Wow...this is scary.

A video. posted on youtube.com shows how a group of anti-MCRI (Michigan civil rights initiative) protesters acted at a December 2005 Michigan board of canvassers meeting. They were upset that MCRI was ending up on the ballot so they decide to interrupt the meeting and flip over a table and scream at the individuals who were doing their job? Nuts. These people are going about carrying out their duty under the law.

Honestly, I have no problem with their position, everybody is entitled to their first amendment rights. However, when your speech becomes an aggressive act and even violent (i.e., flipping over a table) I think that is where you have left our first amendment behind and have started in on violating the laws.

I wish more people would realize that angry yelling does not convince anybody to consider your position. Tell me the merits of your position then let me decide how I feel and vote on the issue. It will be much more convincing.

Why do they think more laws are better?

So, in an unprecedented occurrence I will blog twice in one day. I was lightly glancing through relevant news article this evening when I happened upon this doozy of an article.

When will people learn that more laws does not mean more crime solved?

94 initiatives? Ridiculous!

We can legislate all we want but individuals already intent on breaking the law (murder, rape, B&E) will not be deterred by any number of gun laws. It will only hinder more law abiding citizens. I think enforcement is the key here. If we actually enforced our gun laws during criminal trials and stopped handing out get out of jail free cards we would see a dramatic decrease in violent crimes in our country. All without inconviencing law abiding citizens.

Bolton Calls the Ploy

The whole ploy to make America look bad has got me foaming at the mouth. Our security officers actually perform their job flawlessly and stop an individual who was acting suspect at the airport and now we are infringing on a diplomat's rights? I think not.

I am interested in knowing exactly how many diplomats buy tickets in this manner and how many, if stopped, call the press before calling diplomatic security services? .

Now they are going to admonish our country diplomatically in front of the world. I would rather we pull out our embassy than lose face to this ploy. It seems that our ambassador to the UN, John Bolton is the only government official to come out publicly with his views about the ploy. I admire this man. He is honest and straightforward; we need more people like him to keep the pressure on the UN.

If anything we should be honoring the fine people of the security services at the airport for not being afraid to stop someone they thought suspect. They have my thanks and they should have yours. We should not stand for this intimidation by Venezuela or any foreign government. It is an inconvience, yes, but if the diplomat had called security services it could have been resolved without a blow up by the press.

Imagine what would happen to a U.S. diplomat if they called the press prior to trying to resolve the issue with security services first, we would be grandstanding, posturing, and the world would look down upon us. Talk about a double standard.

Oh Joy...it is the Craf...I mean Art Fair

It is that time of the year again in A2. The Art Fair. They block off the streets down town, you can't get to a decent place for lunch, and the War protesters are out en masse. I am always amazed at how disruptive Art fair is to the town. We even have to be careful leaving the building because people will rush in to the air conditioned space.

Back to the war protesters...I had an interesting conversation with one Monday night. She was handing out fliers on the corner of the street on my way back to my car. They always have a "political interest" section of the art fair with booths from Planned Parenthood, Buddhists, Atheists, Democrats, and even the Nudists. Odd no John Birch society?? Anyway she shoved this flier on me with an "article" about how mass protests will stop the war. We had a conversation as follows:

Me: (rips up flier)

Protester: Why did you do that?

Me: I feel that any effort I can make to stop you from hurting our troops is worth my time. Not to mention, I didn't ask for a flier.

Protester: You are ignorant and do not understand the way the world works.

Me: What do you do for a living?

Protester: I do this. What do you do?

Me: I am a reserach biochemist. I try to contribute in a positive way to society...maybe this is why you do not understand my perspective. When you start contributing something positive to society, I will read your flier.

Knowing full well I will never have to read that flier.

More later on out pal Mayor Bloomberg and his plan to take away our guns.

Finally Scientists in Britain Smarten Up

For a long time researchers in Britain have been trying to appease animal rights terrorists. Their lives, their families lives, and their property is often threatened and damaged if they utilize animal research models. Rarely are these domestic terrorists caught and prosecuted. Often it begins with stones thrown through the window of the home, death threats, and possibly arson. These activities then escalate to assult and in some cases murder. Occasionally the terrorists gain access to laboratories or animal living quarters and release decades worth of work. The animals fare much worse outside. I would be suprised if survival was over 1% of total released animals. An Article in Reuters shows that the researchers are finally . standing up for themselves. I wish them well and hope for their safety. It is unfortunate that Britain makes it hard to defend yourself from such attacks. In the US at least some states provide individuals with the right to protect themselves.

