Activist Hypocrisy Over Eco/Animal Rights Terrorism Bill

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 AnimalsBruce 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.

Smeal Wants New Clarence Thomas Hearings

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.

It’s Past Time to Cut Back Military Bases

Testifying before Congress yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress that it was time to eliminate military bases around the country that are no longer needed. Unfortunately eliminating such bases is always a political hot potato.

Representative Rob Simmons (R-Connecticut) summed up the attitude that most members of Congress have toward military bases,

You refer to closing unneeded bases. I only have one base, and I do need it. I just want to make that clear.

Note that Simmons didn’t say that the military needs the base nor that the country or even his state needs the base. Rather, Simmons needs the base. If Congress eliminates it, voters in Simmons’ district might be more likely to vote him out of office.

In fact many communities will go to extreme lengths to keep their military bases. I’ve seen this first hand when the military proposed eliminating a small and unneeded base in the town where I grew up, Battle Creek, Michigan. Local campaigners managed to remove the base from the list of those to be eliminated temporarily, but there is really no earth shattering strategic reason to maintain a base in a small Midwestern backwater.

According to the New York Times the Pentagon itself estimates that as many as 25 percent of its bases are unneeded and could be closed without affect its military readiness. Lets get on with doing that already.

Source:

As Defense Secretary Calls for Base Closings, Congress Circles the Wagons. James Dao, The New York Times, June 29, 2001

When Is A Hate Crime Not A Hate Crime (When the Victim is Hispanic)

A group of at least eleven juveniles in New Jersey recently culminated a day of violence by beating to death a homeless man. The juveniles were black and the victim was Hispanic, and almost immediately there were cries on conservative sites like Free Republic about why the boys weren’t being charged with a hate crime. Prosecutors replied that there simply wasn’t evidence that the crime as motivated by racism. Really? Not according to a story in today’s New York Times,

It was around 10:45 Wednesday morning, June 20th, and a crowd of nearly 50 students, most of them black, had gathered in front of a vending machine inside the high school. Some of them wanted to play a violent form of tag, going after Hispanic students to physically abuse them. A 17-year-old defendant offered the closest semblance of an explanation for the nature of the game: some black students did not like the way some Hispanic students were showing off during a fire drill. “So they were like, someone is going to get it,” he said.

Lies, Damned Lies, and PCRM Claims

Steve Milloy wrote an excellent opinion piece for Fox News today (Animal Rights, Research Wrongs) attacking People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other animal rights groups. One of the groups Milloy defends is the March of Dimes. Since animal rights groups claim animal research into birth defects has done nothing but waste money, lets take a look at the lies of an animal rights group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and compare it to the reality of what the research community has accomplished.

Milloy notes that the March of Dimes 2001 National Ambassador is a six year old boy who is alive today because of lung surfactant therapy. Lung surfactant therapy was developed thanks to animal research that the March of Dimes helped sponsor. Briefly, when you breathe your lungs contract. Lung surfactant is the substance that makes them expand again. Many infants born prematurely do not produce enough lung surfactant, and as a result their lungs tend to collapse which leads to increased mortality.

PCRM has a different take on the role of animal research and the March of Dimes in finding an effective treatment for lung surfactant deficiency. On the CharitiesInfo.Org web site, PCRM claims,

8. Did surfactant therapy for premature infants depend on animal experiments as the March of Dimes claims?

No. Surfactant is a natural compound that allows the lungs to operate normally. It was discovered in experiments using animal and human lung specimens in the late 1950s. Although some animal lung specimens were used, human lung specimens could have been used alone. Three years after its discovery, researchers demonstrated that premature infants have no surfactant in their lungs, but that the substance is present in the lungs of more mature infants, children, and adults. Within a few years, trials had begun administering this substance to infants with lung problems. Human studies continue today to improve surfactant therapy for infants.

As with most animal rights lies there is a grain of truth to this account, but if human studies were all that was needed to create lung surfactant therapy, it is a bit odd that the most effective such therapy is made from the lungs of calves. Here’s the reality.

In the mid-1950s a Boston-area physiologist, John Clements, discovered lung surfactant. He soon figured out that the substance’s function was to prevent lung collapse. A few years later in 1959, Mary Ellen Avery, a Boston-area pediatrician, discovered that premature infants born with a disorder called Hyaline Membrane Disease lacked lung surfactant which was the reason their lungs were collapsing.

