Animal Crackers

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! I hope everyone has their best one ever.

For my part, I'm gonna sit in front of our fire, chat with family and appreciate them no end, read a little, scratch Maggie (the former barn cat) and Norton (a Manx cat, named after a fabled motorcycle) chow down on a lovely standing rib of beef (I was actually holding out for a turduken, which you can buy already assembled, but I was overruled — which is probably a good thing).

In any event, thanks for reading AC, and again, Merry Xmas.

Brian

A Turned Worm

Is anyone surprised that this transpired, given the dirty tricks AR people have pulled on their targets?

AN animal rights group has been bombarded with abusive mail from hunt supporters in a scam that has cost it thousands of pounds.

The League Against Cruel Sports was targeted after it launched an appeal for donations using a Freepost address.

Hunters sent out a round-robin email urging supporters to abuse the system by sending heavy parcels for which the League would have to pay.

Van loads of bricks, telephone directories, heavy books, abusive letters and animal excrement were sent to the League's offices. So far the cost is more than £10,000.

Among the hunt supporters who apparently forwarded the email is Amelisa Robinson, the wife of the Queen's equerry Simon Robinson.

And the scam was backed by TV host Jeremy Clarkson who said in his newspaper column he was going to send a "paving stone or a horse".

Mike Hobday, of the League, said: "Not content with abusing our wildlife for their own entertainment, they are now trying to deprive us of funds donated by our supporters. Many of our supporters who use Freepost are pensioners."

Actress and model Lisa B, an animal welfare supporter, was outraged when she received the email.

She said: "It is so wrong, so below the belt. It is a fraudulent way of taking money from people who believe in the cause."

By my standards, she is right.

But by the standards adopted by Animal Rights activists — which includes harassment and terror tactics — what the hunt supporters have done is mild, and if the shoe were on the other foot, I'll wager the League Against Cruel Sports would have thought the scam to be jolly good fun — or at least wouldn't have condemned it.

Now, an Animal Rights group is getting a taste of its own medicine and they are calling foul.

The scam was sparked after the League appealed for funding for its Hunt Crimewatch campaign which gathers evidence of illegal hunts after they were banned in February.

Hunt supporters seized on the chance to send an avalanche of mail to its HQ in Southwark, South London.

Tory MP Michael Gove and Richard Dodd, of the pro-hunt Countryside Alliance, were sent the email. There is no suggestion they took part in the scam.

Top Gear's Clarkson urged hunt supporters to take part in the scam, saying it would leave the League less to spend on surveillance gear.

I disapprove of the scam.

But the logic underlying it — that it would siphon funds away from surveillance gear to pay for postage — is the same logic that underlies AR people making threats to huntsman, guinea pig farmers, construction companies building animal care facilities or researchers.

In each of these cases, the harassers force their target to divert limited resources away from their intended use to something else — either paying for security to guard against AR harassment, or paying for postage fees to cover the cost of mailing bricks.

My moral framework allows me to condemn illegal actions regardless of whether they are undertaken by AR groups or groups I might be in sympathy with.

The moral framework of most AR people does not.

The only time an AR person has sufficient moral authority to condemn the hunt scammers is if they, the AR people who condemn, are equally vociferous in condemning (not merely "not approving") the disruptive scams and violence of their AR brethren.

My advice to the League is either to condemn the tactics of their brethren — the ones who operate in behalf of SHAC, for example — or stop complaining.

Another newspaper's gossip column urged "those who like to hunt - or just don't like the animal rights lobby" - to send an empty envelope to the address so that the League "incurs a Royal Mail charge".

But yesterday Mr Hobday insisted: "It is clear so far that this trick has backfired. The reaction we have had from the public is one of disgust and dismay that the bloodsports lobby could stoop so low.

I doubt that.

"We have passed this material to the authorities and believe there is enough evidence to land many pro-hunters in hot water."

So . . . when the worm turns and pro-hunter people use AR-like tactics against AR targets, the targets now appeal to the government for relief . . . would that be the same government whose laws some AR people — like SHAC agents — regularly and egregiously flout, without condemnation from the League?

What am I missing?

Lisa B notified the League, set up in 1924 to stop violence against animals, as soon as she got the email.

She said: "There has been no grace in the behaviour of these people trying to bring the organisation down.

"I believe people are entitled to their own opinion, but I don't see how this behaviour can be remotely justified. It is also an injustice to the whole postal service."

I condemn the scam, and I condemn equally Lisa B's double standard.

Unless she's been forthright in condemning what her AR brethren have done, for example, against the Hall family (link, link, link) and HLS (and link), she and her supporters should stop their whining.

Police confirmed they were investigating if the culprits could be charged with theft, fraud or sending malicious post. Just forwarding the email could result in criminal proceedings. Mrs Robinson was not available for comment.

When the Mirror called her, she said: "This is not a good time, I'm bathing the children. Speak to the press office."

Buckingham Palace, where her husband works, said: "The email was not sent on a Palace computer. Amelisa is not employed by Buckingham Palace."

While I condemn the scam, and I would investigate it and prosecute any person who violated the law if that were my job, there is still an emotional part of me that, to my immense discredit, delights in the turned worm.

Alas, I am only human.

Brian

William C. Rodgers, Suspect in 1998 Vail Arson, Commits Suicide

The AP is reporting that William C. Rodgers, recently arrested along with 5 other suspects for various acts of eco-terror, committed suicide today, December 22, 2005.

Mr. Rodgers was a suspect in the 1998 Vail Colorado arson attack, which caused an estimated $12 million in damages.

Here's the AP story, as gleaned from the ABC website:

PHOENIX -- An Arizona bookstore owner charged in the firebombing of a government wildlife lab in Washington committed suicide in his jail cell Thursday, officials said.

William C. Rodgers, 40, of Prescott, Ariz., suffocated after placing a plastic bag over his head while in a one-person cell in Flagstaff, the Coconino County medical examiner said.

Rodgers was one of six people arrested earlier this month in connection with ecoterror attacks in Oregon and Washington in recent years. He was accused of setting fire to the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services facility in Olympia, Wash., in 1998.

Federal court documents last week said Rodgers had been linked to a meeting of Earth Liberation Front members in western Colorado where the firebombing of a Colorado ski resort, one of the costliest ecoterror crimes in the U.S., was planned.

It is true that Mr. Rodgers died before he was tried, and therefore deserves the presumption of innocence. It is equally true that if he were to be convicted, he'd face heavy jail time, perhaps remaining in stir until he was 60.

I suppose we'll just have to wait to see what sort of evidence there was against him, but I'm betting it was pretty strong and I'll go on record as saying he simply succumbed to what he viewed as a hopeless future in the big house.

I hope all the budding zealots out there who are contemplating an act of eco- or AR-violence take a long hard look at the pressures Mr. Rodgers must have been under, and think very carefully about whether they want to risk their future by acting out as he allegedly did.

My advice to these people stands: overcome your arrogance, and don't assume that you're too smart and too careful to get caught.

The feds are really starting to take eco- and AR-terror seriously, and it's going to become increasingly difficult for perpetrators to hide indefinitely.

It really doesn't take much courage to sneak about in the night and hit some "soft" target.

It takes a great deal more courage to deal with the consequences of what you've done when you're caught. And even if you're not caught, you've got to live with the constant fear of being apprehended.

