Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" or "VeHeMent" is just one of several who do not have the grace to immediately kill themselves as they recommend that the human race commit suicide. To them I say that I want to live my life even at the expense of the planet. It only makes sense to continue what evolution has led up to, what the planet seems to have willingly given itself to creating, which is humanity.
PETA and the HSUS sell the mass extinction of humans and human-owned animals to its followers, even to the grandmothers who send them $25 a year. They've soft-peddled that lately because they know that a smoking gun can derail their entire program. They look on the surface as if they are succeeding more and more but the ice is getting thinner under them.
Somehow they have us thinking that it's "just" the meat industry. Ladies and gentlemen, our brains run on meat. It takes cholesterol to grow a brain. Even the historical vegetarians in India use milk because cholesterol is a necessity. It's also because the original "don't eat cows" edict was for the purpose of preserving the use of cows for food.
Maybe some of us have noticed that animal owners have trouble tolerating each other, even within a class. Any time in any social setting when someone brings up "issues" there is some kind of fight, anywhere from a low-key verbal conflict to fist-fights and shooting.
Tolerance is a matter of survival. Learn it or die. A mind can kill the body that it possesses by intolerance, by the "Oh my God I'm so allergic to cat dander" reaction that often means that the reactor is a passive-aggressive whiny controlling brat. At one time this was well-known, that allergies are often psycho-somatic and can be created or eliminated by psychological means. The same thing can happen to a human population and the way it works is much more clear. People start destroying each other, directly or by proxy, over any kind of issue. It's generally easier to see that the issue is irrational when we can see it from the outside. Someone might be killed in LA for wearing red and green to celebrate Christmas because those are a rival gang's colors. Isn't it also irrational to want someone dead because his sixteen-year-old dog died in an outdoor kennel? "But that's a legitimate issue"?
Don't "legitimate issues" seem to be far more important to people who can't understand the meaning of those issues and don't have the requisite brainpower to deal with those issues?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
It's good that the more human, more normal, "nicer" side of the animal rights controversy abhors violence. We are the mainstream of humanity. We are almost everyone. Almost everyone hates to be violent even in self-defense.
The abhorrence of violence can be taken too far. If you're not willing to wring the neck of the little cretin who set your house on fire, twice, that might be taking a reluctance to be violent too far. That's saying that your home and family are not worth fighting for. By default that supports people who hate you and who would murder your children.
This is not a difficult problem. It's not new, either. In some form or another there have always been sneaky little cowards who would sneak into people's homes and steal and break things. There have always been small groups of people in every town who would form little gangs and believe that they stole and vandalized for some kind of high moral purpose. The humane movement allows just one easy moral loophole. Nothing else like it exists. The same moral loophole that allows these gangs to terrorize medical researchers also allows them to steal your dog and sell it, to allow deer to starve to death instead of being cleanly culled, to raise the price of your food that you can barely afford to buy now, and to inflict a whole host of other miseries on the human race.
The recent BB gun assault against animal rights demonstrators may be deplorable. I don't waste sympathy on people who want a law that mandates spaying and neutering of all pets in the state of California. I have even less than no sympathy when I know that this same group is strongly connected with exploding cars in Los Angeles. The demonstration was a gang action by a terrorist group targeting a legal business. People need to cross that picket line and make a point of attending the targeted store and buying things and the owner of the store has a legitimate need for self defense if the picketing interferes with his legal business.
Nothing dispels intimidation like doing something that scatters a crowd of cowardly terrorists. I'm laughing at the whining of Judie Mancuso about being shot at with BBs. This really doesn't match up against someone's car exploding in his driveway, or someone's house on fire, or millions of dollars in research being destroyed by a bunch of little jerks who are no better than the neighborhood troublemakers who steal your DVD player and scatter flour all over your kitchen.
They do a few things that intimidate people from doing so much as contradicting them. They seem to form an impenetrable shield, but when this shield is broken they are so screwed. They're peeing their pants right now, afraid that real bullets are next. This puts us in a better position to deal with them politically because we wake up and realize that we are dealing with impotent cowards rather than a political juggernaut. They've lived by undermining society way too long. It's time to take it all away from them.
Monday, September 14, 2009
I don't believe that one set of rights is more important than another. You could argue that the right to keep and bear arms is important because it helps defend the rest of the list, and the right to free speech is like that too. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are being treated with contempt even though they are listed in the body of the Constitution as rights.
We are in a war and we have to understand what the animal rights activists want to compromise and how they plan to do it. They want to compromise our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the Bill of Rights is intended to spell out in a little more detail how the Constitution is to protect that.
Isn't it more important to protect the quality of life of the vast majority of humans who have committed no offense heinous enough to warrant the loss of life and limb, liberty, or property? The ability to use excessive force against anyone who is accused or suspected of animal abuse is being widely used against animal owners. Animal control has actually stunned older disabled people with a stungun. The Yellowstone County sheriff's department broke dogs trying to stuff them into carriers that they didn't fit into. There was nothing wrong with the dogs before the sheriff's department arrived. Some damn animal rights representative always seems to be able to wind these people up to do atrocities against citizens and that's exactly what they did to Germany.
The right to confiscate animals enables bad people to do bad things to good people and use animal cruelty as an excuse. The damage is done before the courts can decide if any abuse has been taken place and the same confiscations are used to psychologically damage the victims and coerce them into signing away their rights. The dogs are often killed or given away before the court date. It is actually possible for the animal rights activists to use this, as they plan, to get rid of all animal breeders without any of the breeders being convicted of a crime.
This is why confiscation of animals should be banned. No one, period, should be allowed to confiscate any animals. Confiscation destroys the innocent. Those who think that the rights of innocent humans are not worth this much, maybe you should just kill yourself. My right to keep my animals humanely and safe from inhumane shelters and rescues supersedes their right to "do something about animal abusers." They don't know how to go after the ones who need to be shut down while protecting the ones who are doing good for the animals, so they should have no power at all and no money.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
climate change said on MondayWhat do I have to say to the police and security forces who are guarding this power plant that is vital to the security and safety of the citizens of the human race? Shoot to kill. Load up the worst people-killer rounds that you have. They work on environmentalists also. If they want to make martyrs, draw a one hundred meter perimeter and drop them there. I would also be happy to see them bleeding on razor wire.
they would attempt to shut down German utility E.ON’s at
Ratcliffe in central England in a mass action planned for October.
These people will kill their fellow human, actively or by neglect, for the sake of a rat or an owl. They want laws against what other people do but do not want to obey laws. They will destroy animals alleging that those animals are tainted by human manipulation. If they successfully shut down a power plant they will have succeeded in committing a terrorist act, blatantly, and I would just as soon they die before they get in the door rather than have good men risk their lives trying to root these damned rodents out. So happy hunting, whoever is guarding the Ratcliffe plant. Let Ratcliffe be their Waterloo.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
My ride, that is, my car, is worth more to me than the life of some idiot who wants to steal it, break it, or burn it. That is because like so many people my age, and I am over 18, I don't have the time or the energy to walk as far as my job is. My house is worth even more, and if I have a home business, a farm, or a profitable kennel, that is also worth more than the lives of people who want to break it, burn it, or steal it. I advocate a shoot to kill mentality for home invaders, vandals, car thieves, and of course anyone who sets fire to anything that belongs to you. A fire should legally be considered a death threat and a deadly assault. Whosoever initiates an arson attack should be considered a dangerous person who should be shot to death on the spot.
There is a tremendous difference between violence that is used to coerce people who are minding their own business and violence that is used to defend what rightfully belongs to you on your own property. The first is wrong even when the law does it. The second is right.
