> Norma Bennett Woolf wrote:
> > Germany voted to link animal rights tot he rights of humans. CNN has the > > story and a poll at > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/17/germany.animals/index.html.
> > Norma
> > Norma Bennett Woolf, editor, NAIA News
Juliet
> Yikes!
> The vote is really close, with only a slim margin of people voting that
> Germany has gone too far. Must be a lot of Petaphiles out there voting
> more than once.
wakanska
CNN polls have been rigged before, in my opinion. I followed on of them very
closely awhile back, and I (being right on the west coast PST zone) waited
up till midnight, hitting that button over and over and over. The voting
REALLY slowed down at that late hour, so I could actually see the difference
in my "voting" (LOL.. anyone can do this and do, I'm sure!). I'd run up the
numbers, then back off and do nothing and watch the activity go down to
almost zero.. Then I'd start up again, voting like mad, and I'd see a sudden
flurry of "votes" coming in. Well, either there was someone on another
keyboard waiting and watching for the vote to run up against their side, and
matching it stroke for stroke, or the computer program at CNN was set to
make two votes against every vote that I made. I was able to see this
correlation, two for one. In other words, every time I "voted", I was taking
one step forward and two steps back. While the results did not show an
overall 1-2 vote, it probably started out with a more realistic number and
was reset at some point to ensure that the AR side would certainly win.
These "Polls" are bogus. There may be some accurate or unbiased ones, but I
tend to believe that some of them are used in the lobbying process, to
demonstrate public support that isn't really there to legislators, judges,
administrators and the like.
Any organization with enough money and influence can hire a lobbying firm
out of Sacramento or any other state capitol, or Wash DC for that matter,
and they in turn can hire the law firm to write the legislation, and the
lobbyists can also hire the "communications" firms (PR companies) to get the
right stories into the news to help form public opinion and encourage
legislators and representatives to vote for their bill. This is the way it
works.
They have a disclaimer somewhere anyway, saying that these "polls" are
unscientific.
So much stuff that gets into the "news" is just crap. If you pin them down
on it they have such disclaimers, or they quote "qualified immunity" (They
are immune from prosecution for passing on bad information relayed to them
by police and other agencies (who often seek publicity to help them railroad
someone or otherwise benefit from media focus.. that's why police
departments have "spokesmen" and PR departments, and dump stuff on the
newswires every time they get a "hot" case!). Journalists and journalist
agencies can also use other defenses when they lie, saying that the person
in question is a public or controversial figure who has no expectation of
privacy, or that the crap that they put out in the media is meant for
"entertainment" only.
You really cannot believe everything you see in the media these days.
Unfortunately, many people do. "Doh?"
Juliet asks:
> Am I the only person who finds it ironic (and kind of sick) that the
> nation that organized the slaughter of 6 million human beings is now
> writing animal rights into their constitution?
Wakanska says:
Not at all. This has been discussed before.. Not only that, but Hitler and
Goering formed what was probably the world's first anti-vivisection society,
which had an international membership LONG before Hitler took control of
the Reichstag and Germany. BUT it was during his climb to power that he did
this. He truly was fond of animals, however, the organization that he formed
to protect animals was more of a political move that gave him wide
grassroots public support and trust. Chalk it up as so much "baby kissing"..
Just more political tricks.
>
> Juliet