Monday, September 29, 2008

Quote of the Week

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: ConsumerFreedom Quote of the Week


This email was sent to you by the Center for Consumer Freedom. To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add info@consumerfreedom.com to your address book.

Daily Headlines www.consumerfreedom.com
DonationsCartoonsGamesOp-edsConsumerFreedom.com
Search Search
 
September 29, 2008
 
 
Quote of the Week

Quote of the Week

It's the quote of the year, really, if you live in Kenya. Maybe the quote of a lifetime. That African nation's agriculture minister has had enough of anti-technology activists holding back Kenya's food supplies in the face of a continent-wide food crisis. And he's speaking up. On Sunday, William Ruto told Nairobi newspaper The Nation that biotech science, including the embrace of genetically modified crops,  is good for food production. And environmental activists who oppose it are either misinformed or selfish:

"There are no miracles. If we have to produce more, we must embrace the technology. As a country, we have the option of adopting it to fight hunger or rejecting it and perishing." 

He's right. Five million Kenyans are facing food shortages this year. And at least 80,000 of them face a starvation threat serious enough to warrant an emergency intervention from the United Nations. Yet green scare groups (most notably Friends of the Earth, see here and here for examples) continue to promote the myth that helping starving Africans through better science remains an elusive pipe dream. 

Misinformed? Selfish? It doesn't much matter which. While activists bicker over hypothetical dangers, real people keep on starving.


Breaking News

Here's a sampling of other stories that have caught our interest today. To see a one-week archive of these items, click here.


Past Headlines
  ObesityMyths.com

Copyright © 2008 Center for Consumer Freedom. All Rights Reserved.
P.O. Box 34557 | Washington, DC 20043 | Tel: 202-463-7112 | info@consumerfreedom.com
You're receiving this Email because you are subscribed to the Center for Consumer Freedom's daily news list. If you want to change your email preferences, click here. If you want to be removed from our news list, click here. Or you can send a brief response to: info@consumerfreedom.com.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Group home page: http://groups.google.com/group/ConsumerFreedom
Unsubscription: ConsumerFreedom-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Disclaimer: Though we are against genuine cruelty, including cruelty to humans, the position of this list does not endorse any sponsored animal rights/welfare advertising which may appear on the group page.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Sunday, September 28, 2008

use MY language

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 3:02 PM
Subject: dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new use MY language

"Speak MY language if you care. Use MY words and only MINE are
acceptable.  If you don't use MY words you are a mean and uncaring.
individual." 
 
That is the idea that has been used by animal extremists
for several years.  The idea has been very successful. 

Obama is using the exact same idea. The term "middle class" is his
current buzz word that MUST be used.  If you don't use "middle class"
then you don't care about the average American.  You can't use the
word "people" or "citizen" or any other word.  A recent Obama
commercial was critical of McCain because he refused to use the word
"middle class".  Obama claimed that because McCain didn't use that
exact word then he was bad and uncaring.  Literally everything that is
done in the government concerns "the people" and are laws concerning
our "citizens", but Obama insists that McCain does not care about the
citizens of this country because he refuses to use the exact term
"middle class". 

He must've taken a page from the Peta handbook on how to coerce people into an agenda.
------------------------------------

Mandatory spay and neuter means pets must grow old and die without replacements. No more babies, no more pets in our homes.  Stop it before it's nationwide. Sterile animals cannot replenish themselves. It's the "facts" of life.Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

HSUS Lies To Congress On PUPS Legislation

 
----- Original Message -----
From: John Yates
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:13 PM
Subject: dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new HSUS Lies To Congress On PUPS Legislation

HSUS Lies To Congress, Public
About New `PUPS' Legislation
Would Call Out Feds On Many Non-Breeding Kennels
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