Most puppy mill raids are illegal, period. If you can get the legal representation that will follow up on it, the city, or usually the county that conducted the raid is responsible for damages when they do them. It's difficult to impossible to get away with asserting your rights by using a gun, but insist enough and you can get something done legally. That's costly and I can understand people who simply run out of money, time, and energy.
A "shoot to kill" mentality in this arena means that one should be willing to go all out to gain a legal redress of grievances. Someone's going to have to build a law firm that is willing to predate against a county government and local humane societies. "Shoot to kill" means that your legal team goes after all assets belonging to whoever judgments are gained against, and you don't back down because they claim "it was for the animals" or "we won't be able to help the animals if you bankrupt us." You don't fall for the sociopath's "pity me" act either.
A particular humane society has such a horrible history of attacking owners for no good reason that its hundred-year-plus history should be brought to an end. Saving animals by destroying their homes and owners is the wrong way to do things. Profiting by illegal acts is wrong. They even take animals out of circumstances that they are comfortable with and place them in far worse circumstances. They should be treated as the criminals that they are. I won't name the one I'm thinking about largely because they aren't the only one. Don't pity them. They've had over a hundred years to learn how to take care of animals and if they don't understand how it works that's their problem.
Even a somewhat less than standard commercial breeder is better than most of these so-called humane societies and SPCAs and they do one thing that is positive: They breed. Above all a species needs to breed and propagate to survive. The pet trade is how humans assist in this vital function. I don't place the rights of animals above human rights but it is fitting that the pet trade works for the animals, perhaps better than it works for the humans involved. Humans are the one species that is often willing to live with the excrement of another species just to keep that other species alive. We also work our hearts out for them. Give us a lot of credit.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Michael Vick helped out his mother with a lot of money. The HSUS helps attack elderly women for breeding dogs, at all, and lies to get then in trouble. So does the SPCA.
The HSUS got more dogs killed at one time than Michael Vick is alleged to have killed, and in a way it's worse because it's colder, it was done for political purposes, and they are supposed to be the people who would know that it is unnecessary to do this to pups who haven't been fight-trained.
Michael Vick may have taken the blame for some of his friend's actions to get them out of trouble. The HSUS tries to get people in trouble for small things like dirty water dishes.
The HSUS has secretly killed thousands of dogs and hurts owners whenever it can. Michael Vick is only just now starting to do that.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The human species is the first species that has shown a desire or an ability to be less destructive to its own environment. This destruction is a normal product of use. Herbivores use the environment and if predation and disease didn't stop them they would eat all of the greenery and starve and die. Even the greenery would choke itself off and die if it didn't have the herbivores and fire to kill some of it off once in a while. An intelligent species can control this process with less waste, less disease, and can ensure the future of other species. One of the best things that we have done is transplant other species around the planet, thus increasing the geographical spread of unique genomes.
I can't say that a species has a right to what it needs as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Other life competes with and fights with each other. Humans have at least as much right as other animals to be a part of this. There are other examples of different species that cooperate with each other but humans are the one species that seems to be willing and able to work cooperatively with a very wide variety of non-human species. We are also the one species that is willing and able to work on behalf of that wide variety of species.
Were there such a thing as an animal rights activist, that activist would be for the most essential rights of an animal. These would be the right to exist and the right to propagate. They would be for legislation that forced humans to take in as many animals as possible, and considering how loosely connected to reality the "animal rights" activist is, "possible" takes on a whole new meaning. It's kind of a relief because I might find out that I only want one or two big cats, not the whole hoard that keeps getting thrust on big cat enthusiasts.
It's not just PETA killing animals or the HSUS with its killing vans and swindling judges into ordering the deaths of pitbull pups. It's a determined effort to stop private breeding and to get as many non-humans dead or under their control as they can. Preventing births looks a little like saving lives, but it works like euthanasia in advance. When one to three percent of the pet population ends up being killed as "overpopulation" then for every pet saved from that experience, at least thirty-three births have to be prevented. That's a dead loss. If we looked at it from a viewpoint that permitted joy, we would take pleasure in the fact that very few pets die that way.
PETA, the HSUS, and the growing cottage industry of swindlers, self-haters, and terrorists don't care about the animals. They just care about money and the pain that they can cause humans and animals.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
If the government abuse is banning people's pets, the implied positive response is that those pets should not be banned because it is a very good idea to keep pets and everyone knows that. It's been hard to get everyone to admit that, hasn't it?
Sometimes we need to say that "it's a very good idea to..." whatever it is, to add positive energy to the whole thing. Appropriate to the situation, we might say that it's a very good idea and explain why, or just say that it's a very good idea. This is the treatment for all those people who say that something's a bad idea for reasons that carry very little strength. Arguing their reasons down without explicitly saying "it's good" robs us of most of the impact of the argument. They don't have that handicap. Here are some examples of arguments that have more positive impact:
"It is a very good idea to keep a wallaby as a pet because it helps conserve the species, wallabies are pretty good pets, they are very harmless, and they make people happy. This argument outweighs the arguments against that are loaded with negative emotion and bogus science."
"It is a very good idea to keep a lion as a pet if one is able to keep it fed and clean, because this helps conserve the species, it puts a person's humanity to good use, because lions give a lot of love, because a human should have the right to choose, and because the danger is less than riding a bicycle in Kansas City."
Or, for a short one: "It is a very good idea to keep a monkey as a pet" with no explanation needed.
We need the positive attitude. We need to talk about specific benefits and stand on the idea that those benefits, for human and animals, far outweigh the drawbacks. We need to keep away from qualifiers that can be interpreted broadly and stick with specifics, such as keeping the animals clean, healthy, and well-fed, which is part of healthy. "Humane" and "responsible" are catch-all, overly broad terms that have been abused to death the last few years. We must use specific terms so people can know what we're talking about.
It is a very good idea to do this so that we have a better chance of winning back our rights. We do after all have to tell them what we want, don't we? Don't we also have to tell them that it would give us pleasure and improve our lives?
Friday, July 17, 2009
When you let characters like , the B.C. Minister of Environment, decide the fate of your pets and livestock, the eco-terrorists do not give you a break. They get worse. You earned it, citizens of B.C. The people who you've allowed to run wild, are.
That's right. Give up your "exotic" pets and they will bomb your natural gas pipelines because they know that you're wimps and you won't do anything about it like shoot them or even tell your legislators that they are wrong.
The eco-terrorists, the SPCA, and Barry Penner have made the citizens of B.C. their bitches. That's when you know that too much civilization has come to Canada. Enjoy what you have left. It ain't much.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
I really think that Bill Smith lies about the "squalor." I'm sorry that he gets so much done that way. I read a piece about his mother getting a veterinarian and one of his customers in trouble and it sounds like the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.
Some of these people have been giving out sketchier information than they used to. When they give enough details inconsistencies creep in. Now the news stories that I see in the Kansas City Star and the stories on the Missouri Humane Society website leave out anything that a person might analyze. That's another indicator that they lie on purpose. The longer a story you can get a liar to tell the more you can tell that they are lying. They know this. The stories have gotten awful short and the KC Star is keeping their stories very sketchy so that critics can't pick on them in the comments section.
I think that Bill Smith is a hard core swindler, actually. Both times that I saw him do a video segment he told obvious lies. They were made obvious by the video and the degree of detail that he went into that contradicted the video. Here's one:
http://abcnews. go.com/Business/ story?id= 7187712&page= 1
Obvious lies: The idea that any commercial farmer would shove a pipe down the throat of a dog and risk killing it to soften its bark is a lie. The idea that a large female golden retriever was ever kept on "chicken wire" boggles the mind, it is so stupidly obviously a lie. The dog is too big. They carry her around to keep the audience from seeing whether she can walk on other than "chicken wire." Get a load of where Bill Smith keeps his hand when he carries her, too. It's disgusting. I can say that because that's the way that he treats people.
