Slashdot Mirror
Neuroscientist Halts Research to Stop Extremists
FleaPlus writes "UCLA neuroscience professor Dario Ringach, known for his contributions to our understanding of how the visual system processes information, has been forced to give up his experiments by the actions of animal-rights extremists. Although he and his family had endured harassment and vandalization by animal-rights activists for years, Ringach reconsidered after extremists tried to firebomb a colleague's home and accidentally left their Molotov cocktail on an elderly neighbor's doorstep. Ringach sent an email to animal activist groups saying, 'You win... please don't bother my family anymore.'"
Why can't get get rid of our home grown ones?
Yay, I have a sig.
Although he and his family had endured harassment and vandalization by animal-rights activists for years, Ringach reconsidered after extremists tried to firebomb a colleague's home and accidentally left their Molotov cocktail on an elderly neighbor's doorstep.
I don't get it. Aren't humans "animals", too?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
That would be too good. Better would be to use them for the experimentation that they deem unfit for animals. Everybody wins!
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Is why these groups are allowed to continue to exist. I'm sorry but I don't buy this crap of "We applaud people who do things like this and we don't stop members from doing it, but really it's not our fault that it happens!" Sorry, like with corporations, I think if there's consistent bad action by our members and if your policy encourages that, then you are liable, regardless of if it was "official" or not.
While you certainly can't be expected to control all the actions of everyone who belongs to your group, there's still a duty not to turn a blind eye on purpose, and then pat them on the back after the fact.
Bah... these are the real terrorists... You don't agree with what someone is doing, then sue them... that's the american way... and if that fails, then try and get a law passed to make it illegal... starting your own personal war based on your morals is no different than the actions of those the US is currently calling terrorists. But hey, this is in the country who's government doesn't believe in teaching evolution anymore...
Times like these I'm happy to live in a country where the worst thing activists do is slow down traffic, and hold marches.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Fucking terrorists. They're the same as abortion clinic bombers, using violence to induce fear to achieve their political goals.
And I want to say that he should have stood up to them, that if you give in like this, the terrorists win... but the guy's put up with years of harassment, and now violence against his coworkers, with a very real threat to his family and to people unlucky enough to live near him. So it's understandable why he's packing it in; under the same circumstances, I would have given up years earlier. But it still fucking sucks.
The most grating part of it is that I'll bet the assholes from UCLA Primate Freedom who posted his picture and contact info think they can wash their hands of the inevitable results of their propagandizing.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's interesting to note that the LA Times article calls it a crude explosive (which could be anything from firecracker to pipe bomb) while the other article calls it a Molotov Cocktail (which IS crude, but more specific). All that aside, obviously these people (if they did it) are complete and utter morons. One does not light a Molotov Cocktail and place it on a porch. One lights a Molotov Cocktail and throws it through a window (or air vent on a Soviet tank, which was the device's original purpose). The glass container breaks, spraying flammable liquid all over the place which then ignites, burning the place down. THAT is how one firebombs a house correctly.
You demand violence to stop violence that was meant to stop violence. You do realize your idea only helps the problem spiral, right?
Sure, I've gone and petitioned against trees being cut down. Indeed, we've even hugged a few and prevented their demise. But vigilante retribution was never the way to save animals. There have been transgressions on one side, but that doesn't justify the other side from commiting brutality.
Replacing cruelty to animals, with one towards mankind doesn't solve the problem - mainly because there is no Noble Savage unlike what Rousseau dreamed.
This is like terrorism with its own ecological brand (call it another religion if you want).Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
We complain when people who hold strong views don't censure their extremists. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't say this.
Violence isn't the answer. These people are destructive. These people are assholes. However, the answer is not to shoot them. They should be arrested, tried and, if found guilty, fined and/or imprisoned for their crimes.
Fantasies of "first against the wall, motherfuckers!" are briefly satisfying, but ultimately degrading to the person having the fantasy.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Are you seriously putting the firebombing of the home of a little old lady in the same category as peaceful dissent?
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
...I am going to torture 25 monkeys to death. Just for fun. Not for science, just good old fashioned fun.
And the good news is that bullets can be made with no animal by-products.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
You know how cute animals are. Well animal rights activists are at their cutest when they loose invasive species from laboratories on the unsuspecting indigenous flora and fauna the way they did in the British Isles.
Seastead this.
The fear of the modern radical environmentalist-wannabe is that man is going to disrupt nature, ending the vibrant life cycle that has taken so long to develop here, and the morals necissary to continue a 'balanced' life. That's a valid fear - but science is the last thing to attack if that is your fear.
