Talk:Brian Carnell

Good day. My name is Brian Carnell. I run an anti-animal rights website, AnimalRights.Net, and I am the subject of this particular entry. As such, rather than edit the numerous lies in this article, I am posting here requesting a moderator/editor review the entry for accuracy. There are numerous misstatements and outrageous claims in the piece as it exists, clearly written by someone more concerned with maligning me rather than with truth or accuracy.

First, I want to point out that I am unfamiliar with your sight but at the bottom it puts this particular page in the category "Front groups portal | United States | Web fronts | Industry lobby groups." I just want to emphasize I have no relationship, financial or otherwise, with any of the groups I sometimes write about on either side of the animal rights debate, and I have never taken any funds, etc., etc. In fact, sometimes they end up as unhappy with my commentary as the animal rights activists do.

Anyway,

1. "Animalrights.net reliably ignores, misrepresents, downplays and censors health, diet, medical or other information which may be favorable to animal advocacy. . . .Frantic demands for (animal rights) censorship may serve to deflect public attention from campaigns and investigations; while serving to discredit and marginalize those who may expose associates to public scrutiny and accountability. "

This is overall a gross misstatement of the content of my site. Moreover, the implication that I call for censoring those I disagree with is outrageous since I am a free speech absolutist and have written frequently in opposition to attempts by industry groups and/or legal authorities to impinge on the free speech of activists (please read this 2005 article -- http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2005/salt-lake-county-reaches-settlement-agreement-with-two-activists/ -- and then decide for yourself if I'm al about "frantic demands for (animal rights) censorship)."

2. "Like many third party industry lobbies, it quotes corporate lobbyists like Berman & Co. and National Animal Interest Alliance as "sources" and “expert testimony” on the animal rights & advocacy movement."

I quote industry groups, animal rights groups, law enforcement, left activists, right activists, major media, activist media, etc., etc. This gives the impression all I do is regurgitate industry press releases. Just look around my site at a random sampling of articles, and you'll see that's a gross distortion (though clearly I am far closer to a group like NAIA than I am to a group like PETA ideologically).

I also regularly took to task other folks no my side of the ideological fence when they committed ridiculous errors or made wild accusations... see, for example, http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2005/dont-make-the-same-mistakes-as-the-activists-do-your-homework/

3. "Animalrights.net is a highly censored forum with the predictable agenda of presenting views favorable to the food, drug, medical industrial complex, vivisection, pharmaceutical and other industries"

This one really pissed me off. My discussion forum has been offline while I try to figure how to migrate it to new software, but when it was up it was very active and completely uncensored. Hell, I didn't even ban or edit people for language. It was a free fire zone where anyone could comment however they wanted on either side of the argument. I despise censorship and really get annoyed seeing these sort of wild accusations.

4. The examples under the Examples section are bizarre:

a. " PCRM accused of being an animal advocacy & “anti-Atkins front”. " ... doesn't actually link to or quote from anything I've actually written but is just rant against CCF.

b. " Pro-seal hunting advocate takes HSUS representative to task." I'm perplexed here what the author is upset about. The article he links to on my site is an abridgement of a longer report that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. First the entry accuses me of being an industry flak but offers as evidence a neutral article where I report on claims made in the media? Huh?

c. "David Martosko of CCF takes a moral stand." This example is largely incoherent. Yes, I frequently disagree with Alex Hershaft. Retorting that "Alex Hershaft is founder of FARM (Farm Animal Reform Movement) [9] as well as a child survivor of the Warsaw ghetto" is just special pleading.

"In another vicious attack on Mr. Hershaft; Mr. Carnell is enraged over a simple thank-you email to Burger king for carrying a veggie burger. [11] He sneers, “… people in the animal rights movement wonder why the press tends to depict them as a bunch of nutbags.” and “If Hershaft and others are counting on the success of Burger King’s veggie burger to save animals, they’re in for a rude awakening.” "

Seriously ... go read the article and then compare it to the description above. Enraged? Sneering? LOL. I think whoever wrote this is guilty of projection.

d. "Chrissie Hynde..." this is one long bit of editorializing. I don't really know enough about your site to know if this is what you're after.

5. " Focusing on non-issues and trivia. " Makes a whole lot of claims and accusations without a single reference. This reads like a John Birch-style rant attempting to establish guilt by association. Just keep reciting Berman, Martosko, and HSUS and you don't need an argument, references, or quotes from anything I've written.

6. "Shocking malice towards animals. " Amateur psychotherapy. I do want to add I think it is unfair to included “anti-Atkins diet front groups” in quotes as I don't believe I've ever used such a silly phrase anywhere and the quotemarks could give readers the impression that the phrase is taken from something I've said or written. The really weird thing about that phrase, is I not a fan of the Atkins diet. Read this 2003 article I wrote on the Atkins diet and then decide for yourself if I'm some pro-Atkins shill.... http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2003/latest-research-on-atkins-diet/

7. " The trouble with terrorism." - "Yet, according to Brian Carnell; the most serious threat to US soil is “animal rights terrorism”." I definitely write about animal rights related extremism/terrorism, but to my knowledge I have never said animal rights terrorism is the most serious threat on US soil.

8. " Movement notable for pacifism and restraint. " This is just another long editorial that really doesn't have anything to do with me...doesn't mention me or anything I've written...just makes a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.

9. My contact info...do you normally run the phone #s and addresses of individuals on the entries? I realize that is public info, but it doesn't appear on other entries for people I looked at on your site.

Thank you,

Brian Carnell brian@carnell.com

More of the Same

Lisa Leming keeps expanding this entry but it is more of the same distortions and lies(aside from being almost impossible to actually follow -- even her poetry isn't this poorly written). Don't get me wrong...I don't object at all if you want a page on your wiki about me (in fact, I think it's kind of cool I've gotten under Leming's skin). But please don't let it be dominated by the incoherent ranting of an activist with an axe to grind.

I'm requesting that someone pare this page down to a very straightforward description and then bar Leming from further edits, as she doesn't seem to care at all about truth or accuracy.

