Animal Crackers

SPCA-TX: Questions.

Readers of AC may remember my interest in the SPCA-TX, a private organization with some pretty heavy duty police powers, though unburdened by much in the way of governmental oversight. In the first of my posts, I reported on John Stossel's undercover investigation, which revealed the workings of the organization and the role of its driving force, Dave Garcia. Not only had SPCA-TX gained stature under Mr. Garcia, but it was ever more successful in attracting contributions from an appreciative citizenry.

More disturbingly, the SPCA-TX was able to spearhead the enactment of legislation that increased its power: for example, once a Justice of the Peace approves one of the SPCA's confiscation orders, the owner of the confiscated animal can't do anything about it, and the Stossel report (op cit) outlines a number of instances where the SPCA-TX evidently saw abuse where there was probably none.

Of course, political clout and fund raising success are tied closely to favorable publicity, and favorable publicity comes from an approving media reporting the busting of bad guys to concerened citizens with deep pockets (potential donars).

So, for an organization like the SPCA-TX, finding and correcting "problems" can become much more than just a matter of survival: it can become downright profitable, and herein lies an inherent conflict of interest. It is in their (the SPCA's) financial and political interests to bring more animal abusers to justice than fewer. Nothing, after all, succeeds like success, and flashy raids and confiscations are proof that the SPCA is doing it's job aggressively and successfully.

Enter Mr. Stossel and his TV crew, which included a veterinarian disguised as a reporter, and ABC's unflattering report (to say the least) of both Mr. Garcia and the SPCA-TX. SPCA-TX fired back, and demanded that ABC correct it's erroneous reports, but ABC held it's ground, and posted both the SPCA-TX complaint and it's (ABC's) rebuttal of it.

As things stood at this point, the SPCA-TX and Mr. Garcia had had their credibility questioned, but probably not fatally so. Such arguments devolve into "he-said" "she-said" confusion in no time at all, with nothing anyone says being dispositive.

But then, there came a revelation out of the blue. Dring the trial of Julia McMurrey, who was accused by the SPCA-TX of animal abuse and charged accordingly, it came to light that Mr. Garcia might have had a criminal record, a record that he apparently had not disclosed to the district attorney who was prosecuting the case. In my post, I reported:

My source adds this to the mix: ". . . he (Garcia), or someone with his name and date of birth, has a 1976 conviction for an extremely serious felony from Arizona that involved a 9 to 12 year sentence in prison." Whether or not the two are one and the same is still an open question, but should they be, I would think it would bear on the present case.

Well, the charges against McMurrey have been dropped, evidently because the rumors about Mr. Garcia's criminal past were credible, and he had failed to disclose his criminal past to the prosecution.

All remaining charges have been dropped against a Smith County woman accused of animal cruelty.

Julia McMurrey ran a dog rescue called P.A.W.S. Around the Planet. That's where the SPCA of Texas removed close to 200 dogs, some sick and malnourished.

In March, McMurrey was sentenced to jail for one count of animal cruelty. She was scheduled to go on trial this month for the remaining three counts. But the prosecution discovered a problem with its key witness.

The district attorney says Dave Garcia of the SPCA did not disclose his criminal history when he was asked about it.

The SPCA of Texas says that does not change the fact that they found dead and dying animals at McMurrey's shelter.

"The expertise of Mr. Garcia versus allegations of past issues... To me, it's not Dave Garcia that's on trial," James Bias, president of the SPCA of Texas, said. "It's the perpetrator of alleged animal cruelty."

Garcia has been convicted on multiple felony and misdemeanor DWI's in several states, and has a warrant for his arrest in Arizona.

Mr. Garcia's criminal past (and present!) and his failure to disclose them resulted in a person charged with a crime walking free. I'm not here to say that McMurrey was guilty or innocent, or to defend or condemn the bringing of charges against her in the first place. But I am here to say that Mr. Garcia's antics worked against his own and the SPCA-TX's interests. If McMurrey were guilty (and I don't know that she was — we have to believe evidence provided largely by someone whose credibility is tainted), a guilty party walked free.

Since I last wrote about this, I've received a whole slew of pdf documents (copies of court and prison records) which seem to suggest that Mr. Garcia's "major felony" was twofold: Count 1, kidnapping while armed with a deadly weapon; and Count 2, rape while armed with a deadly weapon. Mr. Garcia was evidently convicted and sentenced in 1973 (apparently not 1976 as I previously reported). He apparently received his complete discharge from "parole and the sentence" in 1979 (meaning the law considered that he had paid his debt to society).

I'm speculating that Mr. Garcia's conviction by itself might not have been enough to scuttle the McMurrey case, since it was so far in the past, had he but lived a clean life after having been released, and had he owned up to his past with the prosecutor. But his other difficulties with the law, including his outstanding warrant and his failure to disclose his criminal history when asked about it, in my opinion, shredded the DA's case and forced them to drop it.