Thanks to Dave S and Vicci A for the heads up about.

Brian

Meyerhoff: To Testify Against Gerlach

It's hardly surprising . . . after praying for the courts mercy for the eco-sabotage crimes he's accused of having committed, Stanislas "Jack" Meyerhoff appears to be willing to do something more concrete in defense of his sorry . . . in defense of himself. He will testify against others:

GRANTS PASS, Ore - One of the six people arrested this month on federal charges they were part of an ecoterrorism campaign has agreed to testify against others charged in the case, according to court papers.

A defense motion filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., says Stanislas "Jack" Meyerhoff, 28, a former Eugene resident who has lately been attending Piedmont Community College in Charlottesville, Va., is one of the unnamed informants the federal government has relied on for evidence in the investigation.

Public defender Craig Weinerman named Meyerhoff and another man, Jacob Ferguson, as informants in a motion for the release of Chelsea Gerlach, who is being held without bail.

I haven't found much on Mr. Ferguson yet. But it sounds like Ms Gerlach should be preparing for a very, very un-merry Xmas.

It's tragic, but she's the author of her own destiny, and what she apparently wrote a few years ago cannot be undone.

The motion is to be argued today in U.S. District Court in Eugene.

Gerlach, 28, who grew up in the Eugene area and worked as a disc jockey in Portland, faces trial on indictments she and Meyerhoff helped topple a high tension power line outside Bend in 1999 and that she served as a lookout while others were setting fire to the Childers Meat Co. plant in Eugene in 2001.

No group took responsibility for the toppling the electric tower, but the Animal Liberation Front took credit for the meat plant fire to protest the treatment of livestock.

Authorities have also named Gerlach as a suspect in the 1998 arson of a ski resort in Vail, Colo., that caused $12 million in damages, though she has not been charged. The Earth Liberation Front took credit for that, saying it was fighting ski resort expansion into lynx habitat.

Those arson charges are very heavy — if she's convicted, she could face life in prison.

Meyerhoff also was indicted on charges he firebombed the office of Superior Lumber Co. in Glendale, Ore., now known as Swanson Group, in 2001 as well as offices and a truck shop at the Jefferson Poplar Farm in Clatskanie, Ore. Earth Liberation Front took credit for both those.

In a status hearing Tuesday, Meyerhoff asked the court to show mercy.

"I pray that the court is merciful with those who have renounced these crimes and have moved on to be students and professionals," he said.

Weinerman characterized Meyerhoff and Ferguson as "serial arsonists" whose credibility was undermined by the fact that they face life in prison without parole if convicted on charges of being in possession of a firebomb.

If I were facing such penalties, I'd be singing like a canary. I'd be doing everything I could to save my sorry self.

He argued that the weakness of the government's case and Gerlach's strong ties to the community - her mother lives in Eugene and her father lives in Sweet Home - should qualify her for release on bail.

Weinerman wrote in the motion that following his arrest Dec. 7, Meyerhoff admitted he was involved in the Childers Meat fire and claimed Gerlach also was involved, but could not recall her specific role. He has not been charged in that fire.

Ferguson, who told authorities he also took part in the meat plant fire, characterized Gerlach's role as a lookout with a hand-held radio, the motion said.

The motion gave no age or hometown for Ferguson, but noted that he has not been charged in any of the cases.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Sheldahl said the prosecution would respond to the motion in court.

Ferguson also admitted taking part in the firebombing of a U.S. Department of Agriculture plant research lab in Olympia in 1998, the Superior Lumber Co. fire in 2001 and the tree farm fire the same year, the motion said.

"Ferguson has admitted to actually setting the fires in these arsons according to an affidavit filed in connection with the issuance of search warrants in these cases," the motion said.

Well, there you have it. Given Mr. Meyerhoff's earlier contrition and the fact that he fingered Ms Gerlach, I can't really say I'm surprised that he's willing to testify against her.

All in all, this is pretty dramatic stuff, the drama being exceeded only by the tragedy of young people screwing up their lives for a fleeting commitment to a false cause.

All I can really say is that before you decide to firebomb some place for your ideology, assume that you will be caught, and ask yourself if you're willing to pay the piper his full price — like spending the rest of your life in the slammer — without regret.

If that's a price you are unwilling to pay, don't do the act. You cannot assume you will not be caught . . .

I don't think either the ELF or ALF Prisoner Support network is going to be soliciting many cards and books for Mr. Meyerhoff — or Mr. Ferguson, for that matter.

Talk about useful idiots . . .

Brian

New Skeptics Circle

There is a new Skeptics Circle up. Check it out here on Joseph O'Donnell's Immunoblogging site, where he's "debunking the claims of pseudoscience one quack at a time" (I love it).

Brian

Meyerhoff: "I Pray the Court is Merciful . . ."

So it looks like at least one of the six recently busted for suspicion of eco-terrorism has decided he made quite a large error when he sabotaged a transmission tower in 1999:

A Virginia man accused of firebombing a tree farm and a lumber mill office in attacks tied to the Earth Liberation Front made a request for mercy Tuesday during a hearing in U.S. District Court.

"I pray that the court is merciful with those who have renounced these crimes and have moved on to be students and professionals," Stanislas "Jack" Meyerhoff said after being granted permission to address the court by U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin.

Translation: At the time I did the deed, I thought it was just fine. At the time I thought it was just fine, I wasn't worried about being caught, or about the consequences of being apprehended if I were. But with time, I've changed my mind, and wish to heaven I had then the wisdom that I have now, because I now see how that act has made my present life and my future one a shambles.

Meanwhile, a motion was filed on behalf of one of Meyerhoff's co-defendants, Chelsea D. Gerlach, 28, of Portland, arguing she should be granted bail because the only evidence against her so far was statements from two government informants who took part in some of the firebombings.

Public defender Craig Weinerman would not discuss the motion in detail. The motion was not immediately posted on the court Web site. Weinerman had characterized the informants in court earlier as "serial arsonists." U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin is scheduled to hear the motion Thursday.

Gerlach is scheduled to go on trial along with Meyerhoff Feb. 28 on charges they toppled a Bonneville Power Administration electrical transmission tower east of Bend in 1999. A third person accused in that case, Josephine Overaker, remains a fugitive.

Meyerhoff and Gerlach were both students at South Eugene High School here, where they were pictured together in the yearbook as members of a club called Student Coalition Advocating Peace and Equality.

If Meyerhoff is genuinely repentant, he'll testify against Ms Gerlach.

Ms Gerlach may well be sweating the proverbial bricks right now.

Meyerhoff was in court for a status hearing when he made the statement. His attorney, Richard Fredericks, refused to elaborate on it. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirk Engdall said Meyerhoff made a similarly contrite statement after he was arrested in Virginia.

In addition to the tower toppling, Meyerhoff was scheduled to go on trial Feb. 15 on charges he helped firebomb the offices of Superior Lumber Co., now Swanson Group, in Glendale and the Jefferson Poplar Farms in Clatskanie. Both fires were in 2001. If convicted on either of two counts accusing him of being in possession of a fire bomb, he faces a mandatory life sentence.

Tragic . . . Mr. Meyerhoff may well be a totally changed person now, but the fact is that if he should be convicted of those arsons, he needs to be punished for them.

Mr. Meyerhoff looks to recognized that he's thrown away his life.