For example, in "Mischaracterization of Volkert Van der Graaf political assassination" she links to an article I wrote about Pim Fortuyn's murdered losing an appeal, and she says that a) I assert he was motivated by animal rights-related reasons, but that b) the killer said he did it for the nation's Muslims. Of course, she completely ignores the point that prosecutors asserted and the killer conceded that he killed Fortuyn in part because of Fortuyn's promise to lift the ban on fur farms, though the killer also said that was not his primary reason (which I also mention in the linked article).

That particular entry (like most of them) is filled with unrelated assertions. "Telephone threats from Fortuyn supporters were received by Greenpeace and other groups". And apparently, GP did receive threats after Fortuyn's assassination, but I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not his killer said in court that he committed the murder in part because of Fortuyn's views on fur farms.

What exactly is her point under Fur protest?

I mean for goodness sake she's even taken to listing the top 10 causes of death in the U.S.!!!

And in Deaths from side effects of pharmaceuticals and vaccines she's using your site to promote her anti-vaccine nonsense citing of all things a video produced by Gary Null -- the sort of quack who is not only opposed to vaccines, but also denies that HIV causes AIDS.

Finally, under The trouble with terrorism, Leming bizarrely writes of the fact that so far no one has been killed in an act of animal rights terrorism, "Although there is no question that this is a matter of daily disappointment and chagrin, he is hopeful that one day this rather glaring discrepancy will right itself. [51]"

This is an absurd and slanderous interpretation of the linked article. I would never hope for such a thing, though I do predict it is becoming more and more likely. Oddly enough, the article she's linking to was quoted approvingly by the pro-extremist No Compromise which noted I was one of the few prominent anti-AR commentators to oppose federal legislation specifically aimed at animal rights activists.

Edit Notes

• i have removed the front groups tag -- there was no evidence to support its inclusion that i could see.

• notes on other sections (my comments indented) --Bob Burton 02:30, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Lobbying for lobbyists

Like many third party industry lobbies,

no evidence that it is a third party in a front group sense

Animalrights.net quotes corporate lobbyists like Berman & Co. and National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) as "sources" and “expert testimony” on the animal rights & advocacy movement. [1]

the link only indicates that the site reposted a Berman statement to a congressional committee; it doesn't mention the NIAA; nor does the site refer to Berman etc as "sources" and “expert testimony”;

Berman & Co. reliably attacks critics of their corporate clients in the meat, dairy, restaurant, cosmetics and other industries.

if the preceding information is not on the page, this is redundant.

Colorful, inflammatory language is very popular with this Washington, DC based lobbying group. [2]

this reference to a you tube posting critical of Berman and his group doesn't support this statement.

NAIA represents commercial animal interests of factory farming, vivisection, blood sports, entertainment and others, but particularly breeding as a virtual mouthpiece for the American Kennel Club breeder lobby. It is indeed a "forum for opposing views".

on what has been posted so far, it is not clear what the connection is between Carnell and the NAIA

Animalrights.net is highly censored with the predictable agenda of presenting views favorable to the food, drug, medical industrial complex, vivisection, pharmaceutical and other industries.

unsupported by references;

Brian Carnell, owner and main contributor; relies heavily on hyperbole and stereotypes to make points or to obfuscate specific issues, opposition, contradictory evidence and/or views. [3]

that link really only supports the point that Carnell cites CCF favourably and is critical of PETA and PCRM

Focusing on non-issues

The predominant animal, health and environmental issues driving animal rights and welfare are factory farming and farm animal issues, fur ranching, trapping, hunting, animal research, product research and various sports and entertainment animal issues. Additional interest areas include companion animal issues such as euthanasia, Puppy Mills and various laws such as tethering, etc. Most institutionalized animal commerce contains large scale abuse, mutilation, inhumane housing and treatment that amounts to torture.[4] Yet, none of these issues are ever addressed, let alone “debunked”.

i pondered whether to leave this stand or not but am inclined against keeping it -- the point has merit if true but it is hard to reference a negative -- in this sense it would be better to cite with references what Carnell himself advocates and then have this as a following par

Discrediting activists & promoting commercial views & agendas

In Mr. Carnells’ desperation to portray humane advocates in violent and/or ridiculous ways; virtually any ones' opinion; whether they be fast food lobbyists, meat executives or seal clubber advocates is viewed as incontrovertible evidence. Although the main message of Animalrights.net is that animal advocates are "extremists" and "terrorists"; virtually any action, protest, campaign or correspondence is characterized as suspicious, violent, extreme or simple contemptible. Mega-billion dollar, multi-national corporations are "victims" and their paid lobbyists "experts" or even moral authorities. Efforts are anywhere from outright deceptive to ridiculous. For example, in one essay on HSUS is criticized for an unsuccessful rescue of a wounded seal during a seal hunt. However, the subsequent clubbing and stabbing seals through the head with metal spikes and the hunt itself escapes the contempt and harsh critiques reserved for humane advocates. Such activities, like all abuses and exploitation; are treated as completely irrelevant on Animalrights.net.

entirely unreferenced and unnecessarily inflammatory language.

Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Society.

Paul Watson Compares Seal Hunt to Holocaust [5] Paul Watson was one of the co-founders of the Greenpeace Foundation. "I have been honored to serve the whales, dolphins, seals – and all the other creatures on this Earth. Their beauty, intelligence, strength, and spirit have inspired me. These beings have spoken to me, touched me, and I have been rewarded by friendship with many members of different species. [6] Isac Bashevis Singer, who fled Poland for the US shortly before the Nazi rampage; wrote the 7th chapter of 'Eternal Treblinka,' called 'This Endless Slaughterhouse." Singer never stopped seeing the ghosts of his fellow Jews in the plight of food and research animals... "In relation to them (mice)," thinks a Singer character whose family was exterminated by the Nazis, "all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka." As the famous scientist and Jewish vegetarian, Albert Einstein said, "widen our circle of compassion". As the German Jewish philosopher Theodor Adorno put it: "Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they're only animals." Not only are many supporters of the animal rights movement Jewish, some are actually Holocaust survivors themselves, such as Alex Hershaft. [7]

I don't see how this has much to do with Carnell

Response from Lisa G. Leming

Dear Mr. Carnell & Burton:

This article has only been up for three days. I am afraid you started critiquing my article on the first and second days of my entries, since which time I have edited & referenced on my own, even before I was asked for additional citations. It takes some time to provide relevant and accurate references and edit properly. This article has over 50 citations as of today and I was in the process of adding a few more. I am aware that any article on sourcewatch has strict referencing requirements.