What to think of this?

First, assuming the Mr. Garcia's history is about as I've outlined here, you have to wonder whether Mr. Garcia's job application had his criminal record listed on it. If not, was it because at the time he applied for a job the SPCA-TX didn't ask him, or because they did ask him and he didn't tell the truth (SPCA-TX now runs background checks on their applicants through a commercial firm).

If Mr. Garcia's criminal history was on his job application, why didn't he just tell the DA when he was asked about his past?

Mr. Garcia's apparent failure to disclose his past resulted in one

I'm very concerned about Mr. Bias downplaying Mr. Garcia's criminal past (and present! there is still that outstanding warrant!), not to mention the fact that Mr. Garcia was not truthful with the DA. The people of Texas should be concerned as well. (Notice how Mr. Bias deflected attention away from Mr. Garcia, his failure to tell the truth to the DA, his outstanding warrant, and his criminal past, and towards McMurrey, as if she had been proved guilty, and it is her fault that the charges against her were dismissed!).

To what extent was Mr. Bias's endorsement of Mr. Garcia driven by his sincere belief that Mr. Garcia's continued running of the SPCA-TX was in the best interests of Texans and their animals, or by something else? Would Mr. Bias be so sanguine about Mr. Garcia if Mr. Garcia hadn't been so effective in building the SPCA-TX into its present multimillion dollar operation, one with considerable legal as well as financial clout? One has to wonder: does Mr. Garcia know things about the SPCA-TX that might embarrass them more than his shabby treatment of the truth, and is Mr. Bias at all concerned that such information might come out if he were to come down hard on Mr. Garcia?

There are a lot of other disturbing questions that could be raised, and I hope are. But is anyone with investigative resources — like a reporter — willing to do so?

After all, there seems to be quite a rich mix here: there are lots of dollars (according to ABC's report, SPCA-TX took in $6 million last year), political clout, peace officer power, a person of dubious character in a position of power, his defender, who is his boss and the president of an organization that appears not to be accountable to the state of Texas, at least not in the same way state law enforcement agencies are, if it (the SPCA) is accountable at all!

I smell quite a story here, but will the local press will investigate?

I'm enough of a cynic not to be holding my breath.

Brian

PeTA: Supporting A Dairy Farmer, Exploiting Cows

An alert reader — and I'm fortunate enough to have a great many of them, sent me this:

SARASOTA, Fla., Aug. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- It's a beautiful summer day. The perfect day for a leisurely drive. There's nothing but endless farmland until you see a sight that's right out of the Twilight Zone -- 100 cows grazing in a field, with a website address painted on their bodies and several even painted completely purple!

No, this isn't an excerpt from a Hunter S. Thompson novel; it's the latest and most unusual marketing campaign by GoldenPalace.com, the Internet casino that has redefined the nature of advertising. The casino won yet another auction on eBay that allowed them to tattoo their web address "GoldenPalace.com" on 100 cows and have them graze in a field located near a major highway in the Sunshine State.

The casino went above and beyond the call of duty when they painted several of the cows purple, as a literal interpretation of author Seth Godin's "purple cow" marketing analogy. Godin equates the advertising world to a sea of grazing cows, and that it takes a purple cow to see your brand amid today's marketing clutter.

Now, if you are an Animal Rights activist, you would immediately condemn such a campaign, by pointing out that animals are not ours to be used for our amusement or for profit, and that to do so is to degrade and exploit them. At least that's what PeTA's website banner says.

And yet, and yet . . .

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is fully onboard with the campaign as some of the cows carry the message "Go Veg," supporting PETA's views on vegetarianism.

"When we heard about this campaign, we were looking forward to working with GoldenPalace.com," said PETA representative Dan Shannon. "This advertising idea promotes Golden Palace's company, as well as PETA's vegetarian philosophy. Better to paint the cows than eat them."

So exploiting animals is fine for a greater good — as defined by PeTA. Right?

Bruce Zalkin, the man behind the idea to sell this opportunity on eBay is very pleased with the event saying that "Golden Palace was the perfect company to bring this idea to life."

The farmer that owns the cows, Lem Chesser, agrees with Zalkin and adds that "the cows are fine and that [he] will jump at the chance to work with the casino whenever they ask." He also says that he would prefer to do more advertising like this in the future in order to generate enough income so there wouldn't be a need to send the cows to slaughter.

So if I understand this correctly, PeTA will conspire with exploitive farmers, who will profit from selling their cows' bodies as signs even as they extract milk from them.

PeTA isn't just exploiting a bunch of cows, PeTA is supporting the hated dairy industry by providing the farmer with a little extra scratch!

Note to David Martosko at CCF: Send PeTA a thank-you note . . . (just kidding, Mr. Martosko . . .).

