This story about a polar bear cub named Knut and the AR lunatic that wants him dead has made its way around the globe in the past week. The paradox here is absolutely mind-boggling. If animals truly have rights, as the ARA Mr. Albrecht presumably believes, then how can it possibly be ethical to kill this cub? After all, the right to life is the most basic, most sacred right of all. Without the right to life, all other rights are rendered irrelevant. Just because Knut was born into a situation, a zoo, that Mr. Albrecht and his ilk find objectionable, that should not render Knut's "right" to live as non-existent should it? This is a prime example of the kind of hypocrisy that infects the AR movement. We also see this with PeTA. They pontificate ad nauseum about the supposed "rights" of animals while they kill homeless pets by the thousands. IMHO, animal liberation types like Mr. Albrecht are complete phonies. They use the "rights" of animals simply as a facade for their lust for power and desire for control over human society's relationship with animals. They are apparently willing to trample on the very "rights" they claim to champion when such "rights" present an inconvenience to their greater ideological goals.
I find it interesting that none of the pro-AR blogs I have glanced at this week have come out and condemned Mr. Albrecht, or even bothered to comment on this story for that matter. When it comes to the outrageous words or actions of their peers, supposedly "moderate" or "mainstream" ARAs seem to have a "hear no evil, see no evil" attitude. It seems to be an unwritten rule in the AR culture that you do not criticize or condemn a fellow ARA.
I humbly suggest that the world would be a better place if we had more bears and fewer AR wingnuts. How about we keep Knut and euthanize Frank Albrecht instead?