Mr. Carnell, it is my desire to clarify and provide some source background to your generally one sided debate on the animal rights movement, groups, activists and activities. I have also attempted to reference for accuracy as much as can be done. Institutionalized animal advocacy overlaps economics, as in profitable commerce in the food, agribusiness and pharmaceutical and medical industries, etc. This is the sole (but obfuscated) reason as to why they are so often the negative focus of industry funded lobbies. In my description of your site I described it as a "third party lobby"; which does not necessarily receive funds directly. Otherwise, I made no reference to funding. Groups & individuals in this category are often media spokespersons, columnists, bloggers, etc. Citations are from sites which provide the best and most thorough documentation; which includes some AR sites. Also, (as in the history of ALF for example); they are sometimes the only ones who bother to formally document their own activities.

More and more people are referring to the internet as their sole source of news and information. It is important that information be fair and accurate as possible, particularly free of alarming and unnecessary code words and sound bytes. Lisa

Mr. Carnell:

I had removed most of the sections you were referring to even before I saw your note this AM as a part of my editing process. I generally edit and research as I write and this article has only been up for three days. As I said before, I am only trying to clarify some specific points by providing background information. It is difficult to critique the AR movement in without focusing on the actual issues, of which I was in the process of providing more citations. I apologize for including some CCF articles which were linked to your site. I removed them the second day after I could not find the article they were linked to (which did have some discussion of the Atkins diet). I will of course remove your contact information. It was public information and I include in all of the articles I write.

Furthermore, I am certainly not singling you out or "maligning you". We all want the truth. I have written articles for SourceWatch on animal rights, health, medicine and nutrition. It is very difficult to separate them as I pointed out before. Nutrition and medicine happen to be a large part of the arguments often used to justify animal abuse, therefore I believe it is appropriate to include them. Lisa

Mr. Burton:

As far as The Sea Shepherd sub article, it is very common to criticize activists such as Paul Watson for comparing the holocaust to factory farms and other abuse. It has almost become a national past time among "critics". Considering the number of important issues being ignored and censored, I think its rather silly and overblown. However, I was trying to provide some background information that showed it was not an inappropriate and insulting comparison, as I assume the link was implying (or why was it included?) Lisa

"In Mr. Carnells’ desperation to portray humane advocates in violent and/or ridiculous ways; virtually any ones' opinion; whether they be fast food lobbyists, meat executives or seal clubber advocates is viewed as incontrovertible evidence. Although the main message of Animalrights.net is that animal advocates are "extremists" and "terrorists"; virtually any action, protest, campaign or correspondence is characterized as suspicious, violent, extreme or simple contemptible. Mega-billion dollar, multi-national corporations are "victims" and their paid lobbyists "experts" or even moral authorities. Efforts are anywhere from outright deceptive to ridiculous. For example, in one essay an HSUS is criticized for an unsuccessful rescue of a wounded seal during a seal hunt. However, the subsequent clubbing and stabbing seals through the head with metal spikes and the hunt itself escapes the contempt and harsh critiques reserved for humane advocates. Such activities, like all abuses and exploitation; are treated as completely irrelevant on Animalrights.net."

entirely unreferenced and unnecessarily inflammatory language.

This is referenced by several of the following subarticles under essays, especially the "seal hunt". I am simply describing the exact language of the article referring to a seal hunt where an activist is criticized for the improper care of a wounded seal, and where subsequently several seals are stabbed and clubbed. The contemptuous language used to describe activists' activities is also referenced in several sub articles so I didn't feel the need to add more links.

As far as the link to the CCF video, I think that "colorful and inflammatory" is appropriate. The video is specifically geared to CCF vs. AR issues.

"Brian Carnell, owner and main contributor; relies heavily on hyperbole and stereotypes to make points or to obfuscate specific issues, opposition, contradictory evidence and/or views." [8]

that link really only supports the point that Carnell cites CCF favourably and is critical of PETA and PCRM

Here is the text I was referring to in that link: "Presumably the reason PETA and PCRM can’t stand the CCF press releases is that they are used to surrounding themselves with people like Gary Yourofsky and Jerry Vlasak who outright advocate the murder of those they disagree with. So you just have to see it from their point of view — advocating murder or arson is one thing, but actually issuing a press release is something of a much bigger magnitude. Someone’s feelings might get hurt, after all, from a press release, but if you kill a researcher, well, they’re just dead."

Neal Barnard is a respected doctor and advocate and really, Dr. Vlasik is too. Both of them have dedicated their lives to a difficult and uphill cause. Dr. Vlasik is a trauma surgeon and a former vivisector. Dr. Barnard has endured attacks and defamation due to research and advocacy which contradicts medicine for profit, big pharma, meat, dairy and vivisection industries. To practically call them both advocates of "arson and murder" who advocate "the murder of those they disagree with"; yes, I think that amounts to "negative stereotypes". It is certainly irrelevant to Dr. Barnard's health rating of airport food.

All said, I think my language was actually restrained and accurate. It is impossible to justify some of the mean spirited, defamatory accusations and implications contained on this site. I don't think I it would be an exageration to say that if this language were aimed at any other group (gays, minorities, religious affiliation), it would have been removed from the internet years ago. Lisa G. Leming

Thankful for restraint? Really?

"Given the massive challenge of institutional animal abuse along with lobbyists and professional hecklers like Brian Carnell, the restraint of animal advocates (in action and print) is remarkable."

Really? I mean, again I realize I'm not the target audience for this stuff, but I sort of assumed that not attacking people physically or setting fire to their offices because you disagree them was just plain civil discourse that was expected in a liberal democracy. I didn't realize it was something that was *remarkable*. I don't assume, for example, that you'd let slide nonsense like "given the massive challenge of institutional abortion and professional hecklers, the restraint of anti-abortion advocates (in action and print) is remarkable."