I cringe when people honor people who commit these actions with the title environmentalists. These bullies are instead waging war on the very forces in society with any hope of stopping a blind march towards environmental disaster. Scientists 'harm' animals so that worse harm does not have to happen to both other animals, and to people in the future. Perhaps their hope is that mankind will someday fall and nature continue - but mankind is a part of nature, and the very intelligence that drives us to exploit the rest of nature to the extent that we do now isn't going to drop away from the planet without a WHOLE lot of the rest of nature going with us.
The idea is to avoid mass death, to allow the greatest morality to the greatest number - not close your eyes and mind to the realities of life and death. Science is our best way to keep our eyes open.
But because these bullies can't fight society at large, they instead attack scientists. In the same way that religious extremists angry that society won't adopt their religion will strike at the weakest enemies they can find in hope that their brutality will shock the innocent into following them, these idiots seem to think that extremist bullying will somehow serve to save nature. Few things could be more disgusting in my eyes.
Ryan Fenton
Instead of the bullet through the skull the parent suggested maybe these people should be arrested and made to work as free vets for the rest of their lives. It gets these crazies off the streets and if they love animals so much this would be their ideal job.
Insanity is nothing more than a difference in perspective.
Well, according to the terrorists and their enablers, "Each monkey is first paralyzed, then has coils glued to her eyes during a single session that lasts up to 120 hours, and finally killed." It says nothing about why he did this or what the purpose was, which, I suppose, would make a difference.
Also, according to them, people at "Huntingdon Life Sciences" "punch baby beagles repeatedly in the face". I'm not sure what to make of this. Do researchers punch puppies? That seems kind of... odd. What's the point of that?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
These same violent pricks and bitches would no doubt cry "Fascist!" at any cops that participates in an effort to control a globalization protest or some other left-wing cause. Yet here they are, engaging in many of the classic coercion tactics of the brownshirts. Fear, intimidation, violence.
It's always "activism" when the left does it, but fascism when the right does it. I hope the FBI nails these fucks hard because they are a much greater threat to this country than any Islamic nutjob. Why? They're potential voters. They're violent extremists who actually act on their rhetoric. They're the closest thing we have to an organized domestic terrorism problem.
And before anyone brings up abortion clinic bombers, you want to know why it isn't a problem? Because there are a lot of Christians like me who wouldn't hesitate to shoot those violent fucks if we caught them in the act. Why? Our religion teaches that preserving life is a duty of all Jews and Christians.
I believe abortion is murder, but so is murdering a doctor because as much as I'd like to call it equivalent to a concentration camp, I can't because it's too insidious and two wrongs don't make a right. These guys don't care about such moral complexities. To them it's just murder so they go out and murder. This is the essence of "judge not lest you be judged," not the crap about blindly accepting everyone's personal choices as being as good as the next guy's.
So, in short, I wish the FBI and police the best of luck. May they hunt down these violent little brownshirts and lock their asses away. Even the protestors. As far as I am concerned, the first amendment does not extend protection to protests done outside someone's home. That is fear and intimidation and the police are quite justified in arresting and charging every "protestor" as harasser or stalker.
You see, the problem with the current response is that in giving in because an elderly couple was accidently targetted means that friends and neighbors of such people will now be held hostage. The only effective way to use violence to stop such researchers is to target elderly neighbors...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The animal research still needs to be done, and because of assholes like these, it's all going to china.
In China, the concept of human rights is laughable- do you think the government there gives a shit about animals?
Or that they would hesitate to beat down any Animal Liberation Front jerks, quite literally?
There should be laws against this kind of behavior, they should be enforced, or there should be a local law enforcement culture that encourages a violent beat down of people who carry on this type of harrasment campaign.
Congratulations, morons. You will accomplish the opposite of what you intended- more animal research, and no government oversight to ensure they are being treated even vaugely humanely.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Animals don't have rights. It's not that much of a leap from the fantasy that anmials have rights to the justification that it's OK to firebomb people to protect animals.
Reality never intercedes because it was left behind when the animal rights activists refused to complete the transition to adulthood and the realities and responsibilities that come with it. Some people just decide to live in a cartoon world.
When animals agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights. Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of animals.
Far-right and far-left zealots have a lot more in common than they like to admit. Their shared radicalism leads to a desire to tear down our institutions and force society into a mold more to their liking. This means violence and force, lots of force.
