Bird-Brains Lose

I like animals.  I believe that animals need to be treated humanely by humans (which was NOT the case with Cecil the Lion).  But humans have one thing animals have not:  Responsibilities.

Many of these animalphiles seem to overlook the fact that animals have no responsibilities.  Because animals can never be held to the responsibilities humans are, they must necessarily be subservient and secondary to humans.  Animals can cause great harm to humans, and to civilization (which is based upon humans having responsibilities).  When animals such as Travis the Chimpanzee act up, they need to be put down. 

In a court of law, Travis can never have been "guilty" of anything because he had no responsibilities to neglect or flout.  The killing of animals, then, is often necessitated through no fault of the animal; they are just being animals.

Like the birds that often frequent the vicinity of airports.  Bird ingestion by aircraft engines can yield disastrous results.  Some bird-brained self-appointed guardians of birds attempted to prevent the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from ridding the wetlands around the airports it operates (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, and Stewart) of migratory birds who pose aviation hazards.  The Port Authority duly obtained appropriate depredation permits from the Department of Agriculture, so Friends of Animals brought suit against DOA and its various subagencies (including the Fish and Wildlife Services), challenging the issuance of the permits, and arguing, among other things, that the permits were not species-specific.

Friends of Animals lost in the District Court; they appealed.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court and confirmed the validity of the permits.  The Port Authority is now free to cull the bird hazards.

Friends of Animals has vowed that they will continue to challenge the culling of birds at the Port Authority airports.

My question:  How many FOA people have traveled to or from the New York area via one of the Port Authority's airports?

Are Rahsaan and Chris the Names of Terrorists?:

The Chris Roberts item is now going viral.  Chris, for those of you whose internet access has been down for the past few days (mine went down for a few hours yesterday, but the cable company came around and fixed it; was some sort of pedestal box by the driveway a few houses down the street), is a security expert who was removed from a United Air Lines flight by the FBI for tweeting about a potential flaw in the airline security system.   He was en route to give a talk about airline security vulnerabilities.

Turns out that the FBI has, as of this posting, yet to produce the search warrant that was predicate to their seizing his laptop and other equipment.

It's gone viral, so I have little to add regarding the Constitutional and Due Process issues.   The stupidity of UAL and the FBI speaks for itself, and does not need any further expounding.

My comment: 

"Given Mr. Roberts' claims regarding manipulating aircraft systems, we've decided it's in the best interest of our customers and crew members that he not be allowed to fly United,' airline spokesman Rahsaan Johnson told The Associated Press. "

I note that the name Rahsaan, which, contrary to some websites that will not be linked to this posting, is of Arabic origin and not from the Hebrew.  It suggests some Muslim influence.  Mr. Johnson has more inside connections to UAL than Chris Roberts.

Would placing Rahsaan Johnson on the No-Fly List be any less rational than placing Chris Roberts on it?