From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Faculty Rally at UC Santa Cruz in Support of Firebombed Colleagues
by ~Bradley (bradley [at]
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
On August 4th, at the main entrance to UC Santa Cruz, faculty members held a demonstration in support of their colleagues who were targeted with firebombs on August 2nd in what authorities are calling attacks by animal liberationists. Corporate news reporters, and their flock of more than ten white vans, were all over the scene to quickly sensationalize the story.

I spoke with numerous people to listen to their feelings, document why they chose to attend the demonstration, and in some cases to inquire about potential consequences to student privacy when organizing future events. The people I spoke with included researchers, a lecturer, professors, UCSC students, a Santa Cruz High School student that lives in faculty housing, UCSC's Executive Communications Coordinator, Guy Lasnier, and finally with UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal.
An email sent by a UCSC faculty member calling for the demonstration, which was organized in less than 24 hours, states, "Regardless of one's personal views on research involving animals, this has now become a very different kind of discourse, about more fundamental aspects of society."

A full online announcement for the demonstration states:

"On Monday, 4th August, at 5pm at UCSC main entrance, there will be a gathering of people in demonstration for the support of the fire-bombed faculty and against terrorist tactics.

The demonstration is not about whether or not research on animals is good, bad, etc. This demonstration is about fundamental aspects of society, about peaceful tactics towards things/situations we do not like.

Violence is not the solution.

Please come to the base of UCSC campus on Monday 4th August at 5pm to show your support for peace and to show that terrorism needs to be put to a stop, no matter where it occurs and for what cause it is."
§Violence is not the Answer
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
Barbara Chemers, a Psychologist at UCSC, said, "We have to stand behind our faculty and scientists. We need the research they are doing. It's a complicated issue not to be solved with violence."
§Challenge Disease
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
§Chagne Minds
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, a Professor of Anthropology at UCSC, said, "Using violence shuts down active debate instead of opening it up. I can't condone the use of violence to advance a cause."
§Support UCSC
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
Brothers Rob and Brian Heffern hold signs in support of UCSC researchers and their families. Brian, right, is double majoring in Politics and History. He said that this was his and his brother's third time demonstrating with signs at the base of campus over the past two days and was happy to learn about the faculty demonstration. Brian said, "We're all a community, one campus.. [this is] a case of domestic terrorism. We need to come together as a community and support our fellow slugs."

Rob Heffern went to high school in the East Bay and is now finishing up his major in Applied Physics at UCSC. Rob said, "We should support the community and researchers."

With hesitation, I asked Rob his opinion on research using animals and he replied, "My opinion on animal research is not important. The people who did that did not try all options. They did not come out here and picket and rally."
§Discourse ~Not~ Destruction
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
Catherine Cooper came to UCSC in 1987 and she is a Professor of Developmental Psychology. Catherine said, "As a working scientist and parent, I hope this tragedy, this act of terrorism, can motivate us all to establish dialogue, rather than firebomb homes and property of families in our community."

Catherine continued, "Freedom of speech issues are effected. It's a challenge to creative expression for everyone. This is about all society. I feel this event threatens all our opportunities at expression, including the media."

As an example, Catherine wonders if people will be safe to speak in support peoples' work choices.

Lastly, Catherine says, "Young people interested in medical research should pursue work in AIDS, cancer and malaria. We need all the young to do this work and not be intimidated by this act."
§Medical Research
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
Riley Mallory is a 14 year old student at Santa Cruz High School who lives in Faculty Housing and his mom is a professor at UCSC. Riley said, "This is unacceptable we're trying to prevent terrorism abroad and we can't even prevent it here. How can they say support animal rights when they are doing things that could kill people."

Martin Chemers, center, is a Professor of Psychology at UCSC and the Department Chair. He said, "No animals are used in the [Psychology] Department. We decided we should have a rally and in less than 24 hours there are 300 to 400 hundred people."

He then clarified that his initial crowd estimate was lower and that organizers usually have higher estimates than the actual number of people present at a given event. In my estimation, there seemed to be a couple hundred people, and I agreed with him that it is difficult to estimate accurate numbers of people in a crowd.
§Human Animals
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
Mike Rotkin is a Lecturer in Community Studies at UCSC and a member of the Santa Cruz City Council. Mike said that he could speak to me from the perspective of an academic or a politician, but that he preferred to speak, "From the perspective of someone that has been arrested over 30 times for civil disobedience and peace and justice issues. These folks are counterproductive for their message and issue. Because it is debatable if their should be animal research and they could make headway against stupid research like cosmetics and they could win support in a place like Santa Cruz for strict controls on animal research. But we are going to have a complete backlash out here."

Mike explained, "For example, a forum on ending animal research will be a lot harder after this act. It will be hard to have a discussion because the focus will be on violence instead of the issues you would think they want to talk about. When The Weatherman did blow things up, instead of serious debates about the war in Vietnam.. [i think Mike said the discussion was about the use of violent tactics.] Instead there is a backlash. That wasn't the only thing, but that played a big role in getting Nixon elected."

With hesitation, I asked Mike his feelings on who may have done the bombing and if he thought it could possibly have been done by the government, for example. He did not think it was the government and that he has spoken with people who think that violence is acceptable. He has never spoken with anyone about firebombing a house with people in it, but has spoken with animal rights activists who defend property destruction which Mike also feels is counterproductive, though not completely illogical.

Mike continued that it will be, "Harder for people to be taken seriously when they argue an animal rights perspective."

I asked Mike a final question as the demonstrators across the street were begining to hold their rally with a few speakers using a bullhorn. I asked him his thoughts on the political climate for student activists at UCSC. Mike said he, "Hopes the administration does not use this to overreact against demonstrators for a variety of important issues."
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
§David Feldheim
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
David Feldheim is a Professor in the Department of Molecular, Cell & Developmental Biology. His home off High Street across from UCSC was targeted with a firebomb in the early morning of Saturday, August 2nd. He and his family were home when the firebomb went off on their front porch.
§Ryan Coonerty, Martin Chemers and George Blumenthal
by ~Bradley Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:02 AM
Santa Cruz Mayor Ryan Coonerty, left, Martin Chemers, center, and UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal.

I spoke with UCSC's Executive Communications Coordinator, Guy Lasnier, though he is not in the photo above.

Guy told me that Chancellor Blumenthal issued a statement on Saturday, but I said I had a question. I asked Guy how students may be impacted and if they had reason to be concerned about FBI infiltration, or other kinds of infiltration, when organizing events in the future.

Guy said, "Firebombing houses creates a climate of fear. Police don't take it lightly, but this should not effect students."

I then asked Guy if UCSC was going to do anything to prevent FBI infiltration into student groups. I also asked if FBI infiltration into student groups was a concern of UCSC. Guy said, "I don't know."

Guy clarified that there is no policy at UCSC that he knows of regarding infiltration into student groups, "but that is not the issue."

