The Most Appalling Thing about the Runaway Bride Case

In the non-stop coverage about the runaway bride case in Georgia, I’m surprised no one has called Duluth Police Chief Randy Belcher to task for one of the more bizarre comments on the case. Before Jennifer Wilbanks turned up, of course, the logical suspect in the disappearance was her fiance, John Mason.

Mason took a private polygraph test which he passed, but police wanted him to take a police-administered polygraph test. Mason was willing, but with conditions. According to Fox News,

Mason’s attorney, Jim Watkins, has set forth conditions for an official polygraph, including that it be videotaped, which is not procedure for an official test.

Belcher said no law enforcement agency “that’s worth anything” will agree to videotape a lie detector test.

WTF is wrong with people like Belcher? They’re going to rely on a pseudoscientific device like a polygraph and then deny a suspect the right to videotape the test? Are they afraid that the videotape will show just what nonsense polygraphs are?

Frankly, I can understand how someone who would refuse such a reasonable request is fit to serve as a dog catcher, much less the police chief.

Source:

Cops Call of Search for Missing Woman. Fox News, April 29, 2005.

Shame on USA Today

USA Today has a huge front page story today about an increase in vehicular accidents among soldiers, especially among those who have come back from Iraq. The headline blares, “Survivors of war take fatal risks,” above a dramatic photo of a completely trashed Pontiac Trans Am which Iraq war veteran Vicent Withers was driving when he crashed into another car in North Carolina, killing himself and the other driver.

The angle is clear — soldiers back from Iraq are taking ridiculous risks either to get the same rush of adrenalin they experienced in Iraq or because they feel invincible after making it out of a war zone alive.

But the reader has to wade through to the 13th paragraph before the story notes that the rate of fatalities among Army personnel is still lower than the rate of fatalaties among civilians of a similar age group.

Presumably “Survivors of war take fatal risks on roads” is sells more papers than “Army personnel in Iraq drive just as poorly as civilians.” Certainly the military should look into why the rate is increasing, but it doesn’t deserve the alarmist coverage that USA Today gives it.

Its also a bit odd that the USA Today article mentions the Marines accident rate in passing, never giving statistics or comparisons for pre- and post-Iraq war. Reading between the lines, it appears that the reason for this is that the vehicular accident rate for Marines hasn’t been affected by the Iraq war, which undercuts the USA Today thesis about soldiers unable to cope with coming home.

In other words, exactly the sort of statistical hatchet job that USA Today excels at so well.

Source:

Survivors of war take fatal risks on roads. Gregg Zoroya, USA Today, May 3, 2005.

Kevin Kjonaas: It’s The End of the World As We Know It

Writing under the alias Kevin Jonas, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’s Kevin Kjonaas wrote an article that appeared in the March 2005 issue of Satya magazine warning that the world is on the edge of collapse and chastising animal rights activists for not caring.

According to Kjonaas,

By 2050 it is estimated that the human population will stand at over ten billion. In 15 years the demand for meat will double. It is predicted that as early as 2016, 95 percent of the world’s rainforests will be depleted, and along with them a major source of our air supply. Today alone, 137 species will be brought to extinction, and 50,000 more will join them by the year’s end.

Most of this is dated nonsense. The UN’s Population Projection, for example, estimates world population will be slightly over 9 billion in 2050. The rainforests have almost no net effect on the world’s oxygen levels, since decaying plant matter in the rainforests uses about as much oxygen as the rainforests produce. Kjonaas is presumably too busy facilitating violence and terrorism to bother keeping up with current developments in the areas he styles himself an expert.

Kjonaas’ argument, to the extent he has one, is that just as the world is on the verge of an environmental collapse, the situation for animals is roughly analogous with the current tactics of the animal rights movement having almost no effect on animal use. And what do you do when faced with the possibility of a catastrophe? Why, of course, then you are justified in using extraordinary measures,

I have always been a proud advocate of radical activism precisely because it is a rejection of the stagnated process of the status quo. It is this sense of urgency that inspires some to break the rules of the broken game and take our predicament seriously.

Many dismiss radical activism and direct action as angry, immature, and disruptive to the politics of the polite. Some criticisms may be constructive, but this holds true for all methodology, and in many instances radical activism is more than adolescent angst. It is a reaction to the pressure of impending collapse, and a sincere attempt at affecting a measurable impact. Now, more than ever, we should be discussing and considering these tactics in a desperate bid for success.

