Month: October 2003

ArsTechnica on iTunes for Windows

ArsTechnica has a nice analysis of the pros and cons of iTunes for Windows. The main drawback to the software and service, of course, is the lock-in with the iPod,

Some other issues have been highlighted by competitors out to
deflate Apple’s party balloon. Dave Fester, the General Manager of the
Windows Digital Media Division, surprisingly had little positive to say
about iTMS in a general Q&A on “Choosing a Digital Music Service for Windows Users.” His complaints are not totally without merit, however.

Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to
their service model, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still
remain a closed system, where iPod owners cannot access content from
other services. Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from
Apple’s Music Store. As I mentioned earlier, this is a drawback for
Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices,
and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a
CD or put on a portable device. Lastly, if you use Apple’s music store
along with iTunes, you don’t have the ability of using the over 40
different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices.

Obviously this is code speak for “we only like services that use WMP
9,” but the iPod issue is a real one. While some are convinced that
iTMS is really nothing more than a ploy to sell iPods, this would be a
castrating move on Apple’s part. The cost of iPods alone are
prohibitive for many people. Those who do buy are likely to keep their
iPods for a rather long time. iPod saturation is a real concern for
Apple, and while iTMS may spur iPod sales for a while, it alone won’t
be enough to keep people buying them in two years when most interested
folks will already have one. Of course, Apple is the master of selling
expensive hardware through software/service means, but iTMS should
really bite the bullet and support other devices.

Save the Guinea Pigs — Assault the Humans

A British group called Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs sent out a release in August announcing plans for a September 6 demonstration to commemorate the 1999 theft from a research facility of 600 guinea pigs by the Animal Liberation Front.

According to the press release (emphasis added),

On September the 6th we will be gathering to remember the 600 guinea pigs rescued by the ALF from those gruesome sheds; we will be remembering the 2,500 guinea pigs that Chris Hall killed with his bare hands after that victorious raid; we will be remembering Dave Blenkinsop and all those in prison for making a difference to the lives of subjugated animals and we will be remembering all the human and non human victims of the accursed vivisection industry.

Blenkinsop, of course, is the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty extremist currently serving more than 10 years in jail for, among other things, assaulting Huntingdon Life Science’s managing director Brian Cass with a pickaxe handle.

According to the Birmingham Post, more than 150 people showed up for this protest. Despite openly celebrating Blenkinsop, a Save the Newchurch Guinea Pig representative who would only give his first name, John, whined that animal rights activists were unfairly portrayed as terrorists,

The word terrorist is bandied around too often. Demonstration and peaceful protest is part of everyday life and we are stigmatized for it. We are being branded for being compassionate. We give our lives to this campaign and some people will go to prison.

In “John’s” world, three people assaulting a man with pickaxe handles is a compassionate act for which activists are unfairly stigmatized.

It’s fitting then, that the other speaker of the event was ALF spokesman Robin Webb. Webb said,

At the very outset of this campaign we liberated 600 guinea pigs, some would say burgled, and placed them in permanent homes.

The ALF activities have also pursued acts of economic sabotage, damaged vehicles associated with the breeding of guinea pigs for vivisection.

I can’t predict what ALF activists will do, I have no prior knowledge of unlawful activities but their actions will continue so long as Darley Oaks Farm continues to breed guinea pigs for vivisection.

Of course, Webb too thinks assaulting people with wooden weapons is also perfectly appropriate. After the attack on Cass, Webb said,

This serves Brian Cass right and is totally justifiable. In fact he has got off lightly. I have no sympathy for him. I do not condemn this act. I condemn what Brian Cass does to animals. In fact, I would say I condone this. What surprises me is that this doesn’t happen more often.

Gee, it’s hard to imagine where the press gets the idea that animal rights activists are terrorists who condone violence.

Sources:

Perspective: Sinister Face Of Guinea Pig Farm Protest Movement. Sarah Probert, Birmingham Post, September 8, 2003.

The SNGP National: Lichfield 200. Press Release, August 1, 2003.

SNGP NATIONAL MARCH AND DEMO. Press Release, Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs, September 6, 2003.

David Agranoff's Other Arrests and Admiration of Terrorists

As I noted previously, David Agranoff had his home raided by law enforcement officials in August as part of their investigation into a $50 million August 1 arson in San Diego. Agranoff and other activists complain that Agranoff is being needlessly harassed by law enforcement officials.

Well, Agranoff certainly should understand needless harassment. As he told Mark Gabrish Conlan in an interview posted on Indymedia, Agranoff has quite a history of harassing those he disagrees with,

Zenger?s: How did you first get into trouble with the law?

Agranoff: My first arrest was at Sims Poultry, a poultry producing plant in my hometown. I was caught in the act of spray-painting the trucks, in an act of economic sabotage — not a very effective one. I didn’t know what I was getting myself into. It’s not that I don’t support people doing those kinds of actions, but there’s a lot of things people need to understand before they choose to take an underground action like that. I didn’t understand what it involved, and that’s why I got caught. I was just acting on emotion and anger that I felt towards the industries that harm animals.