I then spoke with UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal and asked him the questions I asked Guy, including: If students had reason to be concerned about FBI infiltration, or other kinds of infiltration, when organizing events in the future.

George replied, "It shouldn't affect students even if their views are against mine."

George stated that there are FBI agents and police on campus and that they are, "Not interested in groups that are involved in peaceful nonviolent expression. We welcome that. We've always tried to provide an environment to expression and potentially prevail in the court of public opinion."

I then asked George if UCSC had a policy to protect students from FBI or other kinds of infiltration.

George said, "I don't believe there is a policy. It could be appropriate to infiltrate if there is a potential for violence."

I then asked how UCSC determines when it would be appropriate to infiltrate a particular group. How does UCSC determine when there is a potential for violence.

George said that there is no interest in infiltrating student groups, but he does not know of a policy against infiltration.

George asked me who I was and who I was writing for. I said, "I'm Bradley and I'm writing for Indymedia."

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by J Edgar
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 5:04 AM
Do you honestly think the FBI is going to ask UCSC's permission to infiltrate political organizations, or care if UCSC objects? A far more enlightened question to ask is how many of UCSC's own police are also FBI agents, and how many FBI agents are permanently assigned to UCSC.

If you want the FBI all over UCSC, a perfect way to do so is to pull some sort of fascist arson attack on innocent people like what you saw over the weekend. Now you have people who would ordinarily be your allies welcoming the political police with open arms.

Nice job.
by Straw man
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 5:33 AM
"Do you honestly think the FBI is going to ask UCSC's permission to infiltrate political organizations, or care if UCSC objects?"

No, the FBI is not going to ask UCSC's permission, though they will ask for, and receive, UCSC's assistance. It would be nice if UCSC had a formal policy saying they will not cooperate with the FBI to infiltrate student groups. It makes a difference as to the ways in which UCSC is working with the FBI, such as providing information about students and facilitating the FBI's infiltration. Right now it seems clear UCSC has no policy or concern about FBI infiltration into student groups.

"A far more enlightened question to ask is how many of UCSC's own police are also FBI agents, and how many FBI agents are permanently assigned to UCSC."

Good questions. You too can ask them and publish here. Get off your ass, McCarthy, and do it.

"If you want the FBI all over UCSC...."

That sounds like a straw man argument.
by Horace Hornblower
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 6:42 AM
3 or more pills is what the police are seeking, I'd guess. Imagine you got sold a burger and were forced to buy fries and drink the Kool-Aid to remedy the burger. What *human* experimentation has UCSC and other tools of Big Pharma been carrying out and with what ill effects? How much destructive chemical product has been brought to market with how much consequent suffering multiplied by the remedies for the remedies for what ails somebody? Welbutrin=Xyban and you don't care because you hate tobacco users even more than you hate Debbie Downer of SNL.
by Working Class Mama
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 7:29 AM
So I'm to understand these people are protesting some property destruction as if it was violence and terrorism? Wow, they must live a really privileged existence. I could never relate to such entitlement. They should see what it's like to live in poverty, especially in a white supremacist neighborhood. They'd be begging for their only concerns to be ethical arson.

The violence perpetrated by animal researchers profiting from both human and non-human animal suffering far outweighs a little arson where no one but a pocket book got hurt.

99% of animal research either causes harm to humans or does no good at all and has to be recalled. Nonhuman animals have evolved with different bodies. Animal research is sham science and nothing more than an easy way score a large pay check for the already affluent. These quacks deserve to have their scams destroyed and exposed.
by --+--
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 7:41 AM
okay - I suspect that the people really involved were local nonstudents, with strong/extreme personal motivation, not connected with any established animal rights group.
But responding to the first comment there - take a look at this San Francisco Chronicle editorial today which calls for internet providers turning in people with strong political sites. There are existing racketeering laws and criminal gang statutes which should apply when groups promote illegal activity via their organization.

Why did the pamphlet in the coffeeshop suddenly made the large newspapers on July 31st, when in actuality, that list of professors has been spreading around for months.
On campus, for months everyone has been talking about which professors have been getting calls (which includes people who don't kill animals in their research, but just keep them in cages, or fly research), and the Berkeley professors have been listed online for a long time. Although, maybe I just perceive this as odd, and really the media just happened to perk up about the personal invasiveness of the home addresses list two days before the fires by chance. They would have covered it earlier if they had been more aware.

The whole problem is that this is would be up to interpretation by anyone either turning in a website, or running an ISP. My mother grew up during the nazi times in europe, and has quite a few personal stories about family members such as her father and uncle getting turned in to a tribunal to answer questions for minor acts of nonallegiance. What if they were to decide to enhance the ability of the government to stop people from, hypothetically, setting up websites about members of government seeking authoritarian rule, or really genuinely harmful corporations.
The history of bad behavior in government really should make us very cautious about giving them more discretion about shutting down political groups, outside of existing harrassment and criminal laws.
by Dano
(nydano [at] Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 8:01 AM
"Ethical arson" - girl, you're a sociopath. Get help.
by --+--
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 8:04 AM
"some property destruction as if it was violence and terrorism"

No, you heard wrong. In this case, they didn't go to the labs or facilities, but they went to their house, and it was during a time of day when people would likely be home asleep, and not ready to notice quickly to get out of the way. Also, the particular intensity of the molotov style device that they used made it very likely that the whole house would burn. Even in the category of threatening actions that those responsible could take, there are quite a few things someone could have done that wouldn't have actually put them at risk such as hanging a noose (or equivalent written threats on the porch), or burning a cross on their lawn or something. at my parents house, once someone lit their fence on fire by stuffing newspapers under it as they went by. But the lower power of a pile of burning newspapers, plus the fact that they had no angry neighbors, allowed them to forget it as creepy random vandalism by the next day. But if you take a look at that Volvo - they clearly didn't halt themselves at mere threats (which they could have achieved by popping the tires or ruining the paint, while leaving a flyer etc. They totally torched it.
by deanosor
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 8:32 AM
This is an excellent piece on a extremely complicated story. No matter what you think about animal research and i'm against most of it, innocent children could have been hurt by this firebomb, easily. it wasn otethical. It was not destroying their labs, or waking them up. It was a stupid firebomb. Thank the goddess, no one was hurt.

i'm in favor of direct action. I'm going to Denver and St.Paul to shut down the conventions. Everyone should go. I'm usually in favor of what Alf and ELF do. I have blocked bulldozers attempting to cut down forests in Humboldt County. I am a proud up-front anarchist. This act was not just against the researcher himself. If i were a conspiracy theorist, i'd believe the government did this to turn the community against the growing amount of direct action occurring the country right now. But i believe you need evidence before you can make a accusation of that type.

