Animal Rights = Human Loathing

I've mentioned this on numerous occasions. "Animal rights" activists are really not motivated by love of animals.  They really, at heart, are all about loathing humans. Case in point: a self-styled group of "animal rights" activists in Britain are bragging about having poisoned tubes of antiseptics in stores - in a stated effort to put human children into the hospital.

Thousands of tubes and bottles of Savlon have been taken off shelves after animal rights activists claimed to have poisoned them.

High street shops, including Boots and Superdrug, acted after a hardline group claimed to have tampered with more than 250 items containing the antiseptic.

The Animal Rights Militia did not say how they had been damaged but it recently claimed to have injected bleach into products in France.

Tesco said it had temporarily withdrawn Savlon and would be working closely with police before it was put back on sale.

The extremists said they had also targeted "other well-known stores" as part of a continuing campaign against the animal testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences.

An internet message said they chose Savlon because its Swiss-based manufacturer, Novartis, is believed to be among the clients of HLS.

The message warned: "We don't want to kill living beings but the side-effects and the inevitable hospital stay will give people an idea of what Novartis pays for inside Huntingdon Life Sciences."

The antiseptic is primarily used on children, of course. So these brave fighters for animal rights have no qualms whatsoever about sending kids to the hospital. Very nice. Right in line with another school of thought about experimentation. And I use that particular reference advisedly. Because there is not one whit of difference.

Show me a rabbit or a rat or a mouse that has composed this or done this and we can have an interesting discussion. Especially in the case of a product such as this antiseptic cream, the testing involved - even if done to a rabbit or a rat - is to ensure no adverse skin reactions on humans. It is not wanton cruelty toward human children.

The Animal Rights Militia have no such moral constraints. And zero moral high ground to stand on.

Dirty Money

I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
Money it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away
(Roger Waters, Money)

Rich posted earlier about the increasingly dirty little - or not so little - secret that has been unfolding about some dirty money that has been magically appearing in the campaign funds of Democrats. Money raised by a fugitive felon with an outstanding arrest warrant against him. A warrant that, when executed, carries a mandatory $2 million dollar bail with it. Well, the light shining on this little fiasco has caused a lot - a real lot - of Democrats to scramble like hell to give the dirty money away as fast as they can.

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will give to charity the $23,000 in donations she has received from a fundraiser who is wanted in California for failing to appear for sentencing on a 1991 grand theft charge.

The decision came Wednesday as other Democrats began distancing themselves from Norman Hsu, whose legal encounters and links to other Democratic donors have drawn public scrutiny in the past two days.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., also planned to turn over Hsu contributions to his 2004 presidential campaign to charity. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Al Franken, a Senate candidate in Minnesota, Reps. Michael Honda and Doris Matsui of California and Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania said they would divest their campaigns of Hsu's donations as well.

Hsu is a fundraiser for Clinton and is described as a devoted fan of the presidential candidate and New York senator. He had planned to co-host a money event for Clinton on Sept. 30. In a statement Wednesday, Hsu said he believed he had resolved his legal issues, but said he would halt his work raising political money.

"I would not consciously subject any of the candidates and causes in which I believe to any harm through my actions," he said. "Therefore, until this matter is resolved, I intend to refrain from all fundraising activities on behalf of all candidates and causes."…….

………In 1991, Hsu pleaded no contest to a single felony count of grand theft but failed to appear in court for sentencing, according to Ronald Smetana, a California deputy attorney general who prosecuted the case.

Smetana said there is an outstanding warrant for Hsu's arrest. A clerk at the San Mateo County courthouse where Hsu was prosecuted said the warrant was issued in 1992 and orders were for $2 million bail for Hsu if he were arrested.

Smetana said Hsu collected about $1 million from investors by falsely claiming he had a contract to import latex gloves. Smetana said he planned to ask a judge to sentence Hsu to prison.

"We would obviously like Mr. Hsu to return and face justice," said Smetana, who said he had assumed Hsu, a Hong Kong native, had fled the country.

This should be making people wonder about the ultimate source of these funds that are enriching Democratic candidates. And I frankly do not care what your party affiliation is - you should be worried that there is a foreign connection to any campaign funds for any candidate for any office. Period. If you are not, you are a hopeless ideologue. Or an apologist. Or worse.

Political corruption - and the need to stomp on it - is not a partisan issue. It is a real threat to this nation. Senator Craig's behavior is reprehensible (and why hasn't he resigned - do so at once), but it is a sideshow compared to this level of sleaze and corruption. There is a lot of very dirty money in play - and voters should not have to compete with dirty money for attention from their elected representatives.

I'd like to see a movement to require all political groups to divulge the source of every, single cent of funding they get. I think every American voter needs to see who is paying for ads and advocacy, across the board.

UPDATE: Others: Baldilocks, Jammie Wearing Fool, Captain's Quarters, California Yankee, Wake up America, Gateway Pundit, A Blog For All, Hot Air, Don Surber,  Riehl World View, Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, The Influence Peddler, The Anchoress,

No Evidence

NASA released its long-awaited report on their investigation into anonymous allegations that astronauts had flown while drunk. Investigators were unable to find any evidence that such incidents had happened.