The "chicken wire" itself is an obvious lie because chicken wire is very narrow gauge wire with fairly broad spacing, that hexagonal pattern, and it can't support any weight. The material that they stand on is not chicken wire. Big dogs like Golden Retrievers couldn't be kept in rabbit hutches, either. It's too expensive to try to build an off the ground "hutch" for a 100 pound dog. At the same time that they were talking about chicken wire they were showing Labrador Retrievers running around on the ground.
I thought that they were saying that the 300 registered breeders in Lancaster County were trying to avoid discovery, but that was the alleged 600 unregistered breeders. When he talks about those, instead of saying "these unregistered breeders" he says that "The farmers, the Amish and the Mennonites, they pull the heads back and then they hammer sharp instruments down their throats to scar their vocal cords so they can't bark." I don't see how that's physically impossible without losing most of your breeding stock and he slams their religion by name when he says this.
They talk about fecal matter falling into cages from above when they are stacked but the stacked cages that they show have trays to catch that. When the news crew goes into a breeder's facility to look around, you can see that the flooring of the cages is more like some kind of extruded plastic. I'm not familiar with that material but it looks like it's molded, not wire at all. Most of the material I saw was stiff "wire" that is large enough to be easy on feet.
I am extremely sick of being beset by liars and being unable to fire back. People should at least get comfortable with suggesting that Bill Smith and others like him are lying. That's not saying that we should rest our case on that. Breeding animals is important work. It is among our oldest technologies and it fulfills a need for humans and animals. What we do has merit.
A deception by omission is the way that Bill Smith treated the breeders. He didn't tell them that he was going to lie about them to destroy their businesses. If they had known of course they would have done anything except give their dogs to him. So would I. Fine, give the vet a few dollars to put down a dog that isn't producing anymore. It's better than giving the dog to Bill Smith to do God knows what with.
Other issues that are not side issues include his continually criticizing them for treating the dogs like an agricultural product. This is also a slam at agriculture. He is slamming the Amish religion too and treating them as if there is something wrong with being Amish. The Amish and the Mennonites are easier targets when they are less likely to know what is being said about them on Oprah or ABC news, and less likely to be on the Internet. I'm not informed enough to know whether any of them keep track of these news stories. What I've heard about the Amish is that they don't watch television or use computers, so how would they know that they are being libeled in this manner? They are an even more vulnerable target than the general public in that it is even harder for them to find out what is going on.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The American judicial system is supposed to be based on the concept of "guilty until proven innocent." In other words, the accused is required to be allowed full due process of the law. This law has a provision that is as hostile as it gets towards that due process. If a person is accused of mistreating the animals that they own, they have to post some kind of bond, a percentage of the estimated cost of keeping the animals, or lose ownership of those animals. The way that Kay Simpson puts it, most of the owners then "abandon" such animals. What actually happens in many cases is that the shelters get a fresh supply of purebred dogs with many puppies that can be sold out the door in as little as four days, only they call the price tag an "adoption fee."
This way they can scatter a breeder's inventory and make it unrecoverable. Since they also surgically sterilize most of the dogs, they have made that inventory worthless to the breeder. We don't just have a right to breed dogs when the Humane Society feels like letting us, it's a basic human right. What you might call overly strict enforcement is actually a deliberate failure to allow due process of the law before taking property. It is a deliberate attack against a breeder that they want to shut down and I'm building a long list of dirty tactics that are used to do this.
If someone is deprived of the opportunity to do this, too bad. The felony law should never have been passed because its only use is going to be to extort money and property. All authorities involved in this are liable under section 1863 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the courts still take that Civil Rights Act seriously, at least some of them. Every jurisdiction involved in such busts should know that they may soon be liable for extremely large lawsuits. There should also be criminal penalties and we don't have to be particularly creative to do that. The threat of force under color of law to get property away from people is extortion. Police have gone to jail for it before and hopefully they will again. Also, there is the taking of property for public use without just compensation. It doesn't matter if they immediately destroy that property, the "taking" is in the denial of the use of that property to its owner.
People are slowing down their donations to the shelters in part because the shelter system has proven itself unworthy of the donations by supporting these laws. Kay Simpson should count herself lucky that she can't drive around making a reputation for herself by violating the rights of citizens. She could count herself lucky that she isn't destroying legitimate businesses and making false accusations of abuse. Someone who supports a law like that law that just passed doesn't know the difference anyway. It's above their level of competence. That "brick wall" that Kay Simpson has run into is simple reality. No one has resources to waste on things that violate human rights.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
There is no reward for compromise with the HSUS. They have rewards only for criminal behavior like abusive busts of commercial breeders whose dogs are in good enough shape to turn around and sell within the week. The only threat that they pose is if anyone is damn fool enough to let them have anything that they want. They are a terrorist organization that certainly doesn't deserve anything. They were named in a Department of Homeland Security report and in other reports to Congress, so the United States Congress does know enough about the HSUS that anyone who takes just a minute to think would say "these people are terrorists and don't have an opinion to contribute." Terrorists are criminals. That report is at Rexano under Commentary and Editorials.
If people would think of themselves as deserving of the company of animals and deserving of the use of animals, swindlers like the HSUS would never be able to gain the power that they have. It makes a huge difference what we think of ourselves. Think well of ourselves and each other and no one is going to be looking for anything from the HSUS. We'll already have it. They offer us a bill of goods and we are the ones who own those goods.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
It's like Mat Sitte wanted to act out the AR program in his own home:
For an instant, he stood and watched as the flames circled her body then engulfed her.
"I could feel the heat of the fire. I could smell the flesh burning ... I stay a few seconds and say a prayer to set her soul free," he said. Suddenly, he said, he realized he forgot to get the kids' three pet rabbits out of their bedrooms.
"I ran upstairs and got two cages and brought them outside. Then I ran back in to get the third one," he said. "The heat was pretty intense. On my way back downstairs I hear a big bang. And I see the kitchen floor collapse and I realize it's time for me to get out of there. I barely get out alive ... then I grab my bottle of rum and sit across the street and watch the fire."
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The public wants something for the animals and in all the confusion the smartest of us will have trouble figuring out what. Of course, just because it took me a while doesn't mean that, but I think it's true anyway. Of course people want good lives for nonhuman animals. It's just natural.
The animal rights activists found it more profitable to do good by fighting evil because they could slap a label on everyone they felt like. Agriculture does a lot more good for the animals because their health and well-being are our health and well-being. The activists sell this in the negative and as it always happens, the negative campaigns have spiraled out of control and have to be stopped.
We who believe in the right to own animals have to give the public something. Warm fuzzies are still good. People hugging tigers is good, and a message that I would like to see would be something like "you can have this yourself." Tell people the truth, that breeding is good for animals. That's where new animals come from. Animal-based agriculture provides us with safe and nutritious food and we feed the animals first. Give people something to respect, to honor, to love. Help them understand what a rodeo means, or a cattle drive, or why people should play with big cats, elephants, wolves, bears, or big birds. Share the love.
Monday, June 22, 2009
I bought this bridge from a crazy-eyed man for $50 and my soul, but the tolls that I collect at both ends of the bridge will make me rich, rich rich.
