• Overview of barracks and coastline for historic photo
• Picture of myself with barracks
•  
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• PHOTOG WALKER

Makeshift infrastructure for concrete

Equipment on ship

                                                                                                                       Brick masonry

                                                                                                         Battery construction last time taking flag down

Operations center plotting center

This paper was written for ANS 420-Ethical Issues in Animal Agriculture at Oregon State University, November 29, 2010. I have worked at an animal testing facility for three years now, and this topic piqued my interest.

In the following paper I examined a bit of the history of lab animals and animal testing, then characterized both the pro-animal testing and con-animal testing sides, using various citations to bolster each argument and point. I then concluded with a synthesis, or conclusion, and wrapped the paper up with my own conclusion.

I would love to hear your opinions, comments, etc. Thanks for viewing! (Below is a link to the PowerPoint Presentation accompanying the paper.)

In exploring the issues of animal testing and lab animal use and the related ethical and moral issues it summons, a logical starting point is exploring the purposes and reasons for such practices. For many the crux of moral and ethical issues, questions and concerns in relation to animal testing are the objectives of using animals as models in scientific testing. Animals have been used for everything from the testing of cosmetics (Cohen et al., 2001) to the development of chemotherapy drugs (Andrade et al., 1985).

This paper will focus on the use of animal testing and laboratory animals when used strictly for the development and progression of human medicine. More specifically, the paper focuses on when the purposes of the use of animals as test subjects are to “gain basic biological knowledge; for fundamental medical research; for the discovery and development of drugs, vaccines and medical devices; for the toxicity testing of drugs (and) other chemicals” (Gordon et al., 2005). In this way the seemingly dead issue of animal testing for relatively unimportant means will be circumvented.

The paper will examine perspectives of the stakeholders of the issue. The stakeholders are the scientists who design and perform the experiments and studies, those who oppose the use of animals in scientific experiments, the general public whose tax dollars are used to fund the experiments and who benefit from the results of the experiments, and the animals themselves.

The use of animals for test subjects has its roots deep in history and has been integral to the development of medicine. Names such as Aristotle and Hippocrates studied the structure and function of the human body through animal subjects (Baumans, 2004), and the use of animals in one form or another have been a staple of scientific exploration ever since.

The use of animals in scientific studies continued relatively unquestioned up until the 1980’s, when the general public began to object to the use of animals as scientific models, illuminating a change in social attitudes towards animals (Patronek and Rauch, 2007). Public interest led to the increased coverage of animal testing in the media and the exposure of its uglier side, with the then-recent birth of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) becoming one of the main torchbearers against the use of animal testing.

Even with all this negative press and sentiment, animal testing has continued to this day. 75 to 100 million vertebrates are used per year worldwide in research, with 70% of the animals being used for the testing of vaccines, cancer research, drug research and other biological studies (Van Zutphen, 2001).

The practice of using animals as medical models and test subjects has remained a cornerstone of biomedical studies and medical developments. However, the sheer numbers of animals used, along with broadly-publicized cases of abuse and neglect concerning lab animals has caused much discontent and anger towards scientists utilizing animals in their studies. This negative sentiment threatens to halt the use of animals in scientific testing.

When all the chatter and noise is stripped away and the arguments are boiled down, one question remains- Is the use of animals in medical studies ethical and necessary?

ARGUMENT AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING

While negative sentiment toward animal testing may be a relatively new avenue of emotion and protest, the anti-animal testing camp is a loud, vivacious, and organized bunch.

Overwhelmingly, the marching cry for this group is that there are alternatives to the use of animals in developing medical and surgical skills, and that is morally wrong to kill animals for educational purposes (Patronek and Rauch, 2007). Whether those with this belief feel that medical technology should be tested on humans, not tested at all, or not developed is not apparent.

The anti-animal testing community has proposed a compromise, a method of bettering the situation commonly known as The Three R’s: Replacement of animals with nonliving models, reduction in the use of animals, and refinement of animal use practices (Rollin, 2006).