Confronting the impending crises of policy, population, and consumption is not meant to romanticize revolutionary efforts, nor is it meant to discount improvements that are being made gradually through letters, litigation, and legislation. My feet frequently ache from manning information tables, and IÂ’m happy my grandmother can eat vegetarian at her local Burger King. However, acknowledging the shortcomings of these tactics opens us up to question what it will truly take to succeed.

We need to consider everything. To throw every idea against a wall and see what sticks, and discard what slips. We owe it to those we’re fighting for to discover what has true potential to end the atrocities against which we’re fighting. We need to be personally and politically ready to accept that it may not be the feel-good efforts at ‘changing the hearts’ of our toxic species that work. That mad cow may be our best friend after all! We need to at least start thinking about future realities and asking these questions. At the very least, we need to refrain from quickly dismissing those who are trying radical approaches to redress a radical and ravaging reality.

Times are this dire and no one among us should be satisfied with our current progress. The solution is not necessarily that everyone go out and “get militant,” but at least we can start thinking beyond the stringent rules of the national protectionists and the trappings of our own creature comforts. We must truly embrace a cause—a struggle—that is worth fighting for, going to prison for, and perhaps even dying for.

Certainly it would be nice to see Kjonaas go to jail for his movement, which will hopefully happen after his trial this summer.

And, of course, he’s absolutely right on the broader point — the animal rights movement has almost no chance of achieving its goals through its present means. Of course, it has almost no chance of achieving its goals through the means favored by Kjonaas either. All that will happen with the tactics that Kjonaas advocates is an ever stronger law enforcement reaction resulting in lots of activists in jail and little or no progress for the movement.

Animal rights activists largely have two choices — do you want to be peaceful and ineffective or violent and ineffective?

Source:

Apocalpyse Now. Kevin Jonas, Satya, March 2005.

PETA Targets Donatella Versace

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals announced in March that its India chapter would target Donatella Versace with billboards.

The billboards feature pictures of Donatella with the copy, “Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people.”

PETA’s Dan Mathews tells Indian newspaper Mid-Day,

Donatella’s selfish, cruel nature is evident in the photograph, which is in start contrast to the gentleness and beauty of the animals whose skins were stolen for her shows.

Of course, Mathews is one of the uglier animal rights activists around, having in 2000 declared his admiration for the man who murdered Gianni Versace. A profile in Genre magazine that year noted,

When asked who is among the most important men he loves of the century, he replied, “Andrew Cunanan, because he got Versace to stop doing fur.”

Someone’s got a selfish and cruel nature, and it ain’t Donatella Versace.

Source:

PETA targets violence. Hemal Ashar, Mid-Day, March 20, 2005.

Activist Complains About Being Victim of Manipulative Video Editing

In December, animal rights activist Barbara Gates distributed a letter to other activists essentially apologizing for her appearance on the Fox reality TV show “Trading Spouses” and warning other activists who might consider appearing on the show.

In case you missed Gates’ appearance, the conceit of the show was that Gates lived for a period of time with a meat-eating family while that family’s mother lived with Gates’ family. To put it bluntly, the show made Gates look like a nut case. I caught a couple episodes, but laughing at Gates got boring quickly and the show was unwatchable in my opinion.

Gates’ letter basically claims she was a victim of manipulative video editing. Gates writes,

I apologize if you tried contacting me through this email address in December. I was not excepting emails due to “hate” mail I was receiving after appearing on the reality TV show Trading Spouses — as the vegan mom. We are still — weeks later — recovering from the shock and hurt over watching our family life and vegan values be desecrated on national TV. At the core of my grief is how the vegan message was not presented objectively and truthfully AT ALL. How I wish I could give specific examples — you would be shocked and upset to know. Film editing is capable of making movie magic — even black magic.

I have no doubt that the producers of this show relied on creative, manipulative editing, but its a bit odd to see an animal rights activist and others in the movement up in arm over this practice given how frequently it is used by animal rights groups to manufacture and distort evidence. All Fox did to Gates was what People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups have been doing for decades.

It would be nice to see activists condemn such dishonest tactics on principle, rather than only when they are the targets.

Source:

Dear friends of Project Health Beginnings letter. Barbara Gates, January 2005.