In the spirit of DP, I pose the following troll question---do Democrats want to see the Bush administration fail badly, even if such a failure hurts innocent people? After all, an economic/social collapse would make your next presidential campaign much easier.

My impression is that, in your heart of hearts, the answer is "yes".

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

Answers

Animal rights leader hopes disease comes to U.S.

April 2, 2001 Yahoo

By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent

NORFOLK, Virginia (Reuters) - While U.S. authorities take precautions to prevent foot- and-mouth from entering the country, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, possibly the world's most influential animal rights organisation, openly hopes the disease crosses the Atlantic.

"If that hideousness came here, it wouldn't be any more hideous for the animals -- they are all bound for a ghastly death anyway. But it would wake up consumers," said PETA co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk.

Interviewed on Friday in the office she shares with four cats, Newkirk said: "I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment."

Border officials, zoos and theme parks have been taking precautions to prevent the disease, which is raging in Britain and has spread to several other European countries, from entering the United States, which has not seen an outbreak since 1929. Last week, pigs suspected of carrying the disease on a North Carolina hog farm tested negative.

Meanwhile PETA workers report vastly increased demand for its "vegetarian starter kits" from worried meat eaters. That number would no doubt rocket higher if either foot- and-mouth or "Mad Cow" disease reached American shores.

Since its founding in 1980, PETA has emerged as a powerful force, campaigning on the principle that animals should not be eaten, worn, experimented on or used for entertainment.

The organisation, founded in Newkirk's basement in a suburb of Washington DC, now occupies several stories of a headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia. It employs 130 people, has 700,000 members, revenues of $17 million and has opened small branch offices in Britain, Germany, Italy and India.

DOGS WANDER THE WORKPLACE

The PETA building looks and feels much like any corporate headquarters except for the dozens of dogs wandering around and sitting on special mattresses. Employees are encouraged to bring their pets to work. Many also take part in civil disobedience campaigns and boast long arrest records.

For example, Kristie Phelps, who runs a campaign against circus animals, occasionally strips naked, paints her body with tiger stripes, and crouches in a cage outside the Big Top for an hour to dramatise the plight of caged circus beasts.

"Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue better than a naked woman in a cage. It gives me perspective on the lifetime of suffering these animals endure," she said.

PETA can call on a cadre of film stars, entertainers and supermodels to publicise its campaigns. Businesses, from McDonald's to L'Oreal and Gillette to General Motors to Calvin Klein -- all of which have altered some of their practices in response to PETA campaigns -- have learned not to take the organisation lightly.

Avon, Revlon, Estee Lauder and L'Oreal ended animal testing to develop cosmetics as did Gillette; Calvin Klein stopped producing fur for its clothes; General Motors ended crash tests on animals while The Gap stopped using leather from animals in India and China.

PETA's latest target is Burger King, with its 11,330 restaurants in 58 countries selling 2.6 billion hamburgers a year. PETA wants Burger King to fall into line with McDonald's, which last year, after an 11-month campaign, agreed to unannounced inspections of its slaughter houses. It said it would halt the practice of starving chickens to encourage egg production, increase the space given to battery hens and stop slicing off hens' beaks.

SLAUGHTERHOUSE SCENES

Last week, a dozen PETA supporters showed up outside a Burger King in Washington, set up a video screen on the sidewalk showing horrific slaughterhouse scenes and started handing out leaflets to passersby.

One protester, Sarah Clifton, walked into the restaurant and joined the line. When she reached the front, she sprang onto the counter and began shouting: "This restaurant is shut down for cruelty to animals. Everyone please leave." A police officer wrestled her to the ground but she continued shouting for another 20 minutes until two more officers arrived to drag her away.

No sooner was she out the door when Nick Potch jumped up and started yelling anti- meat slogans. He too was manhandled away but by the time the demonstration was done, it had tied up business for about half an hour and required six police squad cars to be summoned.

Both protesters were charged with unlawful entry and released several hours later. They face April 12 court appearances. Typically, such cases are often dismissed or end with fines, which the protesters pay out of their own pockets.

Burger King spokeswoman Kim Miller said the chain had seen around 30 such demonstrations in the past month but no direct impact on sales. She said Burger King took issues of safety and animal welfare very seriously and was forming an advisory council on animal well-being.

Newkirk said PETA chose its targets carefully and never backed away from a campaign once it was launched. "Our opponents know we never let up. They have to concede to some degree. They have to alleviate some of the misery they are causing before we back down," she said.

The organisation has its enemies. It has been accused of extremism in some of its methods and in arguing that all animal experimentation is morally wrong and could be replaced by human epidemiological studies and other techniques.

Right now, PETA is targeting the March of Dimes charity which gives a small percentage of its resources to organisations that do animal experimentation. Already, several corporate contributors to the March of Dimes have earmarked their contributions for non-animal uses.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

Innocent people have already been shit-on Lars. Have you forgotten the Election circus? Have you not been following the meltdown of Wall Street? The weekly military accidents from this cursed Commander-in- Thief?

To answer your question...course I hope Dumbo implodes something good. AntiAmerican twit that he is. Sooner the better.

Maybe a few round here will get a clue when it becomes apparent Dumbo will do zero on Gun Rights besides tough the boat in place. Maybe when a few millions more illegals are sucking your local infrastructure some may awaken to the scam afoot. Maybe when a few lose their jobs it will sink in.