Members of the scientific community have come out against animal testing for the reason that animals are not accurate models of humans. Humans mature differently than laboratory animals such as mice, rats, puppies and pigs, and it is quite obvious that anatomically these creatures are different. In one example “sensory and reflex functions are relatively developed at birth in humans but underdeveloped in laboratory species and adult-like locomotion only appears around day 15–16 in rats” (Baldrick, 2010).

Any argument against animal testing would be incomplete without vivid, heart-wrenching and stomach-churning descriptions of the procedures. These are the bedrock of any argument against animal testing, and undoubtedly yield the most converts. The most heinous examples of animal testing and animal abuse catches the attention of the media, and these two distinctions, animal testing and animal abuse,  have become inaccurately melded as one.

One of the most publicized incidences involving abused lab animals took place at Columbia University and came to light in 2003 due to the efforts of PETA. The study examined menstrual cycles in baboons, and the animals were subjected to reportedly horrid conditions. Baboons were found with metal cylinders screwed to their heads, blood dripping down the sides. Medical procedures, including the removal of body parts, were done without pain medications, and several baboons were found to have torn off their fingers due to stress and anxiety. These discoveries incurred a U.S. Department of Agriculture probe, as well as investigation by the National Institutes of Health, which provided grants to Columbia University. (Herman, 2003).

Other examples of lab animal use and possible abuse involve the entire spectrum of animals. In the Australian state of New South Wales it was reported that 8,813 animals were killed during one year of trials. The animals included 14 horses, 3,000 fish, 379 sheep, 59 cows, nearly 1,000 chickens, and endangered marsupials including 8 Stripe Faced Dunnarts, a vulnerable species in terms of population size, as well as birds and guinea pigs (Jones, 2009).

Due to these statistics and reported abuses, much of the general public are sympathetic to the cause of those against animal testing. Many medical studies and experiments are carried out at government-funded public universities, meaning they use public money (Rowlinson, 2010). While public perception may not play a large part in the decision-making of scientists and lawmaker’s alike on this issue, this may have to be revisited as the use of tax dollars for programs taxpayers don’t agree with may alter voting.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ANIMAL TESTING

Arguing in support for animal testing may be socially unpopular, but it is a lesser-of-two-evils argument. Without the use of animals for testing many of the drugs that have saved countless lives would simply not have been produced, or worse, tested on humans. A 2006 survey of found that 96% of the general practitioners surveyed agreed that animal research has made important contributions to many medical advances (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007). The same survey found that 88% of the general practitioners felt that recently developed medicines should be tested on animals before human consumption or testing.

While the use of animals in medical testing may seem inherently secretive, scientists and lawmakers are working hard to remove this notion. In 2005 the United Kingdom passed the UK Freedom of Information Act. Due to the passage of the Act, the overviews of all new animal research projects in Britain are published and posted on a government website available to the general public. (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007).

A fact that is oft overlooked is the intense regulation that animal testing receives in the United States. It is law in the United States that Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) must be established and complied with for all laboratory animal use for instructional or research purposes (IACUC).

IACUC is the governing body that overlooks the scientific use of animals, declares regulations, accepts or denies scientific animal usage proposals, inspects lab animal facilities and strives to save animals from unnecessary testing and use and requires quick and effective pain relief (Fiester, 2008). It is made up of a committee of no less than five members that, by law and declaration, must include a veterinarian with training in the use of laboratory animals, an active scientist who has professional knowledge of the scientific use of animals, a member whose interests in the issue are of a nonscientific manner (such as clergy, animal welfare activist, or lawyer) and a person who has no connections to the institution in question and is not a family member of a person affiliated with the institution. This committee presides over the activities, regulations and facilities of IACUC (OLAW, 2002).

Also, Public Health Service withholds its use of animals or its support of any lab animal use until a written description of the proposed animal use is submitted to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) and returned with a signature of the Institutional Official, along with recommendations and instructions for animal use (OLAW, 2002).

Along with the IACUC and OLAW, the Animal Welfare Act, as amended in 1985, requires specific scientists and attendants to oversee every scientific experiment involving animals. This includes animal caretakers who are responsible for the everyday care of the animals, laboratory animal specialists who are responsible for the animal welfare as well as animal quality control, and animal technicians who are responsible for proper methods and procedures for the experiments.