What kind of animal research? What sort of ethical issues did you run into, and how did the system handle it? We hear that animal researchers are bloodthirsty scoundrels, cruelly vivisecting for the fun of it. Did you go through an IRB process, and what did that entail? What restrictions were placed on what you did?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How many animal rights people are pro choice and willing to do violence to humans.
I wonder if monkey tastes good... watching those videos while hungry was probably not a good idea.
*heads to local zoo*
Registered Linux user #421033
Ooh, and here's an example:
Way to go, retards...
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You have a point - we're doing all these things to "catch the terrorists," but if we can't catch a bunch of home-grown environmental or animal-rights extremists, how are we going to catch the guys with multi-billion dollar backers and training camps.
According to the "Primate Freedom Project":
"Ringach received a grant to kill 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments. Each monkey is first paralyzed, then used for a single session that lasts up to 120 hours, and finally killed."
He's studying the visual systems of the monkeys. (Google him and you'll find his webpage with publications).
Now, I think most people (the animal rights extremists in question notwithstanding) would agree there must be certain cases when primate experimentation is justified. (For lifesaving vaccines for AIDS, for example). But probably most people would also agree that there are some limits to what people should be able to torture primates for. But now, practically, there aren't, as I understand it. So, the fact that this person was allowed to do these experiments on monkeys is no indication whatsoever that his research was worthy of the subjecting the monkeys to whatever pain, suffering, or premature death they were going to incur.
In fact, it is difficult for me to believe, given the state of neuroscience, that these experiments on monkeys were so much more valuable than would have been experiments on say, mice, or salamanders, or what-have-you. And sad will be the day when we will give one person the boundless moral leeway because he is a "scientist", and can do no wrong. Scientists have our fair share of an ugly past, and it is not inherently wrong to question scientists actions.
That said, the molotov cocktail is not the way to go, in my opinion. On the other hand, the law discussed at the end of TFA sounds downright facist, scary, and open to boundless abuse in enforcement.
I'm going hunting tomorrow morning. I don't care for what. I'll just take my twenty gauge and a couple of boxes of shells; go out into the woods near my house; and start the massacre.
And in the afternoon?
Fishing with dynamite, baby.
You animal rights terrorists may have won a round against the researcher, but I am a one-man animal sadist terrorist cell... and I've now been activated.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Too many people. Too much research. Too much of everything.
Moving to a "sustainable" use of resources would solve this problem. It would require a moderate reduction in population to something like 200 or 250 million people - about the population in 1800 to 1850. That would be a level of resource consumption and waste generation that would be sustainable. Natural processes would then reprocess waste products into resources ready to be used.
This would only require killing off about 1 million people a day for 20 years or so to reach this level. I'm sure these activists would be all for this to reach a level of sustainable resource use.
What a fascinating analogy. When macaque monkeys start firebombing houses, please notify me.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
FIrebombing, attempted firebombing, repeated assault, and even attempted murder (or manslaughter at the very least) are serious crimes that usually demand prison terms--sometimes lengthy ones. The animal rights activists probably think highly of themselves as brave and courageous but truth be told they just do these incredibly mean and destructive things, then go back to their drab little lives and 9-to-5 jobs at the end of the weekend. They probably believe they are making great sacrifices for their cause, and even compare themselves and their cause to the great causes they've all read about.
But, comparing them to those who have truly sacrificed for their cause they fall embarrassingly short. Think what you may about characters like Ghandi but he spent a significant amount of his adult life in prison for taking the actions he took. These bozos don't expect to be caught, tried, or punished. "I can't go to prison. I have to pick up Muffy from daycare at 6."
What's really depressing is these "cultural terrorists" are winning. {sigh}
Quite aside from how one feels about animal testing (I'm for it, fwiw, which is significant considering i'm a vegetarian for moral reasons), the issue at hand is that murder in defence of one's position is wrong
Not only is it damaging to the cause, but it's just plain morally wrong to harm a human being, regardless of what he's done
If you can't tell the difference between:
- holding protests
- waging action through the courts
- firebombing someone's house, threatening their neighbors and their family
then I suggest you return to grade school and play one of these things is not like the fucking others until you're ready to join us at the grown-ups' table.Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
As was pointed out on Penn and Teller's Bullshit! the CEO, director, whatever you want to call this person of PETA is diabetic. So she needs insulin to live. Well insulin was tested on animals, and certain strains are made by animals. So for her to live she must abuse animals. Now the point being natural selection should have kicked in here at some point, and well taken care of her, but because humans use research on animals to help humans AND animals (the vet didn't learn how to take care of cats and dogs by magic) with sickness, this person lives to make her wacko friends blown crap up.