Daniel G. McGowan, 31, of New York City was indicted along with Meyerhoff in the lumber mill and tree farm firebombings. He has yet to be transported from New York to appear in court.

If Mr. Meyerhoff is guilty of these arsons and genuinely repentant, he'll testify against Mr. McGowan. If the two were in this together, Mr. McGowan, like Ms Gerlach, may well be sweating the proverbial bricks . . .

Earth Liberation Front, a shadowy underground group, took credit for the tree farm and lumber mill fires, but not the electrical transmission line tower.

Federal authorities have said in court that an unnamed informant wearing a hidden microphone talked to McGowan, obtaining evidence against him.

A total of six people have been arrested in four states on charges they took part in some of a string of ecoterrorism attacks from 1998 to 2001 in Oregon and Washington.

Other targets involved in the investigation include firebombings of a ski resort in Vail, Colo., another lumber mill in Medford, two federal research labs near Olympia, Wash., and the University of Washington Urban Horticultural Center in Seattle.

One of the hardest things for the young mind to grasp is that it changes . . . emotions and causes that appear on one day to be written in stone and immutable, and worth committing your life to, don't necessarily remain that way.

But actions taken on behalf of a cause cannot be undone — they remain to haunt you even after the cause for which they were undertaken ceases to be a high priority, or an interest, or even a vague memory.

It sounds like Mr. Meyerhoff has learned this life's lesson, but, tragically, at a point in his own existence when he has already become a victim of his own actions, even as he victimized others.

What a waste . . . his future is gone, he knows it, and he knows whose fault it is.

Brian

An ACLU Complaint: The Feds Are Investigating PeTA

The news services are all breathlessly a-flutter this morning with the story that the FBI has been surveilling (gasp!) PeTA and Greenpeace, even though the FBI says they weren't suspected in terrorist activity, but are suspected of supporting ALF and ELF.

The ACLU is predictably outraged, and PeTA denies wrongdoing. Here are some snippets from the Boston Globe's article:

The American Civil Liberties Union accused the FBI of misusing terrorism investigators to monitor some domestic political organizations, despite apparently disparate views within the FBI whether some groups supported or committed violent acts.

[ . . . ]

''Using labels like domestic terrorists to describe peaceful protest activity can chill robust political debate in this country," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said in New York. The ACLU said it will publish the FBI reports it obtained on its website today.

In one case, government records show the FBI launched a terrorism investigation of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Norfolk, Va., despite acknowledgment by one FBI official that, ''The FBI does not consider PETA a terrorist organization."

The FBI responded that it conducts its investigations appropriately -- subject to US laws and Justice Department guidelines. It said the ACLU mischaracterized some passing references to political groups in FBI files to suggest those groups were under investigation; in other cases the FBI confirmed it was acting on tips tying groups to alleged illegal activities.

''You end up in FBI files with your name and your group's name because you're doing stuff," said John Miller, FBI assistant director of public affairs. ''By and large, the FBI has done a pretty good job sticking to those rules."

The FBI documents indicate the government launched its terrorism investigation of the animals ethics group because it was ''suspected of providing material support and resources to known domestic terrorism organizations," including the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front.

[ . . . ]

Jeffrey S. Kerr, lawyer for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, denied his organization provided support or resources to the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, calling such claims ''tired old allegations." Kerr said any terrorism investigation was ''a scurrilous waste of resources."

''This is really an abuse of power," Kerr said. ''PETA and other groups are really being targeted because we are being social activists and engaging in free speech. This is un-American and unconstitutional and contrary to the interests of any definition of a healthy democracy."

[ . . . ]

What can I say, other than "dots," and to repeat stuff I've written before, some of it just yesterday? Here's what I wrote some time ago:

1) PeTA contributed $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front in the year 2001. If you don't believe me, check here to download a PDF file of PeTA's 2001 Form 990 tax return). The ELF has been designated a terrorist organization by the FBI.

And PeTA is a tax-exempt organization.

2) Rodney Coronado is an Animal Liberation Front operative who served some 4 years for having torched a Michigan State University lab on Feb. 28, 1992 (the ALF has been designated a terrorist organization by the FBI.). If you take the time to peruse the Governments Sentencing Memorandum (available as a PDF here), you will learn much history about extremist Animal Rights groups. More interesting, immediately before and after the MSU fires, Coronado mailed two packages, one to PeTA founder Ingrid Newkirk, the other to PeTA member Maria Blanton, who Newkirk had asked to receive the package. Records found at Blanton's home showed that Coronado planned additional attacks on universities, one of which involved Alex Pacheco, another PeTA founder. A footnote states: "Significantly, Newkirk had arranged to have the package delivered to her days before the MSU arson occurred."

The sentencing memorandum is easily read. I've read it several times, and each time I find it absolutely gripping, not to mention damning of PeTA.

And PeTA is a tax-exempt organization.

3) PeTA contributed at least $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado Support Fund.

And PeTA is a tax-exempt organization.

4) UPDATE 1/11/06: Familiarize yourself with the putative administrative and financial connections of PeTA and PCRM by browsing this, then look at the links here. Finally, read this, taking note of what Newsweek said about the PCRM, and what this link says about Dr. Jerry Vlasak.

5) On its own website, PeTA likens the ALF to the Underground Railway and to the French resistence, defends violent actions (including vandalism and arson) in the name of animal liberation, and conveniently overlooks the injurious and life-threatening hazards to first-responders, pedestrians and motorists created when emergency vehicles dash to the conflagrations created by ALF "freedom fighters," and when firefighters fight the arsonist's blaze.

Well, if you aren't convinced by now, try this on for size.

Consider Dr. Jerry Vlasak's wife is Pamelyn Ferdin. Yesterday, I asked "Who is Pamelyn Ferdin?" and provided this answer:

1) Wife of Jerry Vlasak who himself is: i) a former spokesman for the PeTA-linked group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; a current Press Officer for the terrorist Animal Liberation Front; a person who believes assassination is morally acceptable for the AR cause; a person who has openly advocated the practice of assassination itself; a past or present board member of the Animal Defense League, LA, which recently succeeded in pressuring the Mayor of Los Angeles into firing his Director of Animal Services.

2) Current president of SHAC-USA.

3) A business-card-carrying member (or at least a past member) of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

4) A director of the extremist ADL-LA. The ADL-LA recently succeeded in intimidating (and this LAT OpEd) LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa into firing Animal Services Director Guerdon Stuckey.

But there's more . . . according to their 2001 Tax Records, PeTA contributed $6,000 to the Josh Harper Support Group (pdf). Josh Harper is an anarchist who desires the end of civilization, a person who has been arrested a dozen or more times, and who took ideologically incoherent advantage of the fruits of the very civilization he is committed to destroying to cure his testicular cancer.

Mr. Harper is a member of SHAC, a group that is committed to bringing down Huntingdon Life Sciences by any means necessary.

Mr. Harper is a member of the SHAC 7, and is about to be tried, with other SHAC defendents, for organizing a campaign of intimidation and harassment against HLS.

That campaign has been so successful that Catherine Kinney, President of the New York Stock Exchange, was recently intimidated into "postponing" HLS's listing on the NYSE, an action that surprised everyone concerned, that drew little media attention but did earn her an invitation to testify before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee — an invitation that she declined. HLS suffered substantial losses as a result of Kinney's action.