On the other hand, i worry about a lot about government spying. I think this incident and the rally if we're not careful, will cause lotmore spying on activists. Soem people at the rally may get too much of what they want. Thank you Bradley ofr bringing up this issue.

by Jack Straw
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 8:57 AM
"It would be nice if UCSC had a formal policy saying they will not cooperate with the FBI to infiltrate student groups. It makes a difference as to the ways in which UCSC is working with the FBI, such as providing information about students and facilitating the FBI's infiltration. Right now it seems clear UCSC has no policy or concern about FBI infiltration into student groups. "

If UCSC had such a policy in place, what is the likelihood that they would allow it to interfere with an arson and attempted murder investigation, coupled with ongoing threats of continued escalation?

Reality check: If you burn someone's house and try to kill them, everyone is going to come after you, and all the morons that apologize for arson and attempted murder, and who try to dress up NAZI ideology and terror tactics as progressive acts, without restraint. Moreover, they will have the entire non-psycho progressive community, the mayor, all of the faculty, most of the students, and everyone else, cheering them on.

You won't get very far telling people about the FBI' sordid history now. All of these folks currently see the FBI as their best hope for catching the arsonists and attempted murderers.

So maybe the goofball who suggests the FBI had the most to gain from this has a point after all. Either way, the people who go around torching occupied residences at 5 am aren't exactly doing their part to help the cause, are they?

By the way, how many animals have been rescued by these dolts? Think about it, and think about their priorities.
by Done that
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 11:03 AM
"By the way, how many animals have been rescued by these dolts? Think about it, and think about their priorities."

Along time ago, in a galaxy far far away, i organized a raid on a lab with a few friends- we committed no 'real' damage, but "rescued" the rabbits that were being victimized.
Then we had 20 + rabbits.
We thought in a student environment, it would be easy to find them good homes.
It wasn't.
Each of us ended up with 4 or 5 rabbits.
Damaged rabbits.
Rabbits that associated humans with pain and torture.
Rabbits that never really adjusted to being with people.

But we made a commitment and we kept it, and we pretty much ran a halfway house for damaged bunnies until the last one died.

The moral of the story- have a plan. Think the ramifications through to the end.
by archipelago
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 11:34 AM
This posted comment needs to be addressed:

So I'm to understand these people are protesting some property destruction as if it was violence and terrorism? Wow, they must live a really privileged existence. I could never relate to such entitlement. They should see what it's like to live in poverty, especially in a white supremacist neighborhood. They'd be begging for their only concerns to be ethical arson.

The violence perpetrated by animal researchers profiting from both human and non-human animal suffering far outweighs a little arson where no one but a pocket book got hurt.

99% of animal research either causes harm to humans or does no good at all and has to be recalled. Nonhuman animals have evolved with different bodies. Animal research is sham science and nothing more than an easy way score a large pay check for the already affluent. These quacks deserve to have their scams destroyed and exposed.


To this reader, readers who have similar views, and all other readers who may not be paying attention to this reader--this is ignorant, confused, ideologically blind, and downright disgusting! And I usually do not resort to such reactions, especially anger or judgements or name-calling, but this is too egregious to overlook.

I could go over almost every single word here and show how wrong it is but that would be tedious and a waste of time.

Check your facts and your ideology before launching out, people! You have no idea what you are talking about and sound like complete idiots at best.

This is NOT about animal welfare/rights or animal research any longer. It is about bombing. It is about using rather potent explosive materials on private residences and doing so in the dark when families and neighbors are home and asleep. Those residences are properties that are connected to each other as condos so that it is not a question of property damage at all, but intentionally destructive in a manner that puts people, many people, many innocent people, at risk. Not to mention that it terrorizes an entire community by using fear tactics: targeting, threatening, attacking so as to intimidate not just individuals but a whole community. I know; I live here. One of those bombs could have gone off at my house, or next door to me, and almost did. And this is made all the worse by the randomness of it all. It is becoming clearer that whoever did this got their numbers mixed up and bombed the "wrong" target, as if any target would be "right"?! That means that this is just senseless violence and has no political or ethical ties to any issue any more, let alone any credibility.

Also one more thing has to be said. Many of the people attending the rally reported and photographed here are victims of ongoing terrorism in that their neighborhood and community is being threatened with bombings; they feel unsafe, and violated, and angry, and confused, and shocked. To be callous and dismissive and accusatory and whatever else, it simply lacking any decency or humanity.
by c
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 11:37 AM
Based on my own intuition and speculation, I've been trying to decide what sort of person would be likely to have done this.
Remember a couple of months ago when the big hubbub arose over the demonstration on the lawn of another mouse researcher, where some guy got in a fight with her husband, and then the rest of the group fled? They clearly were an edgy confrontational group because they went to their house, but the fact that they had parked right in front with an unconcealed license plate suggested to me that 5/6th or 4/5th of that group hadn't expected the fight to happen, and there was one out-of-control personality. Or they just weren't so smart. (reference: ) In any case, they were acting in a large group. Many closely watched this as the police raided the house associated with the car and took away all their computers, expecting that within one or two days there would be major felony arrests. Indeed, because it involved a whole group who all have a list of friends, it seemed likely that the police would find at least one friend who would impulsively respond to questions, and be able to identify at least one person who was riding in the car.
Yet, this hasn't happened. This establishes that the group at the earlier home demo are either highly like minded, and maybe achieved this by all reading and discussing their philosophy and practices together a lot.
I would expect the police to be all over the Riverside avenue house or that Peter Young guy due to their vocal animal rights activity.

In sharp contrast, we have this recent event, which distinctly fell outside of the tradition of ALF arsons. This is why I really wonder if one could suspect that the Riverside people could have done it, because the targeting of the family is very uncharacteristic, and it makes it wonder whether someone who hasn't spent an hour reading about the tradition of fur/hunting/meat/research disruption. Except, the execution of the arson was fairly sophisticated or effectual. I can't quite tell if their bomb was sophisticated or not- it was probably gasoline rather than an explosive.
This looks like a great example of an ALF firebombing here where they burned a building at Univ. Washington.
Note how they used a large group of people just so that they could make entirely sure that no person was in the building, and spent extra time removing cages of animals from the building. It would have been easier if a single person just ran up and poured gasoline and lit it.
by Roll Anotherone
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 12:02 PM
The ALF and its spokespersons could come out and condemn this as not representative of their much more highly nuanced approach to arson, but they haven't. Instead, their spokescretin says that Feldheim has deliberately endangered his family by putting himself in the line of fire, so to speak.
by Principles
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 12:31 PM
"The ALF and its spokespersons.."

The ALF does not have spokespersons.

"No one person can speak for the whole movement."