"This is definitely one of our most eccentric campaigns," said GoldenPalace.com CEO Richard Rowe. "Much of our marketing strategy is modeled after the 'purple cow' philosophy. Not only are we literally displaying purple cows here, but we will continue to break new ground and change the way people think about conventional advertising. The Golden Palace herd is yet another great addition to our list of outrageous advertising ideas. We would like to thank PETA for their support and are very pleased that they are onboard for this campaign."

Those that want to check out this surreal display of marketing creativity can take exit 210 off I-75 going South from Tampa. The cows are located 2.3 miles east of I-75 on Fruitville Rd. in Sarasota, Florida. They will be on display for several weeks during which millions of people will see them.

Well, there you have it. I can't think of much more to say, other than what reader Joe W. said in his note to me: "Wasn't PETA upset at Kelly Osbourne over her dyed pink dog? They said something like "Dogs are not fashion accessories". I guess in PETA's eyes, cows "are" billboards."

Thank you Joe. This is yet another example of PeTA exempting itself from the very prohibitions they would inflict on the rest of us.

AR is not a principle, it is an attitude — a living one, one that changes as expediency dictates.

Brian

PeTA: Supporting A Dairy Farmer, Exploiting Cows

An alert reader — and I'm fortunate enough to have a great many of them, sent me this:

SARASOTA, Fla., Aug. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- It's a beautiful summer day. The perfect day for a leisurely drive. There's nothing but endless farmland until you see a sight that's right out of the Twilight Zone -- 100 cows grazing in a field, with a website address painted on their bodies and several even painted completely purple!

No, this isn't an excerpt from a Hunter S. Thompson novel; it's the latest and most unusual marketing campaign by GoldenPalace.com, the Internet casino that has redefined the nature of advertising. The casino won yet another auction on eBay that allowed them to tattoo their web address "GoldenPalace.com" on 100 cows and have them graze in a field located near a major highway in the Sunshine State.

The casino went above and beyond the call of duty when they painted several of the cows purple, as a literal interpretation of author Seth Godin's "purple cow" marketing analogy. Godin equates the advertising world to a sea of grazing cows, and that it takes a purple cow to see your brand amid today's marketing clutter.

Now, if you are an Animal Rights activist, you would immediately condemn such a campaign, by pointing out that animals are not ours to be used for our amusement or for profit, and that to do so is to degrade and exploit them. At least that's what PeTA's website banner says.

And yet, and yet . . .

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is fully onboard with the campaign as some of the cows carry the message "Go Veg," supporting PETA's views on vegetarianism.

"When we heard about this campaign, we were looking forward to working with GoldenPalace.com," said PETA representative Dan Shannon. "This advertising idea promotes Golden Palace's company, as well as PETA's vegetarian philosophy. Better to paint the cows than eat them."

So exploiting animals is fine for a greater good — as defined by PeTA. Right?

Bruce Zalkin, the man behind the idea to sell this opportunity on eBay is very pleased with the event saying that "Golden Palace was the perfect company to bring this idea to life."

The farmer that owns the cows, Lem Chesser, agrees with Zalkin and adds that "the cows are fine and that [he] will jump at the chance to work with the casino whenever they ask." He also says that he would prefer to do more advertising like this in the future in order to generate enough income so there wouldn't be a need to send the cows to slaughter.

So if I understand this correctly, PeTA will conspire with exploitive farmers, who will profit from selling their cows' bodies as signs even as they extract milk from them.

PeTA isn't just exploiting a bunch of cows, PeTA is supporting the hated dairy industry by providing the farmer with a little extra scratch!

Note to David Martosko at CCF: Send PeTA a thank-you note . . . (just kidding, Mr. Martosko . . .).

"This is definitely one of our most eccentric campaigns," said GoldenPalace.com CEO Richard Rowe. "Much of our marketing strategy is modeled after the 'purple cow' philosophy. Not only are we literally displaying purple cows here, but we will continue to break new ground and change the way people think about conventional advertising. The Golden Palace herd is yet another great addition to our list of outrageous advertising ideas. We would like to thank PETA for their support and are very pleased that they are onboard for this campaign."

Those that want to check out this surreal display of marketing creativity can take exit 210 off I-75 going South from Tampa. The cows are located 2.3 miles east of I-75 on Fruitville Rd. in Sarasota, Florida. They will be on display for several weeks during which millions of people will see them.

Well, there you have it. I can't think of much more to say, other than what reader Joe W. said in his note to me: "Wasn't PETA upset at Kelly Osbourne over her dyed pink dog? They said something like "Dogs are not fashion accessories". I guess in PETA's eyes, cows "are" billboards."

Thank you Joe. This is yet another example of PeTA exempting itself from the very prohibitions they would inflict on the rest of us.

AR is not a principle, it is an attitude — a living one, that changes as expediency dictates.