One has to wonder if PeTA will contribute to Mr. Harpers Support Committee this time around.

Speaking of SHAC and it's PeTA connection . . . recall that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is linked to PeTA. Now that you have, you might wish to check out a letter signed by Neal Barnard, who is "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ medical advisor, and was until 2005 president of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection (also known as “The PETA Foundation”) -- a legal entity that owns most of PETA’s real estate, pays its largest salaries, and has funneled huge sums of money to PCRM."

The letter was also signed by SHAC's Kevin Kjonaas, who in addition to being one of the SHAC 7, was SHAC-USA's president (op cit) before relinquishing that office to Pamelyn Ferdin (she with the PCRM business card and the husband who once was a PCRM spokesman and is now a spokesman for the ALF and who advocates murder.)

And then, there are the quotes from PeTA luminaries themselves. Here are several from the NAIA collection:

"I will be the last person to condemn ALF [the Animal Liberation Front]." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's president and founder, The New York Daily News, December 7, 1997

"If an 'animal abuser' were killed in a research lab firebombing, I would unequivocally support that, too." Gary Yourofsky, founder of Animals Deserve Adequate Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), now employed as PeTA's national lecturer

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, Director [former director . . . ed], PETA

"A burning building doesn't help melt people's hearts, but times change and tactics, I'm sure, have to change with them. If you choose to carry out ALF-style actions, I ask you to please not say more than you need to, to think carefully who you trust, to learn all you can about how to behave if arrested, and so to try to live to fight another day." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and president, Interview in ALF quarterly Bite Back, February, 2003

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down." Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, National Animal Rights Convention June 27, 1997

I think there's ample reason for the feds to investigate PeTA. Indeed, if, after viewing these dots, you don't think that the feds should be investigating PeTA, what dots would convince you?

The bottom line is this: how could the Feds justify not investigating PeTA?

That's a fair question, one that those criticizing the feds — especially the ACLU — should answer.

Brian

CNN Report on PeTA Killing Animals: Fallout (And How!)

In my last post, I covered CNN's story about PeTA killing animals.

PeTA President Ingrid Newkirk was clearly on the defensive, and did not come across at all well. In fact, this business of PeTA killing animals at their own facility, and the brewing scandal involving Adria Hinkel and Andrew Cook, both of whom are PeTA agents who've been indicted on charges of felony animal cruelty and felony "obtaining property underfalse pretense", as well as misdemeanor charges of improperly disposing of animal bodies, is having a big impact on the Animal Rights community.

What follows was written by one "Lindy Greene" who is a long time poster to Animal Rights fora, and who sent her note not only to President Newkirk, but to a whole raft of AR sites in her campaign to undermine PeTA ("LA Animal Rights" , "MOYA" , "Alliance For Animals" , , "Pro-A-R" , "CorrectTreat." , , "Anti Fur Society" ).

But it gets better . . . much better . . .

Lindy Greene is apparently none other than Pamelyn Ferdin, who goofed and signed her real name to one of her recent posts! (Ooops . . . her bad . . .)

So who is Ms Ferdin?

1) Wife of Jerry Vlasak who himself is: i) a former spokesman for the PeTA-linked group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; a current Press Officer for the terrorist Animal Liberation Front; a person who believes assassination is morally acceptable for the AR cause; a person who has openly advocated the practice of assassination itself; a past or present board member of the Animal Defense League, LA, which recently succeeded in pressuring the Mayor of Los Angeles into firing his Director of Animal Services.

2) Current president of SHAC-USA.

3) A business-card-carrying member (or at least a past member) of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

4) A director of the extremist ADL-LA.

So now that you know all that, try this on for size:

December 18, 2005

Dear Ingrid,

I will always have a "soft spot" for PETA, because it was your organization that provided the segue for my entry into the animal rights movement eighteen years ago. You sent me a complimentary issue of your magazine. I cried and then signed up for a Farm Animal Day walk in Ventura County, California--and it snowballed from there.

Another thing that stands out for me is your unapologetic comparison of human and animal holocausts. I have always found it unfathomable how anyone who has, himself, been the victim of such an atrocity can fail to sympathize with another one--regardless of species.

I respect all the valuable work that PETA has done. However, I contend that killing animals is not the appropriate venue of an animal rights organization. It creates contention within the movement and discredits the organization in the eyes of the public.

Ms Ferdin, aka Lindy Greene, has a point: to the Animal Rights True Believer, the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal moral value. You don't kill animals unless you are willing to kill humans for the same reasons.

Oh wait! Maybe President Newkirk is willing to kill humans for the same reasons her PeTA kills animals!

President Newkirk: would you care to comment?

It's like a hunter saying that he kills animals for conservation. It's a conflict of interests, a perversion of your corporate mission, and a travesty of your pledge to protect animals to be instead engaged in their wholesale slaughter.

Well, it's not quite like that at all, is it Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Lindy Greene (and others?)?

In point of fact, the logic of the conservationist hunter — to kill some animals to protect against overpopulation and thus protect the habitat for members of all species of fauna and flora from catastrophe (an argument made by conservation-minded deer hunters) — is precisely the argument Mr. Dr. Hubby Jerry makes when he advocates killing some scientist to intimidate others into abandoning animal experiments: if you can take a few lives to save many, then you've tipped the moral scales decidedly towards virtue.

Of course, Mr. Dr. Vlasak's case is based on the AR premise that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value . . . but the logic still stands, does it not, Ms. Ferdin/Mrs.Vlasak/Ms Green (and others?)?

Most of all, it is a betrayal of the animals to publicly champion--but privately abridge--their rights.

This seems an auspicious moment to refer the curious reader to the ADL-LA website.

1) Go here.

2) Now click on the Stop the Killing link immediately above the bold letters ADL.

3) Now, in the orange left sidebar, click on No Kill Solutions

4) Finally, scroll down and read a few of the "no-kill solutions" the ADL-LA recommends:

Low cost, easily accessible and truly mandatory spay/neuter laws for every resident residing in the city of Los Angeles

Free spay/neuter services to all low income residents

A city-wide policy allowing free trap, neuter and return (TNR) programs for feral cats

Open all shelter spay/neuter clinics sitting idle immediately and enlist veterinarians to volunteer and “give back” to their community by doing a certain amount of free spay/neuters every month at these clinics (physician/surgeons are expected to do this by operating and then following up on the patients who don’t have health insurance; why shouldn’t veterinarians?)

So what Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Ms Greene (and others?) are telling us is that killing is wrong because it violates the right of animals to life, but spaying and neutering is okay . . .

Think about that . . . animals have rights, and should be treated as the moral equals of humans . . . it's wrong to kill either animals or humans because they all have the right to life.

But if we are to believe the ADL-LA, animals lack the right to reproduction! Here Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Ms Greene (and others?) are openly advocating forcing animals to undergo a surgical procedure that places them at unnecessary risk for the express purpose of depriving them of their reproductive rights.

Do animals not have the right of privacy to their own bodies?

Are they to be forced to undergo the surgical mutilation of their organs of reproduction, to forego the pleasures of sex and the delights of rearing offspring, and to have their natural behavior significantly altered towards passive, compliant creatures more easily controlled by humans, simply because it is inconvenient for Animal Rights people to figure out what else to do with a (putative) explosion in the births of dogs and cats?