Also pointed out was that PETA spent some money on a large freezer. This freezer was used for cadavers, animal cadavers, because they end up euthanizing animals they take in but cannot find homes for, ie what the Human Society has do sometimes. Check out the episode, its on 2nd season I believe which is out on DVD.
So the moral of this story is that, fine have ideals, have crazy ideals no normal person would find moral, but don't be a hypocrit...makes you look like an asshole.
Selex
Might I add, your method of killing people is quite similar to how it is done in fascist states. This would not go unnoticed by the general public, and would likely lead to some form of civil unrest.
When I run into this problem I just click on a few of the people and turn them into Elvis. Problem solved.
The monkeys are housed in cages (of a government mandated size) for a short period, then anesthetized, then studied, then euthanized.
Typically dishonest, the animal terrorists fail to mention the anesthesia in their public communications.
You're willfully ignorant, or stupid, or lying.
The issue was never with "any surveillance... ever". The issue was never with secret surveillance. The issue was with breaking the law.
Here's how it is. The administration wants to wiretap people. There's a method called FISA for doing this. FISA allows for immediate taps in your smoking-nuke situation, as long as paperwork is submitted to a notoriously rubber-stampy court, which operates in secrecy, within three days. There is nothing that the administration needs to do other than file some paperwork. They have refused to do this. FISA clearly states that for wiretapping to occur, it must be used.
The administration is claiming that it has the authority to wiretap people secretly, whenever it wants, with no judicial oversight, ever. Despite that the law clearly says it can't. I'm going to put this in italics, so you pay attention. The President is not a King. He is subject to the law. If he doesn't like the law, he can act to change it. He cannot just ignore it.
The only possible reasons for doing this are (1) the President wants to wiretap his political opponents, (2) he wants to flex his Presidential balls. We can't know which, and neither will anyone else, because this all goes on in secret, with no accountability, not even to a secret court.
Now, if you make the claim that the ACLU and company are against any and all wiretapping again, I'm going to bap you in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. You have no excuse.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
In my area of the world, there was a famous white supremacist who was always squeaky clean. Eventually, one of the kids who hung out with him on occasion killed someone. The family sued the white supremacist for "contributory" reasons, and won. They took everything he owned.
Easy enough. Do the same thing here. Go after the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) for encouraging this kind of thing. It's right on their website, the masks, clearly instruments of anonymity and terror. Take 'em down, they have it coming.
C//
People have the right to protest - the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment and affirmed by court after court - both in their property and in public spaces. The fact that you oppose people who have done something wrong (in this case firebombing a scientist) does not justify your own transgressions against liberty.
I'm very sad that it is so easy for you to believe that a scientist would needlessly torture macaques. What exactly are you credentials when you say "it is difficult for me to believe, given the state of neuroscience, that these experiments on monkeys were so much more valuable than would have been experiments on say, mice, or salamanders, or what-have-you"? Honestly, I'd love to know about all that "research" you did on google to arrive at that conclusion. IF you really want to know, tried going to www.pubmed.org and search for the primary literature. You'll realize that Dr. Ringach has done some really pioneering work on determining the precise wiring of the visual cortex. I'm not sure how to explain this to you, but hopefully it will suffice to say that he is not some crazed sadist sitting around poking out monkey's eyeballs. It is also extremely difficult to explain to a lay-person just how many hoops a researcher has to jump through before conducting animal research, let alone primate research. Let's just say you don't do it unless there are absolutely no other options. The cost and bureaucracy associated are prohibitive to "torturers" as you put it. Dr. Ringach studies the brain, not eyeballs. You can't just pick any animal for that (BTW, your opinion on primates could just as easily be someone else's opinion on mice, or flies for that matter). If you want to know the real scoop instead of jumping to the same conclusions these terrorists did, I encourage you to look at the primary literature. If you are still not convinced, I encourage you to lobby against this research, and maybe put your money where your mouth is by refusing any and all medication (you do know they are tested on animals, right? especially stuff like vaccines).
I'm looking forward to the day when homo sapiens agrees on a universal minimum behavioral norm and sticks to it.
Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of humans.
Lauren Gazzola was, according to her supporters, "alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" and face an aggregate of 23 years in Federal Prison."
Wow, that sucks. I mean, operate a website and go to jail? Pretty fucked up. We're living in a fascist nation. Time to join the revolu--oh, wait. Apparently they posted home addresses and phone numbers, and exhorted their members to engage in exciting activities such as:
Yeah, they're just like Gandi.