Brian

Merging Terrorist Groups: Is it possible?

I've been meaning to get to this piece for a day or two, because it deserves wide exposure. It is an article by Aaron Mannes, who authored the book "Profiles in Terror". What he has to say is too important not to be taken seriously: he raises the possibility, plausible to my mind, that animal and ecological terrorists may form partnerships with international terrorists of many different stripes and causes. This is scary.

With the recent bombings in London, most concerns about terrorist strikes on the US focus on the jihadist movement. But the next major terrorist strike in the US could come from an unexpected direction -- the extremist animal rights and environmental movements.

According to FBI Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are "one of today's most serious domestic terrorism threats." Skeptics, including The New York Times editorial page, argue that this threat is over hyped as these groups have confined themselves to property crime, unlike the well-established record of deadly right-wing terrorism. But waiting for terrorist groups to turn to murder is pre-9/11 thinking and the growing violence and sophistication of ALF and ELF are worrisome.

The FBI's Lewis testified to the Senate:

"Attacks are also growing in frequency and size. Harassing phone calls and vandalism now co-exist with improvised explosive devices and personal threats to employees. …  Extremists of these movements adhere to strict security measures in both their communications and their operations."

 The membership is well educated with many graduate students in their ranks. ALF and ELF are a non-hierarchical group with self-forming autonomous cells that are in one-way contact with the "press offices." The press offices provide ideological and practical guidance and participate in conferences where members can be recruited and trained. Cells, in turn, report actions to the press offices by anonymous e-mail. Closing the press offices has limited utility, since it is easy to start another website while breaking up a cell has minimal impact on the movement as a whole. These are not the operations of amateur coffeehouse revolutionaries, but of a sophisticated underground network of dedicated members.

And let's not forget PeTA's role in this: through PeTA's "Teach Kind" program and by way of their PeTA2 website, PeTA is a uniquely important means by which impressionable young kids are first introduced to the AR agenda, and become committed to it. As such, it provides a constant supply of true believers, some of whom, for whatever reason, find meaning in the wacky AR ideology and an excuse to act out violently. I've outlined how I see PeTA's role in the process here, here and here, for example.

 Equally troubling, the internal rhetoric of the movement is shifting. Traditionally ALF freed lab and farm animals, insisting that they would never purposefully harm a human. But affiliated groups in Europe have beaten opponents, and Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn's assassin was an animal rights activist. At an August 2003 Animal Rights Conference in Los Angeles, an ALF spokesman, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, stated:

"I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable. … I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on."

When an audience member stated that this was the same as the pro-life movement killing abortionists, Vlasak responded, "Absolutely, I think they've had a great strategy going."

You can see a transcript and listen to Dr. Vlasak finding assassination to be "morally acceptable" here, and you can read a transcript and watch him publicly advocate assassination by following the link here. It's chilling, but you owe it to yourself to be chilled once in awhile.

 The ALF and ELF worldview is also expanding. Their rhetoric (which can be read on a number of websites including www.animalliberationfront.com) has become infused with Marxist and anarchist ideology, criticizing the familiar litany of globalization, American imperialism and capitalism. In March 2003, just before the Iraq war, ELF ideologue Craig Rosebraugh called for, "strategies and tactics which severely disrupt the war machine, the U.S. economy, and the overall functioning of U.S. society." In his book, The Logic of Political Violence, Rosebraugh wrote: "[R]evolution in the United States … cannot be successful without the implementation of violence." Transferring ALF's and ELF's enemies from particular industries and companies to society as a whole could inspire larger scale terrorist attacks.

Yes — Animal Rights luminaries are sounding more and more like Marxists and anarchists, although it's not like the AR and Eco extremists are strangers to egalitarianism . . . what could be more egalitarian than regarding every life, human and animal alike, as being equally valuable?

 ALF and ELF could also link with international terrorists as they have affiliates in Europe and connections to the radical left internationally. Daniel Andreas San Diego (who is on the FBI's most wanted list for a series of attempted 2003 bombings of animal research facilities) demonstrated this kinship when he sent an e-mail claiming credit for the bombings that ended with a salute to international terrorists, including the Real IRA, Columbia's FARC and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (which is closely linked with the Islamist terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah). Such links would increase ELF and ALF capabilities and radicalism and could lead to Americans being recruited to international terrorist groups.

I think this is a credible fear. I've long worried that the techniques that have worked so well for the AR extremists in the UK will be exported to the US and elsewhere, to be used by other radical groups. The notion that our own home-grown AR and Eco terrorists might make common cause with groups having an equal commitment to violence but entirely different ideologies along the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" lines should be a source of deepest concern for us all.