Regardless of any possible ethical or moral issues, it is fact that the use of lab animals has contributed to important gains in human medicine and biomedical research that is essential to the furthering of our race. The use of lab animals has contributed to advances in, ironically, animal welfare, as well as in the fields of psychotherapy, neuromuscular disorders, the testing and discovery of drugs for anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, as well as fecal and urinary incontinence, and understanding as well as reducing the effects of stress and pain, to name a few (Miller, 1985).

The statistics speak for themselves: animal experimentation contributed to 74% of all important biomedical advances between 1901 and 1975, and 71% of the 82 Nobel Prizes awarded between 1902 and 1982 for Medicine or Physiology required animal experimentation (Nicoll & Russell, 1989). With such value produced by these animals, it is a valid to ask whether these animals are valued and honored more by letting them live their natural lives, or using them for a higher purpose. As the most developed species, is it not acceptable, possibly morally essential, for us to use the resources at our disposal for the betterment of our species? These questions cannot fully and adequately be answered, but their proposition is essential to the discussion.

SYNTHESIS AND COMMON GROUND

While neither side will come to a conclusion that will satisfy both parties, both sides can agree that reducing the number of animals used in animal testing is beneficial. With fewer animals the scientist and laboratory workers would benefit economically, as well as by saving time. For the con-animal testing crowd, this would be trending in the desired direction.

Technological advances have been made to address this issue and develop new procedures and methods that reduce the number of animals used. In one example, animals were tested synthetic and natural chemicals that utilize their actions through binding to nuclear receptors. It was found that “reporter mice, xenopus, or zebrafish, and models obtained by somatic gene transfer in reporter systems, combined with imaging technologies, may contribute to strongly decreasing the overall number of animals required for testing and research” (Caimi, Lorenzo 2008). While these results don’t apply to every application of animal testing, it is proof that with careful research methods may be discovered and developed for reducing the number of animals used, resulting in a reduced loss of life.

The European Union has discussed the reduction of animals used as well. As well as including language calling for a reduction of animals used in science in various protocols and guidelines, researchers have been asked by the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission to put forth an effort to decrease the animals used in research (Caimi, Lorenzo 2008). The researchers were aided by funds dedicated to a network of scientists and industries with the specific goals of finding alternatives to animal experimentation.

For those who are against animal testing, what is your proposed alternative? Do you believe that the medical field has progressed to a point where we can cease to develop medicines, medical devices and new treatments? Or should the medical community employ human testing? Also, have you ever stepped into a hospital, received vaccinations, or hoped that a loved one diagnosed with cancer survived? If so, is this not hypocritical?

And for those who are for animals testing, are us as humans morally superior to all other beings? Should we be able to cause pain, maim and kill other beings for the betterment of our society? Do we have the right to end the life of one animal to save and improve the lives of our own species?

The use of animals as models in scientific research is essential to the continued progression of modern medicine, and in turn the progression of our society and race. The elimination of animal testing would significantly set back the development of essential medical devices, medicines and treatments.

However, we must be smart, diligent, economical and moral in our use of animals. The Three R’s of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement must be put into practice; there is no logical argument opposing this, as the Three R’s reduces animal mortality and suffering, as well as financial cost and time. Governing bodies such as the IACUC must be upheld, respected and enforced. The atrocities and abuses that have occurred in the past must be halted.

The great humanitarian Mahatma Gandhi famously said “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated.” By employing the Three R’s and continuing to use animals for scientific purposes we establish our nation as great and our moral progress as sound, while the medical and scientific community continues to uphold its obligation to humanity to further the advancement of their respective fields.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrade S. G., J. B. Magalhaes, and A. L. Pontes. 1985. Evaluation of chemotherapy with benznidazole and nifurtimox in mice infected with Trypanosoma cruzi strains of different types. J. Bulletin of World Health Organization 63 (4): 721-726.

Baldrick, P. 2010. Juvenile animal testing in drug development-Is it useful? Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 57: 291-299.

Baumans, V. 2005. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: laboratory animals. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 24 (2) 503-514.

Caimi, L., D. D. Lorenzo, M. Jeremic, G. Mazzoleni, C. Montani, M. Penza and M. Unkila. 2009. Alternatives to animal experimentation for hormonal compounds research. Genes Nutr. 4:165-172.