A suggestion for the eco-terrorists: If you don't belive in medical research stay away from all drugs, sugeries, and other medical therapies. There have been virtually no medical advances in the absence of animal research. A researcher must show absolute justification before proceeding to animal research. It is a documentation intensive process and ensures that animals are treated humanely and that the impacts of the research are enough to justify the use of animals.

If they can't legislate they'll sue!

In another demonstration showing the anti's disregard for public policy, animal rights groups have sued to prevent the USDA from inspecting horse carcasses for processing. The problem is that the inspections were taking place per fee to the slaughterhouse after funding for the inspectors salaries were cut by a conservative congress that seems to bow to every liberal demand. Read more here.

The problem with this is it sets a precedent against free market. If people are willing to pay for horsemeat, there will be a producer. If the producers are willing to pay to have the meat inspected--there will be inspectors regardless if the government is footing the inspection bills. However, this attempt to prevent a lawful business from obtaining proper health inspections is a blatant disregard for the law. Congress removed funding for the inspectors but did not block payed inspections.

Lets consider the situation. These horse are treated well as livestock for a specific purpose, providing meat. Many of these horses are past their prime for the purpose for which they were bred. The alternative to slaughter is to relocate the horses to non-profit shelters? Show me the space and where the money is coming from! I suspect if the anti groups are able to prevent payed inspections that we will see a decrease in the quality of these horses lives and a decrease in living conditions coincident with increased abuse. I am sure the horses will be much happier in poor, abused living conditions. Maybe they will have to be destroyed due to a lack of money for care. Then they become a wasted resource. This is a much worse fate as we are not honoring the animal by at least utilizing it as a resource.

For those who are involved in the suit due to your homes' proximity to a slaughter house and are claiming reduced property values; I say, everywhere is going to have detracting values, yes some are worse than others, but we all have a choice. If you don't like where you live, sell your house (if at a loss it is part of the risk of investment, here in Ann arbor we are facing a market that is about to adjust down in value about 20 percent), move somewhere else. The problem is that undesirable buildings (prisons, slaughter houses, mega markets) can be built anywhere, again this is the risk of owning a home. If you aren't willing to take this risk, RENT.

As The antis continue to exaggerate

Anti-hunters and eco-terrorists will go to the extreme to vilify hunters. Recently a pseudo-news article was published claiming that hunters will cheat on their taxes.In this article the author claims that hunters use charitable donation trusts in order to reduce their taxes. Anybody can name a tax exempt charity as a beneficiary of their estate for a tax benefit. You may ask, "Why target hunters?" Well they can't vilify us with their silly rhetoric against guns or hunting, and they can't expect reasonable people to jump on their eco-terror wagon so now they champion, "hunters are stealing from the government!".

Of course they have started a petition to close the "tax-loop hole". Sounds a bit like their efforts to close the "gun show loophole" if you ask me. Additionally, they will be doing damage to many charities who receive more because people can use the donations as a tax break. This extends far beyond hunting and hunters so even if you don't hunt think about donations you make or non-profits you support. Maybe they will drive themselves out of business!

Additionally, They claim that over 40 million dollars are "stolen" from the government by hunters each year. How much damage do eco-terrorists do to businesses, research facilities, and universities that are declared as losses and translate to tax deductions. I would hazard that it is much more. In the "stolen" amount the author of the article states that specimens donated to a museum that will not be displayed should not be given tax breaks. Do people think that museums are only galleries. They are repositories for research and study. Just because they will not be on display does not mean they are useless and should not be funded by public money. A big part of ecology and conservation revolves around understanding the biology of the species.

O Canada!

So recently, the Attorney General of Ontario has proclaimed that Ontario should have the right to Ban handguns, Read about it here. The Attorney general claims that handguns in the household are unsafe. Of course in most cases as many good studies, especially by John R. Lott, have shown that handguns in the home are unsafe for criminals. Bryant contends that only the police, military, and Olympic sportsmen should have access. I feel sorry for our northern neighbors and that they for so long have had to cow to the liberals. I am hoping that the change in the Canadian government last month will change the Canadian government's view on guns of all types. Hopefully, the Canadian government will quash this lunacy.