Month: December 2001

Does Jean Barnes Even Read Her Press Releases?

In October 2001, Jean Barnes of In Defense of Animals released a couple of press releases related to the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University that were as bizarre as they were absurd.

On October 5, Barnes sent out a press release screaming “Busted: Homophobe at Yerkes . . .” Barnes accused Yerkes researcher Kim Wallen of “see[ing] tran-sexuals and homosexuals as ill” and added that “Fred Phelps would be pleased.” What is the source of such remarks? Barnes has conducted research into gender assignment in primates, rats, and other species, including research into the role that exposure to testosterone and testosterone antagonists plays in the socialization and development of non-human primates. According to Barnes, then, merely studying gender assignment is homophobic.

On October 11, Barnes sent out an other press release blaring that “Coca-Cola Wants Distance from Emory University’s Failed Animal Experiments,” in which she claimed that “The Coca-Cola Company is apparently attempting to distance itself form the demonstrated cruel and useless experiments currently being conducted at Emory University and Emory’s Yerkes Primate Center.”

Barnes’ argument in this case was hilarious. Apparently Barnes and others sent inquiries to The Coca-Cola Company asking them to stop supporting the Yerkes Primate Center. Coca-Coal sent back a form reply saying,

Thank you for contacting the Coca-Cola Company.

You had express your concerns regarding the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center. We have researched our donations and do not have any records of making any direct contribution to their research efforts.

Barnes still can’t get her through her head that there is a difference between setting up a $5 billion endowment for Emory University — which Coca-Cola has done — and giving money directly to the Yerkes Primate Facility. Barnes might pick an Emory University student at random — say John Doe — and then write a letter to Coca-Cola demanding to know why they are financially supporting John Doe’s education!

Sources:

Coca-Cola Wants Distance from Emory University’s Failed Animal Experiments. Jean Barnes, Press Release, In Defense of Animals, October 11, 2001.

Busted: Homophobe at Yerkes . . . Jean Barnes, Press Release, In Defense of Animals, October 5, 2001.

Barry Horne's Final Act on the Public Stage

Apparently Barry Horne wanted his funeral to be just another platform for the animal rights movement, and it was — though the message bystanders took away from the proceedings may have differed somewhat from what Horne intended.

Wearing his favorite football shirt (a sport that revolves around leather ball the last time I checked), about 300 animal rights activists gathered to see Horne buried in a Northampton cemetary. His body was carried in a cardboard coffin and the ceremonies conducted by a pagan priestess.

Although numerous animal rights activists, including other convicted terrorists, were in attendance, neither Horne’s ex-wife nor his son made an appearance. After the pagan ceremony, the funeral featured several speakers denouncing the British government’s stands on animal research and a call for others to continue the work that Horne started.

The highlight had to be animal rights activist Keith Mann who urged other activists not to be afraid. “We are going to lose more people They are going to kill us. The fight starts now.” This from a man who spent 7 years in jail for firebombing a farm. Who exactly is trying to kill who?

In case anybody missed that point, animal rights activist John Curtis said that, “Animal rights is a war. We are at war for the animals. We need to make sacrifices for the animals, too.”

Quite correct, and medical researchers, farmers and others are trying to defend themselves in this war from an animal rights movement that idolizes arsonists like Horne and Mann out of a twisted conception of compassion.

Source:

Animal rights activist buried. John Vidal, The Guardian (London), November 17, 2001.

Animal rights activist saluted as a martyr. Oliver Wright, The Times (London), November 17, 2001.

Don’t Be Underwhelmed by Ginger

A lot of people are apparently underwhelmed by confirmation that Dean Kamen’s “Ginger” (now named Segway) turns out to be a glorified scooter. Steven Den Beste has a comparison between Kamen’s invention and already available mopeds (which, as he notes, are the real competitors to Segway). It’s hard to imagine much of a serious consumer market for Kamen’s invention.

On the other hand, this is the beauty of capitalism — let private entrepreneuers put up their own money and take on the risks (and potential rewards) for harebrained schemes. Who knows — Segway mania might sweep the country.

I doubt it, but I’m still excited by the product because if details about it are accurate, even if this particular product doesn’t succeed, there’s a lot of fascinating engineering here that will likely find its way into other inventions. My prediction is that Segway consumer sales go nowhere and the company turns to using its patents to assist other companies in implementing their technology (one thing that immediately comes to mind is putting some padding on these suckers, and creating a combination laser tag/bumper cars attraction).

Arafat’s Time Is Up

I think Steven Den Beste is right when he says that Yasser Arafat is now in a no win situation and Arafat will be lucky if he survives to see 2003. And the main reason I think Arafat is doomed is that the Israelis no longer find him useful (in fact, pushing the Palestinians to a point where they kill Arafat may be the best outcome Israel can hope for at the moment).

There have always been hardliners in Israel who wanted to kill Arafat outright, but at least in recent years the government has ruled out attempts on Arafat’s life, largely on the grounds that a) the alternatives to Arafat are even worse and b) killing Arafat would likely result in a total war between Israel and the Palestinians, possibly involving other Middle Eastern countries.

Neither of those conditions hold anymore. Arafat may be on the moderate end of the Palestinian political spectrum, but he no longer can keep the extremists in line. The Israelis now have a situation where Hamas or some other group carries out a suicide bombing and commentators around the world rush to say that Arafat’s not responsible because he can’t possibly control every terrorist within the Palestinian Authority. Exactly.

Second, if Israel is not already in a state of total war, it is increasingly obvious that it will be in such a state very soon. Every time a suicide bomb goes off in an Israeli mall, there’s one more bit of evidence that the Oslo accords were a horrible mistake. Using means both covert and overt, I suspect that the Israelis are going to begin the process of undoing that agreement.

How — by backing Arafat into a corner where he cannot survive. As Den Beste notes, if Arafat gives in to Israeli and American demands and actually starts an earnest crackdown on Palestinian terrorism, his days are numbered. On the other hand, if he doesn’t, he provides cover for continued Israeli incursions into territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority, which also helps hasten his end.

So what’s the best way out for Israel? Palestinian hardliners finally get angered enough at Arafat and successfully assassinate him. After a couple of additional terrorist attacks, Israel declares it has had enough and sends in its military to renew the occupation and deal with the terrorists in its own way. Sure it will receive international condemnation, but it will be much more blunted with the Palestinian Authority devolving into chaos.

The only real obstacle to this scenario would be U.S. objections. At some point, however, the Israelis might just realize that American politicians are more than ready to urge Israel to “restrain” itself right into non-existence as a viable political entity (in fact, you have to think that many Israeli politicians likely think their single biggest mistake was ever becoming so excessively dependent on U.S. aid, which constrains their range of action. Sure Egypt is constrained in much the same way, but it doesn’t face the same sort of problems that Israel does).