Monthly Archives: March 2005

Yum! Brands CEO Required to Fly Via Private Jet for Security Reasons

Posted on by
Reply

In its most recent proxy filing, Yum! Brands — which owns KFC — reported that its CEO David Novak is required by an \”executive security program\” to use the company\’s private jet for all business and personal travel.

Said travel cost the company $72,493 in 2003 and $67,581 in 2004.

Novak has had a number of confrontations with animal rights extremists, including a German incident in which an animal rights activist threw fake blood on Novak.

Sources:

Yum! Fly With Me. Restaurant Business, March 24, 2005.

Yum CEO is required to take corporate jet. The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), March 6, 2005.

Share

Is SaveToby.Com The Next BonsaiKitten.Com?

Posted on by
Reply

A new website at SaveToby.Com is vying to replace BonsaiKitten.Com in the hearts and minds of the over-sensitive and humor-impaired.

The site purports to tell the tale of finding a cute rabbit during a storm. Alas, the rabbit\’s newfound owner cannot afford to keep the bunny, Toby, and so offers an interesting proposition — either the site owner receives $50,000 in donations or on June 30, 2005, Toby gets killed and eaten,

Unfortunately, on June 30th, 2005, Toby will die. I am going to eat him. I am going to take Toby to a butcher to have him slaughter this cute bunny. I will then prepare Toby for a midsummer feast. I have several recipes under consideration, which can be seen, with some pretty graphic images, under the recipe section.

I donÂ’t want to eat Toby, he is my friend, and he has always been the most loving, adorable pet. However, God as my witness, I will devour this little guy unless I receive 50,000$ USD into my account from donations or purchase of merchandise. You can help this poor, helpless bunnyÂ’s cause by making donations through my verified PayPal account by clicking on any of the Donate buttons on this site, or by purchasing merchandise at the Savetoby.com online store.

The recipes section includes pictures of Toby sitting in a large pot with the caption, \”Get me out of this pot!\”

You\’d think people would have learned from the hilarious outrage over BonsaiKitten.Com not to fall for these sorts of sites, but some folks just can\’t contain themselves.

Of special note was one Marine Black who apparently works for the Washington State Department of Ecology (apparently they don\’t have very high personnel qualifications at the department). Upon learning of the site, according to East Valley Tribune, Black contacted the FBI and the Federal Trade Commission in an effort to get the site shut down. Black told the Tribune,

ItÂ’s emotional extortion and itÂ’s potential animal abuse so itÂ’s emotionally pulling on people.

Wow. Lets hope Marnie doesn\’t stumble across BonsaiKitten.Com — seeing it so soon after SaveToby.Com could cause permanent emotional damage.

Other outraged individuals have also contacted GoDaddy.Com, which the anonymous owner of SaveToby.Com used to register the site. But GoDaddy.Com public relations specialist puts the site in its proper perspective (emphasis added),

It is distasteful, but itÂ’s not illegal to kill a rabbit, and itÂ’s been checked out thoroughly by our own legal group, who says it doesnÂ’t violate our terms and services.

Unfortunately the web is filled with pernicious sites dedicated to the joys of animal flesh. Wait until Marnie finds out that McDonald\’s, Burger King and even the Saltgrass Steak House all have somehow been allowed to open web sites. Somebody, stop this madness.

Source:

Hare-raising plot on Web. Katie McDevitt, East Valley Tribune, March 2005.

Share

Wait, Wait, Don\’t Make Me Laugh

Posted on by
Reply

In early March, Bubba the lobster briefly made the news here in the United States. Bubba weighed in at 22 pounds and may have been 100 years old, though marine biologists said 30-50 is more likely. Originally caught in the Atlantic, Bubba ended up for sale in a tank in a market.

A movement to have Bubba spared from being a scrumptious stew arose, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals got in on the act. PETA\’s Karin Robertson wrote in a letter to the market,

It would be a tragedy to end his long life by tormenting him in a pot of boiling water or by shoving him into a zoo aquarium to be gawked at in a tiny enclosure until he dies.

Alas, it was finally agreed that the Pittsburgh Zoo would take custody of Bubba. And Bubba promptly died the day after arriving at the zoo, where he was still in a quarantine area of the zoo\’s aquarium while zoo officials examined him to see if he was healthy enough to be transferred to the aquarium.