"The animal advocacy ideologies and organizations are pacifists. That is, there are no violent agendas and historically; no serious incidents constituting bodily harm."

This is simply a lie -- there have been a number of attacks involving bodily harm carried out by animal rights activists. David Blenkinsop <a href="http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2001/shacs-favorite-activist-sentenced-to-three-years-in-jail-for-assault/">plead guilty</a> to assaulting HLS director Brian Cass. Or perhaps you consider it restraint that he didn't knife him?

Response from Lisa G. Leming

Mr. Carnell, the AR movement is pacifist and does not advocate violence. In that way it stands alone from most other movements, governments and people. Almost half the country still votes republican in spite of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands and maimed more. The republican VP candidate aerial shoots wolves and caribou. You yourself are not only advocate violence towards animals, but heckle and defame humane advocates.

NIH funded research

At the University of California, Davis, Dr. Kenneth Britten annually receives $220,000 to anchor restraining devices to the heads of rhesus monkeys and graft coils into their eyes. In 2001, Emory University acquired about $118,185,010 for researchers such as Garret Alexander to route electrodes into the brains of macaque monkeys. Locked in restraint chairs, the fluid-deprived monkeys execute behavioral drills to earn juice rewards and are later embalmed alive.

Dr. Madeleine Schlag-Rey of UCLA and Dr. Richard Andersen of the California Institute of Technology also install devices into primates' brains. Since 1985 Dr. William Newsome has steadily replicated Dr. Britten's primate tests, in one of many ongoing studies that earned Stanford University around $107,272,736 in 2001 alone. At Yale University Charles Bruce has collected a near $3.4 million in endowments, to perform remarkably similar primate tests. The animals caught in this thicket of bureaucratic apathy are invariably dosed with toxic substances, radiation, and addictive drugs. They endure electric shock, food/water deprivation, bone destruction, invasive surgeries, and intensive confinement for often immaterial studies. For example, Arizona State University cut funds for Michael Berens' brain cancer experiments after 470 dog deaths and a 95% failure rate. Berens relocated to new environs, where he continues to inject cancer cells into beagle fetuses and replant the tumors into the brains of puppies. Blind and collapsing dogs suffer unremitting cycles of radiation and chemotherapy. "When it can't take it anymore," Berens' has claimed, one puppy is killed to move on to the next." [9]

I think this has moved beyond "violence" and into the realms of torture and extreme depravity. What would land anyone else in jail and a prominent place on the news, simply costs a "researcher" his grant. In Dr. Berens case, he simply moved on. He continues to torture beagles. If you look him up, you will find numerous articles on his failed "research", written by his peers. At TGen (his new "Cancer Research Center) they have "wine tastings" and "Cancer runs". The former mayor of Phoenix is on his board. [10]

Cancer industry

"The late H.B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading U. S. cancer statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society in 1969 that no study has proved that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On the contrary, his studies proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer and with better quality of life than treated ones. Needless to say, he was not invited again. The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet wrote, "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the medical profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from breast cancer." Noting that conventional therapies--chemotherapy, radiation and surgery--had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge medical dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines." [11]

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison." —Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist. (1919-2000) [12]

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the war on cancer is a failure. "Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment." John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept;. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University. [13]

Attack on Ernst T. Krebs (laetrile advocate)

"After presenting a rather effective lecture on cancer…the windshield was shot out of my car on the road back to San Francisco. The next night the glass window in the tail gate was shot out (300 miles removed from the first shooting). The police said, 'maybe someone is trying to tell you something'. The late Arthur Harris, M.D. was threatened by two men with assassination if he continued to use laetrile. Since that time we have de-centralised the work so that, if any two of us are shot out of the saddle, it will have only a slight negative effect on the program." Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. (1912-1996)[14]

It is impossible to fathom the damage to both humans and animals that vivisectionists are responsible for. I believe the conservative number for 1998 was 106,000 deaths a year from side effects of animal tested drugs. The number of children who die every year from the side effects of vaccines are around 6,000 and many more are disabled. As far as intentional (as opposed to indirect) violence; there have been a number of serious incidents involving animal and environmental activists with some resulting in death. Below is not an exhaustive list.

Some AR & environmental activists who have died for their beliefs

• William Sweet, British anti-bloodsports activist shot dead (January 1976) during an altercation with a man shooting birds.
• Fernando Pereira, Greenpeace activist killed in New Zealand (July 1985) when the French secret service blew up the ship the Rainbow Warrior.
• Bartolomeu Morais da Silva (aka "Brasilia") a Brazilian farmer who led the struggle against illegal logging, land fraud and destructive large-scale infrastructure projects was found murdered from shot gun wounds and his legs broken in July 2002.
• Mike Hill, British hunt saboteur deliberately run over by a hunter in February 1991.
• Tom Worby , British hunt saboteur deliberately run over by a hunter in April 1993.
• Jill Phipps , British activist deliberately run over whilst trying to stop live animal exports in February 1995.
• Karel Van Noppen , a Belgium vet who was assassinated in 1993 by hitmen after he exposed mafia connections in the meat industry.
• David "Gypsy" Chain , American eco-activist crushed to death in September 1998 when a tree was felled on top of him by an irate logger in California's Headwoods Forest. [15]

For the animals, death is simply a welcome relief from daily pain, torture, isolation and fear. A merciful release from hell-on-earth, thanks to people like Dr. Cass. Here is a little more about the facility he runs:

"Every day, an average of 500 animals die whilst being forced to inhale or ingest disinfectants, tanning lotions, toxic chemicals, coffee sweeteners, diet pills, weedkillers and numerous other products and medications. Testing on animals DOESN'T work. Each species reacts differently to things. Video footage has been taken of employees violently shaking and punching a four month old beagle and dissecting a conscious monkey. An estimated 12800 animals died in the testing of the artificial sweetener Splenda alone." [16]

All the animals have is their advocates, who make great sacrifices legally, socially and financially. I wouldn't worry too much about researchers though. They have much better police protection than your average citizen. I was btw, aware of this incident and I believe I said "serious injury". Although I don't advocate violence, even Gandhi advocated it in defense of the helpless. He stated that refusing assistance to someone in need was in itself an act of violence. He was passionate about the treatment of animals and a vegan. However, I think the the truth will do the job rather nicely. If the country knew what these sociopaths were up to (as opposed to a steady diet of "terrorists" propaganda) they would have to change their names and move to Iceland. However, my deep regrets to Dr. Cass for his bump on the head.

