Day: August 6, 2003

Pictures from Aug. 5 Anti-War Protest

I’ve occasionally been posting pictures of the anti-war demonstrations here
in downtown Kalamazoo, MI. These folks with the Kalamazoo
Non-Violent Opponents to War have been protesting every Tuesday and Sunday
for months. Yesterday I figured I’d drive downtown on my way home from work
and see how the Tuesday protests are going.

There were 9 people there around 5:15 p.m. One of the things I’m curious about
is how long they plan to keep protesting. Given that American soldiers are likely
to be in Iraq for two-three years at a bare minimum, do they plan to keep protesting
for another 24 to 36 months? Anyway.

This man on the left couldn’t be more wrong. Consider Afghanistan — while
no paradise-on-earth by any measure, the fact is there are no longer any public
executions of prostitutes in stadiums, and women there are finally able to receive
an education. Violence, in some cases, is the only solution.

Next to him is someone holding a sign saying “Nonviolence can win.”
Yes, but only in places that already have liberal democracies where they care
about public opinion. Nonviolence can win? Then why is Myanmar still ruled by
a brutal military junta?

On the left we have a “no war” symbol with the Edwin Star quote,
“War, what is it good for?” Answer: Bringing down dictators.

Nonviolence gives hope? Not as much as seeing Uday and Qusay finally getting
what they deserve. It’s too bad those two didn’t get the Il Duce treatment.

The guy on the left is “mourning the tragic deaths of US & Iraqi solders
& civilians.” Was the death of an Iraqi soldier, during a military
campaign, “tragic”? Roll
the tape,

From February to September 1988, the Iraqi government launched the official
“Anfal” campaign, during which Iraqi troops swept through the highlands of
Iraqi Kurdistan rounding up everyone who remained in government-declared “prohibited
zones.” More than 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, were trucked to remote
sites and executed.

But, you know, what’s 100,000 deaths when coming up with a suitable slogan?

“Permanent resistance to permanent war!” nicely captures what I was
trying to explain to a woman I talked to at a protest a few weeks ago. Most
of the anti-war stuff is simply the latest cookie cutter argument the Left has
been making since the conclusion of World War II. There was a time when the
Left would have supported military action against a right wing dictator. During
the Spanish Civil War many American Leftists signed up and fought against Franco.
Today they’d probably just hold lame signs about the magical power of nonviolence.

Another Biblically-inspired pacifist.

PETA Uses Bea Arthur to Annoy Palmer Chiropractic University Employees

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had Bea Arthur record a message complaining about the treatment of animals in federally funded studies being conducted at the Palmer Chiropractic University in Florida.

The taped messages were sent to dozens of employees at the university using an automated telephone messaging system. The messages claimed that Palmer “mutilates” cats. Palmer has grants totaling more than $1 million for spinal research involving felines and rats.

In her taped message, Arthur said, “Palmer should conduct humane studies on volunteer human patients rather than torture animals.”

Palmer Vice President for Research William Meeker countered that PETA is distorting the facts (hard to believe, right?)

What PETA supporters fail to realize is that this research is not only rigorously regulated by external and internal governing bodies who ensure that the highest possible standards in animal care are followed, but that this type of research is vital for understanding how the neural and musculoskeletal systems function.

In a Question and Answer piece on its web site, Palmer Chiropractic says of PETA’s attacks against the university,

Why is PETA attacking Palmer?s research?

It?s simple. PETA is attacking Palmer because we use laboratory animals in some of our research studies. PETA does not really care about how well we treat our laboratory animals because PETA is unalterably opposed to the use of animals in research for any and all reasons whatsoever. PETA is also against the use of animals for food or clothing, or as pets (http://www.peta.org/about/index.html). In fact, PETA is against the use of animals for any human purpose of any kind. PETA does not seem to recognize that any good has arisen, or can arise from research using animals. (Ironically, health care research using animals and humans benefits both animals and humans alike.)