But the horrors that Bubba had to endure were not over; not by a long shot. It seems that someone on National Public Radio managed to find some humor in Bubba\’s life and death which did not go over well with Carolina Animal Action. Someone with that group posted a message to AR-NEWS urging activists to complain to NPR,

The National Public Radio Show “Wait, WaitÂ…DonÂ’t Tell Me” today ridiculed the death of Bubba the lobster. Their website is http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/, e-mail address waitw…@npr.org. Info about Bubba is available at http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-bubba.asp

Apparently someone from CAA was upset with this exchange,

Announcer: . . . he died of natural causes.

Male Voice: . . . and melted butter.

Announcer: That\’s the question. My immediate reaction was: okay, the animal died, I\’m sorry . . . can we eat him now?

Male Voice: I think somebody just managed to sidestep PETA\’s request. Like, you know, oh we gave him a great tank, it just happened to be bubbling.

Truly tasteless. Such humor probably leads right into violence against animals and, ultimately, people.

Source:

Bubba the Leviathan Lobster Dies at Zoo. Associated Press, March 2, 2005.

Big Bubba, the lobster, saved from the pot. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Bob Batz Jr. and Anita Srikameswaran, March 2, 2005.

Wait, Wait, Don\’t Tell Me. March 5, 2005.

Share

Australian Minister Accuses PETA of Involvement with Terrorist Groups

Posted on by
1

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently threatened to sue Australia\’s Agricultural Minister Warren Truss after Truss accused the animal rights group of providing aid and comfort to animal and environmental terrorists.

Truss apparently cited testimony by the Center for Consumer Freedom about PETA\’s alleged involvement with the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. CCF reprinted part of Truss speech which said,

But even more concerning, it has been alleged in a US Senate hearing by the same organization that PETA has provided aid and comfort to people associated with two groups considered domestic terrorist threats by the FBI — the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

According to the FBI, the two groups have been responsible for more than 600 crimes since 1996, causing more than $43 million in damage. The ALF even brags on its website that the two groups committed \”100 illegal direct actions\” — like blowing up four-wheel-drives, destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs in restaurants — in 2002 alone.

PETA lawyer Jeff Kerr threatened to sue Truss calling the claims part of a smear campaign by a \”discredited group.\”

If the statements are untrue and part of a smear campaign, then why hasn\’t PETA sued the Center for Consumer Freedom for making the same statements for several years now? Perhaps PETA doesn\’t think it would help to go into court only to have CCF show PETA\’s own 2001 tax return showing a $15,000 donation to the Earth Liberation Front. Or maybe it doesn\’t want to be reminded of Ingrid Newkirk\’s odd behavior in the Rodney Coronado case which was cited in the government\’s sentencing memo (emphasis added),

Forensic evidence discovered during the investigation confirmed that Coronado played an important role in planning and executing the ALF\’s campaign of terrorism. Investigators learned that immediately before and after the MSU arson, a Federal Express package had been sent to a Bethesda, Maryland address from an individual identifying himself as \”Leonard Robideau\”. The first package went to Ingrid Newkirk, PETA\’s founder.

. . .

Significantly, Newkirk had arranged to have the package delivered to her days before the MSU arson occurred.

Not to mention quotes from everyone from Bruce Freidrich to Dan Mathews to Newkirk herself expressing approval for actual acts of violence and destruction and anticipation that more such acts might be forthcoming.

I suspect that this lawsuit will have the same sort of longevity as PETA\’s lawsuit against New Jersey over another PETA attorney\’s violent altercation with a deer.

Source:

PETA may sue over Truss\’ terror comments. Australian Associated Press, March 3, 2005.

Not A G\’Day For PETA Down Under. Press Release, Center for Consumer Freedom, March 4, 2005.

Share

Star Jones Takes PETA\’s Bait

Posted on by
Reply

\”The View\” resident idiot, Star Jones, took People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals\’ bait earlier this month, threatening to sue the animal rights group over a parody campaign the group is planning.

PETA has been after Jones for awhile now since Jones frequently wears fur. This time around they hired drag queen Flotilla DeBarge to appear in a campaign parodying Jones.

And Jones decided to give PETA exactly what it wants — more publicity and a good fight — by stupidly suing the animal rights group for, of all things, copyright violation.

