terrorizing people to save animals who save people...

Well, you know how our current government feels about scientists. Everything would be a lot simpler if they would just.......go away.

Perhaps Homeland Security should investigate PETA as a home grown terrorist organization.

 

This definitely isn't an isolated incident, and the attacks have been increasing the past few years. The apparent lack of concern also concerns me - BUT . . . in the Santa Cruz firebombing and assaults, you also need to factor in the if-not-outright-support of such actions by many in the Santa Cruz community . . . an underlying counter-culture of sympathizing with the philosophy and ultimate goals of these eco-terrorists.

A good example is this line out of an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel:

"Young said he's seen "animal abusers" falsely allege incidents of violence in an attempt to cast their critics in a bad light and suggested UC Santa Cruz researchers could have easily done the same."
Animal rights extremists have long evaded police - Santa Cruz Sentinel

I suppose Mr. Young also thinks these same "animal abusers" also assault their own family members to make a point.
Two UC-Santa Cruz Researchers Victims of Firebombing - The Paper Trail (usnews.com)

I wouldn't doubt it if in a few months the Santa Cruz City Council doesn't come out with a resolution declaring Santa Cruz an animal research free zone.

One person's eco-terrorist is another's animal freedom fighter.
And to many of them, MILK IS (also) MURDER.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-UK/MilkIsMurder.htm

 

Galaxee, I worked in R&D for The Upjohn Company - those fine people who brought the world synthetic cortisone, ibuprofen, Xanax, Halcion, and many others. I did a lot of the design and development work on one of their big cortisone projects, but that's another story.

In my years at The Upjohn Comapany, I was exposed to a fair amount of animal testing. The researchers I worked with were fine, upstanding people who cared deeply about their animals. They avoided needless suffering, and would only use live animals for testing when absolutely necessary. I found them to be a very professional bunch.

This isn't to say that all animal testing is necessary, and all researchers saints, but the scientific world gets an undeserved black eye in this area. What it all comes down to is that there are a lot of nut cases running around; people who need a cause to champion so they can feel good about their lives. It's too bad they can't put all this time and effort into something useful.

Tom

 

I love dogs too ... taste just like chicken!
just kidding ... fred's my best bud:

He's even my screensaver!
Lots of strange standards out there ... eat a fish, but not a cow, etc. There's still a lot of people who supplement their family's diet with fish, dear, elk, etc. and I'm not just talking Eskimos (which translatets, "eaters of raw meant" btw ... not tofu ... but I eat both).

 

You sound like anoher of those damn moderates. You're probably against using high sulfur fuels but aren't willing to spike trees to save owls with spots.

 

Why spike the tree when you can just run up and slit the saw-operater's throat? Or maybe I'm missing the difference? You're probably against calling murder a murder, as long as the victim has adequately offended you? Moderates are the problem, eh? Soooo ... that must make al Qaeda pretty cool in your book, as they certainly aren't moderates. :wacko:

 

That was sarcasm. I'm a radical moderate. Spiking trees to save owls that happen to have spots isn't such a good move.