Lisa G. Leming

Edit notes

I am back editing the page and have removed the following section (see indented comments)--Bob Burton 16:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Alex Hershaft writes thank you note to Burger King.

Vegan Dreams vs. Burger King Reality. Mr. Carnell is enraged over a simple thank you email from Alex Hershaft, to Burger king for including a veggie burger on their new menu. [17] Alex Hershaft is founder of FARM (Farm Animal Reform Movement) [18] as well as a child survivor of the Warsaw ghetto.

On reading Carnell's post, I can't see how this can be characterized as "enraged". Nor is Hershaft's email "a simple thank you" to Burger King.

Carnell describes the email as being to "an animal rights newsletter". If this is correct, it is inaccurate to describe it as being an email to Burger King.

Further, while Carnell has a critical take on what Hershaft's sees as a potential major gain in having BK include a vegan burger on the menu, it seems to me that his point is fair comment. Apart from which -- given that both Hershaft and Carnell's comments were from 2002 I was left wondering who was right -- is the vegan burger still on BK's menu? Or did it fail to sell and was later withdrawn?

Further edit

Even if all of the material below is accurate it is rather off topic for a page on Carnell. At best, in a rewritten form, it would more sensibly be on a side-page on US health.--Bob Burton 15:59, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Ten top Leading causes of death in the US. Heart Disease, (fats/cholesterol: meat/dairy)
Malignant Neoplasms (cancer: toxins/milk/dairy)
Medical system (drugs/medical mishaps/incompetence)
Cerebro-vascular (milk/dairy)
Bronchitis Emphysema Asthma (toxins/milk/dairy)
Unintentional Injuries
Pneumonia & Influenza (immune systems/mucus)
Diabetes (dairy)
Highway Accidents
Suicide
Nephritis (inflammation of kidneys)
Liver Disease (alcohol/toxins)
[19]

Deaths from side effects of pharmaceuticals and vaccines The Journal of American Medicine reported in 1998 106,000 people a year die from adverse reactions to drugs tested on animals. Researchers from Harvard and Boston Universites concluded that medical measures (drugs and vaccines) accounted for between 1 and 3.5 % of the total decline in mortality rate since 1900. Scores of animals were killed in the quest to find cures for tuberculosis, scarlet fever, small pox and diptheria. Dr. Edward Kass of Harvard Medical School, asserts that the primary credit for the virtual eradication of these diseases must go to improvements in public health, sanitation and general standard of living. [20] Animal data is misleading; animals cannot convey (nausea, dizziness, etc) often serious indicators and because of differences in physiology. Approximately 6,000 children die every year in the US from adverse effects of vaccinations; many more are disabled for life. [21]

Cancer industry

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison." Glen Warner, M.D., Oncologist. [22]

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the war on cancer is a failure. "Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment." John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept;. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University. [23]

Other nutritional & environmental studies The China Study, [24] For more on milk and osteoporosis. [25] [26] Also see National Dairy Council. Conditions on factory farms have been documented and studied by welfare, agricultural, environmental, health advocates and veterinarians for 30 years by the Sierra Club, [27], Worldwatch Inst. (2005), [28], United Nations, FAO (2006) [29] and many more. [30] Factory farms are breeding grounds for disease and pollution effecting air and water quality. Employees in are often injured on the fast paced and dangerous environments. Employees and nearby residents complain of respiratory problems, headaches and other illnesses. Factory farmed feed is also laced with massive doses of antibiotics (passed on to humans). This is to say nothing of the unspeakably cruel conditions, illnesses and other factory farm animal issues.

Wasteful & duplicate studies involving sadistic animal experimentation During fiscal 2001 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) bankroll roughly 29,441 separate tests on primates, dogs, cats, rats, mice, hamsters, and guinea pigs for an estimated $8.5 billion. Animal research is an extravagantly unregulated business more often in search of a profit than a cure. As the nation's major funding apparatus, NIH awards each university or private lab over $100,000,000 in any given year, asserts Michael Budkie, founder of the Ohio-based Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! (SAEN). [31] Budkie obsessively tracks federal databases to expose an industry "shrouded in secrecy. We cannot just walk into most laboratories and start asking questions." The list of carbon-copy experiments is endless. Presently, over 60 NIH grants repeat drug addiction studies in primates; 70 grants finance eyesight tests in macaque monkeys; 170 projects examine neural data in macaque monkeys and 90 others rehash the same study in cats. In 2000 the USDA's Animal Welfare Enforcement Report listed 1,416,643 animals as research subjects. This tally doesn't include rats, mice, birds and other non-mammals currently omitted from the Animal Welfare Act. It also doesn't itemize animals confined for breeding or offset under-reported facilities. Budkie compares CRISP (Computer Retrieved Information on Scientific Projects) numbers with other records and undeclared-animal estimates to up the yearly toll to 20,000,000 animals in laboratories. [www.kinshipcircle.org/columns_articles/0029.html]

Meat executive critical of "vegetarian propaganda" Dan Murphy’s Excellent Commentary on AR2002. To read this ridiculous description of a 2002 Animal Rights conference; one would think attendees spent most of their time trading bomb recipes. "Unfortunately, the overwhelming attitude among speakers, disciples and exhibitors alike encompassed a migraine-inducing mix of virulent anti-meat propaganda... To invoke the name of Martin Luther King on behalf of violent ALF types who are past even the fringe of legitimacy is a venal, bankrupt attempt at credibility." [32] "Deeply influenced by the works of Gandhi while studying at the Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, King made the struggle for civil liberty for African Americans in the USA his sole motto. His weapons: faith in God and nonviolence. From my background I gained my regulating Christian ideals", he later said, " From Gandhi, I learned my operational technique". [33] Gandhi was a vegan and passionate about the advocacy and care of animals. "Of all the black crimes that Man commits against God and Creation, vivisection is the blackest." "I want to realize brotherhood or identity not merely with the beings called human, but I want to realize identity with all life, even with such things as crawl upon earth. The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Mohandas Ghandi [34]

the problem with this is that the comment of Dan Murphy's column above is specifically directed at the ALF and a characterisation of the 2002 conference. In particular, Murphy refers to purported comments by Jerry Vlasak on the destruction of property and non-violence. What MLK thought of Ghandi and that Ghandi was a vegan doesn't really constitute a response to the characterisation of the conference or whether the activities of the ALF can be defended as being consistent with non-violence.

