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.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
They want to bring this crap to Ohio. They want to "negotiate." What is there to negotiate about? Giving up less to the HSUS? They are entitled to less than nothing. They should have to pay massive fines for the damage that they've already done. The only thing that they should be "given" is a massive investigation of its fraudulent charitable collecting, which diverts money from legitimate animal-based charities.
The HSUS went around killing animals in their euthanasia van during the Katrina crisis. They have a convicted terrorist on their payroll. He earned his qualifications both by acting as a publicity agent for the terrorist group Animal Liberation Front and by committing terrorist acts on U.S. soil. This is also a point because such actions make it so that legal businesses, legal businesspeople, legal workers in every animal related field are not safe even when they are in compliance with the law. John Goodwin's employment by the HSUS is a large stinking mess of proof that the HSUS uses people who disrespect our legal rights. I'm glad they hired him.
Is there actually something wrong with pet ownership that makes it so that owners of pets have to mind everyone else's business? It's not something wrong with pet ownership. It's a bad mental habit that people get into. They worry too much about the negatives and blow them out of proportion. Of course that attaches to pet ownership and everything else. It narrows a person's comfort zone to that which she or he can control. Maybe it's narcissistic and maybe narcissism is an inevitable result of casting one's self as the hero who can remove all negatives from life. So what's wrong with taking positives and amplifying on them? The love that a person can have for his dog makes it easy to forgive messes and broken screen doors. A love of humanity makes it easy to forgive someone whose worst crime is caring too much.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Predation is absolutely necessary. Every animal can outgrow its food supply. Caribou and deer strip vegetation down to nothing, then they die slowly and painfully in ruined and diseased ecology. Some contagious disease may even be a reaction that protects the ecology. Carnivorous species had to develop to protect the vegetation so that herbivore populations could be more stable.
It's the same thing when humans kill a certain number of herbivores and eat them. Fur and leather get more use out of the carcasses, and grinding up mink to use as fish feed, pet food, and fertilizer is using them for food. Industry doesn't like to waste usable biomass. It's more profitable then gold. Most likely if an environmentalist can think of a good way to use biomass, it's not only been thought of by industry, industry already has a better idea because that's the way that industry lives. Boiling down bones for gelatin and glue is a long-established art and that's getting close to salvaging everything but the squeal.
When humans slaughter animals for food, we have to be pretty bad at it to be worse than nature at the slaughter, and we don't leave wounded animals to die of infections and starvation weeks later. I personally don't even want them to die, but it's a necessity that has to be faced. Better to face it in an orderly fashion and with protection for the animals and the humans involved.
Nature kills off old and sick animals to make room for young fresh ones. Reproduction has to be maintained at some reasonable pace to keep up genetic variety. We can't go around forcing people to stop breeding animals on account of we're too successful in the job of keeping them alive. Nature usually kills off the majority of animals before they reach their first year. Humans are miraculously effective in keeping them alive, which fits our nature. Humanely killing selected animals for population control is a very acceptable alternative to allowing the lot of them to be subjected to slower painful deaths from diseases, parasites, and crippling physical and genetic illnesses.
Killing for population control should be an acceptable method and it should be actively disallowed as an issue in these fights to pass breeding bans or controls. Thus far we still have the right to decide which animals are pets, which are breeders, and which are food or culls, and this is a right that every animal owner must insist on. It is very nearly the only button that AR factions can consistently push. Without that they have less than half the power to legally disrupt animal owners. They use their own killings of animals in shelters as leverage against everyone else. They also use the deaths of animals when the legislation that they pushed for forces those animals out of loving homes. They use this issue in bad faith to damage every animal-using industry. We must take this issue out of their hands.