Cohen, C. , M. K. Robinson, A. de Brugerolle de Fraissinette, M. Ponec, E. Whittle and J. H. Fentem. 2002. Non-animal testing strategies for assessment of the skin corrosion and skin irritation potential of ingredients and finished products. J. Food & Chem. Tox. 40 (5), 573-592.

Festing, S., and R. Wilkinson. 2007. The ethics of animal research. EMBO Reports 8 (6), 526-530.

Fiester, A. 2008. Justifying a presumption of restraint in animal biotechnology research. American Journal of Bioethics. 6: 36-44.

Gordon, N., K. Taylor, N. Gordon, G. Langley, and W. Higgins. 2008. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. ATLA 36, 327–342.

Herman, Eric. 2003. PETA video depicts Columbia ‘atrocities.’ NY Daily News. (E-Suppl.) http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/10/21/2003-10-21_peta_video_depicts_columbia_.html. Accessed Nov. 21, 2010.

IACUC. About Us. http://iacuc.org/aboutus.htm. Accessed Nov. 17, 2010.

Jones, G. 2009. Revealed- experiments kill one animal every hour—tortured to death. The Daily Telegraph (Australia). 4:1.

Miller, N.E. 1985. The value of behavioral research on animals. American Psychologist. 40: 423-440.

Nicoll, C.S. and Russell, S.M. 1989. Freedom to conduct research. Nature. 342,220.

OLAW. 2002. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#AnimalWelfareAssurance. Accessed Nov. 17, 2010.

Patronek, G., and A. Rauch. 2007. Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education. JAVMA 230, (1), 37-43.

Rowlinson, J. 2010. Where does animal testing occur? AboutAnimalTesting. http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/where-does-animal-testing-occur.html. Accessed Nov. 28, 2010.

Van Zutphen, L.F.M. 2001. History of animal use. Pages 2-5 in Principles of laboratory animal science. L.F.M. Van Zutphen, V. Baumans and A.C. Beynen, eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Click the icon above to view the accompanying PowerPoint Presentation.

I’ve spent way too much of my time in the past, and will continue to spend time, no doubt, on determining and bringing more clarity to my ideal job and career goal. Many times this seems trivial, but it is absolutely essential in my preparations for the future.

For all these mental explorations and this stressing I have deduced that my ideal job would be where I am an integral component in the nurturing and preservation of the human-animal bond. This has always been in my mind a companion animal veterinarian. This would take place primarily in a clinic where I am able to develop relationships with my patients and their owners, and I would be the personal doctor of the owner’s pets.

I love and am fascinated with animals, and one of my greatest passions is going out of my way to help people and make their lives a little easier or better; I believe that companion animal veterinary medicine is the perfect marriage of those two qualities.

To achieve this goal my path has taken me through my junior year in pursuing a degree in Animal Sciences with a pre-vet option at Oregon State University and it will lead me towards undergraduate graduation with that degree and entrance to veterinary school. I do understand that for acceptance into veterinary school I must fulfill many specific and stringent requirements, one of the most important being grade point average. Studies must remain a priority, and as I have made my way through my freshman and sophomore, and now to the end of my junior years, I have seen my priorities switch from temporary pleasurable experiences to constructive, time-consuming scholastic pursuits to better propagate my academic success.

Along with academics, I have prepared for achieving my career goal by gaining experience with animals and veterinarians, be it handling canine athletes at the Iditarod Sled Dog Race in Alaska with the race’s Head Veterinarian, working at a companion animal veterinary clinic where I prepped exam rooms, observed and aided the veterinarian during surgeries, restrained animals and generally observed the every-day goings on, as well as working at the Oregon State Veterinary Animal Isolation Laboratory taking care of laboratory animals that include pigs, llamas, alpacas, mice, rats, dogs, sheep, goats, mini-horses, and chickens.

I have also made it a point to distinguish myself from fellow applicants by life experiences and achievements that include, but are not limited to, achieving Boy Scouting’s highest honor, the Eagle Scout award, spending five months abroad in Sydney, Australia, pursuing a passion in photography, and the publishing of a photography and travel book of my experiences in Australia and New Zealand.