What's wrong with their logic? What's wrong is that if there is any substantial number of dogs in any city, some are going to die in shelters. Trying to reduce the number of shelter deaths by reducing the number of animals out there might work, but we will never reach zero. These people have announced that they will fight a war against our ownership rights forever. They know that shelter deaths will never reach zero. If we accept their conditions they have trapped us into an agreement to do the impossible. We will have handed over our rights in order to satisfy their delusion.
If nothing else the AR people will breed dogs themselves and kill them in their own shelters. This is actually a practice that dates back to the 19th century and ASPCA people were caught doing it.
This is why the animal loving community should have made firm decisions a long time ago. We should have decided that almost every human being is good enough to have an animal, outside of being habitual, egregious abusers who routinely injure animals sadistically. We should have decided not to be swayed by arguments about "safety." None of us should ever have backed down, which is of course why the bullies pick on the safest targets that they can. A lot of us became cowardly and even lazy, using the attacks against us as an excuse. It's easier to take the path of excusing one's ownlack of ambition or lack of courage. A lot of authority got handed off way too easily.
It was as simple as saying that we can tolerate the dangers of owning tigers. It was as simple as telling the press that tragic deaths are part of living and should be no cause for any sweeping changes; general policy should not be made from sweeping changes. It was as simple as telling the world that it is wrong to bully others for owning the animals that they love.
Maybe it still is.
That is all that people like Carole Baskin have been doing. They've been telling government officials what they want and giving reasons. The reasons haven't been truly honest. They appeal to least-common-denominator thinking like "it's dangerous, please keep it away from me I'm so scared I'm wetting my pants." This kind of thing has to be backed by the usual violence and vandalism for it to have taken the hold that it seems to have. Also, I think that the government officials have to have been compromised in the first place.
Animal lovers didn't want to get into politics in the first place but we let other people do politics. Didn't we know that this would lead to deadly consequences?
Friday, June 19, 2009
There might not be a workplace in existence that is as toxic as an animal menagerie these days. "Tight safety regulations" are the refuges of the incompetent, the scoundrels, and the sociopaths, with a lot of overlap between the named groups. A person who does not handle the animals does not learn how to handle the animals. If you spend years to even get to handle the animals, generally you move on and start the whole process over again, if you even get in. Someone who is the worthless nephew of the boss's sister-in-law might go straight in and learn how to "handle" while someone who the cats obviously love might be restrained from even touching through the fence.
Zero tolerance creates a toxic workplace. Humans aren't made for that. Zero tolerance policy cannot and will not be administered honestly. Tolerance necessarily creeps in or you don't have a workforce. Even with the best of faith it's subjective and depends on the mood of whichever authority figure happens to be in a given place at a given time. With zero tolerance a worker is treated as if he has just violated the world's fertile womb with nuclear poisons if he happens to brush against the fur of a snow leopard and it can be construed as a voluntary act.
At the same time the workers are there to be with the animals. If an invisible barrier of authority stands between the workers and the animals, things happen. One is of course that that the worker never learns to work with the animals, a thing that you cannot learn without some kind of interaction. That's a thing that doesn't happen. Another is that workers get frustrated and go independent, so they interact without the help of a person who knows how to be safe around the animals. It's like learning how to drive a motorcycle by spending years cleaning the showroom floor while someone else moves them in and out. Yet another thing is that you get toxic personalities in the workplace who could give a crap about the animals but like to horse animal lovers around.
There is a toxic personality who recently took all of her son's big cats away from him and has banned her workers from contact with them. This was his mother, for the love of God. So his dream has been taken away by his mother. He probably should have read Iron John. And she's taking it away from a lot of other people who work there. The emotional atmosphere has changed with may account for the recent death that occurred there. She is going to have her profit center, she is going to change the trade for the worse, and she is going to be in league with some of the most destructive people on Earth.
As for myself, I live to have contact with the animals. Even without the "no contact" extreme, as near as I can tell opportunities for real contact with the animals are few and far between. They are few and far between enough that the professionals who are working these menageries now are failing to create enough new "trained professionals" to keep the industry going. I foresee a downward spiral as planned by some of the most evil sentient beings that the universe has brought forth. There is a lot of pork-barrel in constructing sealed habitats with their own little carefully tended artificial ecosystems that will be allowed to fall into rack and ruin in just twenty or thirty years while the scammers abscond with the money and leave their employees holding the bag.
I suppose that I will never voluntarily attempt to put myself in a position to make any kind of contact with big cats. My choice as I understand it is to obey the rules or live without. I'm not choosing the former because the rules are tainted. There is even some kind of deliberate sadism in treating animal lovers this way and it is the same sadism that is practiced by animal rights activists. There is no chance that I will put myself in a position where I have to obey "no contact" rules except occasionally I might visit a zoo and stay well away from any barriers. Mostly I figure if they don't want me to touch it they don't want me to have anything to do with it. They want some money out of me? Are they kidding?
The owners of the menageries did it to themselves. They did not dig in their heels nearly soon enough. They have let it get to the point where more drastic actions are needed and of course they could use a white knight, but if I were that white knight I would want something for that and if I'm not good enough to touch, my money is not good enough for them. I can't believe the cowardly chickenshit. All of the abuse is passed on to the customers and to the next generation of animal handlers, and then they expect good service, lots of money, and tremendous goodwill in return, just like their abusers and just like the dysfunctional family and the toxic schoolteachers.
I have to care what is in it for me. People would have me drain everything that I have into their pockets and for all I know their bloodstreams and life-forces and they want me to expect nothing in return, to give "charity" and be "altruistic." This is the epitome of the thieving scoundrel. If I could even tithe to something reasonable, group efforts to do good things, that would be all right, but they're not going to treat me like a human. They're going to treat me like a member of their own personal living blood bank. Screw them.
Friday, June 12, 2009
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
25990. Prohibitions. In addition to other applicable provisions of
law, a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a
farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents
such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs;
(b) Turning around freely.
25991. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the
following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Calf raised for veal" means any calf of the bovine species
kept for the purpose of producing the food product described as veal.
(b) "Covered animal" means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised
for veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.
(c) "Egg-laying hen" means any female domesticated chicken,
turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg
(d) "Enclosure" means any cage, crate, or other structure
(including what is commonly described as a "gestation crate" for
pigs; a "veal crate" for calves; or a "battery cage" for egg-laying
hens) used to confine a covered animal.
(e) "Farm" means the land, building, support facilities, and other
equipment that are wholly or partially used for the commercial
production of animals or animal products used for food or fiber; and
does not include live animal markets.
(f) "Fully extending his or her limbs" means fully extending all
limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the
case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching
the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.
(g) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint
venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate,
trust, receiver, or syndicate.
(h) "Pig during pregnancy" means any pregnant pig of the porcine
species kept for the primary purpose of breeding.
(i) "Turning around freely" means turning in a complete circle
without any impediment, including a tether, and without touching the
side of an enclosure.
25992. Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation
for veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions,
4-H programs, and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3
of Division 9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane
methods of slaughter, and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig's
expected date of giving birth.
25993. Enforcement. Any person who violates any of the provisions
of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period
not to exceed 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
25994. Construction of Chapter.
The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu
of, any other laws protecting animal welfare, including the
California Penal Code. This chapter shall not be construed to limit
any state law or regulations protecting the welfare of animals, nor
shall anything in this chapter prevent a local governing body from
adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
A few times in history states have pared back their humane laws to the bare minimum because it was utterly ridiculous. There has to be some tolerance for things that are not exactly as someone would want them. Tolerance may be the only thing that will save us. Animal owners and users have to have a goal to achieve, preferably total freedom from regulation. It is OK to want what we want. Our rights are superior to those of animals. Fortunately for the animals our desires are to care for them in ways that are often extravagantly pleasing to the animals. The animal rights people are fighting against that. It is very wrong to eliminate the use of animals in the hopes that a few will suffer less. Most of them won't even exist to feel pain or pleasure.