"Any direct action that contradicts these aims — and in particular the provision not to harm human or non-human life — may not be claimed as an ALF act"
by A nonprofit newspaper
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 1:09 PM
While a spokesman said he didn't know who committed the act, the Animal Liberation Front called the attacks a "necessary" act, just like those who fought against civil rights injustices. Spokesman Dr Jerry Vlasak showed no remorse for the family or children who were targeted. "If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory than his children are old enough to recognise the consequences," said Vlasak, a former animal researcher, who is now a trauma surgeon. "This guy knows what he is doing. He knows that every day that he goes into the laboratory and hurts animals that it is unreasonable not to expect consequences." The Santa Cruz police department said it was "unconscionable" for anyone to defend such acts. "To put this on par with any of the human rights issues is an absolute insult to the integrity of the people who fought and went through the human rights movement," said Captain Steve Clark. "This is what people do when they have an inability to articulate their point in any constructive way. They resort to primal acts of violence. Any reasonable person would need a logic transplant to begin to understand this level of degraded thinking."
by Read
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 1:29 PM
No Spokespersons
by Principles
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 12:31 PM
"The ALF and its spokespersons.."

The ALF does not have spokespersons.

"No one person can speak for the whole movement."

"Any direct action that contradicts these aims — and in particular the provision not to harm human or non-human life — may not be claimed as an ALF act"
by Jack Mallory
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:15 PM
Well done article and photos. How did corporate news sensationalize the story of the rally? Details, please.
by guida
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:24 PM
"Remember: the first one to cooperate with the investigation wins - everyone else is looking at 20 years, minimum."
That is exactly how so many of these other wildly hatched events in years past have ended up. Also, when you look at their 'stop snitching' style websites that list the photos of people who went state's witness, this isn't actually that motivating against a 20 year sentence. Their ALF structure is not going to hold together based on the risk of social rejection by the community. One has to remember that anyone could probably move to another city where they know no one, and often people have 80% different friendships since when they're 25 yrs old vs 10-15 years later.

However, check this out. They brought in the FBI when a dozen men in trenchcoats went on a tire popping spree two years ago on King street. No one was caught or called in the tip line. Nobody was caught for this thing last February, even though the FBI has been on that too. Do they secretly know and are just waiting to press charges? They haven't gotten their first person yet.
by yup
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 2:52 PM
That's not a straw man argument but an exercise in crime-sleuth deductive reasoning, looking at motivations and who benefits from a crime in order to identify potential suspects.

Does the AR movement benefit? Not really. The backlash is pretty universal from folks assuming this was committed by AR activists.

Does the police state benefit and get to grow its powers with sign-off from otherwise "liberal" UCSC profs? Yup.

It's not proof, but we may never know the real truth of the matter. All we have is the "crime" and the very predictable public reaction. Any good detective never jumps to conclusions and always asks, "who benefits?"
by Joe
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 3:26 PM
"Do they secretly know and are just waiting to press charges?"
The wheels of justice turn so slowly most of the time that people think they have gotten away with something... And then years later the indictment is unsealed. This isn't CSI or 24.
by Jack Straw
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 6:22 PM
The ALF does not have spokespersons. "No one person can speak for the whole movement."
Including the person whose statement is being quoted. Either way, you lose. Ha ha.
"Any direct action that contradicts these aims — and in particular the provision not to harm human or non-human life — may not be claimed as an ALF act"
"Hi officer, I really wasn't speeding. In fact, check the Wikipedia article I wrote about myself. It says I never speed, so clearly I cannot possibly be in violation of the law, ipso facto." Your whining is less than compelling.
by kgo
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 7:46 PM
How does this work. In the news, they have announced a big reward for a successful tip, and they report that they're following a lot of leads that have been called in. Unless a bunch of people know the correct arsonist and will share the reward, what does this imply? Are Santa Cruzans dialing in the local vegan in their apartment complex and crossing their fingers that this turns out to be the right person... Then there will be a long list of suspects in permanent files at the FBI?
"local and federal authorities tracked down leads in attempt to find the bombers.

Anger boiled in the wake of the attacks within the community known for its laid-back 1960s lifestyle. When Jack Mallory spoke to the rally, he didn’t mince words.

“This is terrorism,” he said. “This is the use of violence to support a particular political agenda. This is not activism.”
SANTA CRUZ, CA (KGO) -- The reward was nearly doubled on Tuesday to catch the criminals who firebombed a car and a Santa Cruz home while a family was sleeping..
An internationally recognized expert on the animal rights movement says the firebombings in Santa Cruz are an indication fringe extremists are getting more violent. David Martosko has been studying the movement for eight years and has testified in congressional hearings on the subject. ..
"They're resorting to more and more violent and dangerous tactics. It's really just a matter of time before someone on this side of the Atlantic gets killed," said Martosko who works with the Center for Consumer Freedom.

"This $50,000 actually represents the highest reward Santa Cruz Police Department has ever offered in our history. So we think money does provide an inducement for people to come forward," said Josh Friend with the Santa Cruz Police Department.
In a community known for its diverse opinions, the mayor says Santa Cruz is united in condemning the attacks.

Martosko says while the firebombers probably acted on their own, well-funded, outspoken animal rights organizations that spew fiery rhetoric share in the responsibility.
"The above ground guys are careful to keep their noses clean because they have to raise money so they're not making the bombs, but they are making the bombers," said Martosko.
Martosko adds he thinks three to six people were probably involved in Saturday's attacks and again, the reward for information leading to a conviction is up to $50,000.
by Fossil
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 9:06 PM
Who the hell decided that in order to be a member of the left in good standing, one has to accept a bunch of animal rights bullshit? What Central Committee made this the party line?

All it shows is the sorry propensity of so many self-proclaimed lefties to let themselves be intimidated by any bunch of loonies that strikes a "more radical than thou" pose, no matter how nonsensical their ideas.

I write, by the way, as the parent of a child who was (easily) cured of a disease that had been almost invariably fatal a few decades earlier. I assume that thousands upon thousands of lab animals were killed in developing the various pharmacological, radiological, and surgical modalites that went into the cure. Does that give me any ethical qualms? No more than the fact that lions tear the guts out of zebras on the African veldt. If it troubles you ethically, you can kiss my ass!
by tired of rhetoric
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 9:31 PM
arson is not terrorism. its property destruction. good peoples, go ahead through the words around, de-sensitize people to the words.

then when someone really commits a heinous act and you've desensitized people to death, no one will pay any attention.

how does an animal whose eyes are being treated with chemicals feel? don't you think they'd consider that terrorism?

the word games, yawn.

animals used in research is junk science. you want to bring about cures for humans, use humans in your studies.

a while back there was a debate about stem cell research and problems faced that a lot of the cells had been contaminated by animal cells. junk science is junk science.

Drs. Ray and Jean Greek, and others, have pointed out that the theory of evolution and molecular biology predict that animal models will be very poor models of human disease. In light of modern scientific thought and the mass of empirical data, the burden of proof lies with those who claim the animal model is productive.

In science, the burden of proof falls on the claimant, not the critic. Therefore, we ask those who claim that animal models are valid to “show us the data” that supports their case. They have not been able to do. We suspect that they will not be able to do so in the future as such data seems not to exist.

This section divides biomedical research into disciplines like human-based research such as epidemiology, in vitro, research with human tissue, genomics, drug discovery and development and so on and technology-based research. These divisions are artificial; epidemiology, a human-based research modality, uses technology and even in vitro research to analyze data and to draw conclusions. Genomics is human-based, uses technology, is mainly an in vitro type of research and involves human tissues. This is the nature of biomedical research; there must be overlap, as no area of biomedical research stands alone, just as no body part exists independent of the others.