The trouble with terrorism There are serious issues concerning factory farming, pesticides, the medical industrial complex and the pharmaceutical companies and consequential ill health and untimely deaths of hundreds of thousands, not to mentioned massive environmental destruction and chaos. Murder stats in the US are in excess of 16,000 a year, not to mention other non-violent crimes and a prison population in excess of two million. There are 40,000 deaths by car crashes annually in the US and a war which has killed over 4,000 young people and maimed four times that number. Yet, according to Brian Carnell; the most serious threat to US soil is “animal rights terrorism”. Like most propagandists and fear mongers, he peppers virtually every essay with alarming code words like "militant, terrorists, extremists and violence." The fact that the animal rights movement has yet to produce one one death, maiming or serious injury since its inception in the 1970’s, does not seem to deter his unwavering dedication. [35], [36] (That is to say nothing of the millions of animals and thousands people it has saved through correct dietary and medical information.) Although there is no question that this is a matter of daily disappointment and chagrin, he is hopeful that one day this rather glaring discrepancy will right itself. [37]

"Yet, according to Brian Carnell; the most serious threat to US soil is “animal rights terrorism”." - unreferenced

"The fact that the animal rights movement has yet to produce one one death, maiming or serious injury since its inception in the 1970’s, does not seem to deter his unwavering dedication." -- even if no one has been hurt by animal rights activism, reasonable people can still legitimately object to vandalism directed towards political objectives.

Movement notable for pacifism and restraint Given the massive challenge of institutional animal abuse along with lobbyists and professional hecklers like Brian Carnell, the restraint of animal advocates (in action and print) is remarkable. The animal advocacy ideologies and organizations are pacifists. That is, there are no violent agendas and historically; no serious incidents constituting bodily harm. Anyone engaged in non-violent rescue or interfering in a business or institution which tortures animals may call themselves ALF. ALF has always maintained a strict policy of non-violent action towards both animals and humans." [38] Press releases for Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are listed on its website. [39]

this is unnecessarily editorialising on what is supposed to be a page about Carnell. Nor is harassment or damage of property a consistent with strict non-violence.

Response from Lisa G. Leming

Mr. Burton:

References would have been the above mentioned examples in a dedicated, one issue blog which has been around for 10 years. It has meticulously documented "terrorism" of the AR movement (to the exclusion of everything else) including background information. Mainly, animal welfare violations and abuse which would put the average citizen in jail. Although he has denied saying these exact words, I think the message is clear. Similar to Berman & Co.'s ad campaign against PETA. They take a few out of context "facts" and put them out there. They fail to mention that PETA performs humane euthanasia by lethal injection for shelters in NC which still used gas chambers and shot guns. NC euthanizes 250,000 animals a year (I live there). Also that they campaign for spay neuter and breeding restrictions, which groups like the NAIA and the AKC lobby against. The AKC is funded by registries from Puppy Mills (over 30 million a year, close to PETA's entire operating budget). They also ignore the 9 million animals who have been shocked, dissected alive, burned, poisoned and tortured to death at HLS. Presenting "selective facts" is a form of disinformation.

I did add "bodily harm" and I thought that was clear. However, even "vandalism" is not on the usual personal and vindictive level; but aimed at disruption of business activities which abuse and torture animals. Say, a company which manufactures restraint chairs so that "scientists" can lock monkeys in to shock them, deprive them of food and water and other charming and educational activities. (I wish Mr. Carnell could see just one film of a monkey screaming while getting his testicles shocked "for the good of science"). Not only is there no malicious intent, but just the opposite. Even vandalism is the exception rather than the norm. Most AR supporters operate within the law. This stream of negative, extremist and "dangerous" associations is more likely to put peaceful activists in danger or of in danger losing their civil liberties than "protecting citizens". Given the present negative climate of the country, people are very quick to point the accusing finger. They aren't going to bother to look up the facts. The essay on the probable "animal rights related murder" was particularly morbid. Why not focus on gun control if there is such a concern for "violence"? It's a witch hunt.

Mainstream news doesn't report on institutionalized animal abuse. It may offend their sponsors. Johnson & Johnson and other big conglomerates use Huntingdon Life Sciences for example. Proctor & Gamble is a major sponsor of Fox News. So what is left but animal rights groups? If they are completely discredited, these animals are doomed. Their painful, tragic lives will never improve. I am very concerned about his inflammatory language and disinformation campaign. I read and heard others referring to it as a "source of information." Lisa G. Leming

Edit notes 3

Mischaracterization of Volkert Van der Graaf political assassination (Netherlands 2002). " Animal Rights Activist Loses Murder Appeal. [40] AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands -- The man accused of assassinating Dutch anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn has told judges he acted on behalf of the country's Muslims. Volkert Van der Graaf, 33, said during his first court appearance in Amsterdam on Thursday that Fortuyn was using "the weakest parts of society to score points" and gain political power. Fortuyn, an academic and columnist, was running for the post of prime minister on an anti-immigration platform." [41] "I don't know him as someone who would use violence," Roger Vleugels, who had helped van der Graaf with legal cases, said on Dutch television. Van der Graaf worked on more than 2,000 lawsuits fighting the expansion of industrial animal farming. Environmental groups in the Netherlands condemned the killing, fearing they would be associated with the murder. Telephone threats from Fortuyn supporters were received by Greenpeace and other groups. "Pim Fortuyn had reasonable views on the bio-industry," Pigs in Need, an animal rights group, said in a statement. "Fortuyn believed that new agricultural policy needed to be animal-friendly." In a recent book, Fortuyn wrote: "Animal welfare must be a priority and we need to switch to less industrial production methods," according to the group. It renounced Fortuyn's murder as "stupid extremism." [42]"

the reference links in Carnell's blog post are now dead so it is not clear what the original reports stated on matters raised in the appeal; however, the par above relied on citing a report from Van der Graaf's trial not his appeal; as to the response of other groups to the assassination, that hardly goes to establishing what Van der Graaf's motivation was or whether Carnell's comments on the appeal were accurate or not.