Agranoff here is referring to his 1993 arrest and conviction for vandalizing Sims Poultry. He plead guilty to criminal mischief and resisting arrest, and was given a one year suspended sentence. Agranoff says in his interview that he has been arrested 15-20 times since while protesting various businesses.

Agranoff emphasizes that after his first arrest he decided not to participate in such acts anymore, but nonetheless admires the “heroism” of those who do,

However, when someone says, “What do you think of the ELF”, then I have to say that if somebody felt compelled to risk their freedom and their life — since, if they’re caught in the act of doing this, it’s very possible that they could be shot at — to do actions like that, as far as I’m concerned, that is true heroism. By putting their life on the line to defend the environment, they’re putting the earth and all life forms on it before themselves. They are trying to defend the planet and willing to risk their own lives for that. That is a true act of bravery, and it puts me in a position where I have to defend the people who make those kinds of decisions.

Sources:

David Agranoff:
Activist Victim of FBI, Corporate Harassment. Mark Gabrish Conlan, August 2003.

ALF claims responsibility for Sims arson. Steven Hinnfield, Herald Times (Indiana), May 15, 2002.

New York Gov. Pataki Vetoes Canned Hunt Legislation

Despite lobbying efforts by a number of animal rights groups, New York Gov. George Pataki (R) vetoed legislation designed to outlaw so-called canned hunts.

In 1999, Pataki signed a bill that made it illegal to hold canned hunts on areas of ten acres or less. Not surprisingly, this had led to no less than 110 canned hunt operations in New York located on 11 or more acres.

The legislation vetoed by Pataki would have banned (emphasis added),

. . . the shooting or spearing of a non-native big game mammal that is confined in a box, pen, cage or similar container [of ten or less contiguous acres] or in a fenced or other area from which there is no means for such mammal to escape;

Animal rights activists denounced the veto.

In a press release, Humane Society of the United States senior vice president Wayne Pacell said,

Governor Pataki has embarrassed himself with this appalling veto of a bill to stop the repugnant practice of shooting animals for a fee in fenced enclosures. The animal protection community in New York will long remember his pardon of animal abusers and his rebuke of humane advocates.

Michael Markarian, The Fund for Animals president, added,

Governor Pataki has thumbed his nose at New Yorkers, including animal advocates, hunters, and upstate newspapers that called for passage of this humane bill. He has aligned himself with the handful of unscrupulous individuals who would pay big bucks to shoot a zebra ambling up to a feed truck or a Corsican ram trapped in the corner of a fence.

Pataki, meanwhile, said that the bill would not only have applied to the 110 canned hunt operations operating on more than 10 acres, but also would have banned 340 deer and elk farms throughout the state.

Supporters of the bill said that last part was nonsense, which puts the activists in a very odd position. For example, here’s a paragraph from a press release put out by The Fund for Animals addressing the issue of whether or not deer and elk farms would have been impacted,

Governor Pataki mistakenly believes that a ban on canned hunts would devastate white-tailed deer farms. The legislation is consistent with the current law which only deals with non-native mammals, and does not change the current exemption for domestic game breeders who raise white-tailed deer and have shoots on their properties. The bill would not apply to bird shooting preserves — only to operations offering the shooting of non-native big game mammals. Moreover, the bill memo indicated that it had no fiscal implications for state or local governments.

Hmmm . . . so The Fund for Animals’ position is that shooting a zebra at close range in enclosed space is inhumane, but screw the native deer and elk species? I’m just not following the logic there. Shouldn’t The Fund for Animals response to Pataki be that hunting deer and elk in enclosed spaces is cruel and that Pataki should want to outlaw the practice? The “don’t worry, we don’t care if you kill deer or elk” line is a bit strange coming from an animal rights group. Especially so since The Fund for Animals’ Dora Schomberg issued a brief press release about the veto that among other things claimed,

Governor Pataki may attempt to masquerade as an animal advocate by occasionally signing some non-controversial legislation to protect dogs or cats, but his decision to veto this much-needed legislation will result in untold suffering for wild animals and it reveals that he is not a genuine advocate of humane treatment.

So Pataki is not a genuine advocate because he only favors cats and dogs, while we’re supposed to believe The Fund is even though it hangs out deer and elk to dry? Could we see just a little consistency from these groups on occasion?

The full text of the vetoed legislation can be read here.

Source:

Pataki Endorses Cruel Treatment of Wildlife–Governor Vetoes Popular Canned Hunt Bill. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, August 27, 2003.

Activists out to can hunt. Amy Sacks, New York Daily News, September 13, 2003.

New York Governor Pataki Betrays the Animals. Press Release, Humane Society of the United States, August 28, 2003.

New York Governor Pataki Endorses Cruel Treatment of Wildlife. Press Release, Dora Schomberg, The Fund for Animals, August 27, 2003.