If any animal owner wants to win this fight, we have to decide that we want what we want and stop giving any kind of power to the humane organizations. If the humane organizations want to operate they must do so under very strict guidelines which include no knocking over of little old ladies to try to "save" a few cats who are doing quite well. They shouldn't have any problems with being service organizations instead of armed robbers.
Tolerance of abuse means that humane care and use of animals becomes possible. With that tolerance we make this care possible, diligently, and diligently make certain that legal powers are not abused, so that it is possible for humans to do what so many of us want to do, to live with animals and take good care of them. It is the only way. Intolerance destroys.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Still, I do not support felony animal abuse charges against Cheyenne Cherry who has confessed to the killing of that kitten. I will admit that I'm tempted. Who wouldn't want someone like that thrown in jail and the key lost?
I would think that whoever has been following the crimes committed by the HSUS against animal owners and breeders would want them jailed and the key lost. They have been very cruel to the commercial breeder who they recently busted in Indiana, on the pretext that they weren't paying sales taxes. They and other so-called humane organizations use felony animal abuse charges to force people to hand over their own property, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth. Those charges are obviously bogus if they can be bought out. Even worse, in this case they also took the property that was to be held for a tax lien, so there's even more corruption than usual.
Felony property damage I will support. The Bronx teenager broke into someone's apartment and burned valuable property, so that's also arson. Animals are property and we're better for it. Owners do not get charged with ridiculous crimes for ridiculous reasons and face ridiculous penalities if their cars are dirty. Yet. We can kill and eat our own property and the HSUS wants to take that right away from us as they want to take away our right to keep pets humanely. Felony property damage kicks in when someone who does not own the property damages or destroys it. That protects the owner and the animal. Current laws have failed to protect owners from bogus charges leveled by AR-infested humane organizations and a good felony property damage/felony theft under color of law regulation, if followed, would put a lot of those people in jail where they belong. Some of them have done worse than Cheyenne Cherry did. Some of the so-called humane organizations have killed a lot of valuable lives, more than any other abusers that I know of.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Now Fran Pavley gave the deciding vote to get another mandatory spay/neuter bill on the floor, and that bill has passed the California Senate but not the Assembly. She betrayed the people who voted her in.
Any senator who betrays the people whose votes she solicited should shortly become the former senator (apply that to any position of authority). For some reason this seems to be the pattern with people who use the animal rights or environmentalists platforms to gain votes, and Pavley is one of those who sells global warming. I suppose that puppy farts are now considered harmful to the ozone layer.
Anyone who betrays people like that to get a seat on the legislature is just not a good person with a good cause.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
There is no safety problem with the ownership of any animal that is worth the compromise of human rights.
Animals are property and you animal rights activists out there are going to live with it. Owners will strike back.
The right of a chicken to spread its wings is inferior to my right to be able to afford my next meal.
The right of a sow to be able to turn around is inferior to my right to be able to afford my next meal.
The animal rights activists have proven that they have absolutely nothing intelligent to add to the realm of animal husbandry.
Fur and leather are environmentally friendly.
Breeding is the best way to preserve a species.
The idea that cow farts are hurting the ozone layer is utter crap.
Monday, May 25, 2009
They have committed a crime against you by violating your rights. They owe you for that. They took away your dignity for a time, your property, your feeling of safety in your own home, and they should suffer a just punishment for doing that, something that will deter them from doing it again.
Further, a citizen must stop denying that they do this. Generally, the police did not come and rescue a bunch of animals in dire straits. They went with a hired sociopath who told them what to do. That hired sociopath is like a witch-smeller, pretending to see "signs." The truth is that they see what they want to see and say what they want to say. There are always signs. An animal rights activist thinks that the biggest sign of abuse is keeping the animal, and even when they keep them themselves, they think that. Some of them deny that they are animal rights activists and they could be telling the truth. They're just social parasites who work with whatever group gives them someone to rape.
Take the attitude that a crime has actually been committed when this happens. There is a federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which defines what should be painfully obvious: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .” Click here for source
The ability to freely exercise a right is generally lost by a failure to enforce those rights, and a failure to deal correctly with the parasites who would violate them. First clue: don't use them to go after people you don't like. The parasites feed on your fear of what your neighbor does. They come up ways that your neighbor is dangerous to you because of the drugs that he uses, or the pets that he keeps, or because just one time in his life he might have acted like a man. Then they have you. Your money is theirs, they hold a proxy on your rights, and you may feel that you have to like it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The rumor, which Wayne Pacelle knows to be true, is that during the worst of the aftermath, HSUS rescuers allowed a lot of dogs to die when they knew where the dogs were. There are a lot of witnesses to this fact and they need to speak to their local TV and radio stations and newspapers. It may not have occurred to a lot of people in time that the disaster aid was for photo opportunities and that they needed to watch the "Humane Society of the United States."
I suppose that the HSUS intends to quibble about the definition of using the money for Katrina victims, because even though WSB-TV issued a "correction" the fact is that a lot of the uses that the HSUS claims to have put the money to are not what you expect when you send money to help save pets who are stranded by floodwaters. I say in good faith because I have received word from eyewitnesses that the HSUS actually got in the way of rescuers who actually went into the water to save pets.
The HSUS's career has included hurling a lot of false accusations at animal owners, including horse owners and commercial breeders, so it's not surprising if they are using the quibble over some CCF facts to get David Martosko's Twitter account suspended, or to get the video segment pulled, or someone's blog or site suspended or closed.
WSB is supposed to eventually issue a new report. If it goes the way that the HSUS wants, the first mainstream media outlet to report what the HSUS has been doing wrong is going to be the first to issue a retraction. This is an attempt to deter any television, radio station, or mainstream media from reporting accurately what the HSUS has been doing to our rights and what kind of charities fraud it has been perpetrating.
The HSUS still has this guy who has all kinds of connections with people who he has taught to commit arson. Even if they "fire" him I'm sure they won't be strangers. This is one more chilling effect on freedom of speech. In Los Angeles people are afraid to go to their city commission meetings because all sorts of freaks show up for the animal rights side. Some leather-wearing character with tattoos shows me a Zippo lighter engraved with a devil's head and I'm probably going to wet my pants and leave the room. Most of the people who have the absolute right to be there can't take the pressure and shouldn't have to in a country like the U.S. Good people don't bully others, and the HSUS has been witnessed bullying people who were trying to save pets after Katrina.
I suppose that more "discredited" information is the fact that John P. Goodwin now works for the HSUS in a high-paying job because of his experience working with the terrorist organization ALF, which has been burning more animals lately in an attempt to save them from the torment of human ownership.
The HSUS is a fraudulent charity with many front organizations. I say this without reservation because the HSUS tells lies about pet ownership, it gathers funds fraudulently, and it illegally spends those charitable contributions to influence legislation.
I have also been reading that various TV stations are blocking E-mails from people who want them to buy and play that segment in other markets. This is just weird.
If the HSUS is applying some form of intimidation to stop this broadcast from being aired, that is also proof that the HSUS does not want the truth to be told. Well, they've just made it so that this will go viral. The Center for Consumer Freedom put the video on Youtube. It is well worth watching. Please ask your local TV stations to air it.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Fighting against abuse attracts sadistic people. They get their jollies by attacking people who they know that few or none will defend, just like they got their jollies when they beat up small children in high school, violating some of our society's most sacred tenants, particularly the protection of innocence. They get the same thrill out of this as does the child molester or rapist. It's the violence that attracts them, and the opportunity to drain mana from people by domineering them. It's a sick thrill.