My life has been dedicated over the past four years or so to the previously aforementioned goal, and if I am to succeed, the rest of my life will be as well. At this point, it is all down to me- my work ethic, determination, willingness to succeed and unwillingness to give up will determine my success or failure.

1. Finish text exerpts
2. Optimize photos with BLURB profile
3. Edit text with Erin Miller, HARDCORE
4. Edit layout/graphics with Morgan Dumitru, HARDCORE
5. Purchase ISBN and barcode
6. Print out copy and send to Shelley Gill for editing
7. Print out few copies (Investment from Parents?)
8. Place in waiting rooms, publicize on social networking sites
9. Pitch to bookstores (OSU/UO bookstore, local booksellers in EUG and CORV to build demand)
10. Pitch to Study Abroad Dept (build demand)
11. Present demand to OSU Press/UO Press
12. …….

View the Beta Version of Wanderings: Down Under hereBlurb.com.

Ever since I heard Shad it seems I’ve been obsessed by him. He’s a rapper from London, Ontario, Canada, his original home being Rwanda. He lyrics are incredible and his flow crazy. You’ve gotta check him out. Get his album ‘The Old Prince’. He’s the next big thing. Mark it.

This is called ‘freestyle’. No memorized lyrics, just rhyming what you come up with on the spot. Incredible.

The first song I heard by him, and it got me hooked.

Ever seen a rapper playing guitar? And rapping at the same time? It blows my mind. His minor ‘break-through’ hit off his first album ‘When This Is Over.’

CLICK ON ‘MORE’ FOR MORE VIDEOS. DO IT! YOU WILL HAVE SPENT YOUR TIME WISELY.

A track off of his second and latest album, ‘The Old Prince.’ The lyrics really get to me-

In this life we just can’t compromise
It’s a fight but we just can’t compromise
With our time we just can’t compromise

And for some reason, I’ve been fixated with this line as well…

I’m still trying to figure tax, stocks, and the loopholes.
Like wheres the refund? We filed for em’
Deducted from gross? Shouldn’t that be taken off the net,
Like child porn?

One of his most emotional songs. Begins with his mother reciting her original poetry from her experiences with the Rwandan genocide. The song is about the same subject.

Lastly, one of my favorites of his. A Kanye-esque beat, but with Shad’s introspective take on growing up as an African-America and cultural and social issues that come along with it.

Is Benny in need of a makeover?

–The mascot’s more recent look has him still scaring children

Parents clamoring for photos as they thrust screaming, crying children into the furry arms of a six-foot tall, scowling, squinting Beaver with its head alone nearly as large as the child itself. “It’s horrible,” winces the peppy and anonymous Oregon State student that brings its mascot to life.

Since Benny the Beaver, Oregon State University’s mascot, transitioned from a happy and gentle beaver to the ‘angry’ beaver in 2001, many have been asking if he’s too angry for the children that previously adored him.

“The size of [Benny's] head is bigger than it has ever been,” says the anonymous student who dons the Benny suit each game day. “The eyes have also been made more intimidating and mean.”

According to a 2005 story by Daily Barometer reporters Jeff Goodwin and A.D. Nealon, Benny’s head was damaged on the plane ride back from that year’s Insight Bowl. Instead of simply fixing the head, the athletic department decided to redesign and update the look because, in the words of Steve Fenk, interim director of sports information for Oregon State, “the old Benny was scaring children.”

The 2005 redesign may have helped, but children still seem to be frightened of the oversized, loveable buffoon we call Benny.

“I can see his eyes being meaner [than past Benny's],” says Marianne Egan, an Apparel Design Instructor in the College of Design and Human Environment. “Children notice the eyes first.” She recommends replacing them with “pretty, big eyes with eyelashes.”

This discussion no doubt brings up the issue of who Benny, or all mascots for that matter, are made for. Is he made for kids, rabid fans, or both?

A good mascot, according to the mascot manufacturer Street Characters, the world’s leading mascot creator and Benny’s creator, is cute and cuddly and must be especially good with children. They should represent the university and its sports teams while being approachable and fun for children.