Domestic terrorism from the right has been far more deadly than domestic terrorism from the left and law enforcement has responded appropriately. Rightwing extremist groups are monitored and infiltrated. But ALF and ELF have been less vulnerable to law enforcement countermeasures, consequently they are more likely to undertake a major operation successfully. Downplaying the threat of ALF and ELF by arguing that these groups have not yet perpetrated Oklahoma City type attacks ignores the seminal lesson of 9/11. These groups need to be stopped before they turn to large-scale violence.

Indeed — before 9/11, 9/11 hadn't happened! As I pointed out recently here and here, there are dots to be connected.

The only question is when will we connect them. Before or after a catastrophy?

Thanks to Joe W. for reminding me.

Brian

Horses: Conflating Animal Rights with Animal Welfare

Readers of AC will be familiar that one of my pet peeves is an ignorant media that naively conflates Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. (If you don't know the difference, you darn well ought to, and before reading this post any further you should read this). Unfortunately, today we have another example of just such a conflation:

ANIMAL welfare campaigners from across Scotland are set to stage a major protest at an international horse circus in Edinburgh tomorrow.

"Animal welfare campaigners . . ."

No. They are Animal Rights campaigners . . . (op cit).

Visitors to Spirit of the Horse at the Royal Highland Centre will be greeted by placard-waving protesters wearing horse masks.

And they will be urged to boycott circuses which include animal performers.

Advocates for Animals and the Captive Animals' Protection Society are calling on the Scottish Executive to ban performing animals in circuses through the forthcoming Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Bill.

See? Classic AR stuff . . .

A cast of 30 horses from Russia, Holland, Germany, Spain and the UK star in Europe's largest equestrian touring theatre show tomorrow.

The show involves Spanish horsemen on classic Andalusian mounts, Cossack daredevil riders, Arabian stallions, equestrian ballet and friesians.

Spirit of the Horse, performing in the new 2000-seat Equestrian Touring Centre at Ingliston until August 8, was founded in 2002 and has now been seen by more than a million people.

Lynda Korimboccus, Advocates for Animals' campaigns manager, said: "It's a circus act as far as I'm concerned. By their very nature, circuses cannot provide the space and necessary requirements to meet the needs of animals.

To AR advocates, circuses are, by definition, unacceptable, because they are bigger-than-life examples of humans exercising control over animals. And for an AR true believer, for a human to exercise control over an animal amounts to depriving an animal of its "rights", which is by definition a form of abuse.

Circuses — and other such pagentry-oriented uses of animals — are particulary galling to the AR community because of their symbolism. The AR community feels that to use animals for entertainment is to trample their dignity.

"Horses used in circuses are often controlled by tight reins. These, along with some of the tricks they are made to perform, can place an unnatural and severe strain on their muscles. This company makes money out of forcing horses to perform degrading and unnatural tricks."

Notice the word "degrading," which, one knows intuitively, is far more important to Ms Korimboccus than it ever would be to the horse.

But where to start?

Okay — I'll start with the obvious. Korimboccus assumes that the level of consciousness, awareness and insight of a horse are identical to those of a human, a notion that is laughably false, but one that betrays the extent of her ideological blindness.

She further assumes that even if horses were the curious, mythologically composite creatures she imagines them to be — four-hooved beasts, with human brains, emotions and thoughts — they'd share her idea of what is degrading and what is not. (On second thought, it's Ms Korimboccus' fantasy, and she can imagine her mythological beast to possess whatever characteristics she cares to . . . It's just hard for a skeptical outsider to buy into her delusion.)

Alas, at best, Ms Korimboccus is projecting.

For all we know, the horses — real ones or those imaginary ones she has constructed for her own personal bestiary — might find it surpassingly satisfying to be costumed and to perform as they do, and might find their primary reason for living in the privilege of working with their trainers! Indeed, they actually might prefer a performing life to life in the wild, if we could but read their minds. (Captivity isn't all bad . . . nor is domestication necessarily "unnatural". As I've pointed out before, domestication is itself an evolutionary adaptation.)

Of course, I can't prove horses prefer their performing lives to a life in the wild any more than Ms Korimboccus can prove they don't, but anybody who loves animals and who's worked closely with them in their training will speak of their satisfaction when they've performed as their trainers have encouraged them to.

I know where I'll put my money, and I can only ask how can somebody so lose themselves, as Ms Korimboccus has lost herself?

Unless, of course, she is uniquely gifted with the ability to read horse minds . . .

Ms Korimboccus said she was not accusing Spirit of the Horse of specific mistreatment of animals, but said that in general circus animals suffered problems in transportation, inadequate housing and training.

Translation: the circus and its people are a poison well, and anything circus people do to animals is tainted.

She claimed that "several dozen" protesters did not intend to disrupt the performance, but would just give out leaflets in a peaceful protest to educate people attending the show.

Craig Redmond, campaigns officer for Caps, added: "We would encourage the public not to attend any circuses or other shows with performing animals such as this one. Instead, they can support one of the many varied non- animal shows.