There's talk on the forums about creating an organization that helps animal owners who are in trouble. Someone has suggested that the organization only turn into the law those very worst abusers. I'm not comfortable with the idea of any loopholes. The mere allegation of abuse with zero substantiation is already adequate to get the police to raid someone's home. They do not have to prove injury to the animals. Instead of diligently protecting the rights of the humans who they go after, puppy mill raiders do everything that they can to circumvent human rights. We do not live in a situation in which anyone can be reported for animal abuse and be certain of a fair trial.
The thing that should attract the most disapproval and punishment is the circumvention or violation of human rights. Alex Pacheco should have been jailed for a minimum of five years. He committed acts of animal abuse in order to stage photographs to use to bear false witness against Dr. Edward Taub at Silver Springs. In fact, he delayed medical progress by a few years in the area of treatment of human victims of strokes and CVAs.
This is to drive home the point that helpers of animal owners should exercise loyalty to their employers, even as volunteers, and they should suffer when they do dirt to their employers. Whistleblower protection is abused of it protects someone who stages an alleged incident. And I'm sorry, some people may disagree, but letting an animal die without paying thousands of dollars for a kidney transplant is simply not a crime. Because the option of reporting someone for animal abuse results in abuses itself, it is useless and worse than useless.
An ethic needs to prevail that is entirely positive. Every bit of diligence must be exercised to stay within that ethic, too, and to err on the side of the rights of the owner of the animals. Some animal deaths, injuries, and suffering will result from this, but I believe far less than results from the puppy mill raider system. We also must count the loss of animals. We may have lost millions of canine lives due to those who were never born. Also we have lost a lot of lions, tigers, cougars, bears, housecats, and just about everything else. Neglect is considered a form of abuse. It is also neglect, which is forced on people far too many times, to fail to breed animals.
If you want to compare moral imperatives, compare the imperative of survival of a species with the imperative to reduce abuses of the animals. One is at odds with the other. We have to admit that there will be abusive situations as long as their are animals. We are also damned if we don't, as I said in the previous paragraph. So, as a mature and responsible choice, we must decide what is more beneficial to the animals. I've been among a lot of animals and seen that they consider existence to be of benefit to them. Everyone knows that nature is a bloody mess out there, and it's only the lucky that make it past the first year and reproduce. Humans are more efficient at producing animals that survive to reproductive age and this is a good thing. Reproduction may or may not need to be regulated, but if we do kill a large percentage of that which we assist to breed, we're just taking care of nature's business.
The uniquely human context is one in which we feel tenderness for members of other species. Dogfighters are pretty much just being animals. This does not place humanity beneath the animals. In fact many dogfighters work hard to be good to their animals outside of the ring, as can still be learned in some books that haven't yet been banned. Instead of thinking of them as dragging us down, we would do far better to think of ourselves as doing our best to climb that ladder towards enlightenment and better relations with our natures. All but the meanest of capable humans share our homes with animals, just about any animal. Every animal taken into a home and fed and sheltered shows compassion. The spectrum correctly runs from some compassion to a lot of compassion, or from some love to a lot of love. People who hoard should be revered and treated as saints even though it's messy. It's not really compassion for people if you can't tolerate mess and smell. People who breed also deserve the utmost respect and care because they are doing things that the animals need, helping them evolve and propagate.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
America, Australia, England, and other civilized nations have had many opportunities to exercise some intelligence and render this fascist movement harmless. I suggest that while most of us humans have not yet been neutered we find something inside of ourselves to use to defend our lives. When the same person who used to give wedgies and swirlies now wears a uniform and gets his jollies by abusing that uniform, we've got to do something.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
How does anyone "fight" animal abuse? They have to find a person to fight. They have to label that person as an abuser and fight that person. They make that person the personification of evil in the eyes of their chosen audience. When scapegoating old ladies as witches was in fashion, they also had to make some kind of profit doing it. This is why the properties of the accused were turned over to the state for the state to sell. This gave the governing bodies involved a cash incentive to convict an old lady of witchcraft. "Puppy mill" and "animal abuse" are the modern witchcraft.
It's hard to separate the idea of corruption from the idea that a humane society can be overzealous. "Overzealous" is just as bad if not worse. Go to Care2 and look at the comments for any subject line that has any kind of connection with animal abuse. Some of those "animal protection" people want humans to be tortured and murdered because they had animals in pens with wire floors, that were designed to help the animals stay clean. I suppose Care2 might get wind of this and clean up some of their comments and pretend this never happened, too.
The only legitimate reason to fight animal abuse is to try to improve living conditions for animals. It is not legitimate to do this to hurt other humans, to corrupt a free society, or to profit from the abuse while also increasing the incidence of abuse and unnecessary deaths. The Blue Dog State blog is just one good source of information about the fact that the HSUS puts a great deal of effort into getting dogs killed. A great number of atrocities have been performed against all kinds of dogs, including cramming dogs into crates too small for them, choking them, and basically breaking the animals to get them into the crates. There's someone who knows how to fight animal abuse. That's what I'm talking about.
The animal rights movement is already famous for fighting every kind of human care of animals as "exploitation." When they fight abuse, they sometimes set homes on fire, or cars, or laboratories that are doing research into improving the health of animals. As I reported earlier, they also sometimes set fires that kill animals, or release animals from confinement to die in the wild or on the highways. They also get laws passed to deny homes for animals. They try to get all domesticated animals outlawed, sterilized, and they kill them by the millions. This is also a method for "fighting abuse."
The simple fact is that there is rarely anything to actually fight. You bring food, clean pens, work with the animals, and help the human. This is not a fight. It's work. A person doesn't "fight" against it, he works to bring about the desired conditions that are "not abuse." "Not abuse" isn't a state of being. It isn't anything. Caring about your animals, loving them, feeding them, grooming them, sheltering and protecting them, these are far better things than "not abuse." It's sickening to think that anyone has ever been under attack for giving care to an animal, has spent even one hour in jail, has had to answer to some neurotic stupid useless person, or has spent even one minute feeling guilty because a so-called animal advocate said something.
The place that we want to be is where we have our pets and livestock and do the best that we can by them. Instead of a thousand words here about how we're being abused, we need to write stories about how glorious it all is, and how even when we're tired and weak there is still goodness and light.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
When Dwight David Eisenhower left office as President of the United States, he said "beware the military-industrial complex." The puppy mill raiders have developed a little military-industrial complex of their own. They have become dependent on finding people guilty of animal abuse in order to gain donations and a bit of money from the people whose homes and businesses they invade.
This does mean that the humane societies have sought and obtained undue influence over the process of law-making and law enforcement. They first demanded licensing then treated the results of mandatory state inspections with contempt, re-inspecting and "finding" things wrong. They handle and interpret all of the evidence. They get the local prosecutor to present the animal owner with a choice: Give the animals to the Humane Society or be charged with a felony. A lot of kennel owners have no choice but to comply, largely because they are also forced to secure their property by posting a bond. Their property can be taken from them for failure to give a lot of money, tens of thousands of dollars, to the county and to the Humane Society that has stolen their property under color of law. This is done to the owners before a trial. Doing this denies them due process. An organization that would do this is as criminal as it gets and should go to jail for doing it, let alone have any credibility with the press, the judiciary, or the police. This is a tremendous fault in our justice system, that rarely does law enforcement get prosecuted for violating civil rights. The prosecutors often help them do it, and for the sake of animals! They are already acting as if animals have more rights than humans do.