Would the ADL-LA force humans to be sterilized for the same reasons they would force animals to be spayed and neutered?

As with the killing: you can't have it both ways. You can't proclaim that humans and animals are morally equal, and then kill animals unless you'd kill humans for the same reasons.

And you can't claim that humans and animals are morally equal, and then forcibly sterilize animals unless you'd do the same to humans for the same reasons.

Period.

Back to the letter written by Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Miss Greene or whoever the hell she now wants to call herself.

I saw the video in which your workers lied to a veterinarian and hoodwinked him into trusting them, based on what he thought was your good name. They falsely promised to find a home for a beautiful mother cat and her perfectly healthy young kittens. They took those unsuspecting animals out back to a waiting van and unceremoniously snuffed out their lives. Then, in a final gesture of blatant contempt, they dumped the bodies behind a supermarket.

You claimed that you did not hurt the animals. Under what nefarious delusion do you labor to conclude that taking their lives does not constitute hurting them?

One could ask exactly the same question of Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Ms Greene: Under what nevarious delusion do you labor to conclude that depriving an animal of his or her capacity to reproduce, by forcibly mutilating their organs of reproduction, risking their lives at surgery, exposing them to infection, and causing them the pain of a surgical incision does not constitute hurting them?

You stated that you are not an adoption agency. Then why do you have your workers pose as adoption agents? The two who took the cats from the vet's office are currently under arrest--and rightly so! However, our judicial system customarily gives animal abusers the obligate slap on the wrist and then sends them on their merry way to continue their crimes.

Ah! But it will be a lot easier to convict Ms Hinkle and Mr. Cook on the charges of "obtaining property under false pretense" than it will be to convict them of animal cruelty.

If you like irony, put this in your pipe and smoke it: Animal Rights people are constantly harping about abolishing the concept of animals as property, and making them wards of a person's care.

Had that been the case here, Hinkle and Cook might be able to argue that the animals were their wards, and that they were doing what's best for them. As things stand, the property issue looks like the best way to get a conviction. (Mafia boss Al Capone was nailed for income tax evasion, after all . . .)

Is that irony enough?

I read about animal abuse every day on the Internet--and each incident breaks my heart. When it comes from redneck, beer-swilling white trash, it's expected. When it comes from those who claim to sit on MY side of the fence, it is insupportable.

Whoa! Beer-swilling white trash are expected to abuse animals?

Hello!

That slop slop slop noise you hear is Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Ms Greene up to her ears in the smelly stuff, by her own choice of injudiciously stereotypical words.

What stunning contempt she has for the oppressed "other." And what a curiously elitist view from someone who preaches the ultimate in egalitarianism — that animals and humans are of equal value.

She either holds animals and humans both in complete contempt, or she's being a speciesist, valuing animals more than humans!

Methinks Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Ms Greene would benefit from some sensitivity training, to remind her of the virtues of tolerance for those less advantaged, less privileged than she herself is.

Ingrid, has PETA become nothing more than a front for euthing strays? I suspect you kill more animals than you save. It is deplorable. I say that you need to stop--or be stopped.

WHOA! A threat . . . or be stopped . . .

Coming from the wife of an ALF Press Officer who advocates murder, that has some juice to it, doesn't it?

Okay — so I'm going to take full credit for having suggested the possibility that ALF might target PeTA when, back on May 9, 2005, I wrote the post entitled PeTA Actively Kills Thousands of Animals. No! Really!, and said this:

[ . . .]

Or, perhaps ALF will take a page from the SHAC playbook, and mount a campaign to force PeTA's corporate bosses into cruelty-free compliance [to not kill] by terrorizing PeTA's employees, donors, celebrity supporters and suppliers by vandalizing property, demonizing individuals and posting personal information (kids' names, telephone numbers, addresses . . .) on web sites . . ..

How 'bout them apples?

Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Ms Greene continues:

Please write a letter to:

info@pETA.org
ingrid@PETA.org

By jove, why not?

I guess the only thing to ask now is if ALF will target its own Press Officer, Dr. Jerry Vlasak and his wife Ms Ferdin/Mrs. Vlasak/Ms Greene, for violating the reproductive rights of animals, which would give whole new meaning to the term "consuming your own."

What more can I say, other than that there are loose cannons galore in the AR movement, and things are going to get increasingly interesting.

Yes. Interesting indeed.

Brian

CNN Report on PeTA Killing Animals

On Friday, Dec. 16, 2005, CNN's Anderson Cooper aired a segment on PeTA's policy of wantonly killing animals in their Norfolk "shelter" and the regrettable Andrew Cook/Adria Hinkle affair, which included interviews with PeTA President Ingrid Newkirk, David Martosko, Director of Research, Center for Consumer Freedom, and Patrick Proctor, DVM, Ahoskie Animal Hospital.

Readers of AC will recall that Cook and Hinkle, acting as PeTA agents, are charged with multiple counts of 2 felonies (cruelty to animals and obtaining property under false pretenses) and misdemeanors (illegal disposal of animals). They are scheduled to go to trial sometime early in 2006.

Alas, I missed viewing Mr. Cooper's report when it first aired, but here's a video of it, and here's a transcript:

COOPER: The animal rights group PETA under fire for what it is allegedly doing to abandoned pets. You're going to be surprised. That's coming up.

But, first, here's a look at what is happening at this moment.

[ ... ]

Now let's go back for more stories to Heidi in New York.

Hey, Heidi.

COLLINS: Hey, Anderson. Thanks.

You know, the animal rights group PETA estimates that between six to eight million unwanted pets wind up in shelters every year. Well, PETA wants them out. But you may be surprised to learn what these animal advocates consider a better option.

OUCH!

Take a look at what CNN's Rick Sanchez has learned. And we warn you, some of these images could be disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They are the masters of the outrageous publicity stunt, picketing stars, protesting at zoos, storming fashion runways, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

MARTHA STEWART, MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA: That's why I agree to host this five-minute expose.

SANCHEZ: The darling of high-profile celebrities who support PETA's campaigns against the fur trade and animal cruelty.

Ouch again . . .

PATRICK PROCTOR, AHOSKIE ANIMAL HOSPITAL: They will say one thing out this side of their mouth and they will say something out this side.

SANCHEZ: Here at the Ahoskie Animal Hospital in rural North Carolina, veterinarian Patrick Proctor was used to seeing PETA representatives, especially a woman named Adria Hinkle. Hinkle would stop by regularly when Dr. Proctor had unwanted animals, ones he thought PETA might be able to find a home for.

This past summer, Hinkle and her colleague, Andrew Cook, came by in their van for this cat, named Jet (ph), And two of her kittens.

PROCTOR: As they were picking them up and taking them out of the cage, they were saying, my, what beautiful animals. We will have absolutely no trouble finding homes for these.

SANCHEZ: Proctor and his staff believed that PETA representatives would try and find the cats a home. They had no reason to believe otherwise.

In fact, suspicious workers at Rainbow Rescue, a North Carolina shelter located in Warren County, had repeatedly asked PeTA's agents what was to become of the animals they were surrendering, and repeatedly received assurances that the animals would be put up for adoption. When they finally learned otherwise from a whistleblower, they severed ties with PeTA. So I have no trouble at all believing that Dr. Proctor and his people were misled by PeTA and their agents.