Who could have ever foreseen that such acts could have legal consequences?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
No, my opinion doesn't enter the equation. This activity is illegal. Threatening someone is illegal, arson is illegal, destruction of property is illegal, assault is illegal. I don't think it should be legal to support those who commit those crimes, and to try and shield them. If I tell someone to beat you up, provide them with weapons and a map to your house, I'm as responsible as they are. That's the law.
Well what I believe is that if an organization supports something, and one of it's members does it, and the organization then condones that and applauds the member, they should be liable. None of this "But we didn't TELL him to do it," bullshit. If you say it ought to be done, and then reward those that do it, and help conceal their involvement, that's the same thing in my mind. You are providing them with means and support. Much like the government goes after charities that funnel money to foreign extremists, I think this is the same thing.
You can say whatever you want (threats are illegal though), my problem is when you act on it, and then try to disclaim responsibility. Organizations do have some responsibility for the actions of their members. For example there are plenty of pro life organizations that would kick out and turn in to the police anyone who attacked a doctor. Why? Because they believe ALL life is sacred, including that of the doctor. They aren't responsible if a member goes off and does something, they clearly don't support it.
However if there's an organization that extols killing doctors, posts lists of names and addresses online, and treats those that do as heroes, they should be liable. They can't hide behind the first amendment and claim that they never intended for people to act on what they were saying, bullshit. That's the same as a company having a policy that rewards employees for stealing from customers and saying "Well we didn't MAKE them do it, and we didn't expect they'd actually act on it, we were just exercising free speech."
Saying that animal testing should stop is free speech. Telling people to commit acts of violence is not.
http://www.aesop-project.org/Israel/Experiments_ex posed.html
Then I'm sorry to say, I'm glad activists reached their goal. I don't approve of their methods, but I don't approve of vivisection either.
Would I stop someone in that case? Of course. How about another case: I'm walking down the street and see someone cutting a woman open with a knife while she's screaming in terror. What would I do? I'd draw my gun and send them to whatever god they wished. However that doesn't mean I'll cap a doctor who's cutting someone open for a medical reason in a hospital. The questions isn't WHAT is being done it's WHY and HOW.
If you really believe animal testing and senseless animal cruelty are one in the same, you need to get your head checked. Calling it torture shows you don't understand the word. Torture means "the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." That's not what they are doing in labs. Most of the time the animals are given pain killers (moral reasons aside, an animal in pain is hard to work with) and the reason for their work isn;t punishment or sadism, it's science.
What it comes down to is if you want to ban animal testing you want to either ban biomedical science, or force it to be done on humans. So which is it? Should we just outlaw it, and let people die from treatable diseases? Please remember that things like insulin came from animal testing, we aren't talking minor discoveries here. Or do we start using people? Criminals maybe? Or the poor? Or the insane?
You can't have it both ways. You can't demand a stop to testing but want a continuation of the research. If you want biomedical science to halt fine, but then have the stones to say to and don't compare testing to abuse. If you don't well then accept animal testing as a necessary part.
This is precisely what I was going to suggest as a punishment...if they're in a morally high enough position to justify threatening people & destroying property, they should be dedicated enough to be willing to sacrifice themselves. ALF doesn't like animal testing? No problem, we'll just fill the labs with the rank and file of their organization. Anything less is hypocrisy on the order of MaryBeth Sweetland's.
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
Torture means: the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. That's not what's happening with animal testing. Don't use an emotionally loaded term to try and push your point. It's not torture, unless you twist the definition of torture as to be meaningless.
When my doctor injected my foot with novocaine to remove warts, it was the most painful thing I've ever felt. I was screaming as loud as I could from the pain. However he wasn't torturing me, he was causing me pain because it was necessary to prevent worse future pain, and because I needed a medical procedure done.
Torture is in the reason, not in the action. Also, primates in these studies are under anesthesia, so they don't feel pain.
Wow. This is really stupid even for an AC.
You are inappropriately using the principal of identity- person who kills people=person who kills people. The principle is perfectly applicable to integers, which are entirely defined by the single characteristic: quantity. NOt so applicable to any human action or characteristic. You are wrong to equate anyone who kills with anyone else who kills because neither motives, methods or effects are taken into account.
A person who blows up civilians, children, or indiscriminate public gatherings of people is NOT the same as the person who kills him for it. Nor is it relevant (really) whether this is done to stop further outrages, as a deterrent, or as simple revenge.
It's not even that hard to differentiate them, really.