Fighting against animal abuse makes this kind of corruption a lot easier to perform. People excuse it thinking that we're getting at the bad guys. Our bad guys turn out to be people who humanely breed a variety of animals to sell to consumers, essentially honest farmers who do take good care of their animals. When "fighting animal abuse" sometimes so-called humane society officers will pick on as little as a few hairs and a piece of dogfood on the floor, as they did to Linda Brown for the high crime of selling a purebred dog to the Vice President of the United States. This is because, corrupt or not, a "fight" includes a bone of contention, no pun. It's hard to contrive a better illustration of how corrupt fighting animal abuse has made the humane authorities.
I used to say that I was fighting abuse when I fed an animal, gave it comfort, took it to the vet, and so on. Not any more. In a way it's a good position to take but that's giving PETA, the HSUS, and their various followers far too much credit. Anything that a human does with an animal can be and has been interpreted as abuse of that animal, by people who although human harbor a sick grudge and contempt against humanity. It's giving them too much credit to say that doing this is anything but malicious, even if this malice is disguised, poorly, as some kind of philosophy. Now I say what I should have said all along, that I'm caring for the animal. "Abuse" or "not abuse" is not rightly judged by isolated incidents or a little bit of dirt on the floor, and certainly not by malicious lies about cruel exploitation. It is judged by whether, on the balance, the care of the animal is of benefit to that animal. The caged tiger doesn't tell me that she's miserable and that the cage is "all that can be done." She tells me that she is happy and wants to play. She and the pet dog range between "happy" and "ecstatic" most of the time. And no matter how happy they are, I will always wish that I could make their lives even happier, and that's a fight I'm happy to join.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The new movement is what I call animal culture, which depends upon and values human rights and the human right to own animals. I do not want this to be a new animal rights movement or a "real" animal rights movement. The use of animals is one of the most normal things about humans, even when you regard humans as just another animal. Life feeds on life. Life depends on life. It has always been done this way because it has to be done this way. Study biology from the first molecules on up. It becomes plain that the products of life are shared in a complex system that benefits from animals and plants feeding on each other and that the eating of meat has its place biologically.
There are human needs that find some kind of satisfaction in the idea of animal rights. Humans have a need to be compassionate. This need is not well satisfied by finding humans to be violent against or by finding animals that are better off dead or not having offspring. At the same time that someone employing the witch-hunt mentality has done "something good for the animals" he or she has participated in the destruction of a business that breeds animals, that may have been more than good enough to produce healthy and happy animals, and nothing has improved. This is the same emotional downhill slide that every crusade against an alleged evil takes people. That is how atrocities happen.
Real compassion is a positive thing. People help each other when they're down. We are polite to each other. We share our strengths. When did anyone last get together to help a neighbor who was down, maybe a wage-earner who couldn't afford to pay someone to fix her floor or the owner of a breeding operation whose heart couldn't take the stress while she couldn't live without the income? Where is the humanity for humans?
Those who have real compassion for animals have compassion for humans too. I've just explained what real compassion is. If we want well-run stores, restaurants, governments, menageries, or dog breeders, we need to give more than just our checks. We need to give of ourselves, to contribute to the smooth operation of the businesses that provide us our goods and services. Breeders and keepers of menageries literally provide us with life, so it is all the more important to give of ourselves to help them. Giving up the ego needs that require some of us to be controlling and adversarial is just one of the things that we have to do. We have to add positive emotional energy. We have to say that so and so who has a breeding kennel is doing a service for humanity and for the animals, and that such service requires respect, admiration, and even love.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The animal rights activists are a loyal following of over two million putative adults who can be counted on to buy just about every book written by an AR approved author even if they dont' read it or the book just isn't readable. One way that PETA pays one author, who I'm not going to bother to bash on here by name, is by buying her book in bulk and handing it out for free. They wear her name for credibility, anyone who can sound a little bit sane and professional instead of like a nutcase. Any time they're passing someone's book around, which may be about dog training, dog psychology, or more general animal topics, they have to pay the publisher and the author gets a royalty. That "giveaway" can make an author a lot of money, sometimes millions but certainly enough to make the author a comfortable living. This way they get around various rules about how charitable donations are spent.
Right now, though, Jana Kohl is whining that President Obama betrayed her after she mentioned his name in her book. He bought a dog from a breeder. Isn't that just awful (snort)? How much money does she make every time she whines and the news services pick it up? The story includes the title of the book. She gets her name mentioned in the news alongside President Obama's and the title of her book, and people go out and buy it. When they buy it they reward this kind of disrespectful nastiness and further her agenda against respectable business.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The parts that we don't talk about much include the fact that a lot of mass breeding is done by retired or semi-retired people who found an honest way to make a dollar. There is also the fact that a mass commercial breeder can be a professional and still make good money. I'm convinced that it is quite all right for a commercial breeder to give the minimum number of vaccinations necessary, have the vet give a few litters of pups a once-over, and it is almost mandatory to sell in advance, a practice that just ensures homes for the animals.
Several of the high profile cases have been against owners of animals whose care was worked out with a veterinarian. I'm convinced that more than nine tenths of the evidence against commercial breeders consists of lies motivated by hate.
A question that needs to be confronted is, who said that it's wrong for breeders to make money? Worse, when did "good breeders" decide that a "good breeder" had to lose money? You know why the activists don't want breeders to have any money. It takes money to defend yourself against false accusations in court. If "good breeders" do it to themselves, they're driving themselves out of business and this helps the haters.
A "good breeder" wants to be at least one tier higher than a farmer. That's a little bit strange because the farmer gives us our life, all of it, every bit and scrap that we eat. Maybe a lot of us have a self-image problem such that we don't give proper respect to those who feed us because what's wrong with a Kansan farmer who would feed the likes of us? So this "one tier higher" means, figuratively, donning the robes of a penniless cleric who wanders the paths of India with a wooden bowl in his hand. There's something of the "selfless service" in all that, but I have to say that the person who gives a service to humanity and animals is worthy of respect and money. "Selfless service" is a hangover from the popularity of East Indian practices in English-speaking cultures and it is an insult to anyone who truly is doing good works. It's self-destructive. It might explain why India has myths (which they consider to be absolute truth) of wars that included the use of what appeared to be atomic bombs, destroying each other very badly over and over again for the last five thousand years.
If a dog breeder, or a lion breeder, or any other human being wants to be good, his or her worst enemy is going to tell them the absolute worst way to do it, if they allow it. Generally our worst enemies pretend to be those who are going to make us over in God's image, which contradicts the Book that says that we came that way out of the box. At the same time they claim that man's work is corrupt, they want men to make over what God is said to have made perfect in the first place. That's a swindle.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Veterinary schools have every reason not to want animal rights activists to speak to them, to walk by their campuses, or to have any effect whatsoever on their operations. Every kind of business, legal businesses mind you, that uses animals for any purpose whatsoever has been attacked by animal rights extremists, lied about, vandalized, or burned to the ground. A veterinary school has to try even harder than many businesses to stay within the letter and spirit of the law because it has so many reasons to maintain its integrity. Illegal attacks by an organization that pretends to be enforcing morality go around the law that the victims are trying to obey. I say "as best they can" about that obedience because regulations sometimes contradict each other. You don't know which agency is going to tell you something different from what the other agency tells you. Sometimes inspectors just plain lie because they work for animal rights interests. Did anyone believe that the "undercover investigators" were limited to those who sneak in with cameras? Or that systemic dishonesty is limited to the times that the ARs are caught?