But police, who had been tipped off about dead animals being dumped behind a local supermarket, were already following Hinkle and Cook, first to a county shelter, where they picked up more animals, then to this dumpster, where police say the pair dumped 18 dead animals, including Jet the cat and her two kittens.

(on camera): And, inside this van, they found another 13 dead animals, and they also found something else. They found something they refer to as a death kit, which is essentially a toolbox filled with hypodermic needles used to inject into the animals to put them to sleep. Police say that tells them there was no intention of finding homes for these animals.

(voice-over): The veterinarian and his staff say they were duped.

PROCTOR: And I'm assuming that they were put to sleep by the time they left the parking lot.

SANCHEZ: Police are also convinced Proctor was duped. That's why they're charging Hinkle and Cook with obtaining the animals under false pretenses and animal cruelty.

My understanding is that the charges of "animal cruelty" will be more difficult to prove than those of "optaining property under false pretenses."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm just devastated. And all that I wanted to do was help the animals in the community.

SANCHEZ: Hinkle and Cook's boss, who is PETA's founder, is defending her employees. At a news conference shortly after the arrests, Ingrid Newkirk did call the dumping of bodies -- quote -- "hideous," but said nothing about the alleged deception used to obtain the animals.

Why, you might wonder, is Newkirk defending these people?

I have my suspicions: I'm betting she'd prefer to take the hit for supporting Hinkle and Cook than to take a hit were they to expose some of the skeletons in PeTA's closet. Hinkle would be the key player here, since Cook was a novice on a "ride-along" with Hinkle.

If you think that's far fetched, consider this: Newkirk had arranged to receive a package from Rodney Cornado days before he torched the lab at Michigan State University that landed him in the slammer for 4 years. A second package, mailed by Coronado after the raid and addressed to a PeTA employee, was intercepted by FedEx people, and this package contained documents stolen during the raid along with a videotape of it. (You can read all about that sordid case by reading the government's sentencing memorandum, and I encourage you to do so.)

Now, PeTA contributed $45,200 to the "Rodney Coronado Support Fund", and loaned his father an additional $25,000, a loan that as far as anyone knows has never been repaid.

To my unpracticed eye, that looks, smells and tastes like hush money, money designed to persuade Mr. Coronado not to spill the beans on PeTA, and if Hinkle and Cook are themselves in a position to reveal PeTA skeletons, you can bet your life that PeTA will do whatever they can to propitiate them. Or so I would argue.

INGRID NEWKIRK, PRESIDENT, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: What she did was -- was wrong with the bodies. But she didn't cause suffering or pain or misery or anything like that.

Of course, Ms Newkirk has, by defending PeTA's own killing of animals in general and that of Hinkle and Cook in particular, violated in spades the central premise of Animal Rights, the premise that holds that the life of an animal is as valuable as that of a human.

This human/animal moral equivlency carries with it profound implications.

To the AR True Believer, if it is immoral to do something to a human, it is equally so to do it to an animal — this is the AR "law of moral prohibition."

To the AR True Believer, if it is proper to use certain tactics to liberate humans, it is also proper to use such tactics to liberate animals — this is the AR "law of moral obligation." (Most AR people claim they try to live by the first law, but run headlong away from the second, for obvious reasons: you'd have to take up arms, and most AR people aren't interested in doing so.)

So — when Ms Newkirk is saying it's okay to kill animals if its done painlessly, she's defending "speciesism" — she's either violating the core premise of Animal Rights, or she's willing to kill humans for exactly the same reasons she and PeTA kill animals!

There is no middle ground.

SANCHEZ: To PETA's critics, this was like Christmas in July. Even before the arrests, David Martosko had started this Web site, PETAKillsAnimals.com, after obtaining records from the state of Virginia showing how many animals PETA eradicates in the state each year.

DAVID MARTOSKO, CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM: In 2003, PETA killed 85 percent of the flesh-and-blood creatures that came in. By comparison, the Norfolk SPCA, which is just down the road three miles or so, has a euthanasia rate that's less than one-third of PETA's.

SANCHEZ: Martosko freely admits his group, funded by the food and beverage industry, is at war with PETA, because of PETA's opposition to meat-eating.

(on camera): You have an axe to grind here.

MARTOSKO: Oh, absolutely.

SANCHEZ: Martosko agrees with PETA, as does the veterinarian Proctor that euthanasia is necessary. There are simply too many animals and too few owners. But:

MARTOSKO: If PETA were really serious about helping animals, it would spend some of its $29 million that it took in last year caring for these creatures, instead of killing them. And PETA has said that it could become a no-kill shelter immediately, but it would just be too darn expensive.

This is all correct . . . but what should (and has!) angered Animal Rights activists — at least those honest enough to look at what PeTA has done — is how flagrantly PeTA tramples on the central premise of the AR religion.

You see, Newkirk is deliberately conflating Animal Rights with Animal Welfare. She knows full well that a naive audience doesn't know the distinction between the two, nor that the two concepts are incompatible and irreconcilable. Euthanizing animals is highly regrettable but acceptable within the concept of Animal Welfare. It is not — repeat not — acceptable within the concept of Animal Rights, which holds that animals have the right not to be dominated, used or exploited by humans.

PeTA is violating its own standard of human/animal moral equivalency — the one they hold the food industry to, the one they hold hunters to, the one they hold scientists who experiment on animals to, the one they hold zookeepers to, the one they hold circus owners to, the one they hold rodeos to — when they kill animals for convenience . . . and it is patently obvious that PeTA does kill for convenience: as Mr. Martosko pointed out, PeTA could indeed become a no-kill shelter overnight. At least that's true according to PeTA President Newkirk.

SANCHEZ: If this case is doing anything, it is putting the spotlight on the fact that PETA does euthanize animals. We came here to the headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, to ask them about that.

And we also wanted to ask them about which, if any, of Hinkle's Cook's alleged acts they condone. A PETA representative would only tell us by telephone only that this is not the right time for an on- camera interview.

(voice-over): Not with Hinkle's and Cook's case coming before the court, although PETA is using the case to make one thing perfectly clear: Euthanasia is a big part of what they do in North Carolina.[My emphasis . . . ed]

Heh . . . this is the old "put a frame around the crack in the wall and pretend it's art" variety of spin . . . When caught dead to rights (pun intended) depriving animals of their right to life, bat your eyes and proclaim that you've always killed them, and express your amazement that anyone would think otherwise!

NEWKIRK: We haven't gone down there to say, hello, we are an adoption agency. We are not. We are the shelter of last resort, if you want to put it that way.

SANCHEZ: Ironically, PETA has just sent Proctor a Christmas card. It shows reindeer being freed from Santa's sleigh.

(on camera): What does this tell you as a veterinarian?

PROCTOR: This tells me exactly what PETA is about. This tells me that PETA doesn't want you to have an animal.

SANCHEZ (voice-over): In fact, PETA refers to the animals not as pets, but as companions.

PROCTOR: This is a sibling of the litter of cats that...

SANCHEZ: Remember the cats who were found dead and dumped? This is Vega (ph). Look familiar? It's because he was adopted before PETA reps arrived to take away his mother and two sisters.

PROCTOR: If we knew what they were going to do with the mother, that one would have been at my house right now. My wife is still very upset about that.