The last bit about the 'armies' of your little analogy shooting the imaginary 'innocent bystanders' therein because of their imputed poor shooting ability...wtf??
"To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
PETA may in fact be using Homeland Security against us.
Under the USAPATRIOT Act, there are very few ways that you can hide your home address. Most notably, under the anti terrorist/anti money laundering clauses in Sections 313-316, you have to have your home address on record with the bank or EQUIFAX will tell them there's a discrepancy and they'll lock your account. So if said scientist has a bank account, his family's physical location is a known fact, and he cannot hide it. Furthermore, his driver's license is the same way. No PO boxes, you need your home address on the card.
But I have managed, myself, to hack my way through the California DMV; I went there in person (you have to do this in person, it seems, for this hack to work) and wrote in my Mailboxes Etc. address and it got put on my Driver's License. EQUIFAX has not nailed me since. I suspect that EQUIFAX culled my Driver's License information and took that as my home address; my bank has my Mailboxes Etc. address as well, and thus there's no section 313 discrepancy. Everything in the universe has since come to my MBE address.
USsearch.com and several other places I'd paid to retrieve my records, has never had my real home address on file. And my title to my house is in someone else's name (another long trick for another slashdot post).
Yes, I guard my privacy with my life.
The scientist in question, may not know how to hack the system as I know how; as such, any garden variety PI can have his home address in a minute. Now, more so than before, because of the very law meant to stop terror.
Now PETA can just go online and stalk you with a few mouse clicks and some cash having been forked over, and it's on.
I've been warning people about this for 2 years now......
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The nit-picky, leftist, Clinton-appointed, obstructionist judges who rejected around one out of every five thousand warrant applications? Could you be more specific about the warrants that were "all" rejected during GW's presidency? Perhaps we're talking about a different FISA court, though I don't see how.
Your faith in the government is touching, really, but I don't think I should have to hand power without oversight to people and then trust them to do the right thing with it. (And what does "he doesn't want to get impeached and shit" have to do with anything?)
Yes, darn them, with their "constitution" and "the President has to follow the law" and "checks and balances".
No, the point is that we don't have to trust one person or group. This is why we have separation of powers. This is why we don't allow power to be centralized in one place.
And what makes the NSA "ordinary people", but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "bureaucracy"?
Speaking of Clinton, would you be kosher with Clinton wielding this sort of power? Would you be okay with the knowledge that Clinton could be wiretapping anyone, anywhere, and nobody outside his administration would ever know? Would you trust him not to be wiretapping RNC headquarters? If not, doesn't your faith in assigning these kingly powers (and make no mistake, this "unitary executive" nonsense where the president makes up his own laws is nothing if not kingly) to the office of the President mean that you simply trust the man? Are you comfortable with the next administration having the power to make up laws as they see fit? With the next Democratic administration doing so? And if not, why are you convinced that the government, once given this power, will politely put it away and never use it again?
Well, your claim above that FISA warrants were being denied was trivially debunked. Were you lying and hoping that I wouldn't look it up? Had you seen the claim somewhere and were just parroting it back at me, being too lazy to look it up yourself?
And if calling you a liar is all I can "hack up these days", why didn't you respond to my initial questions about why the President, if he needed some powers he didn't have, didn't actually ask for them? That is how our system of government works, you know. The legislative branch makes the law, and the execu
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Wow, I didn't know they made dictionaries with only one definition per term! Here's what you forgot to mention when you were making the semantic argument against torturing animals (using just def 1 for the noun form that wasn't even used, sheesh):
noun-
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
verb-
1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See synonyms at afflict.
3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case. (cite: online AHD)
So when the GP said (quoting) "torturing monkeys" -- a valid moral concern, assuming that afflicting physical or mental pain to sensate/sentient beings is, you know, undesirable -- your entire post could have been just this: "Also, primates in these studies are under anesthesia, so they don't feel pain." That would have been sufficient to rebut his claim with out all the pandering bullshit.
So -- when I got all my wisdom teeth out and had stiches in my jaw-muscles I'll honestly say the next few weeks of trying to eat were... torture. I agree though, having some warts removed might not be torture.
In short, you can torture people and animals without punishment, coercion or sadism in mind! Cheers!
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I think I've figured out why radicals anger me. I have a strong patriotic streak. I believe that the system we have, while nontrivially flawed, is a good system. And when someone says, in effect, that the system is garbage, no better than Russian under Stalin, and that we should throw it out and seek political change through violence, well... it seems demeaning to the whole liberal democracy experiment---and insulting to all those who sought to build and improve the country, as if to say that all their contributions don't mean shit.
