which will run from October 2002 tghrough June 2003. . . .

Players will receive 10 points for each correct outcome. Moreover, players will receive additional points for choosing the proper “vote spread,” which will be the number of votes by which the case is decided.

Who Are You Calling Terrorists?

In an op-ed published in the Washington Times, Steven Zak accuses conservative anti-animal rights writers of falsely branding animal rights activists as terrorists. But Zak undermines his own case by glossing over actual animal rights terrorism.

Zak writes,

Granted, some animal activists have committed serious acts of vandalism and other crimes. But the wrongers’ wrath isn’t directed solely at them. Mr. [Wesley J.] Smith, for instance, condemns groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and even the moderate Humane Society of the United States.

First, it is interesting that Zak lumps all animal rights related crimes into two categories: vandalism and “other.” So the firebombing of a Minnesota University laboratory was just an “other” crime. The death threats and razor-blade laced letters to researchers and farmers are just “other” crimes. Certainly vandalism is a major part of animal rights crimes, but animal rights terrorism has progressed way beyond just simple vandalism.

Second, of course, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals deserves condemnation for its support — moral and otherwise — of terrorism. Zak doesn’t even bother to address the issue of PETA’s Earth Liberation Front donation nor its donation to the legal funds of several individuals accused of animal rights terrorism. He doesn’t bother to dismiss or explain away the numerous statements made by PETA insiders such as Ingrid Newkirk or Bruce Friedrich that encourage and justify animal rights terrorism.

Third, Smith’s comments about the Humane Society of the United States were completely justified, although twisted and distorted by Zak’s failure to actually outline Smith’s complaint. Smith wrote,

. . . known ELF and ALF activists are routinely invited to speak at the yearly Washington, D.C. animal-rights conference sponsored by PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.

I believe HSUS is simply a participant in AR 2002, not a sponsor, but aside from that this is a valid question — why does HSUS participate in FARM USA’s annual animal rights conference which features animal rights terrorists front and center? If there were an anti-animal rights conference which featured groups that advocated burning down the businesses of animal rights activists, I know I would not attend and I cannot imagine any other anti-animal rights group would attend. So why does HSUS want to associate with known criminals and advocates of animal rights crimes?

(The irony, by the way, in Smith attacking animal rights activists is that his view of medical research is rather close to the animal rights position. Smith is, for example, a vocal opponent of transgenic research which he claims undermines human dignity).

Hopefully Zak’s next op-ed or article defending PETA and HSUS will actually address the salient issues.

Source:

Exposing animal-rights terrorism. Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online, October 2, 2002.

Queen Elizabeth Dons Fur Coat, Angers Activists

Queen Elizabeth was photographed wearing a fur coat as she entered the Canadian assembly building in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Queen is visiting Canada as part of her golden jubilee.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson told The Herald (UK) that the Queen wore the fur coat because of freezing temperatures in Canada, which did little to allay complaints from animal rights activists.

According to a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals statement,

Just because it is cold weather, that does not mean the Queen has to be cold-hearted. There are many warm fabric coats available which are made without breaking the necks of animals or electrocuting.

Advocates for Animals’ director Les Ward told The Herald,

Whether they are old or new, for the majority of people it is no longer acceptable to wear fur coats. It is about time that the Royal family realized this and decided to set an example to the rest of the world.

Source:

Anger as Queen wears fur coat. Vicky Collins, The Herald (UK), October 10, 2002.

Is the Death of a Chicken as Tragic as the Death of a Woman?

The current issue of Australian Feminist Studies includes an interesting review of Joan Dunayer’s book, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. It is interesting largely because reviewer Anona Taylor offers a very positive review of a book whose main thesis is that the killing of a woman as a result of domestic violence and the killing of a chicken for food are morally equivalent and should be discussed using identical language. In fact, Dunayer argues, the killing of the chicken may be even more tragic than the murder of the woman.

The idea that we should use the same language to discuss the killing of both humans and non-humans was too much to bear even for animal rights philosopher Peter Singer, who in a review of Dunayer’s book noted that it was absurd to use language that put something like the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the same moral plane as the slaughter of broiler chickens. The former was clearly a tragedy of much greater magnitude than the latter, Singer argued, even from an animal rights point of view.

In a reply to Singer, Dunayer vehemently disagreed with this contention,

“It is not speciesist” to consider the murder of several thousand humans “a greater tragedy than the killing of several million chickens,” Singer contends. It certainly is. . . . Also, Singer’s disrespect for chickens is inconsistent with his espoused philosophy, which values benign individuals more than those who, on balance, cause harm. By that measure, chickens are worthier than most humans, who needlessly cause much suffering and death (for example, by eating or wearing animal-derived products).

Not surprisingly, reviewer Taylor’s is concerned that Dunayer’s view clearly undermines feminist theories of the self that permit abortion. But she is apparently unconcerned about Dunayer’s larger argument that we should have no more compassion for Ted Bundy’s victims than we do for the animals killed to make a chicken salad sandwich. Taylor writes,

Dunayer argues that, like sexism or racism, speciesism survives through lies. Conventional English pronoun use terms nonhuman animals “it”, erasing their gender and grouping them with inanimate objects. Euphemism and doublespeak disguise humans’ massive exploitation and maltreatment of nonhuman beings. Dunayer shows that these (and other) linguistic ploys serve to keep nonhuman victims absent from discussion, helping us disregard and deny our mistreatment of them.

And here I thought it was just pornography and violent movies that dehumanized women.

Source:

Animal Equality Book Review. Anona Taylor, Australian Feminist Studies, vol. 17, no. 38.