Which means not only did she threaten to file a lawsuit, but she\’s threatened a completely baseless lawsuit. Jones may have some limited rights in her public image, but PETA is on solid legal ground for using a lookalike for a parody. As Richard Johnson noted in a Yahoo! News op-ed,

But the lawyers are insulting Star, because their argument only makes sense if the public could actually mistake DeBarge for her. They seem to be saying their client resembles an overweight, 6-foot-tall drag queen.

Well there may be some validity that, but overall it appears that Newkirk\’s finally found someone even dumber than she is to tussle with.

Source:

Star Fears Drag On Her Image. Richard Johnson, Yahoo! Entertainment, March 2, 2005.

Share

How Not to Think Logically about an Animal Issue

Posted on by
Reply

Hawaii\’s state House briefly considered a bill that would have banned the sale of cats or dogs for food in the state.

The bill never made it out of committee, and Hawaii state Rep. Alex Sonson complained that merely introducing the bill raised harmful stereotypes about Asians.

The bills supporters used a priceless form of logic — since they had no evidence about any sort of widespread eating of cats and dogs in Hawaii, it follows that eating cats and dogs must certainly be widespread.

Here, for example, is Derrick DePledge of the Advertiser Capitol Bureau, on one such supporter,

The Hawaiian Humane Society and animal rights groups wanted the Legislature to pass the bill to protect both pets and strays. \”I\’m disappointed,\” said Renita Chang, president of the Hawai\’i Dog Foundation. She said she has only heard stories about people killing dogs and cats for food, but believes it is more common than people think.

\”I don\’t think it\’s exaggerated at all,\” Chang said.

Well, of course. If you\’ve only heard stories and not seen any actual evidence, it must be true. You know, just like that Irish kid who wants to set a record for receiving the most cards or the terrorists buying UPS uniforms on E-Bay. I heard stories about it somewhere — must be true.

Sources:

No Law Against Eating Dogs And Cats. Associated Press, March 2005.

Bill to ban sale of cats, dogs for food dies in the House. Derrick DePledge, Advertiser Capitol Bureau, March 5, 2005.

Share

Utah Passes New Records Bill Despite Opposition from Animal Rights Activists

Posted on by
Reply

In March, Jeremy Beckham and other animal rights activists in Utah tried to rally support against Utah Senate Bill 179 which would allow universities to restrict release of certain records related to research grants.

Beckham wrote a letter to the sponsor of the bill, Utah State Sen. Gregory Bell that read, in part,

Since August of 2003, I have been actively involved in a dispute with the University of Utah under GRAMA to acquire protocols relating to primate experimentation on campus. I suspect you are aware of the lawsuit, as it has grabbed the local media\’s attention and appears to be relevant to your proposed amendment to GRAMA. Certain portions of the lawsuit, including the basic right to public access to these records, have already been won by my organization after following an appeal to the Utah State Records Committee. Other parts of the lawsuit, regarding fees for these records, are still pending further appeal in District Court.

SB179 seems to aim to reverse all progress that has been made during the course of this lawsuit. The bill allows any \”person\” who sponsors any type of research at public universities to acquire a \”Business Confidentiality Claim\” exempting all records related to their research from public disclosure. The bill defines \”person\” in this section to mean any individual or entity, including federal and state governments.

On February 16th, in committee, some senators claimed this bill aimed only to protect private corporations who are not investing in research at universities in Utah because they fear GRAMA requests. But GRAMA 63-2-304(1) already protects such corporations. Indeed, if your intent is only to protect private commerce, why do you include government branches in your definition of \”person\”? It seems clear that SB179 will affect all research at the University of Utah, including nonproprietary research funded by the taxpayers.

During the course of the dispute, the Utah State Records Committee voted unanimously to release the protocols, the University of Utah campus paper wrote two staff editorials in support of releasing the records, and my organization has received a large volume of emails expressing public support for release of the records.

Our questions are simple. What is the purpose of this bill? How do the citizens and taxpayers of Utah benefit from your proposed legislation? Whose interests does this bill have in mind?

Bell, for his part, maintains the goal of the bill was simply to simplify the research grant process at Utah universities and attract more private research grants. According to Bell, private grant sponsors are wary of funding research in Utah because that state\’s Government Records Access and Management Act might force disclosure of trade and business secrets.