In a letter dated last November 2002, PETA threatened to ?do everything in our power to stop you.? PETA will never stop attacking Palmer as long as laboratory animals are used, regardless of the significance of the research and despite the fact that all such studies adhere to extremely stringent regulations and ethical guidelines for humane care. We also suspect that PETA is attacking Palmer and the chiropractic profession because they perceive us as weak. We note that many, many research institutions with much larger animal research programs are ignored by PETA. Why doesn?t PETA attack the 125 medical schools in the U.S.?

. . .

PETA continues to imply that Palmer cuts the legs and tails off the rats. Is this true?

No. PETA had obtained a grant proposal from Palmer that had originally discussed this methodology at one time. However, during the almost year long period of scientific review at NIH, new studies were published describing a new behavioral model of rat bipedalism. When these became known to NIH program officers and Palmer investigators, the protocols were changed. We have no plans to use the old surgical bipedal model, even though it has been used extensively in the past in spine research (over 30 references available upon request).

Sources:

Animal rights group harasses college. Chiropractic Economics, July 2003.

Questions and Answers about Research Using Laboratory Animals at Palmer Chiropractic University. Press Release, Palmer Chiropractic University, July 27, 2003.

“Golden Girl” to Call Employees for PETA?s Sake. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, June 12, 2003.

Alaskan Governor Signs Wolf Cull Bill

Apparently willing to risk the promised boycott from Friends of Animals, Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski signed a bill in June that will allow private citizens to hunt wolves from airplanes.

The law also alters the rules that determine when the Alaska Department of Fish and Game can order a culling of the wolf population. Under the old rules, it could only do so if it found that there was a decline in the population of animals that wolves prey on. Under the new rules, the department can order a cull of wolves when their numbers grow regardless of the impact such growth is having on prey species.

The Department of Fish and Game will likely use the aerial hunts to thin the population of wolves near McGrath, where residents would like to see the moose population expand to provide more hunting and economic opportunities. The department already has a project underway to capture and remove bears from around McGrath.

Friends of Animals, meanwhile, apparently believes there are constitutional issues with the law and are holding off on calling for a boycott hoping that those issues will render the law moot,

FOA believes that there are legal problems with the new statute. Among other things, it appears that this statute violates the Alaska Constitution’s separation of powers rule by invading the legal authority of the Governor and the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game. We brought this problem to the attention of the Alaska Attorney General, and we expect that it be addressed before anyone tries to take any action under the statute. Aside from that constitutional infirmity, there are also some serious legal, administrative and fiscal impediments to implementation of the statute. FOA anticipates litigation if the Game Board tries to use this new statute to initiate wolf-killing. If wolf control is implemented, Friends of Animals will call for a tourism boycott of Alaska during the months of November 2003 through January 2004 — when tourists book summer visits to Alaska with tourist agencies. — Priscilla Feral

Sources:

Murkowski signs aerial wolf control bill. Associated Press, June 19, 2003.

When Alaskan Congressmen Attack

Rep. Dan Young (R-Alaska) lost his temper during a debate with Rep. Jim Moran (D-Virginia) over a bill that Moran introduced that would have banned the baiting of bears on federal lands.

Young said to Moran,

I wish I had my native people in here right no. You’d walk out of here with no head on.

Young has a history with Moran — back in 1998 during debate over a bill that woudl have restricted the kinds of trapst that could be used on federal lands, Young made an obscene hand gesture at Moran.

An animal rights activist who posted an account of thi latest exchange to an animal rights mailing list noted,

If an animal rights activist said what Young said, she’d be charged with making a “terrorist threat.”

Of course your average animal rights activist wouldn’t be speaking on the floor of the House as a member of that body where she would have a great deal of legal protection thanks to the Speech & Debate Clause. But the observation is spot on — this sort of behavior would not be tolerated if it came from Ingrid Newkirk, and it shouldn’t be tolerated from Young either.

Moran later withdrew his bill when it became apparent it would not make it out of committee.

Sources:

Lawmakers tussle over bear baiting. TheDenverChannel.Com, June 13, 2003.

Toward a more polite Don Young. The Juneau Empire, July 22, 1999.

Congressman Pulls Bill Restricting Bear Hunting. Robert B. Bluey, CNSNews, July 11, 2003.

Alaskan congressman envisions Moran ‘with no head on’. Associated Press, June 13, 2003.