Unlike animal studies, the great advances in science that have given us the high standard of medical care we enjoy today are the result of human-based research, most notably clinical observation, epidemiology, post-mortem examinations (autopsies), human tissue research, genetics, in vitro research, pathology, and advances in technology.

Technology-based research has given us computer and mathematical modeling and CT and MRI scanners. The specialization of physicians, nurses, and hospitals, along with reforms in public sanitation, has increased the length and quality of life. In the not-too-distant future, drug prescriptions will be customized to a patient’s individual genetic profile, thus eliminating adverse drug reactions.

Some may be disappointed that we do not offer a one to one replacement for currently used animal models. In other words, we do not present animal test or model X and say “replace it with Y.”

As shown in previous works, the animal model is no longer adequate for modeling human disease or testing drugs, hence, the paradigm needs to be replaced. If the paradigm is incorrect, it is highly unlikely that useful data will come from experiments based upon it. (For example, basing research on the old notion of four bodily humors will probably not yield useful data.)
by Reality Check
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2008 11:07 PM
It is right and proper for the government to infiltrate advocacy groups, whether student or not, who are linked to causes that have been supported by violent political acts.

The question is, "What then?"

In an ideal world, this information would only be used to identify and apprehend those who commit violent crimes. Any other use by the police would be forbidden.

Sometimes this information gets misused. However, not allowing the police to infiltrate radical groups would handicap the police in their effort to prevent violence.

If you don't want your group infiltrated by the police, there is a simple answer. Don't advocate illegal acts of violence amounting to political terror!

Thank you.
by Friday
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 4:58 AM
Arson is not terrorism? Guess again.

And there will be no necessity defense.
by TNC
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 9:32 AM
"So I'm to understand these people are protesting some property destruction as if it was violence and terrorism?"

Actually this was attempted murder and is being investigated as such.
by Glenn
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 9:41 AM
As they always say, "it's only fun until someone pokes an eye out". These people think it's simple activism, and may have thought that nothing more then a few charred wood panels would result. But what if it had not? What if the people inside had been seriously injured, or worse? What if that car full of gasoline had exploded and killed a child playing outside?
These actions are serious. Just as activists should be thinking of their long term goals they should also be thinking of the long term consequences to their actions.
by Knix
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 9:58 AM
Yes - why bother repeating arguments about property destruction used elsewhere for this situation. Sure, they could have more directly tried to harm the researcher by shooting them, but if you learn anything about house fires, they can really take off quickly and kill lots of people who can't get a window open. The car bombing was less risky too life, but look at how many options there are for doing extremely expensive damage that they skipped in take the fire option.
by tired of rhetoric
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 12:27 PM
why is it that the largest arson in colorado history isn't considered terrorism? if a fire fighter causes an arson, why isn't that terrorism? gotta love those choosing to inject emotions into an act of property destruction.

The 12-year prison sentence given to a woman who started the largest wildfire in Colorado history was excessive, a state appeals court said in sending the case back for resentencing. The woman, Terry Lynn Barton, a former Forest Service worker, pleaded guilty to arson after a fire

"At the time the fire began, Barton was under orders to patrol for fires in the Hayman area of the national forest, enforcing a fire ban that had been set in May."
"It was Barton who first reported the fire, saying she had come across a campfire that had spread. But as the investigation unfolded, forensic evidence led investigators to question her story.

"Her statements were inconsistent with their conclusion that this was a deliberately set fire," said Assistant U.S. Attorney William Taylor. Presented with the evidence, Barton recanted her original statements, he said.
Colleagues shocked

Taylor said the charges facing Barton "involve a willful state of mind. The arson investigators' conclusion was this was a deliberately set arson fire."

Barton had worked as a seasonal employee every summer for 18 or 19 years, and "to my knowledge," had never had prior problems, Cables said.

Last fall, she was hired as a permanent part-timer, working for the Forest Service nine months per year, he said."
by hmmmm
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 1:21 PM
maybe because she was not using the fire to manipulate people towards a political goal?
by someone
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 2:10 PM
If you know that someone, in their chosen profession, on a daily basis directly causes pain and suffering through torture and dismemberment to a living creature for the sake of arbitrary if not redundant testing, what do you do?

Do you talk to them about why you think it's wrong? What if they don't agree and continue killing?

Do you protest outside of their office/lab? What if they don't care and continue killing?

Do you send them threatening emails and make threatening phone calls? What if they just call the pigs and continue killing?

What you do is make life just as miserable for them as they are so willing to make it for the animals they torture.

This isn't terrorism and calling it that cheapens the term and completely sidesteps the real issue here.
by Reality check
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 2:37 PM
What torture? What dismemberment? One of those firebombed traces neural development in mouse embryos.

The other does yeast genetics.

At the very least, those who committed arson and attempted murder didn't even bother to get the facts straight first.

There are plenty of existing laws against causing torture and pain to laboratory animals. In the first instance, there is no evidence that these laws were broken. In the second instance, the "animals" were yeast cells.
by hmmmm
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 3:29 PM
look, perhaps you can stop telling us what terrorism isn't and tell us what it is?
then we can take your definition and apply it to the actions of:

- the us govt.
- academics who do animal research
- animal rights activists
- crazed arsonist firefighters
- al qaeda
- anyone else who we feel the need to label

oh, and before you respond, please consider that if your definition
of terrorism is "violence in support of a cause i don't share"
then you are sharing Dick Cheney's definition of terrorism
(i.e. a pretty worthless definition).
by em
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 4:26 PM
Yes - if one of the targeted does yeast genetics, then this means that this falls outside of the traditional philosophy of 'animal rights. It implies that they oppose molecular biology and biotech research. The newspaper said that the FBI thinks that another incident involving the house of a westside police officer could be related, although this might be hype. It would tend to bring the whole case away from the organized animal rights club though.
by vincent
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 8:30 PM
no, arson is not terror. you are correct there, here let me copy and paste the definitions for you:

arson: the willful or malicious burning of property (as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent.

terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

i don't like this one because it uses terror in the definition, so why don't we cut and paste terror:

terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

these are taken from if you'd like to check them yourself.

so you're right. arson is not terrorism. however, this is a case of "terror arson." because, as we can see from the above definitions, this was a malicious burning of property with a criminal intent AND a violent and destructive act used as a means of coercion.

and while i'm criticizing you, "tired of rhetoric," you post the same comment on all the BBs here, yet have you ever been in a laboratory? have you ever talked to a scientist (in a constructive, learning way) while seeing exactly what they do for research? have you ever witnessed animal testing first hand? you should try one of the above. i think it would broaden your horizons and alleviate you from some of the rhetoric you seem to espouse so tiredly.

lastly, computers = the future, not now. people can not make realistic computer models with out the data provided from empirical studies. meaning, that when the computational human metabolism is finally created (which the process is being done at LBL, UCB and UCSF), it will be done based on live animals and cells. and it's a long long way away...
by vincent
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 8:50 PM
"If you know that someone, in their chosen profession, on a daily basis directly causes pain and suffering through torture and dismemberment to a living creature for the sake of arbitrary if not redundant testing, what do you do?Do you talk to them about why you think it's wrong? What if they don't agree and continue killing?"

when was the last time animal rights activists who went shopping at the health food store stopped and talked to the butcher about their job? i have a friend that has worked as a butcher at a health food store for five years in santa cruz with no one asking a single question.