Coralie Adler, spokeswoman for the University of Utah, told The Daily Utah Chronicle,

[The University of Utah] instigated the bill because of problems with provisions of GRAMA which have proven unwieldy and cumbersome for large research contracts and grants. The bill seeks to make the process more workable while still providing access to information as appropriate.

Beckham told The Daily Utah Chronicle,

. . .the system is simply corrupt. Even when you play their game and don\’t break any laws, they change the rules as soon as you start to win.

Whether the proposed change will affect Beckham\’s work or not, the law was approved by both Utah House and Senate and is before the governor to sign or veto. The full text of the bill can be read here.

Sources:

Letter to Senator Gregory Bell – SB179. Jeremy Beckham, Letter, February 20, 2005.

Beckham continues his pursuit to end animal research and squelch SB 179. Susie Winlow, The Daily Utah Chronicle, March 2, 2005.

Share

PETA Takes Credit for Hitting Anna Wintour With a Pie

Posted on by
Reply

According to New York Daily News columnist Ben Widdicombe, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was responsible for an unknown individual throwing a pie at Vogue editor Anna Wintour on March 3.

Widdicombe wrote in his column,

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who quarrel with Wintour\’s support for the fur industry, claimed responsibility for the incident.

A rep told me: \”Yelling, \’Fur hag!\’ the young woman launched the gooey pudding at Wintour, just prior to the Chanel couture show at Le Carrousel du Louvre, and made a speedy getaway. After the pieing, Anna, who was wearing a fur coat at the time, ran backstage so Karl Lagerfeld could help her clean the tofu goo off of her face.\”

Wintour was not hurt by the attack. She was reported to have joked that tofu may be good for the skin.

PETA has had an ongoing war of words — and now apparently pies — with Wintour over Vogue\’s \”promotion\” of fur and its refusal to run PETA\’s anti-fur ads.

Sources:

A Pie in the Face for Vogue Editor Anna Wintour As She Enters Chanel Show in Paris. Fashion Week Daily, March 4, 2005.

PETA gets in Anna\’s face. The New York Daily News, March 4, 2005.

Share

Oregon Senate Passes Animal Researcher Privacy Bill

Posted on by
Reply

The Oregon state Senate voted 25-3 this month to approve a bill that would shield the names, home addresses and other information about animal researchers from being routinely released with public records until at least 2010.

Oregon Senate Bill 262 creates an exemption for a variety of public records statutes that would prevent,

disclosure under public records law for records that identify
persons who engage in or support research on animals other than
rodents at Oregon Health and Science University.

So, for example, if a freedom of information request results in the release of unpublished research, the researcher\’s name and other details would have to be redacted.

Oregon currently has a temporary exemption that expires in 2006, and SB 262 would extend that exemption another four years.

The aim of the bill is to protect researchers from harassment and violence by animal rights activists. Clearly this is not a panacea — anyone determined enough to obtain this information about an animal researcher is going to be able to do so. But reducing the casual, routine disclosure of such information nonetheless should help nonetheless.

The bill now must be approved by the Oregon state House. The full text of the proposed law can be read here

Source:

Senate passes measure to protect researchers. Michelle Cole, The Oregonian, March 2, 2005.

Share

Should Pharma Firms Bear Costs of Police Protection?

Posted on by
Reply

The Times (UK) reported in February that the cost of policing animal rights protests over the last 5 years has been roughly 10 million pounds. The Times also suggested that the government was investigating the possibility of having the companies being protested pick up some of that 10 million pound tab.

According to The Times, Cambridgeshire police alone spent 5.4 million pounds and 400,000 man hours protecting Huntingdon Life Sciences and its staff over the past five years.

As far as charging the targets of the activists for this protection, the Times claimed that,

Discussions were under way between the Home Office, industry executives and police forces about whether companies should pay something towards the vast policing bill.

This would certainly follow the already-established pattern for the Labor government. First, openly court the animal rights movement. Second, ignore for years the increasing number of violent attacks against the industry. Then, finally, compensate for that laissez faire policy by seeking compensation from the victims of such violence.

Source:

Animal protest costs Pounds 10m over five years. Nicola Woolcock, The Times Online, February 28, 2005.

Share