“[Benny the Beaver's] primary purpose is for the kids,” says Edison Gold, a junior in Exercise and Sports Science. “The adults are there for the game. Kids will get bored, and what Benny does is keep them interested. If Benny wasn’t there the adults wouldn’t be affected.”

Not all students feel the same way about Benny.

Taylor Eastburn, a junior in Business, feels that Benny is geared more towards sports fanatics and “people our age. Kids get scared by a lot of stuff. I don’t think that enough kids get scared by Benny to change how he looks.”

Oregon State isn’t the first university to struggle with how to find the balance between cuddly child-magnet and intimidation in its mascot.

According to a 2008 Washington Post article by Susan Kinzie, George Mason University has had the opposite problem. Children flock mercilessly to their wacky green and monster-ish mascot “Gunston,” but older students and alumni have called for his axing due to a lack of intimidation.

It all may be just simply a case of ‘the grass is greener.’ “They should change him,” says Gold of Benny the Beaver. “Make the head cute and funny. The image is trying to look fierce, but it’s just not there.”

Gold may have a point. If one scans the website of Street Characters, the previously-mentioned mascot manufacturer, one would find tips and advice for interacting with children. From what type of mascot kids would rather hug, to the design of a suit that would allow movement for the necessary activities of “shaking hands and hugging kids.”

Oregon State isn’t the only university to follow the advice of Street Characters. New Mexico State University has also had a notable controversy concerning children’s reactions to their mascot.

According to the 2005 Fox News article “N.M. State’s ‘Pistol Pete’ Losing Pistol”, New Mexico State’s mascot Pistol Pete was stripped of the name ‘Pistol’ and had his gun traded in for a lasso. Reasoned NMSU President Michael Martin in an ESPN article from the same year, the Pete costume “is decades old and scares children.”

While critical discourse may be what gets the ball rolling, no tangible change will take place until the Oregon State athletic department is onboard.

When queried about Benny and whether there were plans in place to alter his appearance, Nikki Pruett, Benny’s boss and the Director of Promotions/Fan Development said, “There are no talks of changing Benny that I am aware of.” When further questioned on Benny scaring children, Pruett referenced the Oregon State Media Guide, which describes Benny as being “especially adored by Oregon State’s youngest fans,’ stating that ‘Benny is usually surrounded by kids.”

If the athletic department is unwilling to alter the appearance of Benny in favor of children, there must be something else they can do to endear him to Beaver Nation’s youngest.

‘If [children] can associate something positive [with Benny], that [could] really help,’ said Egan, also the mother of a three-year old. ‘Seeing cartoon images around town [of Benny may] help to associate good thoughts with Benny.’ She also recommended Benny handing out candies and other treats.

Maybe it’s just a case of having an imperfect figure, a mascot that is somewhat intimidating to appease those that would hope Benny to be fierce, and a mascot that is somewhat cuddly and cute to excite children.

Gina Hoppe, a junior in Animal Sciences, puts the situation in perspective. Benny may scare “some kids, but definitely not all. Some kids love clowns and some hate them, so what are you gonna do?”‘ And that is precisely the question facing the athletic department; “What are you gonna do?”

Shootings in the United States since 2007 with death toll of 5 or more:

Virginia Tech Shooter -> Cho Seung-Hui ->33 (including the perpetrator)and 23 injured Binghamton

New York shooter -> Jiverly Antares Wong -> 14 (including the perpetrator) and injured.

Nebraska Shoter -> Robert Hawkins -> 9 deaths(including the shooter who killed himself)

This list is from a comment on a Huffington Post article on the Fort Hood shootings by an American-born Muslim. I found it quite interesting. Posted by ‘Somali.’

Colorado Church Shooter –> Matthew Murray -> 5 deaths(including himself)

Kirkwood Shooter: Charles Lee “Cookie” Thornton – 6 dead (including the shooter who was shot by police), 2 injuries

Northern Illinois University’s shooter –> Stephen P. Kazmierczak –> 6 dead (including the shooter), 16 injuries.

None of these cases were reported as an act of “terrorism.” And there was no mention by the media of what religions these perpetrators practiced. Apparently it wasn’t news-worthy. In other words, its only an act of “terrorism” if the perpetrator is a Muslim.