Now if you take the PCRM account at face value, that settles it. Lung surfactant was discovered, and researchers knew that surfactant deficiency was the major cause of lung collapse in premature infants. So it was just a simple matter of developing a treatment and applying it to babies, right? Not by a long shot.

PCRM notes that “within a few years, trials had begun administering this substance to infants with lung problems” (emphasis added). What they forget to tell the reader is that a surfactant treatment wasn’t actually approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration until 1989(!) Finding a way to treat surfactant deficiency wasn’t quite as easy as PCRM pretends it was.

The first major treatment available was due to extensive research in sheep, not human beings. Researchers in New Zealand and the United States demonstrated that giving pregnant sheep steroids increased the rate at which fetal lungs developed, which in turn led to the development of surfactant in the lungs more quickly. Clinical trials in humans bore out the usefulness of delaying premature labor 24-48 hours and administering steroids to promote lung growth.

The introduction of ventilators in the early 1970s specifically designed to prevent lung collapse was also an important boon for the survival rates of premature infants.

Research into finding a safe, reliable surfactant replacement therapy continued through the 1970s and 1980s, much of it highly dependent on animal research. In fact when the U.S. FDA finally approved two surfactant replacement therapies, animal byproducts were the major component of one of the therapies. The natural surfactant replacement therapy is most commonly made from the extracts of calf lungs, though pig lungs and human lungs are occasionally used as a source as well. There is a synthetic surfactant available, but studies in both human beings and animals have tended to indicate that it is not as effective as that derived from bovine sources. On reason offered by the differing efficacy is the presence of proteins in the natural surfactant replacement which are absent in the synthetic replacement.

Far from animal studies being irrelevant, they played a fundamental role in developing a viable surfactant replacement therapy. So PCRM, take a deep breath and relax. Thanks to animal research, premature infants can have the same luxury.

Sources:

Why animal experiments fail in birth defects research. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, undated.

Surfactant Replacement Therapy. Victor Chernick, Canadians for Health Research.

Hyaline membrane disease. Discovery.Com.

New Studies Of A Liquid Of Life — Lung Surfactant. Science Daily, August 23, 1999.

Natural surfactant extract versus synthetic surfactant for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Roger F. Soll, National Institutes of Health, February 1999.

Animal Rights, Research Wrongs. Steve Milloy, Fox News, June 29, 2001.

UPC Protest Against the Delmarva Chicken Festival

If any animal rights group has a shot at unseating People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as far as sheer nuttiness goes, clearly it will be United Poultry Concerns. Like PETA, their press releases are often so far over the top that they sometimes read like parodies.

A couple weeks ago, for example, UPC put out a press release urging people to protest at the Delmarva Chicken Festival held in Machipongo, Virginia. This is a large festival sponsored by the poultry industry. Emulating PETA’s press release style, the headline that UPC chose trumpeted the fact that “United Poultry Concerns Will Protest at the Delmarva Chicken Festival of Sickness, Fear, and Death.” Sounds like the opening line from some third-rate splatterpunk novel.

UPC is also certain to cover all of its bases in its objections to the poultry industry so as to make sure not to leave out any group potentially offended by the poultry industry. The press release goes on to say,

What’s to celebrate? Poisoned Well Water? 4 billion pounds of raw waste a year? 14 million pounds of phosphorus? 49 million pounds of nitrogen? 600 million birds breathing toxic ammonia? A million tons of manure each year? Chickens fed cattle brains? Repulsive smelling fields? Decaying carcasses? Polluted water? Carpel [sic] tunnel syndrome? Salmonella? Campylobacter? Listeria? Arsenic? Pfiesteria piscicida? Cruelty to birds? Millions of gallons of slaughterhouse waste trucked to Maryland from Delaware? Endless killing? Being owned by gangsters?

Whew. Was that a press release or a stream of consciousness assignment for Introduction to English Composition? And don’t forget the alternative vision UPC offers,

By contrast, United Poultry Concerns will proclaim the benefits of a vegetarian diet: Respect for life. Less pollution. Less sickness. Less suffering. Less death. More beauty. More happiness. More health. More peace.

You too shall see the vegetarian promised land. They could start delivering on the “more peace” promise by leaving us omnivores alone.

Source:

United Poultry Concerns Will Protest at the Delmarva Chicken Festival of Sickness, Fear, and Death. United Poultry Concerns, Press Release, June 16, 2001.