Fur protest If All Else Fails, Harass the Pet-Related AIDS Charity. "The nonprofit has fielded complaints and name-calling from animal-rights fanatics outraged that it would accept money from people poking fun at the Guerneville fur protest. PAL’s board decided it cannot be pulled into politics." .."The money was instead donated to the National Animal Interest Alliance (gee, the animal rights activists must be happy to see NAIA get the money rather than some local animal charity)." [43] The National Animal Interest Alliance is an animal commerce lobby whose sponsors include: the Fur Commission, Friends of Fur and the National Trappers Association. [44]

this really doesn't tell us anything about Carnell -- the initial quote is from an article in the Press Democrat and his response is really a rather mild rejoinder.

Edit note 4

Given the small amount of material from the original posts that I think are worth leaving on the article page, I think it is better to remove the remaining unreviewed text and and move it back after review.

Disinformation concerning Proctor & Gamble's Animal Testing Procter and Gamble Abandons Animal Testing, But Activists Still Not Satisfied. Proctor & Gamble uses approximately 50,000 animals per year to test their products. [45] In 1987 P&G fought a shareholders' resolution that would have eliminated product testing on animals for consumer and household products. In 1989 they attempted to launch a $17.5 million program targeting legislators, school children and the general public promoting animal testing as necessary and humane. In 1990, P&G lobbied against legislation to ban the Draize test in California. [46] "The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval." [47] The FDA in fact, strongly encourages alternatives to animal testing. Over 600 companies manufacture detergents and cosmetics which are not tested on animals. Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics Shopping Guide

It is not clear how this is relevant to a profile on Carnell

IAMS pet products, boycotts of P&G and IAMS IAMS pet food is a subsidiary of Proctor & Gamble. The U.S. Department of Agriculture released an official complaint including: the following violations documented by government inspectors at an P&G/IAMS contract laboratory from 2002 to 2005: [48]. For nearly 10 months in 2002 and early 2003, a PETA investigator went undercover at an IAMS contract testing laboratory. "Our investigator found dogs who had gone crazy from intense confinement in barren steel cages and cement cells, dogs who had been left on a filthy paint-chipped floor after chunks of muscle had been hacked from their thighs, dogs who had been surgically debarked, and horribly sick dogs and cats who were languishing in their cages, neglected and left to suffer without veterinary care." [49] Both P&G and IAMS are currently under boycott by various humane societies, rescues and animal advocacy groups and individuals. IAMS pet food is a subsidiary of Proctor & Gamble. Both P&G and IAMS are currently under boycott by various groups. [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]

It is not clear how this is relevant to a profile on Carnell

Huntington Life Sciences Mr. Carnell frequently defends the Huntington Life Sciences contract testing facilities against "extremism" and cannot fathom what all the fuss is about. [56]

actually the first post from the above link is not Carnell defending HLS contract testing facilities but a commentary on the court decision against the activists.

Huntingdon Life Sciences is the 3rd largest CRO in the world and the largest animal testing facility in all of Europe. [57] At any one time there are 70,000 animals imprisoned within these 3 facilities including dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, rabbits, fish, mice and farm animals. [58] HLS kills approximately 180,000 dogs, cats rats, rabbits, pigs, and primates (marmosets, macaques, and wild-caught baboons) every year (500 a day) in tests for household cleaners, pesticides, weed killers, cosmetics, food additives and industrial chemicals for tests "only reliable 5 to 25% of the time" one HLS record contends. Six undercover investigations exposed HLS for multiple breaches of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act, the arrest of workers on animal cruelty charges and over 520 infringements of Good Laboratory Practice in England. HLS also has a criminal record in the UK for failure to file company accounts on time. In a $50,000 settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, HLS was charged with 20+ counts of violating anti-cruelty laws, including: Failure to provide sufficient veterinary care; administer painkillers and anesthetics to animals in excruciating toxicology tests; justify the absence of pain relief for dogs utilized in invasive procedures (a one-time HLS employee claims she regularly heard the yelping and coughing of conscious dogs during fatal procedures); and failure to construct cages that safeguard animals from injury. [59], [60] In one $50,000.00 settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; HLS was charged with 20+ counts of violating anti-cruelty laws. [61]

even if all this is right, it doens't really belong on a page about Carnell.

Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine PCRM and Center for Consumer Freedom Get in Food Fight. "The dispute started when PCRM issued a report rating the healthiest airport food, and singled out Miami international Airport has having the healthiest food of any of the top airports in the Untied States. CCF responded with a press release noting that PCRM is made up of “anti-meat, pro-vegetarian nutrition zealots.” CCF also pointed out that PCRM is simply an extension of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." [62][63] It is Center for Consumer Freedom making these accusations? Now, activist and animal groups that funded by private donations are required to have "front groups”? "Clinical researcher and author Neal Barnard, M.D., is one of America’s leading advocates for health, nutrition, and higher standards in research. As the principal investigator of several human clinical research trials, whose results are published in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals, Dr. Barnard has examined key issues in health and nutrition. Neal Barnard is the founder and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). [64] Dr. Barnard is also president of The Cancer Project, a nonprofit organization advancing cancer prevention and survival through nutrition education and research." [65] Brian Carnell goes on to add: "Presumably the reason PETA and PCRM can’t stand the CCF press releases is that they are used to surrounding themselves with people like Gary Yourofsky and Jerry Vlasak who outright advocate the murder of those they disagree with. So you just have to see it from their point of view — advocating murder or arson is one thing, but actually issuing a press release is something of a much bigger magnitude. Someone’s feelings might get hurt, after all, from a press release, but if you kill a researcher, well, they’re just dead. That’s the problem with us anti-animal rights folks — we just don’t have this higher level of compassion and understanding that the animal rights people possess." [66][67] All because Dr. Barnard wanted to rate airport food. I am guessing that this irrelevant and embarrassing diatribe is what Mr. Carnell would refer to as "debunking". "Presumably" Dr. Barnard knows more about nutrition than a lobbyist for fast food, tobbacco, alchohol and big pharma. It is also probable that Dr. Vlasik knows more about "researchers" than Mr. Carnell or CCF. "Vlasak graduated with an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School at Houston in 1983. He has widely acknowledged that he is a former animal researcher himself, and saw no problem with it at the time. According to the Los Angeles Times, he conducted research on dogs' arteries in a laboratory at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, during or after which the dogs were killed... Vlasak explained his opposition to animal testing to a U.S. Senate committee in 2005: “Here in the U.S., there are thousands of physicians like myself who realize there is no need to kill animals in order to help humans, the vast majority of whom get sick and die because of preventable lifestyle variables such as diet, smoking, drugs and environmental toxins. In a country where 45 million people do without reliable access to ANY medical care, there is no reason to waste hundreds of millions of dollars testing drugs and procedures on non-human animals. In a world where 20,000 children are dying from lack of access to clean water each week world wide, there is no reason to waste hundreds of millions of dollars testing drugs and procedures on non-human animals." [68] Center for Consumer Freedom promotes unhealthy lifestyles and unsafe animal testing, which kill not one; but millions of people and billions of animals every year. Who is the real "murderer?"

Response from Lisa G. Leming

Hi Mr. Burton:

This is not a "profile on Mr. Carnell". If you notice, none of my information personal. I am mainly focused on providing background information to his many accusations, negative slant and ridicule. As I mentioned before, simply throwing out random facts, particularly peppered with phrases like "extremists", "nut jobs", "militants" and even potential "murderers", really begs for some context. My point is that the AR movement is compassionately motivated and that the anti-animal rights movement is motivated by financial greed and even sociopathy (as in the case of some scientists). It is impossible to make these points without providing background information. Some of his information is just completely erroneous. For example, "P&G has stopped animal testing, but activists still not satisfied." Nothing could be further from the truth. I have spoken with share holders who were absolutely shocked that P&G killed 50,000 animals a year. As far as HLS, making "commentaries" on the actions of activists without taking into account what is going on at HLS is ridiculous. There have been hundreds of protests and demonstrations against this company. The following is a charming example of one of their important contributions.

Huntingdon Life Sciences & Splenda

"In a time when obesity has seen a dramatic increase, diabetes is plaguing more and more children, and doctors are warning people to cut down on their sugars, sugar giant Tate and Lyle, with the aid of McNeil Specialty Products (a division of Johnson & Johnson) came up with a sweetener 600 times more potent than real sugar! Huntingdon played a big role in the testing that took place to bring this garbage product to the market. An estimated 12,800 animals died in the process according to a published report in a recent scientific journal.

• 32 beagle dogs were locked in metal cages for 52 weeks. They were given Sucralose mixed in with their normal feed, and blood and urine samples were collected. At the end of the study they were killed by means of exsanguiation - they had their throats slit open and bled to death. They were then cut open and their organs - by now drained of blood so easier to dissect - were examined to test the product's toxicity levels.
• Four beagle puppies (or as HLS calls them – punching bags) were starved before being force-fed the super-sweet sugar powder. HLS employees then took blood samples from the jugulars of the infant dogs.
• An unspecified number of marmoset monkeys either died from the poisoning or were killed at the termination of the research at HLS.
• The report states that 12 of these monkeys, which were babies – under 10 months old – were force-fed Sucralose for seven weeks. Two of the primates died on the seventh day from brain defects, another primate was mysteriously killed after four weeks, and the remainder all were murdered at the completion of the seventh week. Some of the recorded observations from this study noted "in appetence, body weight loss, unwillingness to use hind leg, hopping, involuntary grip reflexes, salivation and subdued mood."
• Huntingdon also used rabbits to study the effects of the product. These little animals were given 1200 times the expected daily intake and not surprisingly most died from the trauma. Many of the other rabbits suffered from convulsions, weight loss, and various intestinal disorders.
• Huntingdon also tested the product on pregnant rabbits, mice, and rats – killing both the mothers and the fetuses. Inside HLS Splenda, Sadistically Sweet

I don't know if you have a dog but I have three. I can't think of a hell hot enough for people who would do any of the above to one animal, let alone 12,800. Yet, it is activists who are sitting in jail. As far as the "murder", it was very clear that the implication (as in "headline") was that this murder was associated with the AR movement; when clearly it was not. The fact that his group was being harassed and blamed, shows how well these witch hunts work. Mr. Carnell also accused Jerry Vlasik of being a "murderer", while accusing Dr. Barnard of "hanging around with murderers". Yes, I think this screams of a little context. Here it is again:

Quote from B.C.

"Presumably the reason PETA and PCRM can’t stand the CCF press releases is that they are used to surrounding themselves with people like Gary Yourofsky and Jerry Vlasak who outright advocate the murder of those they disagree with. So you just have to see it from their point of view — advocating murder or arson is one thing, but actually issuing a press release is something of a much bigger magnitude. Someone’s feelings might get hurt, after all, from a press release, but if you kill a researcher, well, they’re just dead. That’s the problem with us anti-animal rights folks — we just don’t have this higher level of compassion and understanding that the animal rights people possess."

Now, what is this about? Yes, I do think it's some kind of primal rage. These are people who are standing up for defenseless animals getting cut up alive in laboratories or living in some other kind of institutionalized hell hole. The thing that amazes me is how a person could "critique" a movement like this for 10 years (at least) and yet apparently have no interest in it.