WASHINGTON, DC - The Humane Society of the United States is pushing
new federal legislation that the radical animal rights group claims
is aimed at stopping large dog breeding kennels that skirt the law.
According to HSUS, the legislation targets only kennels that sell
more than 50 puppies a year. The bill's sponsors, Senator Richard
Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), repeat those claims.
They are lying through their teeth, an American Sporting Dog
Alliance analysis of the actual legislation shows. In fact, the
legislation targets almost every boarding, day care, training and
handling kennel in America, along with many hunt clubs and hunting
plantations. It also impacts many serious hobbyists, who have a lot
of dogs even though they only raise a couple of litters of puppies a
year, our analysis shows
Rep. Farr is the prime sponsor of H.R. 6949, and Sen. Durbin is the
sponsor of its companion bill in the Senate, S. 3519. The formal
name of this legislation is the "Puppy Uniform Protection Statute,"
or "PUPS." It also has been nicknamed "Baby's Bill," after a "rescued"
dog from a commercial kennel that is touring the country with its
owner, Chicagoan Jana Kohl. Kohl is on an HSUS-sponsored campaign
against "puppy mills," and has visited several states. Her recent
book includes a photo of presidential candidate *Barrack Obama*, and
his reported commitment to clamp down on "puppy mills."
The legislation is an amendment to the federal Animal Welfare Act,
which requires federal licensure of commercial kennels
(called "dealers") who sell puppies wholesale to brokers or pet
stores. This law does not regulate people who sell dogs and puppies
directly to the consumer.
HSUS calls this a "loophole," and has been pushing for many years to
include kennels that sell directly to the buyer. Previous attempts,
such as the Pet Animal Welfare Act and Sen. Durbin's attempted
amendment to the 2008 Farm Bill, have failed.
The PUPS legislation is the latest attempt by HSUS.
Here is how HSUS describes the legislation: "The Humane Society of
the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund commend
federal lawmakers for introducing bills that will crack down on
abusive "puppy mills" in the United States - where breeding dogs are
often stacked in wire cages for years to produce litter after
litter. The legislation will close a loophole in the Animal Welfare
Act that currently allows large, commercial breeders who sell
puppies online and directly to the public to escape licensing and
regulation."
Here is the HSUS description of who will be affected: "All dog
breeders who sell more than 50 puppies per year directly to the
public will be federally licensed and inspected.The bill will not
affect small breeders and hobby breeders who sell fewer than 50 dogs
per year directly to the public, but is crafted to cover only the
largest commercial breeding facilities."

Press releases by Sen. Durbin, Rep. Farr and other members of
Congress echo those claims.

Here is what the legislation actually says, in sections defining a
dealer and who is exempt from licensure as a dealer.

A person or kennel owner who "does not breed or raise more than 50
dogs for use as pets during any one-year period" and who sells dogs
or puppies "directly to the public for use as a pet" is exempt from
licensure and regulation as a dealer. Any dog is defined by the Act
as a pet, regardless of its use or purpose. Thus, a person who meets
that definition does not require a federal license.

The words "breed or raise" are an obvious and deliberate attempt to
snare many kennel and dog owners in federal regulations, including
many kennels that do not breed at all. The language is very
ambiguous and could be interpreted to include virtually anyone who
has a lot of dogs.

The term "raise" is not defined in the legislation, but is generally
interpreted to mean a person who keeps, cares for, houses or owns a
dog or dogs.

Most professional trainers and handlers of field trial, show,
obedience or performance dogs would have more than 50 dogs in their
kennels over the course of a year. In fact, many trainers and
handlers who employ helpers would have more than 50 dogs at any
given time, and most do not breed at all.

A boarding kennel, dog daycare service, hound hunt club, hunting
plantation or circus could be included under a definition that
they "raise" more than 50 dogs per year. Even many private field
trialers and show dog people would have more than 50 dogs a year in
their kennels, as they often keep most of the puppies they produce
to evaluate. For field trial dogs, for example, it often takes two
or three years of working with a young dog to determine if it is
worthy to use for competition or breeding.

A favorite tactic of HSUS is to deliberately use ambiguity in model
legislation in order to entrap as many kennels and dogs in the law
as possible, going far beyond the stated purpose. If HSUS and its
elected cronies had wanted to be honest, the legislation simply
would say that it excludes anyone who sells fewer than 50 puppies a
year.