"Do you protest outside of their office/lab?"

sure, if you're into it.

"What if they don't care and continue killing?"

keep protesting, non-violently.

"Do you send them threatening emails and make threatening phone calls?"

no. you do not send them anything threatening. that is a violent act.

"What if they just call the pigs and continue killing?"

c'mon, who fucking likes cops anyway? no one wants to deal with cops. really.

"What you do is make life just as miserable for them as they are so willing to make it for the animals they torture."

you mean embryos and yeast as in the case of this? you make it sound like researchers draw and quarter chimpanzees for fun in their dark laboratories with jacob's ladders zapping electricity an cauldrons of smoky brew in every corner. there are rules for treating animals in scientific research. granted some people don't obey the rules, but they typically get turned in by their own coworkers. besides, who are you? god? the equalizer? who granted you the divine right to judge and sentence people for their actions? if someone is overfeeding their dog or cat, do you judge them by the same metric and force feed them? no, you don't. do you target exterminators or the mouse trap company for killing mice? no you don't. why? because, clearly, this is not about animal rights. furthermore, this is not about terrorism. this is about people's fear of science. we need to address this. but first,

"This isn't terrorism and calling it that cheapens the term and completely sidesteps the real issue here."

yes, this is terrorism. i provided you the definition above.

lastly, i'll ask the question again. why is everyone so afraid of science? i'm here, as i have always been, to answer questions.
by someone
Wednesday Aug 6th, 2008 10:00 PM
If you could stand outside the gates of Auschwitz in 1942 would you be there with a sign yelling at the guards and chanting slogans or would you be shooting Nazis and trying to burn the place to the ground.

Oh, and had you been able to burn Auschwitz down, I'm sure the German government and it's complacent citzens would label the attack as terrorism.

Now i'm not saying that what happened there in SC is comparable to the Holocaust, I am trying to illustrate that to some people, standing around yelling about our societies problems isn't enough.

Terrorism means almost nothing these days. Shit, I can remember counter-protesters at an antiwar protest calling us terrorists from across the street. That is what terrorism means today. Someone is a terrorist today because they are willing to act against a society obsessed with security and afraid of accountability.
by em
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 12:36 AM
Thanks for this authentic article.
Very well covered.
by Craig
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 4:46 AM
Dude-- that's EXACTLY what you're doing: comparing the the deaths of fruit flies with the Holocaust. They are nothing alike, unless you think of Jews, homosexuals and Roma as sub-human.

Stop making those connections folks. They aren't there, no matter how hard you try.

The fact is, this was the act of a few pathetic individuals who have gotten so caught up in their little world that they forgot the basics of society. Namely, you don't help your cause by attempted murder. I just love how these little cowards haven't come forward-- they advocate violence so much, I'd like to see some of their medicine turned on them, quite honestly, and see what THEY think the definition of "terrorism" is, then!
by its ultimately religious
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 6:56 AM
The value one places on animals and humans and why is ultimately religious. Just like one ant hold a rational argument with someone who believed abortion clinics are mass murder you cant really argue with an animal rights person using who thinks the value of the lives of animals are the same as those of humans. One can try to come up with nonreligious arguments for humanism or caring just for intelligent species but its ultimately futile; humans may have evolved to eat small amounts of other animals but we also evolved to empathize with them (possibly so we could steal their young and domesticate them).
by Rachel
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 9:03 AM
Talk of the Bay, KUSP's soon-to-be-canceled talk show, will cover this topic and take calls this morning at 9:40. Join us at 476-2800. Long live LIVE radio.
by mehhhhh
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 10:25 AM
"If you could stand outside the gates of Auschwitz in 1942 would you be there with a sign yelling at the guards and chanting slogans or would you be shooting Nazis and trying to burn the place to the ground."

This sums you up pretty well. The question of strategy is not what you ask - you dont care how nazis die, or how to burn the camp. You only care that people try. Which doesnt necessarily mean, in the end, that nazis die or camps burn.

Moreover, there were people in 1942 who were doing the kinds of shit you only fantasize about. And they thought about it much differently than you do. I know this, because my grandfather was one of them. And its obvious to me that you are more concerned with yourself and your feelings about yourself than the task you are trying to perform.

Implicit in your thought process is an overconfidence in your own abilities, you are able to do anything you set your mind to, without limitations. This is a necessary part of your particular pathology, because it allows you to believe that you can act without compromise.

Also, implicit in your statements is the abstraction of your ideas. You are really content to think that no matter what you do, it helps. The practical results of your actions, meaningless. In other words, you release a lab bunny, it dies 2 hours later in the wild. Did you help it? Does it matter? No, it matters to you that you think you are helping.

If we look at your example, I for one, would be in agreement with you that the Nazis should be fought. So how would you go about burning down the camp? Would you burn it down if you couldnt evacuate any of the Jews inside and they all perished? What if you could evacuate some but not all?

What if you are limited? If you have no real weapons (as the animal rights movement does not seem to). Would you hold hostage and perhaps murder family members of a guard at auschwitz if you thought it might bring you his cooperation and save one Jew? Would you gut a 2 year old in front of his eyes to convince him to cooperate?

And then, what if we were dealing with reality and not hypothetical world of the internet apologist? What if you weren't certain that the shit you did would work out so perfectly, and be such a smashing success every damn time. What if you understood that "shooting nazis and burning down auschwitz" was actually a complicated proposition that required planning and taking into account the very real likelihood of failure?

What then? Would you sacrifice the life of your family to burn down a research lab? Could you kill an innocent bystander if you were detected, to stop a mission from failing? How far could you go and how sure would you have to be that what you did had the repercussion you wanted, in order to go so far?