"The Spirit of the Horse is nothing but a horse circus."

A spokesman for Spirit of the Horse said its horses were well looked after in accordance with a strict government-approved code of practice.

Sure! Of course the two — the Spirit of the Horse spokesman and the AR people — are basing their comments on two fundamentally different value systems. The Spirit of the Horse spokesman is talking about Animal Welfare values, the AR people are talking about Animal Rights attitudes. For the AR people, nothing short of abolishing domestic horses will suffice — and if that means the extinction of the horse, or the destruction of the habitat into which horses are released, so be it.

The audience were invited to see the horses in their stables and meet the riders at the end of the show, he said.

The spokesman added that they would not enter into discussions with "extremists".

"We don't dialogue with anyone who wants to abolish human contact with animals. We have no common ground to debate," he said. . . .

The spokesman is a person of crystal clear understanding, an all too rare commodity these days, especially at the interface between Animal Rights activists and normal people.

Thanks to Liz Ditz for the tip.

Brian

Steven Best: Profiled in the Chronicle of Higher Education

The Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting profile of Steven Best in its current issue.

Here are some of the things the CHE had to say, and my responses to Professor Best's comments. I urge you to read the entire article, and to comment on the CHE website if you have anything you'd like to say.

[ . . . ]

Mr. Best, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso, is one of the leading scholarly voices on animal rights. In the past year, though, he has taken on a role that, he believes, has gotten him into hot water in Washington and in his own department.

In December he co-founded the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which answers questions and helps disseminate information about actions by the Animal Liberation Front. The animal-liberation group, along with another extremist group called the Earth Liberation Front, has been labeled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as one of the most serious domestic-terrorism threats in the country.

While the groups have not killed anyone, since 1990 they have committed more than 1,200 attacks causing millions of dollars in damages, according to the FBI. Many of them have been attacks against university labs, including a raid on a Louisiana State University building in Baton Rouge in April.

Perhaps ALF operatives haven't killed anyone, but that's only through blind luck, and given Dr. Jerry Vlasak (also an ALF "Press Officer") finding assassination to be "morally acceptable" and openly advocating the practice, a person being targeted by the ALF has a credible reason to fear for his life, or the lives of his loved ones.

The ALF has no real structure. A few people engage in a "direct action" -- such as destroying computers, setting fire to a building, or "liberating" mink from fur farms -- and then one or two days later they send a communiqué taking credit for the attack.

That's where Mr. Best comes in. The Animal Liberation Press Office has a fax machine in California ready to receive messages from ALF activists. After an attack, Mr. Best and three other press officers post the information on their Web site and answer reporters' questions. "We explain what the ALF is about," he says. "We interpret the nature of an action, and we explain why the action was taken."

Mr. Best balks at being labeled a "spokesman," however. That suggests a centralized organization and a hierarchy the ALF simply does not have, he says. He sees himself as a philosopher in action, a scholar who has the courage to put his theories into practice.

Heh . . . Professor Best is parsing . . . of course he's a spokesman for ALF! Why does being a spokesman necessarily imply a centralized organization? Why couldn't the group he's a spokesman for be diffuse and ill-defined?

Professor Best preaches a philosophy that is the rallying point for ALF direct actions: violence is justifiable if it is undertaken for the "liberation" of animals. What could be more "central" to a gaggle of thuggish ideologues than their ideology? The specifics of group organization (or lack of it) is irrelevant.

[ . . . ]

In November members of the Animal Liberation Front broke into laboratories used by the University of Iowa's psychology department. They took 88 mice and 313 rats. They destroyed computers and poured acid on papers and equipment, causing about $450,000 worth of damage. In an anonymous message sent after the attacks, the perpetrators wrote: "Let this message be clear to all who victimize the innocent: We're watching. And by ax, drill, or crowbar -- we're coming through your door."

The attacks sparked debate and outrage at Iowa, which was heightened two months later when a law-student group invited Mr. Best to speak at the university. Some psychology professors tried unsuccessfully to get the university's president to cancel the speech. Although the professors managed to retrieve much of their research data from the damaged computers, they were later hit with 400 unsolicited magazine subscriptions after their home addresses were posted by ALF activists.

I'm very pleased that this article doesn't sing the praises of the University of Iowa's President David Skorton. In my opinion, if there is one pure villain in the Iowa attack, it is Skorton himself, for reasons I've outlined here. To this day, I cannot think of this Bozo's name without being outraged at what he did to his faculty . . .

At the Iowa speech, Mr. Best compared the Animal Liberation Front to 19th-century abolitionists, likening their "direct actions" to the Boston Tea Party. In a statement after the speech, he wrote: "Please, let's stop the hypocrisy and put our moral outrage in perspective. For every window or computer smashed in the name of animal liberation, a billion animals suffer horrendous torture and death at the hands of exploiters operating the fur farms, factory farms, slaughterhouses, rodeos, circuses, and laboratories."

