Month: July 2001

Rep. George Nethercutt (R-Washington) recently introduced a bill that would increase the potential sentences of environmentalist and animal rights extremists who engage in acts of violence, explicitly add such acts of terror to those punishable under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and provide funding for a national clearing house for law enforcement to track animal rights extremists. Of course animal rights activists who support such acts of terrorism, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals‘ Bruce Friedrich are expressing their outrage over the bill.

Demonstrating the sharply honed thinking that can be found in most PETA campaigns, Friedrich actually told United Press International,

To compare animal rights activists to terrorists like Tim McVeigh is scare mongering. Perhaps the most disturbing part is that the federal government would collect information on suspects, which denies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, threats, intimidation and property damage are already illegal so there is no need for it.

I’m not sure which fantasy world Friedrich is living in at the moment, but generally in order to catch crooks, police and government agencies have to collect information about suspects. And if it is absurd to compare activists to McVeigh, why was Friedrich widely reported comparing the Oklahoma City bomber to Gandhi and others for not selecting meat for his last meal? And lets not forget that Friedrich himself has written that burning down a research lab or trashing a McDonald’s is completely consistent with the philosophy of strategic nonviolence as outlined by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

In an extreme absurdity Friedrich compares this bill to McCarthyism saying, “The next thing you know they’ll be calling in artists, actors and anyone else they can think of to ask them, ‘are you now or have you ever been a vegetarian?'” But Friedrich seems to have things mixed up here, as it is the animal rights movement that has targeted its opponents for violence. You don’t see gangs of researchers running around burning down the homes of animal rights activists or targeting vegetarian business for violence.

Source:

Critics say eco-terrorism bill unwarranted. Kelly Hearn, United Press International, June 14, 2001.

Somehow I missed this, but Michigan’s concealed carry weapons law went into effect on Sunday, July 1. The law was passed months ago but a group had collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot in the Fall which would have suspended the bill from going into effect.

But on Friday the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the law was exempt from the referendum process (with reasoning which frankly made little sense) and so the law went into effect. People can begin apply for CCW permits today.

Before the new law, people could apply for a concealed weapons permit, but in all but one county you had to demonstrate a “need” for the permit. This effectively meant that unless you had political connections or were somebody important, you could forget about obtaining a permit.

The exception was Macomb county which four years ago began issuing CCW permits to almost all applicants who hadn’t been convicted of felonies and who didn’t have a history of mental illness. Macomb did occasionally weed out people its gun board thought weren’t mature enough to have a concealed weapon permit, but very rarely.

The bottom line results were amazing. Crime has been dropping quickly in Michigan just as it has around the country, but the crime rate in Macomb county dropped three times as fast as the rest of the state. This is very much in line with what John Lott outlines in his study of concealed carry laws, More Guns, Less Crime — crime has been dropping nationwide, buy it has dropped much further and faster in counties where concealed carry laws were liberalized.

Newsmax reports that while appearing on CNN’s “Crossfire” program, Eleanor Smeal called for new hearings about whether or not Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill. Smeal said,

I think that there should be a hearing. Not only do I think there should be a hearing, I think that we can get to the bottom of it. … Why don’t you bring it before a Senate judiciary committee. …

The call for new hearings comes after David Brock, who wrote The Real Anita Hill which slammed Hill, now claims that he not only lied in his book, but also went so far as to intimidate and threaten potential witnesses who would have confirmed parts of Hill’s story. Regardless of what else one thinks of the Hill/Thomas matter, it is hardly surprising that Brock may have lied in his book since his book was such an obvious hatchet job; it was Brock after all, who infamously described Hill as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”

But Smeal’s call for new hearings is ridiculous, since there is essentially no new information in Brock’s account (except for additional confirmation that Brock is a liar and lousy journalist). Kaye Savage, a friend of Thomas’s, claimed that she stopped by his bachelor’s apartment only to find centerfolds from “Playboy” on the walls of the apartment. Brock portrayed Savage as unreliable in his book and claims he tried to intimidate her with information that he claims was given to him by a friend of Thomas, Mark Paoletta. Paoletta denies that he ever gave any information, damaging or otherwise, to Brock, and of the two men, only Brock has made a career out of confessing to lies.

Ironically, feminists such as Smeal have already provided a ready defense for supporters of Thomas — the worst that can be said about Thomas is that while under oath he might have lied about his sex life. But as feminists reminded us constantly just a couple years ago, that’s hardly a real crime.

Source:

Feminist Who Shunned Juanita Wants New Hearings for Anita. Newsmax, June 29, 2001.