SANCHEZ: Upset that an organization founded to protect animals is alleged to have deceived to kill them instead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Any group that would misrepresent the Dalai Lama and be chastised by him for doing so would hardly shrink from deceiving a bunch of yokels, right Ms Newkirk? I mean, if you don't respect the Dalai Lama, why should you respect any of us?

What stunning contempt PeTA has for the truth, and the people they deal with . . . it really is breathtaking, isn't it?

And still, people contribute money to them!

SANCHEZ: It's important to note that we did try to contact attorneys for Cook and Hinkle, but didn't hear back from them.

PETA representatives originally had told us that they wouldn't be able to talk us until this case is concluded. But, earlier tonight, Ingrid Newkirk and president of PETA, agreed to an on-camera interview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Do you condone, in any way, the actions of Mr. Cook and MSNBC Hinkle?

NEWKIRK: It depends what you're talking about.

SANCHEZ: Well, let's be specific, then. Let's talk about what they're alleged to have done, as far as deception is concerned, that they went to a veterinarian and said that they could find some homes for the kittens and the cat, all three of them. And the veterinarian alleges that they really had no plans the find the homes, that, in fact, they went ahead and euthanized them.

NEWKIRK: It doesn't make any sense at all.

In fact, most of this case doesn't make any sense at all. If the veterinarian couldn't find homes for a few kittens and a cat, which is surprising, if they have clients coming in, then that's why they called us, because they know we don't have a magic wand either.

Of course, PeTA's agents, Hinkle and Cook, evidently led Dr. Proctor to think that PeTA does have a magic wand!

See . . . I think that's the deception part . . .

SANCHEZ: But -- but he -- but -- but...

Mr. Sanchez is totally at a loss for words . . . there is a kind of dark humor in this, isn't there?

NEWKIRK: That is, in fact, Rick -- that is, in fact, Rick -- that is the veterinarian, the same veterinarian who we pay to euthanize at one of these shacks, which is called a pound, down there, where they used to shove the animals into a cinder block box.

Newkirk tries to turn the tables by conflating what is regrettable but permissible for a vet to do within the moral framework of Animal Welfare, with what is an impermissible violation of the core premise of Animal Rights.

It's as if the Pope were to defend himself from violating his vows of celibacy on the grounds that married folks have sex all the time!

Euthanizing animals is permissible within the context of Animal Welfare; but killing is not permissible within the context of Animal Rights, unless you are willing to kill humans for the same reasons you are killing animals. To the AR person, the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal moral worth.

It's just that simple: President Newkirk is counting on the viewers not knowing the difference between AR and AW. She is banking on the audience mistaking Animal Rights for being Animal Welfare on steroids. (For the difference between the two, read this which will help you understand this and this.)

SANCHEZ: You're absolutely right. In fact, he told us that he works for you and -- by euthanizing many of those animals.

But he says that, in this particular case -- and we talked to two other witnesses who say they heard Ms. Hinkle say, we are going to try and get these pets a -- a home, these animals a home.

Is -- is -- is that deceptive enough for you to want to act on?

NEWKIRK: It would be if that's what happened.

SANCHEZ: And, if so, why are you standing by her?

NEWKIRK: How many times do I beat my wife?

It would be deceptive, if that's what she said. I do not believe for a minute that's what she said, because that's not what we are about. If you go to our Web site, and you watch what we're doing, and you look at the man -- the number of animals we take in, the bedraggled, broken bodies that we take in, and the ones no one can find homes for, we're not out there looking for animals you could place.

We're getting calls from the public. And that vet called us -- or that vet's assistant called us. He wasn't even present, so I'm not sure how he knows what was said.

Heh . . . President Newkirk is clearly desperate: i) Newkirk wasn't asked a compound question ("How many times do I beat my wife?") but an hypothetical one; ii) Hinkle didn't say it, because that's not what we said on our website; iii) we're only taking animals that are not adoptable . . . (so that we can kill them, left unsaid . . .); iv) the vet can't be sure what was said because he wasn't a party to one telephone conversation . . ..

My personal favorite is the bit about the bedraggled and broken animals. Aren't these precisely the ones that most deserve the protection of Animal Rights activists? They are bedraggled and broken through no fault of their own, after all, and is there a more needy group of animals than these?

And that's especially true if the bedraggled-ness and the broken-ness are due to human abuse or neglect.

What a curious view of Animal Rights morality President Newkirk has if animals lose their rights simply because they are bedraggled and broken, especially if their woeful condition is due to human abuse or neglect!

So much for protecting the innocent, those without voices . . .

SANCHEZ: So, you're saying that they're not necessarily telling the truth.

Let's move to another issue. Let's talk...

NEWKIRK: I don't believe they are.

And I will tell you this. The vets down there need to stop taking in money, and stop having us pay them for everything, and start spaying and neutering at a reduced fee, because those counties desperately need it.

Well! President Newkirk possesses nothing if not the largest set of cajones in the nation. Attacking the people on the front line who have committed themselves to what she professes to want, has the money to obtain, but chooses not to do herself.

Is that to be believed!

Here she presides over an empire that sucked in $29 million in 2004 alone, and she's begrudging these dedicated people from saving animals while PeTA sent money to the likes of Rodney Coronado and his father, and the terrorist ELF, and spends money like drunken sailors on their massive propaganda efforts — like the PeTA2 website for indoctrinating children and traveling road shows like likening the Holocaust to farming animals and owing animals to owning human slaves!

SANCHEZ: Do you think people would be surprised to know just how many animals your organization euthanizes?

NEWKIRK: Yes. I absolutely do, even though we have been trying to tell this story for years, because, unless people know, then they're not going to start spaying and neutering.

They're going to keep going to the pet shops and to the breeders. And that is death for the animals who are sitting in the pounds and shelters, even the good ones, not these shack cities down in North Carolina, but even the good ones.

Yhup . . . them thar shack cities down thar in North Carolina . . . with all them thar yokels in 'em. Ah mean, even if them good shelters cain't make a go of't, whatcha 'spect ah them North Carolina folks . . .

What stunning contempt Newkirk has for the people of North Carolina, especially the ones who are doing everything in their power to care for the animals they love so much!

It takes my breath away! And how big are President Newkirk's cajones?

Animals are dying for homes. And, yes, if you know there's something wrong when an organization who won't kill an animal for a sandwich or for a bit of a fur coat is actually having to hold them in their arms and give them an exit from a world that doesn't want them, that means there's a problem. And we need everybody to pitch in and...

Don't forget the human/animal moral equivalency that is the centerpiece of AR ideology.

Ms Newkirk is either being a speciesist — violating the right to life of a dog because it is not a human, or she is advocating killing humans for the same reasons she advocates killing animals.

Ms Newkirk is counting on the viewers not knowing what distinguishes Animal Rights — her and PeTA's raison d'être — from Animal Welfare.

When you see how often she plays this game, you can't continue to believe that her conflation of AR and AW is an oversight. It is deliberate.

SANCHEZ: But let's be fair.

NEWKIRK: ... spay and neuter.

SANCHEZ: Let's be fair and do a comparison, though. SPCA, for example, has about a half the euthanasia rate that you have.

NEWKIRK: Which SPCA?

SANCHEZ: According to officials in Virginia, they say -- they say that you euthanized 86 percent in 19 -- in 2003, 86 percent of the animals that you took in for adoption.