The review released Wednesday could not verify two drinking allegations described by an independent panel last month, and Griffin said they just didn't happen. The report did acknowledge the availability of alcohol in crew quarters, noting that non-flying astronauts made booze-buying runs for their quarantined colleagues.

The 45-page report by NASA safety chief Bryan O'Connor, a former astronaut and shuttle accident investigator, was initiated after the July report on astronaut health by eight medical experts.

"I was unable to verify any case in which an astronaut spaceflight crewmember was impaired on launch day" or any case where a manager disregarded warnings from another NASA employee that an astronaut not fly, said O'Connor's report.

However, O'Connor said NASA doctors should play a stronger "oversight" role on launch day, accompanying astronauts as they suit up for launch. O'Connor also recommended that excessive drinking be added to NASA's list of risky activities forbidden for astronauts in the year before launch, along with motorcycle racing, parachuting and firefighting.

That is not to say that there is not some drinking - but it appears to be reasonable.

The safety chief toured crew quarters at space centers in both Houston and Cape Canaveral, Fla., as the astronauts were in quarantine days before launch of the shuttle Endeavour earlier this month.

"I saw one half-empty bottle of tequila in one of the cupboards," O'Connor wrote. He also said beer and wine are available from non-flying astronauts making booze runs.

Still, beer and wine consumption now seems less than what was reported in the 1980s and early 1990s, O'Connor reported. It's usually moderate amounts of wine or beer at dinner, during off-duty times, and a far higher percentage of current astronauts are teetotalers these days, he wrote.

He also noted that "the lack of privacy on launch day makes it nearly impossible to hide alcohol use or alcohol-induced impairment."

"There are reasonable safeguards in place to prevent an impaired crew member from ever boarding a spacecraft," O'Connor said at the news conference.

The media screeched about the initial (anonymous) reports and are being pretty low-key about the findings of the official inquiry. Isn't it interesting how the media gets all stiff-necked about certain behaviors if it can be used as a club against a perceived hero (or a political opponent) but dismiss or downplay similar reports if someone they like is involved? It is, frankly, ridiculous that this huge puritanical streak appears in reporting from a media that increasingly writes either approvingly or sympathetically about some really outrageous behaviors.

Cutting Edge Medicine

A German court has just awarded a man there €3,000 in damages. It seems doctors lost the top of his skull.

Doctors removed the top of the man's head and put it in cold storage while they operated on his brain, the court in the western city of Koblenz said Tuesday.

Because the refrigerator was defective, the section of skull was not kept cool enough and could not be reattached. Doctors replaced the bone with a plastic prosthesis.

The man sued, arguing that the plastic noggin caused him headaches and made him susceptible to the cold. The court, however, disagreed.

Following consultations with experts, the court found that the operation had caused the man's discomfort, not the loss of the top of his skull.

Compensation of 3,000 euros was "appropriate and sufficient," it said.

"The experts consulted by the court concluded the new skull roof was better than the original," a court spokesman said.

Doctors, feeling that they have been vindicated, plan to begin installing convertible skull roofs next year.

Systematic Collapse

For a long time, the presidential primary schedules were pretty well rigidly controlled. Did they make sense? Maybe not, but they were predictable and yet also, by nature of the oddity of having Iowa and New Hampshire go first, capable of generating real surprises. A good showing in those states could suddenly elevate an obscure, underfunded candidate and turn the entire primary season on its ear.

Unfortunately, that system is coming apart at the seams as more and more states are trying to be first. This mad rush is going to make the entire system unworkable and will have the net effect of taking away surprise wins - and some good candidates - and will end up making the best financed candidate the winner - every time.  The latest in the moron parade: Wyoming.

In another sign the presidential selection process may be headed for 2007, Wyoming Republicans voted to move their conventions to Jan. 5, leapfrogging Iowa and New Hampshire.

"We're first in the nation," State party County Convention Coordinator Tom Sansonetti told the AP. "At least for the next couple, three weeks until New Hampshire and Iowa move, which I expect they will."

The entire primary system is about to collapse at this rate. It will be a free-for-all unless the parties can get the states back under control. The only way they can do that is to refuse to seat delegates from non-complying states at the convention. The Democrats have done so with Florida. It's past time for the Republicans to make - and carry through with - the same threat.

What I Did On My Summer Vacation

Some photos:

Point Loma Lighthouse, San Diego

Spiral Staircase, Point Loma Lighthouse

Mount Soledad Monument

I'll post a bit more about this trip later. I have more pictures to edit and a pretty neat story about the visit to Mount Soledad.

Whatever You Do, Don’t Put Two And Two Together

As I've been watching the tribulations of one Norman Hsu escalate from curious to criminal, it has been remarkable to see the value of the dollar rise, at least in the eyes of your average liberal blogger.  Just last week I was arguing with folks who claimed there was no way someone living in California and making $60,000 a year could afford health insurance.  Impossible.  I was a fool to suggest otherwise.

This week I learn that someone living in California making $60,000 a year can contribute $250,000 to Democratic candidates over a three year period, and there is nothing to see here.  In fact, we are told, it is a perfectly ordinary expenditure.

It's is amazing the changes this week wrought.  Last week, $60,000 a year meant you should be put on public assistance, this week $60,000 a year means we can expect folks to have the odd quarter million dollars lying around to donate to Democratic causes.

Uh, yeah.