A wealthy patron spanked Oklahoma State University and forced them to allow an animal rights activist to preach to them about morals and ethics. Say what? That's pretty humiliating. It's like having the school bully preach to his favorite victims about why we should be kind to each other. It's like having Michael Vick teach a course on how to be kind to animals. I'm sorry, but to do this Madeleine Pickens must not have a clue about what is going on.
Friday, April 10, 2009
This has to be talked about: The big reason why people want exotic pets.
They want someone to love. For some reason every human has a different set of affinities for different other creatures. Some seem to have no natural affection for anyone or any animal, and that's another story. Most humans can love some or all members of some non-human species, up close and personal the way that it should be.
The point of a free society is not just to tolerate diversity but love it. The fact that different people like different plants and animals is a blessing. We have three hundred million humans in the U.S. alone who can make a difference in the life of an animal or a plant by giving it a home and helping it to propagate With all the varied tastes, not only do people take in different animal species, they are certain to promote genetic variety. Look at the difference between a Cocker Spaniel and a Great Dane.
The fact that a person loves an animal is in itself a good reason to allow that person to keep that animal if at all possible, and yes, to allow propagation of that species. We should be suspicious and more than a little afraid of the people who try to prevent that. Those people often have a history of physical and psychological violence and alcohol and drug abuse. Take a look at the behavior of the animal rights activists who want to stop us from owning animals. That tells you in the negative. A picture of a cougar hugging his human tells you in the positive why we should own animals. The human-animal bond is more important than that little bit of safety that some people keep yammering about.
There is a duty as caretaker that humans acquire when we take over an animal's habitat. Fortunately there is also a surfeit of willing volunteers. To some degree all animals can be tamed. It's certainly a good time to begin the process of domestication when human growth threatens to wipe out several species. By making them more or less domesticated humanity can save them all.
A caretaker should love the animals that he works for, hands-on. This makes for much safer, more cooperative animals and less monetary expense. The caretaker deserves the love and pleasure from caring for the animals. He or she has earned it. Animals understand caretaker duties to the point that some have successfully raised human babies without human supervision, which is more difficult than caring for their own young. Wolves and tigers have shown that much understanding. There is also the story about the tigress who placed her cubs in Roy Horn's lap. She not only understood the duty of a caretaker, she assigned it!
Humans and the human mind do very well as assistants and servants for the animal kingdom.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Dear Mr. President:
Someone committed terrorist acts against Linda Brown for selling a dog to your Vice President Joe Biden. You've probably heard already. I consider this to be a terrorist act against the Presidency, against Linda Brown, and against human rights. Linda Brown needs your support and any kindnesses that you can do for her. A good breeder is worth ten PETAs or HSUSes.
This is exactly what animal rights is. It is placing animal rights against the rights of most humans then enforcing this using violence. I hope that the FBI is already investigating PETA's complicity in this and the state inspector who accepted evidence from PETA. Are you kidding me? Evidence from PETA has zero reliability. It is tainted. How can you expect any evidence from them to be good when they have absolutely no respect for the law? The whole system of attacking so-called puppy mills for profit needs to be torn out and replaced.
Here are a couple of quotes from Ingrid Newkirk. I got them from the Talented Animals website:
….we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA
A burning building doesn’t help melt people’s hearts, but times change and tactics, I’m sure, have to change with them. If you choose to carry out ALF-style actions, I ask you to please not say more than you need to, to think carefully who you trust, to learn all you can about how to behave if arrested, and so to try to live to fight another day.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA
Mr. President, they used you and Mr. Biden to further their agenda by attacking someone who was associated with you. I would like to hope that this is their last mistake and that you will do something decisive to put away the animal rights movement. Placing the rights of non-human animals ahead of those of humans is the worst thing that can be done to the human race.
I have to tell you that the best way to get at them is to repeal laws that they have asked for. These people actually think that they have the God-given right to punish the presidency, by proxy, for not obeying them.
Yes, they are all like this. Always look behind the smokescreens:
It won’t ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It’s going to happen sooner or later. The Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front — sooner or later there’s going to be someone getting hurt. And we have to accept that fact. It’s going to happen. It’s not going to hurt our movement. Our movement will go on. And it’s important that we not let the bully pulpit of the FBI and the other oppression agencies stop us from what we’re doing. —–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League
They want laws but they break the laws. They attack everything that makes this a nation of free people in order to enslave us to their agenda and, to repeat myself, they attacked you and Joe Biden, openly. They harmed someone in order to do this.
As you probably already know, the FBI named animal rights groups as the number one domestic terrorist threats. A list of the things that they have done will probably demonstrate that they are the only significant terrorist threat that has materialized in the United States after 9/11. I haven't heard of anything else worse than someone setting his own shoes on fire. You can strike back on Linda Brown's behalf by asking the FBI for its dossier on animal rights terrorism and speaking against PETA and the HSUS and the rest of them at press conferences. Could have Joe Biden do it, too. Think about this. Animal rights terrorists depend on donations from the public. A word from you can deal a devastating blow to their organizations every time that they commit a terrorist act like setting someone's house on fire or releasing their animals. You can do more real damage to the AR movement in an hour or two than in all the thousands of human-hours that the FBI has expended on it.
Come on. The animal rights groups are killing more animals than anyone else. They're trying to stop all breeding of domesticated animals, including the slick-haired liar who has said "one generation and out" and "we have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding." They are attacking humanity's most basic achievements and trying to destroy thousands of years of progress. This is no exaggeration.
The HSUS gave a nice cushy job to a man who committed terrorism on U.S. soil, one John Goodwin. Look up his police record. I'm glad that they did this because it lets us know what the HSUS is. Goodwin's work for the terrorist organization Animal Liberation Front is the only reason that he has his current job at the HSUS.
There is a lot of stuff out there. Start with the Center for Consumer Freedom's website.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A real humane society would find owners who were in trouble and without threat of punishment, help them out of that trouble. "It's for the sake of the animals" becomes a pretty bleak statement when you know that puppy mill busts are hugely profitable for humane societies. They use the busts to extort money and puppies and then sell those puppies en masse to the public and beg for donations, right in the middle of articles condemning the people who bred them. For shame. Genuine criminal charges should not be able to be bought off this way, by giving money and dogs to a non-governmental agency. This is a conflict of interest and I don't know how prosecutors and police can stand being a part of it.
It is also an outrage when a so-called humane society re-inspects a kennel that has already been inspected by the state. It strips a compliant owner of their place of safety that should be provided for them by the state inspectors. Time and time again the "puppy mill" accusations have been thrown at people and their businesses have been raided right after a state inspection gave them a clean bill of health. There should be a law that if the state says it's clean, it's clean.
There is always something to pick on about someone's care of their animals. The fact is that there is almost always far more to praise than to pick on. Most puppy mill dogs and pups are found in good physical condition and that says a lot. Most likely it says that those dogs and pups were in a good place. It's real easy to say that someone's facility was covered in feces. Just exaggerate. It's also easy to exaggerate about the smell. Or we could decide that a place with a lot of animals is going to have an animal smell and those who have a clue know that's normal.
All people who own pets, who practice animal husbandry, or who hunt have a common interest and a common cause. We need the animals. Human needs and desires are legitimate. We have to remember that. Hunters need the animals for trophies, fur, and meat. Pet owners need the animals to satisfy the need to nurture and share affection. We all need the animals for food, and the farmer (animal husbandry) produces the animals. Treating an animal as an agricultural product is a good thing because farmers work as hard as anyone to treat their animals humanely regardless of species. The term "puppy mill" should be a badge of honor.