Anyway, this is the kind of stuff people who are much braver than you dealt with, people who actually assassinated nazis at the risk of their own lives (and the lives of their families, and those they were trying to save). If you cared to learn their opinions and thoughts rather than soley as an abstraction that you use for moral obfuscation in your activism, you would find that they knew something that you didnt, that a real fight for justice is messy and requires introspection and compromises, sometimes you lose, and sometimes your actions have serious negative repercussions.
by anti-capitalist
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 10:31 AM
the so-called Center for Consumer Freedom is a corporate lobbying group that represents alcohol and fast food joints (started with tobacco $$). they fight any and all public health initiatives as "anti-choice". they are terrified of people becoming vegetarian and more health-minded. they are a crock and should not be quoted in related stories.

for all we know, they did the firebombings to further their cause (increased profits for their clients). it's well established that corporate groups will use infiltrators and spies against NGOs that work against their predatory behavior. who knows what they've done and continue to do worse than even that
by Realistik
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 10:55 AM
All the hypotheticals about the nazi concentration camp seem to miss one small set of relevant historical facts: It was the nazis themselves who outlawed animal research, which they considered to be cruel, and to be "Jewish science." Then they went on to experiment on handicapped children and prisoners of concentration camps. Meanwhile, the scientists who were firebombed by the people who have inherited the antivivisectionist legacy of 1933 both just happen to be Jewish scientists. Please think about that.
by Sara
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 11:41 AM
Someone brought up the Nazi Holocaust into this discussion. While I personally do not find the two incidents to be of equal comparison, it does bring up a question in my mind.

If you equate mass extermination of humans to animals, wouldn't you have to look at chicken ranches as a greater source of murder? After all, more chickens are killed every day in this country then lab animals. By far. And the chickens are kept in horrible conditions, living their life in misery, and terrified before they die.

You should be comparing mass killing to mass killing. Not 6 million people to a few lab mice and some fruit flies.
by .**
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 4:08 PM
This is not related to this recent incident - which as far as we know may have very little to do with the animal rights groups, as one of the targeted professors researched yeast, and the FBI is buzzing about how a similar attack on a police car last year is being associated.

Interested people in Santa Cruz should know about this incident in 1990 when a PGE power transmission line was toppled by a group calling itself Earth Night Action Group. The circumstances of this was extremely suspicious because nobody had ever used the name Earth Night Action Group before, and this disrupted a mainstream Earth First protest scheduled the next day, which was focused on unethical cutting of old growth redwoods (a fairly mainstream cause). Because this sabotage served no purpose, and because the news hubbub caused the more mainstream protest to fail, everyone was wondering who the heck did this. Other evidence strongly suggested that a real 'provocateur' or underhanded group working for the other side did this in order to bring down the legitimate community project.
by I Dont Follow
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 4:52 PM
so, assuming the analogy is valid, what more mainstream event was this supposedly designed to disrupt or discredit?
by .**
Thursday Aug 7th, 2008 8:03 PM
The next day, earth first was going to be holding an event called "Earth Night Action" on Golden Gate Bridge. This location was selected for its advantages for media coverage, and the whole objective was to get the old growth redwoods issue into the news. Holding a bunch of signs and doing mild civil disobedience like the Tibetan activists recently did during the Olympic torch run. Also, over 50% of Californians would prefer old growth redwoods to be preserved, so this was an issue where elevated media coverage to bring awareness to the public was the correct strategy.
The group that delivered press releases and then never was heard from again after toppling the power pole called themselves 'earth night action group', a clear references to the earth first demonstration planned the next day. It was very suspicious because nobody in earth first knew anything about it and they became convinced it was all a big setup.

By the way, I don't personally think that this stuff in Santa Cruz last weekend was done by a covert government agent. Also, I have a family member who worked for someone who did primate research, and experienced a home demo in Portland, so my personal bias is not towards animal rights at all. I suspect it was a young person with impulse control, who is outside of the mainstream ALF, given their choice of targeting a yeast researcher and escalating to violence. At the same time, people should still wonder who benefits from this, and know that there has been a history where likely corporate or government Cointelpro figures actually have carried out disruption. It's a slight possibility.
by repost
Saturday Aug 9th, 2008 1:40 AM
Humane Society Donates Money to “Eco-Terrorism” Witch Hunt, But Not Enough to Protect It From the Green Scare

"First, it should be noted that no animal rights group like the Animal Liberation Front has claimed responsibility. Yet the FBI has recklessly labeled this “eco-terrorism,” just like the recent Seattle arson, before the smoke had even cleared. We’ve seen plenty of instances when the government later says “oops, it wasn’t ‘eco-terrorism’ after all.” And we’ve seen other instances, like the attempted murder of Judi Bari, when the FBI framed activists. In short: reporters, activists, and the general public need to slow down, step back, and stop blindly trusting the “official” story provided by the FBI."
by behind smokescreen of medical need
Monday Aug 11th, 2008 2:27 PM
So many comments, so little time. Let's sum up the basic facts on most animal rights actions with arson and/or vandalism as a major component. Animal rights activists (ARAs) are acting out with these tactics to end the suffering of various non-human animals tested in captivity by universities for scientific research. To this date, NO human or animal was injured or killed by ANY of these ARA actions. This is a major component of the "ALF" guidelines for performing such an action, that "no living being, human or otherwise are harmed in the action." So the term violence only applies to non-living property and NOT to humans, children or others. Any accusation of children being hurt is false and misleading propaganda.

So now we can debate the ethics of home vs. laboratory arsons, or whether or not vandalism is effective at 'winning people over' to the cause of the ARAs and helps to educate the public about animal research and the consequences of said research. Does the general public now become more aware as coverage of arson is usually more noticed than coverage of simple leafletting? Does that awareness eventually become greater understanding of why these actions are happening. Is the primary goal of inflicting economic damages on animal research facilities and/or the homes of the researchers more effective than the opinions of the public?

What about the motives of the animal researchers themselves, and do these motives correlate with the motives of the corporations they ultimately work for? Does animal research really help people who are ill, or is this just a smokescreen for the real agenda of animal research as a fast track testing program for new an novel pharmacuetical products? Should the topic of "better living through nutrition and clean environment" not count for preventing human illnesses, especially when we have knowledge of specific products being carcinogens yet the EPA refuses to ban these toxic products from being used?

One example is the continued manufacture and release of pesticide endosulfan to the consumer market despite decades of knowledge that this product causes severe illness and mutations in humans. do we continue to use toxic products and simply wait for animal researchers to give us another potential cure for another illness, or do we finally say NO to the release of known toxins to the consumer market?

So we continue to release known toxins into the environment and then wait until the predictable consequences of human illness, then we snatch up some innocent animals, lock them in cages and stick them with needles until a pharma corporation can claim they have some cure for this human illness. Yeah, that's really logical behavior fitting of the smartest mammals on the Earth, EH??

This author will stick with the precautionary principle that states we shouldn't be tempting fate by engaging in potentially dangerous and cruel research on animals. The real reason for animal research is the fast track release of novelty drugs (libido enhancing, weight loss, flu symptom relief, etc..) onto the market for the benefit of pharma profits. The reason that animal rights actiivsts are seen as 'dangerous' is not because of the arson, but only because they are effective at interfering with the mega-profits of pharmaceutical corporations and exposing the myths of animal research as 'good for human health'.

Here's some background from WDDTY (What Doctors Don't Tell You) on the effects of animal research dependency on humans;

"Animal testing - Dangerous to human health

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that animal tests are dangerous to human health, and may be the reason that so many 'safety tested' drugs cause so many side effects.

