Friday, January 29, 2010

Someone Pushes Some Emotional Buttons

And then it becomes verboten to say bad things about the death of Daniel Shaull, who set himself on fire and then tried to use his flaming body to set fire to a business, Nicholas Ungar Furs.

Someone actually asked me to "prove it" about, I guess, a statement that I made that a lot of people could have died or that he intended to catch the business on fire when he attempted to run inside, or maybe I was supposed to prove that he attempted to go through a locked door. I don't know why.

Fascinating is how many newspapers shut down the comments on this case. What, does not every terrorist have family? The people who own the businesses that the animal rights activists destroy, don't they have family? What about the people who might have been seriously injured or died in that attack?

Victoria Taft says that the demonstrators egged Shaull on to do this. I would like to see more evidence but I'm not skeptical. If he was not "political" and not "religious" like his father says, how did it occur to him to do this? Someone had to put him up to it. I think that a very careful investigation needs to be made here. A local businessman said that Shaull had protested at the store "regularly" which implies having been in Portland more than the five days that his father claimed. There should also be some witnesses who saw who egged him on and who provided the gasoline and matches.

If you read "Free the Animals!" you can learn that for over thirty years there have been training camps for animal rights terrorists. They learn to form terrorist cells and conduct disciplined attacks against targeted installations like mink farms, a Bureau of Land Management horse barn, slaughterhouses (they burned two slaughterhouses that processed horses) and medical researchers. They demonize their targets, often lying, then go after them with fire, vandalism, and animal releases that often result in dead animals. Their more respectable fronts include by now almost countless "SPCAs" and "humane societies" that prey on anyone who has a breeding or rescue and lie about them to get them into trouble.

Are the legislators who pass laws that are pushed by the animal rights activists any better than the activists themselves? When they passed the laws against exotic animals they were serving the same animal rights terrorists. When they passed the "puppy mill" bills they were doing the same thing. I would guess that about 95 percent of Americans are not sympathetic animal rights terrorists and are not being served by what amounts to morality laws that come from extremists who would bait a man into killing himself to protest against animal use. We have to understand that any time that we support part of the animal rights agenda by "regulating" animal use the way that they want, we strengthen their entire agenda: No meat, no fur, no leather, no pets, no nothing.

Unfortunately some major newspapers seem to have clamped down on news and opinions about this, but the fact is that we have to get totally sick of this sometime. Why not when someone dies doing the same thing that has been so destructive to everyone in the animal businesses? I don't know that Daniel Shaull was entirely an innocent. He did in fact set himself on fire and try to burn down a business, like a suicide bomber, and he had enough of his faculties to travel around the U.S. on a bus, find employment as a "youth counselor" at least until they decided his screws were too loose, then find this store in a strange city.

I would have to say that someone might get burned for not cooperating with the AR terrorists. It looks like if you do cooperate with them you will, sooner or later, get burned a lot worse.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

So a Terrorist Runs Into a Locked Door... or

Daniel Shaull left Dodge City for Oregon five days ago. He somehow had the money to take a bus from Dodge City, Kansas to Portland, Oregon, after he had called his family for assistance because he was broke. He attacked a very specific store that had been the site of animal rights demonstrations before. He set himself on fire and would have set the store on fire had he not run into a locked door. Mentally ill or not, there is both purposeful behavior which requires a good amount of mental effort and the possibility of a third party providing him with the money and the address to go to. At the end he was a suicide (fire) bomber, the first one I've heard of in the United States.

It is distasteful to attack the mentally ill dead, but the fact is that he tried to set someone's store on fire. This is a heinous crime without counting the number of firefighters who would have been put at risk. I remember when a firefighter died in Omaha because an acoustical ceiling collapsed from the weight of the water that had been poured into the building, crushing him to death. Like I have to explain to anyone that firefighters risk death every time that they put out a fire.

Terrorist acts deserve contempt and ridicule. It's politically correct to withhold some of that from a person who committed such an act when he seems to be mentally compromised, but he attempted a terrorist act. He targeted a store that was 1800 miles from where he had been living on the streets, and rode a bus those 1800 miles (plus all the transfers and roaming around). How did he even find the place?

The article doesn't say what kind of mental problems the man had.