Going to take a major jolt for this Fundi-Christian madness to be put back under the rock from which it came. I wish no harm on any innocents but fear the worst.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Not that your PETA crap deserves an answer, but................................................................... ......................................

PETA can go F$ck themselves.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Anyone hear how DP's Pet Rock Robo-albore is doing? Even St. Senator (Old Testament Version) seems to be keeping his "name around" with his "just give them all $300" rebate of their own money.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Maybe when a few millions more illegals are sucking your local infrastructure some may awaken to the scam afoot. Maybe when a few lose their jobs it will sink in.

This is shocking, DP. Are you a nativist Buchanonite? Are you anti-NAFTA? I lose track already. Was NAFTA Clinton's idea or Bush-pere's? I know it wasn't Nader's.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Like I posted on the other thread.....

Kinda sucks when those you place into a nice, neat little box don't seem to want to stay there, doesn't it?

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Hey Lars, guess what?

Seems awhile back the 8track died. Ya I know tragic. But not to worry, it also seems all them Uriah Heep tapes you got may just be worth something despite all this bad news.

BTW, you will also be happy to learn we finally did pull out of Nam in case you were wondering.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Lars, do you want me to go get all the hopeful wishes for the Clinton Administration to fail from Repubs? Gee, would not that hurt the little people? Open the other eye.

I don't even know who is running things now. Who decides what? Bush isn't doing it.

I'd just like to see the same story for three weeks in a row. How can anyone claim to know what the Bush WH is doing? I don't think even they know. Case in point below. Rememgber all the oaths they swore that the Aids office was going to stay? -------------------------------------------------

Despite Outcry, Bush AIDS Office Gutted Tuesday, 3 April 2001 WASHINGTON -- In early February, the Bush administration was thrown into a very public and highly embarrassing scramble over published reports that the White House intended to abolish executive level offices on AIDS and race relations.

On February 7, after a confused morning of contradictory statements following an article outlining the move in USA Today, the White House was forced to issue a statement intended to reassure the public on the Bush administration's continuing commitment to keeping the offices on AIDS and race relations open.

"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House," George W. Bush told reporters after a presentation pushing his tax cut scheme. "Make no mistake about it."

Less than one month after that embarrassing debacle, however, the Washington Post reports the only thing left of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy is a Web site directing callers to an empty office with a telephone that no one answers.

Presidential Advisory Council not sure if it exists.

The newspaper reports the 35-member Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS is not sure if it still exists. The Post says four letters seeking clarification from its chairman, Ronald Dellums, to Bush and the Health and Human Services secretary, Tommy Thompson, have so far gone unanswered.

The interdepartmental task force on AIDS has yet to meet.

"At a time when statistics show AIDS is ravishing the African- American community, the Bush administration needs to show this issue is a priority," said the Human Rights Campaign's Winnie Stachelberg in February. The response from the Bush White House, so far, has shown precisely the opposite.

Citing several sources, The Post says AIDS activists, members of Congress, foreign governments and international institutions are expressing growing unease and agitation over evidence of official and methodical disengagement on the issue of AIDS policy

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

You posed two distinctly different questions in this thread (and apparently thought they were equivalent). I'll address both.

Q1: Do the Dems "want" the country to collapse?

No. This would be irrational, in that the Democrats make up about 50% of the voting public and that is at least 25% of the general public. A collapse would fall in on them as much as on anyone else.

Q2: Do Democrats want to see the Bush administration fail badly, even if such a failure hurts innocent people?

The key word here is "fail". If the Bush administration failed to pass its proposed legislation, or were forced to concede on key issues or to compromise far in excess of what they want, that would constitute a kind of failure. There is quite a lot of room to disagree over whether such a failure would indeed hurt any "innocent people". And it would be impossible to show how something that didn't happen (passing the bills as proposed) affected anything.

If the Bush administration does indeed pass its legislation more or less intact and it proves to be disasterous, then I happen to think that it is Bush and his advisors who should bear the whole blame for that disaster. To assign blame to Democrats for a disaster they had no power to change because they "hoped" one way or the other is the equivalent of believing Democrats are witches and have cast an evil spell on Bush. You need to blame the perp, not the bystander.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Yes.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2001

Lars,

My answer would be a qualified "no." Qualified because, while the Democratic representatives in Congress would love to have the White House back, it wouldn't be worth losing their seats in Congress.

(Angry voters tend to be unpredictable.)

It's a whole lot easier just to criticize when things are bad, then take credit for the turnaround when it (almost inevitably) happens. Politicians are good at that.

Don't forget that a goodly number of Republicans gave Clinton a very hard time for not "doing more" to solve the "Y2K problem." Remember that? In that case, I have to wonder if some of them didn't secretly want severe problems (maybe not a collapse, but serious trouble), because they'd been trying for years to get the American public to turn on Clinton with little success.

(The Monica Lewinsky thing sure didn't work.[g])

Proof of the old adage that an obsession usually leads to irrational behavior. But then, we we see clear enough proof of that on this forum and at Unk's. ;)

I guess the question, then, is whether the Democrats recapture at least one house of Congress in 2002 and whether Bush gets reelected in 2004. If they don't get Congress back and Bush IS given another term, they might become irrational, too.

Only different is, Democrats have enough sense to try to pin Bush on something that the public actually cares about. Most people didn't care a flip about the Lewinsky thing.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2001