Hyperbole aside, Professor Best's case makes sense, if you begin with his assumption: that a human and an animal life are of equal value. If you do, then you can uncritically accept his decision to save his dog from a burning building before he'd save a human stranger (your child, spouse, sib or parent), because all lives are of equal value, and his dog is more important to him than your relative or friend is to him. (This is Professor Best's "Me First!" ethic [op cit].)

[ . . . ]

Mr. Martosko showed several photographs of Mr. Best. In one, the professor has his arm around Kevin Kjonaas, an activist who faces charges in New Jersey related to a campaign against a British drug-testing company. In another, Mr. Best stands next to Rodney Coronado and Gary Yourofsky, who both did time in prison for animal-liberation attacks.

"These are the guys, these are the ALF felons that Best hangs out with," says Mr. Martosko in a telephone interview. "This is his crowd."

The El Paso professor "may not have his fingerprints on a matchbook," Mr. Martosko continues, "but I think it's clear that he's trying to recruit young people." He points to an essay in which Mr. Best wrote that the movement needed to raise "an army of activists" and that the animal-liberation movement would benefit by "growing roots in academia."

Mr. Best fumes at those allegations. He calls Mr. Martosko a "vulgar McCarthy-ite" who is seeking to demonize the entire animal-rights movement. "I certainly do not recruit students into the ALF," he says. "I don't even know anyone in the ALF."

Professor Best at his disingenuous, dissembling best (pun intended) . . . Professor Best knows full well he's an icon to the loopy fringe of the AR extremist movement (that's quite a place to be — the fringe of a fringe). Professor Best can proclaim his innocence as much as he wishes, but one must inevitably ask: if Dr. Best were deliberately trying to recruit acolytes — if not his students, then others — to the ALF mission, what would he do differently?

And he is proud to put his arm around men that some consider terrorists. "They are heroes of mine," he says. "History will be written about them. They will be defamed now, but they will be taught to children later. They will write storybooks about these people, like Harriet Tubman. And I respect them infinitely more than I respect a philosopher lost in abstraction."

Of course, Professor Best is describing himself. He, at no risk whatsoever to himself, celebrates the violent antics of the ALF, and "explains" and apologizes for them even, with luck, as his rhetoric recruits some useful idiots to the AR/AL cause, where they may act out violently. This he does even as he hops aboard gas guzzling aircraft to give talks in places that have been savaged by ALF, like Iowa. And he does this for a loopy and fantastic abstraction — that of "animal rights." Note to Professor Best: Don't project — you reveal too much about yourself when you do.

[ . . . ]

When talking about his cats, he does not look like the stubborn philosophy professor whom one colleague at El Paso describes as "very acerbic." Another calls him simply "angry." No one doubts his passion about animals, though.

For him, the campaign for animals' rights is the modern abolition movement. Expanding the notion of rights to include animals -- just as it was expanded in centuries past to include women and blacks -- is the next evolutionary step in man's moral progress, he says. And years from now, Mr. Best argues, people will look back on the way humans currently treat animals the way we now look at slavery.

And once again . . . IF you buy that a human life and an animal life are of equal value, he's right. But then you end up . . . in this ugly place.

Most of us focus on the differences between humans and animals, he says, but they are outweighed by the similarities. "We can say that we can build spaceships and they can't," he says. "We can write algebraic equations and they can't. Therefore, we must be better." But that doesn't make any sense to him.

The "similarities outweigh the differences" argument is a repackaging of the "like deserves like treatment" argument. If this is so, then all living things are more alike than any living thing is to anything not living. Since rights are conferred by humans, and non-living things could have rights if humans so decided, then all living things should have rights, simply because they are so much alike (they're all alive!).

Question for Professor Best: If like deserves like treatment, and "rights" are the product of the human mind, what is the philosophical argument against bestowing "rights" on all living things, rather than restricting them only to sentient creatures?

And if sentient creatures have rights, what are the philosophical grounds for spaying and neutering dogs and cats, as PeTA and other AR groups advocate? Is spaying and neutering a violation of an animal's rights, those of reproduction, those of enjoying the bliss of sexual activity and the pleasure of raising offspring, or would you, Professor Best, advocate forced sterilization of humans?

"They know the difference between pleasure and pain," he says of animals. "They can experience a life of happiness and joy or a life of suffering and misery. If they can suffer like us, then they have a right to live a life free of suffering."

For him, and many in the animal-rights movement, the key is sentience. "That's why I'm not engaged in an act of cruelty right now," he says as he stands at his kitchen counter eating a pear. "That's why there is no Pear Liberation Front -- because this does not have a brain, this does not have a nervous system. It cannot feel pain."