Radicals really piss me off.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
He shouldn't have called you a liar. It's almost as cheap of a tactic as criticising judges for their appearance and gender. You are clearly willfully ignorant, and need to read a bit more on the topic before you earn the right to disparage others opinions. "Infiltrated by leftists" is a handy excuse to ignore data that is contrary to your preconceptions.
Fact: Between 1979 and 2001 FISA rejected NO warrants. None. They rejected 2 in 2002 and 4 in 2003. Those same years they approved 1228 and 1727 respectively. The 2 rejected in 2002 were approved in appeal. In 2005 they approved 1758 with no rejections. This is not an obstructionist record that warrants your abusive language or attitude.
Fact: the judge that struck down the NSA wiretaps is a Carter appointee. Clinton had nothing to do with her.
Here's a thought: You can't trust the president or the judge or the congress. That's why the Constitution of this United States set them up in opposition. The president swore to uphold the constitution and live by its principles when he was elected. When he acts contrary to the Constitution by acting without oversight he is violating those principles and breaking his sworn oath. Your trust in him is misplaced.
If we were not overextended in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be challenging us. If we weren't foolishly addicted to oil because our government has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the extraction industry and little to seed research into alternatives they would be irrelevant.
Save your indignation for those who deserve it - the ignorant voters who put this mediocre man into the presidents office and return a profligate corrupt congress year after year.
I'm going to pray tonight that nobody running the NSA is anything like you. I hope they gather the data, review it thoroughly and draw conclusions that are based on the facts, not their prejudicial view of the world.
First of all please never refer to my spin as Fox-style...its more Colbert Report style, still working on the Daily Show style.
Secondly, the time table doesn't matter. Research breakthrough A was discovered by experiment B, which used an animal. So if you're against experiment B because it used an animal in the experiment then breakthrough A is not valid according to your own code of ethics. Just because it was discovered 20-30 years ago doesn't make a difference. An animal was still used to extend your life. So if hypothetically insulin had not been discovered 20-30 years ago, but was found tomorrow would the PETA person still use it even though animals were used? My guess would be yes, because they have the same self-preservation instincts that every animal has, and their rational would be that they need to take the insulin now to help animals in the future. So your life is more important then the people who you harass and hurt, because you're not willing to be a martyr for your cause, but will to kill others for it. Thats just selfishness.
So at some point there should have been something that clicked, call it logic, call it something else that says "well not all animal testing is bad, and some of it might be benefical to the world." Yes I agree that some forms of testing are immoral, like make-up on the rabbits, but not all of it is bad. Much of it helps.
Selex
English, does not have an adequate word for this kind of struggle, but ironically Arabic does: jihad.
Why not crusade?
Two US Senate Committee hearings on eco-terrorism, which specifically addressed the issue of these campaigns against researchers, were held on May 18 and October 26, 2005. Read some of the opening statements and make a note of who downplayed the severity of the problem and who didn't. (The audio of the second hearing is available on the site as well, and I would recommend listening to it.)
During the Apartheid years Lady Thatcher said Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. But now her replacement is all buddy-buddy with Nelson.
1 222111.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
If we cannot defeat terrorists on and from our own homeland, why did we have to lose so many of our rights and freedoms to fight terrorism?
The photos primarily look horrible because of what looks like exposed brain. That red stuff on top of the macaque's head isn't brain, it's dental acrylic. Which is normally pink, but the colour balance has been played with to make it look a deep red. Go to the zoo someday -- how many macaques have that colouration in eyes and fur?
The surgery desciption is a combination of pure sensationalism and ignorance. The "special device that was attached to him through the ears, eyes and mouth" is a stereotax -- a device used to provide coordinates relative to the major stable features of the skull (the optic and aural sockets), and is used so that the craniomoty can be placed precisely, rather than relying on guesswork. The screws placed in the skull are tiny, used to give the skull some texture to which the dental acrylic will bind (hence the number used). The reason the dental acrylic is put in place is to affix the recording chamber (the metal tube at the rear of the head cap), which allows for multiple recordings to be done from the same animal without doing a surgery each time -- a significant progress, from a welfare perspective, over just using a fresh animal for each experiment.
The "steel wire [inserted] into his eye" is a fine loop of stainless steel wire attached to the ring of ocular muscles surrounding the eye. It isn't used to fix the eye in place, but instead is part of clever method of monitoring eye position. The "eye coil" system is slowly being phased out in favour of non-surgically invasive techniques for doing the same; if you want to speed things up, lobby for better scientific funding so that scientists can afford the $30,000+ it would take to switch.