It is obvious that truth is not their highest priority.
The HSUS propaganda mill for this legislation continues to attack
people who use the Internet to sell dogs or puppies. It attempts to
link Internet sales with sick puppies and shoddy "puppy mills."
In fact, almost all of America's finest kennels in every breed have
a presence on the Internet. Most have websites, and many run online
advertisements to sell individual dogs and litters of puppies.
If anything, a good case could be made that it is almost impossible
to buy a high quality puppy from a kennel that does not make use of
the Internet. The Internet simply is a reality of modern life, and a
reported 80-percent of American households use it.
This smear campaign is simply another attempt by HSUS to tar dog
breeders with the broadest possible brush. At best, it shows
complete ignorance of the real world of dogs. At worst, it shows a
vicious attempt to defame honest and conscientious people who raise
dogs.
HSUS is not an animal welfare organization. It has nothing to do
with local humane societies. Instead, it is a political action and
lobbying arm of the radical animal rights movement that continually
pushes for tighter restrictions on animal ownership, with each piece
of legislation making a step toward its ultimate goal, which is the
total elimination of animal ownership in America.
Another section of the legislation requires all dogs kept in
federally licensed kennels an hour of exercise a day, divided into
at least two separate periods. Dogs would be removed from their
primary enclosures and allowed to walk for these exercise periods.
The final section of the legislation specifically allows states to
adopt more stringent standards.
While a member of the California Assembly, Farr also authored
legislation to severely regulate dog breeding.
Co-sponsors of PUPS in the Senate are Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA],
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO], and Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]. House co-
sponsors are Reps. Judy Biggert (IL), Lois Capps (CA), Terry Everett
(AL), Barney Frank (MA), Elton Gallegly (CA), Jim Gerlach (PA),
Patrick Kennedy (RI), Mark Steven Kirk (IL), Daniel Lipinski (IL),
Betty McCollum (MN), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), James McGovern (MA),
Dennis Moore (KS), James Moran (VA), Patrick J. Murphy (PA), Jerrold
Nadler (NY) and Janice Schakowsky (IL).
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all dog and kennel
owners to immediately contact their congressman and senator and ask
them to vigorously oppose this legislation.
Here is a link for contact information for senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
Here is a link to contact information for the House of
Representatives: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for
hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as
legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement
working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the
traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its
rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we
can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly essential to the
success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our
members, and maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
asda@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are
found at the bottom left of each page.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS




------------------------------------

Mandatory spay and neuter means pets must grow old and die without replacements. No more babies, no more pets in our homes.  Stop it before it's nationwide. Sterile animals cannot replenish themselves. It's the "facts" of life.Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Junk Science: The Food Cop Pick-Me-Up

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:36 PM
Subject: ConsumerFreedom Junk Science: The Food Cop Pick-Me-Up


This email was sent to you by the Center for Consumer Freedom. To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add info@consumerfreedom.com to your address book.

Daily Headlines www.consumerfreedom.com
DonationsCartoonsGamesOp-edsConsumerFreedom.com
Search Search
 
Food Police September 24, 2008
 
 
Junk Science: The Food Cop Pick-Me-Up

Junk Science: The Food Cop Pick-Me-Up

Whenever strange headlines start popping up about java junkies,  coffee-induced mental disorders, or why caffeine is the new drug of choice, chances are that Dr. Roland Griffiths has released a new "study." Over the years, Griffiths has done wonders for food cop campaigns, trumpeting his theories about soda addiction in newspapers across the country. Now the Center for Science in the Public Interest and friends have a new liquid villain: energy drinks. And – what a coincidence – Griffiths has published a new headline-grabbing study! Can you guess what his beverage of choice was this time around?

Like his 2004 study, Griffiths' latest anti-caffeine research is a "meta-study," or study of studies. But Griffiths didn't earn his "expert" status on secondary research. And a little background on his 1990s work sheds some helpful perspective.

As we pointed out several years ago, Griffiths' first anti-caffeine study examined a total of seven people -- himself and six colleagues. A few years later, at the height of the anti-tobacco campaign, he stepped into the public spotlight with an outrageous comparison between caffeine and nicotine, announcing in a press release:

"The marketing parallels between nicotine and caffeine are pretty stunning. Both are psychoactive drugs."

The National Institute of Drug Abuse, which funded that particular study, immediately criticized Griffiths for drawing his sweeping conclusions from a mere 27 subjects. Alan Leshner, the institute's director, said simply: "I don't agree with the conclusion that caffeine should be lumped with nicotine."