NEWKIRK: Yes, Rich (sic). Yes. Yes.

You're talking about the Norfolk SPCA, I believe, which is a closed-door shelter. They do not take in very many animals. They only take in those that they think they can place. And some of those animals have been there circling in their cages for years. That is no comparison.

We are -- we very much support the open-admission shelters, the ones who don't close their hearts and their doors. And we are not a shelter for adoption. We're a shelter of last resort, which means that, if the animal is aggressive, has been on a chain his whole life, not the kind of animal anyone wants, who's cute and fluffy and housebroken...

SANCHEZ: Well, just for the record...

NEWKIRK: ... or is aged or -- or is aged or...

SANCHEZ: Just -- just...

(CROSSTALK)

NEWKIRK: ... or is aged or injured -- excuse me -- we are the shelter of last resort.

So, please, I mean, you know, I adore animals with all my heart and soul. I have worked my whole life for them. So, if I'm holding one in my harm arms and putting them to sleep, you can bet your boot something's very wrong with that poor dog or that cat.

Translation: Animals lose their rights if old or if abused by people, or if for other reasons are not adoptable!

Again I remind you . . . Ms Newkirk is either violating the core premise of Animal Rights, or she would kill humans for the same reasons her PeTA kills animals.

There is no middle ground.

SANCHEZ: Ingrid Newkirk, we thank you tonight for going on the record. We appreciate it.

NEWKIRK: Thank you.

I'll have more to say about this fiasco, which continues to develop, presently . . . oh yes . . .

UPDATE: Reader Lisa P. writes:

HELLO!!! Why does a VETERINARIAN need to turn animals over to PETA thugs for euthanizing - he can do it himself!!! So her assertion makes no sense (of course I am preaching to the choir). 'nuff said. I hope the prosecution uses that.

Heh. Why indeed . . . ? And who knows . . . perhaps the prosecution will use it?

Thanks, Lisa.

Brian

William C. Rogers: A Suspect in the 1998 Vail Arson

William C. Rogers, one of 6 arrested nationwide December 7, 2005 on suspicion of various acts of eco-terrorism, may have taken part in the 1998 Vail Colorado arson that resulted in $12 million damage. According to Vail Daily:

An Arizona bookstore owner is the latest suspect linked by federal officials to the 1998 arson attacks on Vail Mountain.

In Flagstaff, Ariz., FBI Special Agent Doug Linter testified in U.S. District Court that investigators suspect Prescott, Ariz., bookstore owner William C. Rodgers in the fire that destroyed the Two Elk restaurant, chairlifts and other buildings.

Earlier this week, prosecutors linked a Portland, Ore., woman, Chelsea D. Gerlach, to the arson. The Earth Liberation Front, which claimed responsibility for the fires, said the attack was a protest of what the group said was a threat to rare lynx by Vail Mountain's expansion into Blue Sky Basin.

"By golly, I didn't think they'd every find them. It was quite a tragedy for us, but I'm not sure if it's them," said longtime valley resident Alan Nottingham. "I supported (the expansion). I really don't think it affected the lynx habitat."

Both Rodgers and Gerlach are already in custody, facing charges in other "ecoterror" attacks.

Rodgers is also a suspect in arson attacks against wild horse corrals in Burns, Ore., and Rock Springs, Wyo.; the University of Washington Urban Horticultural Center in Seattle and a federal plant research lab in Olympia, Wash., Linter said.

It looks like Mr. Rogers has been around.

"I feel some gratification that they're in custody and that police continue to pursue this," said Ron Riley, a longtime resident and business owner. "I know it never got off the radar, and I know they didn't have a lot to work with or clearly something would have happened before this."

Rodgers was arrested last week on charges alleging he was involved in the firebombing of a government wildlife lab outside Olympia, Wash.

In the first physical evidence disclosed in the case, the inventory of a six-hour search of Rodgers' residence and bookstore listed boxes of suspected bomb-making materials such as timers and re-lighting birthday candles and three guns. Police also found two digital photos of nude, prepubescent girls stored on a compact disc.

Linter also reported a recorded conversation where Rodgers told an unknown acquaintance that he was "planning something big" involving some kind of arson after the end of his relationship with his girlfriend, Katie Nelson.

Mr. Rogers clearly hasn't fashioned himself after the model of PBS's Mr. Rogers . . .

In another story, we learn that Mr. Rogers was fingered by a "Confidential Witness:"

[ . . . ]

The informant -- identified only as a "confidential witness" or "CW" -- told an FBI agent that William C. Rodgers, a Prescott, Ariz., bookstore owner, met the informant to plan the Vail fires, according to a search warrant affidavit unsealed Friday in federal court in Eugene. Rodgers was driving a Toyota pickup that would prove helpful in the government's investigation, the document indicated.

"The CW further informed me that Rodgers was using the same pickup during the meeting in western Colorado where they discussed the planned arson at the Vail Ski Resort in October 1998," FBI agent John Ferreira wrote.

[ . . . ]

The Vail Daily News article continues with its nice summary, which includes the statement of a personal preference by one Mr. Packy Walker:

Packy Walker, owner and general manager of the Lifthouse Condominiums, said the evidence is all too circumstantial to draw conclusions about what he called an "idiotic" crime.

"It's a bunch of wackos up there starting fires, and we needed to cut down even more trees to rebuild that building," Walker said. "I hope they catch them. And if they're guys, I think they should take their pants off, nail their testicles to a tree and push them down backwards. If they're tree huggers, then that's what they should do with them."

[ . . . ]

Mr. Walker has a way with words, doesn't he?

His point, of course, that more trees will be cut down to rebuild the torched building, is spot on.

Which gets to the "why" of all this . . . sure, the Vail arson and ones like it are acts of eco-sabotage and terrorism, but they seem far less materially effective than they are symbolic. Those responsible must know that, for example, when they torch a car dealership, a condominium or a ski resort, the fires they set will pollute like hell, which is counterproductive to what the arsonists claim to be their goal: a pristine environment, one unsullied by the human hand.

Beyond the pollution, whatever material losses are sustained will be replaced forthwith, and the replacement, especially in the case of buildings, will require that the environment will be further "despoiled" — there will be just that much more demand for wood and other building supplies for the building's replacement, additional fuel will be burned to transport the new materials to the building site, etc.

The arsonists must know that even if they scare the hell out of the local residents, they aren't going to stop the inevitable: the car dealership will survive in spite of their best efforts at making it not; the buildings will be rebuilt in one form or another, no matter how completely they were destroyed.

Though it's hard to generalize, I keep coming back to this: it seems to me that acts of eco-terror like this are far more important to the arson-planners for their symbolic value than they are for their practical value. I suspect that the symbolism serves both a personal need — in the sense of answering the call of one's conscience by doing something, anything, to oppose Man the Despoiler — and a public need, a need symbolize the depth of commitment felt by those who have appointed themselves caretakers of the universe.

We seem to live in a world where depth of commitment to a cause and fidelity to one's conscience are themselves virtues, irrespective of what the cause might be, as if one's conscience is infallible.

A conscience is not infallible, the depth of one's commitment is not a virtue in and of itself. Losing sight of these simple but fundamental truths puts one on the fast track for making very big mistakes — ones with life-altering, future-destroying consequences.

Brian