If a somewhat mentally ill person robs a convenience store at gunpoint I have no sympathy for him if someone pots him on the spot. Daniel Shaull had the mental faculties to call for money, collect it from wherever (if you've done it you know that this task requires mental faculties), and conduct himself unaided from Dodge City, Kansas to Portland, Oregon. He was probably sane enough to assist in his own defense.

My conclusion is that this was a terrorist act conducted by a person who was sane enough to be held responsible for his own actions. It's a tragedy for his family, yes, but he did commit a terrorist act. He was as able as any of us to tell right from wrong.

Also, many citizens have suffered arson attacks, thefts, property destruction, deaths of their animals, and death threats against humans. Being politically correct in this case and "making allowances" or "having sympathy for the family" dodges the question of just how much contempt to have for a domestic terrorist. We're all sick of it. I am really disgusted with the idea that I might be denied a forum to express my contempt for these acts. The one terrorist who acts on behalf of the animal rights groups, we should be nice to because he's dead and mentally ill. No sir, not this time.

The best weapon against terror attacks is utter and complete contempt of the attack, the attacker, and particularly the ideas and organizations behind the attacks. I have mentioned before, also, that the terrorists just get worse when they get anything. In spite of the misdirection I'm pretty sure that the same people who got the bad laws passed in Oregon are somehow behind this.

Daniel Shaull is outside the pale, totally undeserving of sympathy, and yes it's funny that after all that effort, after all of the windup, our would-be suicide (fire)bomber runs into a locked door. The act deserves no more respect than that. I can't believe that anyone's heart bleeds for him.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Half-assed Support

Support groups just aren't what they used to be. I suppose that every new social movement, revolutionary or reactionary, thinks that it can reinvent the rules.

The first rule of a support group is that you don't point fingers at each other and make accusations. Maybe it being the first rule is why it is the first rule that is always broken. It's sort of like thinking that your car doesn't need fuel or energy to get you where you are going. At least with a car there is a visible difference between going somewhere and going nowhere.

Some have an arbitrary notion of what constitutes "responsibility" coupled with the idea that a person shouldn't be part of the group if they are not "responsible." One or two who are reading this know which argument inspired this blog entry. It is predictable that someone in the crowd is going to try to attain dominance using this arbitrary notion.

Now we have people who oppose ownership rights and use the idea of human safety in bad faith. A lot of these people do not care if we humans live or die and would launch lethal viruses if they were sure that they were immune. The environmental movement and the humane movement have become bent on the destruction of at least part of the human race and a lot of them want it all gone, all of our technology, all of us, everything, and they really mean it. The leaders just want to be billionaires. They are the ones who shout "safety!" when someone wants a tiger.

A lot of people think that they are for ownership rights but they carry the same message to legislatures: Do something about people who keep tigers in backyards and apartments. Do something about irresponsible people who let their pet tigers touch other humans. Do something about people who keep dangerous pets. And by the way, let us have the right to own tigers and sell photos of people handling tiger cubs.

It's no wonder if legislators don't know who we are. Even if the owner of a menagerie or zoo is not AR, they believe that a monopoly on the business in their area could increase sales. I guess it doesn't matter much to them that the people who they need most to help them actually run the business are the ones who are least likely to be tolerant of abuse. Those who are still attracted to working near tigers when they can't touch them, well, what do you think you're going to get? People who sneak touches and who are eventually just going to jump in the cage with an animal that isn't being handled. Those who are a little less obsessive and think it through stay away from the menagerie that won't allow touching. Smarter people, saner people, won't go there. You also have people who don't give two pennies about the animal and it's just a job for them. If I had to work in a no-contact facility and couldn't wash dishes or haul trash instead I'd rather just not give a crap.

People who say that they love animals and say don't touch them can't be entirely sane unless they are saying that for personal gain. At least when they do it for gain it makes some kind of sense.

It's half-ass support when they want to stop a ban law that will adversely affect their own businesses but they want that same law to stop everyone who they think of as "irresponsible." There is little worse than this AR-lite kind of business because AR-lite is the major source of credibility for the animal rights activists. It's how their ideas get into the mainstream. It is also trying to stop a train by pushing the same direction that your opponents are pushing.

It gets where I want to tell them to shove their business up, well, half their asses.