The head bolt -- the structure on the front of the head cap -- is used to fix the animal's head in place during an experiment. In a visual experiment, this is necessary to remove any possible confound arising from uncontrolled head position. You can't simply instruct an animal, "don't move your head," and the conclusion has been that the headbolt is less distressing to animals than other options such as external clamping mechanisms or neuromuscular blocking.
And so on and so forth. Of course the researchers didn't know as much about anesthesia as the veternarian; the veternarian wouldn't know jack about cortical organization either. The point is that there was a vet on hand, for exactly that reason. Telling tasteless stories during the surgery? Then don't spend time with surgeons, because they stuff they'll joke about would make you faint.
This is what the anti-vivesectionists do on their most charitable days: find photos that people find squeamish and shove them in people's faces without context or explanation. In this day and age, where you can find images of Clinton and Hitler shaking hands, and when even reputable news agencies have problems making certain that their photos haven't been touched by Photoshop, why do people insist on taking the press releases of the ALF at face value?
And if you're wondering why this is an AC post, you haven't read the parent article.
As a matter of fact, it did. By the time the Crusades got going, Muslims had invaded Spain and forced the Jews to either convert or be killed. They did the same to the Christians. Had the Pope the audacity to start the Crusades many years earlier, the multitudes of Jews in Spain and Jerusalem could have been spared their lives.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
http://www.uclaprimatefreedom.com/
They seem to be gloating.
The site contains the profiles of various reseachers, including addresses, phone numbers, etc. They continue to list the man's home address and phone number. They offer cash prizes to anyone who helps further their goals, regardless of means.
Please let them know how you feel about their actions.
Primate Freedom Project:
(310) 495-0429
info@UCLAPrimateFreedom.com
There seems to be a thread in the comments suggesting that animal experimentation is condoned. This would suggest that the topic has arisen and been discussed in a public forum. My experience, as a data analyst, is that animal experimentation is only publicly discussed when brought to the fore by radical protest groups. The existence and conduct of animal experimentation is kept as much as possible out of the public view. Even the results are presented in such a way as to obscure or hide the nature of the actual experiment (no surprise, those in the field will know approximately, if not exactly, what would have been done). Permission for experimentation (when it is requested) is obtained quietly and out of the public view. Experiments, if they are reviewed at all prior to their occurence, are considered with an eye to potential validity of results rather than any care whatsoever towards the animal subjects of the experiments. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that animal experimentation is condoned as if the public had spoken. It just happens under the authority of a very restricted subset of the population, like many other things. Since it rarely affects anyone directly, it is ignored.
The public treats animal experimentation as it does anything which is an inconvenience.
The public does not want to know about it.
The public does not want to think about it.
The public wants simplicity and convenience in its life.
And the government knows this. (added for the paranoid)
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
It was the Christians who forced the Jews to convert, not the Muslims. Jews held high political positions of power in Muslim Spain. It was not until the "crusade" that conquered Spain by 1492, that Jews were ever persecuted. At that point, a huge exodus of Jews left Christian Spain for Muslim North Africa.
The parent WAS wrong about the non-existence of "anti-semitism,
You missed the weasel words "as we know it". It's not that there was not anti-jewish sentiment, even strong anti-jewish sentiment at times before the Crusades. You can look in the Bible and see the seeds of anti-semitism in the books written at the latest dates. Yet these were an ideological splits within Judaism, not anti-semitism as we know it.
To my way of looking at thinks, "anti-semitism" as we know it has several characteristics which make it both especially obnoxious and durable. The first is scape-goating, not just for the crucifiction of Jesus, but for all the ills experienced by the poor and powerless class. This unleashes violence on the Jews by the weak which is sanctioned by the powerful because it deflects attention from their own misdeeds. The second is opportunistic thievery, which in the poor amounts to a license to loot and in the powerful amounts to extortion, or expulsion followed by charging for reentry. The final element is mythology: myths of Jewish conspiracy to control finances, government, or simply to commit bizarre and inexplicable crimes like cannibalism and well poisoning.
These elements, combined with the international nature of the disapora, make anti-semitism a special case among ethnic hatreds. They did not exist as far as I know prior to 1095.
The relations of Muslims to Jews were, as you say, more complicated from the beginning, particularly after the alliance of the Umma with the Jews of Medina fell apart. But it did not constitute what we would call "anti-semitism".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.