Animal testing doesn't work.

Its results are often inconclusive and cannot be accurately extrapolated to humans. As a result, relying on the results of animal testing can be dangerous to human health. It is a system which is long overdue for a critical review, and yet no such review is on the horizon.

In his seminal book, the Naked Empress: The Great Medical Fraud (Switzerland: CIVIS, 1992) eminent researcher Hans Ruesch notes that approximately 15,000 new drugs are marketed every year, while some 12,000 are withdrawn. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1.5 million Americans were hospitalised in 1978 alone as a consequence of pharmaceutical drugs administered to "cure" them. A further 30 per cent of all hospitalised people suffered further damage from the therapy prescribed to them. In the 1990s, studies show that 180,000 medically induced deaths occur each year in the USA (JAMA, 1994; 23: 1851). Of course a percentage of these are due to incorrect prescription and administration of drugs, but it still begs the question: how safe are the "safety tested" drugs we use?

Although our scientists argue that there are no real alternatives, this attitude is changing. To be helpful to human beings, drugs should be tested using human tissues, cells and organs (known as in vitro cultures). Chromatography and mass spectrometry, which separate drug substances at their molecular level to identify their properties, and quantum pharmacology, using quantum mechanics to understand the molecular structure of chemicals, are also viable means of testing drugs."

In addition, the testing of products on animals promotes speedy release to markets;

"There is no doubt that there is copious evidence from the fields of vaccination, cancer, heart disease, stomach ulcers and sudden infant death to show that animal testing does not work. That more scientists and medical researchers have not cottoned on to this fact is surprising. Indeed, the debates in the medical press have been lacklustre to say the least, with pro vivisectionists relying on tradition (what was good enough for Galen is good enough for us JAMA, 1989; 262: 2716-20); heroism (millions of lives have been saved because of animal testing JAMA, 1990; 264: 2564-6); and even paranoia (animal activists are "politically shrewd" and have more money than we do, which isn't fair N Eng J Med, 1991; 324: 1640-3).

Anti vivisectionists, on the other hand, have tried to remain levelheaded in print to an extent that they fail to make their point forcefully enough (Lancet, 1994; 343: 902-5). A few, like Dr Peter Mansfield, president of Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments, speak plainly: "The pharmaceutical industry has products to sell and under the law as it stands needs animal experiments to help them do it. They say we need animal experiments for the advancement of medical science, but it is the future of their industry that really concerns them."

entire article found @;

The only thing that is good for human health is getting better exersize routines (ride bicycle, walk, etc.., this strategy also has the added benefits of reducing consumer demands on oil and thus lowering the price at the pump), eating less meats and eating healthy, locally grown foods without pesticides, and other time tested methods of preventing human diseases..

When illness and diseases do appear in humans, homeopathic and naturopathic medicines from natural plant products are often more effective at providing an actual 'cure' for humans than are the pharma products. most pharma products are actually geared to symptom relief and do very little to treat the initial source of the illness. Only we don't really live in a free market system of fair and balanced competition as the pharmaceutical corporations cannot stand any competition form the naturopaths despite pharma being heavily subsidized. This explains the origin of the "Codex Alimentarius Commission" to censor and stifle the alternative naturopathy field of medicine. Sounds like a weak case from big pharma. For this added dynamic on the pharma control and dependency on animal research, we should hear from Dr. Matthais Rath, MD;

"The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established under heavy influence of the pharmaceutical industry in 1963 following resolutions passed at the Eleventh Session of the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1961, and at the Sixteenth World Health Assembly in 1963. (More on the history of codex here) From its very beginning CAC's clear intention was to protect corporate interests in the global pharmaceutical and food markets.

To achieve this goal the CAC arbitrarily sets worldwide “food standards” for the Word Trade Organization (WTO), which small producers and developing countries find very difficult to meet. While developing countries are thereby excluded from “Free Trade” in the global market by means of often unnecessarily high standards, the pharmaceutical industry uses the CAC as a tool to outlaw all non-patentable natural therapies threatening their global market for patentable synthetic drugs, by simply declaring them illegal or “overdoses”.

The CAC’s laws against effective vitamin therapies in particular triggered worldwide resistance and led to the formation of an unprecedented health movement against the proposed ban on nutritional supplements. Since 1994 Dr. Matthias Rath has led the battle against the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its unelected members, who are often completely uneducated in nutritional science or have direct ties with the pharmaceutical industry. Since 1994 a consistently growing number of protestors, sometimes in their thousands, have demonstrated in front of the venue of CAC meetings in Berlin, Germany. The CAC still meets in Germany every November, but has had to relocate to the provincial city of Bonn, due to the growing public exposure of its activities in Berlin."

visit with Dr. Rath @;

NOTE; for his troubles at being a doctor who tells the truth, Dr. Rath has endured attempts at having his medical license revoked by the pharma-med establishment. Sounds like somebody can't handle the truth!!

by Sentinel letter
Tuesday Aug 12th, 2008 8:10 AM
Hope in our young people

I am proud to hear a Santa Cruz resident and her family is known for their accomplishments in preparation for and while performing at the Olympics.

They are competing in front of the world, their country, and Santa Cruz. Ariel Rittenhouse and her teammate, Kelci Bryant, are an example of the majority of our young people. They accept the challenges of growing up in a very troubled world and offer us the hope that our future leaders are here now. They are not waiting for an election for change to come along; they instead are the change.

The residents of Santa Cruz can be proud that one of our own is in the media for her accomplishments, facing her challenges, and not for hiding behind a mask, no spine and trying to fire bomb their fellow human being.

Jim Howes
by me
Tuesday Aug 12th, 2008 9:01 AM
Please don't distort the facts and pretend that Feldheim is doing non-invasive research. From a paper of Feldheim:

"Adult mice [postnatal day 33 (P33) or older] were anesthetized and injected in one eye with 0.1–1 µl of 10% 1,1'-dioctadecyl-3,3,3',3'-tetramethylindocarbocyanine perchlorate (DiI) (Invitrogen, Eugene, OR) in N,N-dimethyl formamide, and in the other eye with 2–3 µl of a 2 mg/ml solution of cholera toxin B–Alexa Fluor 488 (Invitrogen) in PBS using a pulled micropipette with a Picospritzer III pressure injection system"

Sounds a little more painful and invasive than "working with mouse embryos"

As for the other researcher who people are claiming works in yeast, his faculty site mentions work with "mouse cells." I have not researched anymore than this, and thus have no idea if his work is invasive or not.
by Alfholes
Tuesday Aug 12th, 2008 5:07 PM
Somebody will turn them in, and rightly so.
by .kj
Wednesday Aug 13th, 2008 2:04 PM
Yet... for some reason there have been no charges for the incident last spring (when the participants parked right in front with unconcealed license plate), and no one has been fingered here yet. Indeed, has there been any movement since last week? Anyone see any federal workers up on campus?