It may have been flawed, but Griffiths' nicotine comparison was certainly effective. And for his latest anti-caffeine study, the doctor has found a handy replacement for the 1990s version: "caffeine intoxication."  Says Griffiths about the lack of skull-and-crossbones on energy drinks:

It's like drinking a beverage and not knowing, not being able to taste, whether it's straight vodka you just drank or beer.

Setting aside the fact that there's nothing wrong with the responsible consumption of vodka or beer, does this change in terminology have anything to do with a recent food cop crusade against caffeine-infused adult beverages? Who knows. But when it comes to caffeine and health, we'll stick with the science on this one.


Breaking News

Here's a sampling of other stories that have caught our interest today. To see a one-week archive of these items, click here.


Past Headlines
  Cartoons

Copyright © 2008 Center for Consumer Freedom. All Rights Reserved.
P.O. Box 34557 | Washington, DC 20043 | Tel: 202-463-7112 | info@consumerfreedom.com
You're receiving this Email because you are subscribed to the Center for Consumer Freedom's daily news list. If you want to change your email preferences, click here. If you want to be removed from our news list, click here. Or you can send a brief response to: info@consumerfreedom.com.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Group home page: http://groups.google.com/group/ConsumerFreedom
Unsubscription: ConsumerFreedom-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Disclaimer: Though we are against genuine cruelty, including cruelty to humans, the position of this list does not endorse any sponsored animal rights/welfare advertising which may appear on the group page.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Activist Delusions, Stranger Than Fiction

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:57 PM
Subject: ConsumerFreedom Activist Delusions, Stranger Than Fiction


This email was sent to you by the Center for Consumer Freedom. To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add info@consumerfreedom.com to your address book.

Daily Headlines www.consumerfreedom.com
DonationsCartoonsGamesOp-edsConsumerFreedom.com
Search Search
 
Biotechnology September 23, 2008
 
 
Activist Delusions, Stranger Than Fiction

Activist Delusions, Stranger Than Fiction

We often joke that some activists seem out of touch with reality – from another planet, even. Why would anyone fight for the lives of rodents over people? Who on Earth would want to move technology backward? But every now and then, we find ourselves really wondering if some of these campaigners are one chair short of a picnic. The latest news from the animal rights freakosphere is the resurrection of this gem of a PETA conspiracy theory which claims that animals are working together to take revenge against humans. (Okaaay.)

But there are even stranger activist delusions to worry about. Like the movement against modern advancements in agriculture, particularly genetically modified (GM) crops. In England, Soil Association director Patrick Holden brings us the latest in anti-technology activism:

There is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, reduce pesticide use or bring any public benefits to society. And there is a growing body of evidence there could be health risks.

Where does Holden get this stuff? Was all the news about breakthroughs in yield-increasing, extra-nutritious, and potentially life-saving GM crops a figment of our imaginations? And last time we checked, the "growing body of evidence" says there are no health risks associated with GM foods.

It's as if anti-biotechnology activists are united in a scientific state of denial about, well, science. Holden's comments bear a striking resemblance to the Prince Charles' hysteric rant a few weeks ago. Yesterday, British farming minister Lord Rooker weighed in on the madness and offered his own assessment:

One thing I will not accept is the arguments and the slogans when there isn't any evidence. They are on a messianic mission. It is almost a religion where there isn't any science base to it.

Rooker's rhetoric may be a little harsh, but it's actually not too far off what some activists have openly admitted. As Lord Peter Melchett of the Soil Association put it, "Science doesn't tell us the answers so some of it we have to go on feelings."


Breaking News

Here's a sampling of other stories that have caught our interest today. To see a one-week archive of these items, click here.


Past Headlines
  ObesityMyths.com

Copyright © 2008 Center for Consumer Freedom. All Rights Reserved.
P.O. Box 34557 | Washington, DC 20043 | Tel: 202-463-7112 | info@consumerfreedom.com
You're receiving this Email because you are subscribed to the Center for Consumer Freedom's daily news list. If you want to change your email preferences, click here. If you want to be removed from our news list, click here. Or you can send a brief response to: info@consumerfreedom.com.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Group home page: http://groups.google.com/group/ConsumerFreedom
Unsubscription: ConsumerFreedom-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Disclaimer: Though we are against genuine cruelty, including cruelty to humans, the position of this list does not endorse any sponsored animal rights/welfare advertising which may appear on the group page.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---