The key sentence here, of course, is: "For him, and many in the animals-rights movement, the key is sentience." The obvious question is: why is sentence of greater moral relevancy than being a member of H. sapiens, a species which has the capability to anticipate future events and develop contingency plans to deal with them? Or, why is sentience of greater moral value than being larger than a bread-box?

As much as I treasure Professor Best's opinion, it is, nevertheless, still based on assumptions. In this case, Professor Best's opinion is based squarely on the assumption that the life of all sentient creatures are of equal worth! Why is "sentience" less arbitrary than being a human being? If the AR goal is to be more inclusive, what is the argument against making life itself the morally-relevant criterion — e.g. why not skip Animal Rights altogether and proceed directly to Jainism?

I do hope you take the time to read the whole CHE article, and, if you are of a mind to, comment on it (the link to comment is to be found on the upper right of the article's page, beside the first paragraph of it).

Brian

Peter Daniel Young: Accomplices in the Headlights

We're starting to learn a little more about how Peter Daniel Young eluded authorities for several years after having released thousands of mink: he had help! (Duh . . .)

MADISON, Wis. - Animal rights activists in northern California helped a Washington state man accused of releasing thousands of mink from Midwestern farms dodge authorities for the last few years, federal investigators believe.

Peter Daniel Young rented an apartment under a false name, used another activist's credit card and appears to have run a mail-order CD business over his computer while he was on the lam, according to search warrant applications recently unsealed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California.

"I have probable cause to believe that one or more individuals ... have in some manner assisted Young in remaining concealed from arrest," Scott Merriam, an agent in the FBI's San Francisco office, wrote in the applications.

Young, captured in March after seven years on the run, faces two federal counts of animal enterprise terrorism in Wisconsin. The decision on whether to bring more charges in his case rests with the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco since Young and his friends apparently were living in that jurisdiction.

[ . . . ] Young's attorney in Madison, Chris Kelly, downplayed the documents.

"I'm not sure most of it has any real significance to the charges Peter is facing here (in Wisconsin). The information in the warrant is just a bunch of allegations. They haven't been proved," he said.

[ . . . ]

Of course, Mr. Young is less likely to worry about having received help than those who helped him should be for having given it . . . which is the point of the search warrant applications . . .

I doubt that the attorney for any of his alleged accomplices would be quite so cavalier about the warrants.

Federal prosecutors believe Young and Justin Samuel broke onto farms in Wisconsin, South Dakota and Iowa in 1997 and freed 7,000 mink on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front. ALF is an umbrella for groups of animal rights activists working against industries they feel injure animals.

They both were originally indicted in Madison in 1998 on four counts of interfering with interstate commerce by extortion and two counts of animal enterprise terrorism.

Federal prosecutors dropped the extortion counts against Young, 27, last week . . . Young, of Mercer Island, Wash., still faces trial this fall on the two animal enterprise terrorism counts.

Young and Samuel disappeared after the indictment came down. Police caught up with Samuel in Hasselt, Belgium, in 1999. He struck a deal with prosecutors and served two years in prison.

Young stayed a step ahead of the FBI, local police and foreign law enforcement agencies. He finally was arrested in San Jose, Calif., this past March after police said an officer caught him trying to shoplift CDs from a Starbucks.

According to the search warrant applications, Young had a Virginia identification card with a different name that he used to rent an apartment in Santa Cruz, Calif., starting in May 2003 until he was captured this spring.

He chose that area so he could get help from animal rights activists there, the applications said. His apartment was near the home of a fellow animal rights activist who was arrested with Young during a protest at the University of California, Davis in 1997.

Police who arrested Young also found a Visa card on him that belonged to a San Francisco woman known as an animal rights activist. The search warrant applications said the woman gets mail at Young's apartment.

How very interesting — of course, once the cops have their clutches on accomplices, they can start playing one against the other, a favor here, a threat of maximum sentencing there, especially if any alleged accomplice is hit with some form of felony conspiracy charge. This could be a real test for someone's ideological purity.

Just ask Mr. Samuel, who evidently sold Mr. Young out in return for a relatively light sentence.

The quid pro quo rules.

Officers also found postal delivery receipts on Young. Postal employees said Young brought in 20 to 50 media mail packages containing CDs, DVDs or books to mail to customers of his business, which he ran through his computer. Young was caught trying to steal eight copies of the same CD from Starbucks, the warrant applications said.

Customers of his business . . . boosting CDs, DVDs and books to serve his mail order customers . . . The free enterprise system at work, albeit sweetened with a little theft, perhaps as an attempt to legitimize its illegitimacy to egalitarian true believers.

That would be a nice touch, for Mr. Young to make his business at one time both a capitalistic venture, one designed to profit Mr. Young, and paradoxically, an anti-establishment enterprise, one that appeared to be a protest against the hated capitalists, whose goods were stolen, to satisfy egalitarians everywhere!

Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?

Brian