What's Up?: October 2009

The "Humane" Movement and the Damage it causes

From Thomas Kirby

Look at who tells us that we must "adopt" or "rescue" animals when they say we should and in the condition that they care to give them to us.

Sometimes knowing too much about these things can make it difficult to produce a focused essay of a length that people want to read. The SPCAs have a history of stealing animals from people in America that spans over a century and a half and they still don't seem to have a reputation for being thieves. All of the humane organizations have been hijacked by the worst kinds of opportunists, sociopaths, and even weirdo religions from Hell. By hijacking the humane agenda, they get good people to desperately struggle to help them achieve their goals. They don't have to tell those good people the truth about their goals.

The fact is that "adopting" and "rescuing" reduces the number of homes for animals of known higher quality. The very people who would have encouraged breeders to breed for good health have whatever the local humane society cares to give them, and are, ironically, more likely to own animals that are deaf, blind, damaged by prepubescent spay/neuter, or have a host of genetic diseases. They are used to warehouse defective, diseased, and injured animals until those animals die of old age instead of to provide places to live for animals that will help carry forward the genetic heritage of their species. They even pay to be used this way.

The humane movement has become a monster that causes a lot of harm. I'm not sure that it ever did all that much good. At the same time that it might have prevented some ill use, it has also prevented a lot of good things. It has sacrificed a lot of good dogs and other animals for the sake of preventing shelter deaths, and those that they have sacrificed belong to citizens who have a right to the use of their property.

Posted via email from capri

Exactly.

From Thomas Kirby

Sometimes I want to rant about people who say "as long as we do it responsibly." You've heard those thick-tongued voices of male animal control officers, or the harsh whip-crack tones of the female of the species. Do you think that they have the intellectual endowment or the intent to treat their victims fairly vis-a-vis "responsible"? I certainly don't.

I remember reading about one of the times that predatory animal control laws were reformed. They rolled it back so that abuse had to be "egregious." This did make it more difficult to lie about their alleged suspects. It was difficult but not impossible.

Knowing what kind of people enforce animal control laws, and knowing that they are handpicked for their less than sterling personality traits, that's enough to see the need to prevent them from being able to search people's homes and otherwise cause trouble.

I don't approve of the counteroffer. When you offer to be better citizens that acknowledges the validity of their methods and their so-called authority. When you know that such people thrive on tricky-dicky ways of getting people to validate them, you know that there is something that is way too wrong with them. We do not need the abuse in spite of Shabbeti Zvi's ideas, or those of John Calvin, who had to be another sociopath. I for one can live without a sociopath to throw at other people.

My counter-offer is that they be shut down for all kinds of charities fraud, such as political manipulation and use of money for other than charitable purposes. Another counteroffer is that any "inspection" be done in a civil manner after giving the victim of the inspection a chance to have a fair hearing in court as to whether legally obtained evidence exists. The whole idea is not only to put a cramp in their style but to eliminate it.

The writer of that essay makes a big mistake if she assumes that mandatory sterilization will go away if owners will just "be good."

From now on let's call the Green party what it is. It is the "Screw Humanity Because We Hate Ourselves and Everyone Else" party.
My blog: www.animalculture.org

Posted via email from capri

Yes Yes YES! Hahahahahaha! Woot! D-Day For Facebook App Developers!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102803243.html

Posted via email from capri

Oh, and just because it claims some famous person or doctor says it

that doesn't mean they actually did. I wish people would stop passing around forwards as if they thought they were gospel.

Posted via email from capri

The H1N1 Prevention chain is going around

and I've gotten one version saying it was from Dr. Oz while seen another saying it was from a Dr. Goyle ? or something. Anyway, don't pass it on, you don't need chain letters telling you to use common sense and do the first two things while the rest simply isn't proven to prevent h1n1.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/preventswineflu.asp

Posted via email from capri

Meet the Animal Rights Movement's Rich Aunt

From: Center for Consumer Freedom

To: Canadian Exotics

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:29 PM

Subject: [CE] Meet the Animal Rights Movement's Rich Aunt

This email was sent to you by the Center for Consumer Freedom. To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add info@consumerfreedom.com to your address book.


October 22, 2009


Meet the Animal Rights Movement's Rich Aunt The deceptively named "Cancer Project" animal-rights group is at it again. This time its target isn't hot dog makers, but grilled-chicken servers. The group, a branch of the PETA-linked Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), filed a lawsuit in Connecticut yesterday against three restaurant chains demanding warnings about a supposed link between grilled chicken and cancer. As we told the media, PCRM is nothing more than an animal rights front for pushing vegan activism, which is funded primarily by a single rich donor. Since 2003, PCRM and the Cancer Project have derived 60 percent of their budgets from a single woman: Nanci Alexander, the wealthy founder of the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida. The Palm Beach New Times called up the Cancer Project and Nancy Alexander to inquire further about her funding role, but the newspaper was stonewalled by both parties: Ms. Alexander declined to comment for this article, but Jeanne Stuart McVey, a spokesperson for the Cancer Project, confirmed that the PCRM and Cancer Watch [sic] are "sister organizations." McVey played down the notion that the groups are radical vegetarians, but did acknowledge that they "recommend a plant-based diet for better health." McVey deflected questions about Ms. Alexander's role in funding the Cancer Project. Since the Cancer Project prefers to deflect answers, we're happy to fill in the information gap. The tax returns for "Nanci's Animal Rights Foundation, Inc." tell the whole story. (Yes, she actually calls it "Nanci's Animal Rights Foundation." We call it "Nanci's ARF" for short.) Since 2003, Nanci's ARF has given $30 million to the PCRM Foundation, which in turn funds PCRM and the Cancer Project. That's on top of $10 million Alexander reportedly gave PCRM before her foundation was incorporated, and $22 million that Nanci's ARF has donated to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). In 1998, PETA recognized Nanci and her now ex-husband Leslie Alexander -- a board member of the Humane Society of the United States -- as its largest individual donors. Skeptical? Here are the tax returns filed to date by Nanci's ARF: [ 2004 \| 2005 \| 2006 \| 2007 \| 2008 ] According to tax filings of groups in the PCRM orbit, total revenues during those same years for the PCRM Foundation, PCRM itself, and the Cancer Project (minus the amount the Foundation doled out to the other two) is $66.7 million -- with $40 million (60 percent) of that total coming from Nanci's ARF. Can someone say "sugar momma"? As we wrote back in 2003, previous tax records indicated that Nanci Alexander and her ex-husband also partially funded the operations of "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" (SHAC), one of the most violent groups of animal-rights terrorists ever dragged into court. As part of her divorce settlement, Nanci reportedly won a $150 million fortune, more than a third of which has already gone to PETA and PCRM. As of June 2008, Nanci's ARF still had over $61 million in the bank. Nanci Alexander also runs a well-known vegetarian restaurant in south Florida. Which could make Nanci's latest lawsuit-bankrolling look like an anti-competitive business strategy. What better way to denigrate the non-veggie competition than forcing a cancer warning label on their best-selling product? We're wondering how many restaurants near Nanci's Alexander's tofu dinner joint serve grilled chicken. And will the Federal Trade Commission take a closer look? We're not worried about Nanci, though. She'll be in good hands. PCRM apparently has a staff of lawyers with nothing productive to do. Breaking News Here's a sampling of other stories that have caught our interest today. To see a one-week archive of these items, click here. New evidence that Abraham Lincoln did not ride the Tofu Train to Washington Is Michelle Obama about to take on Big Food? Experts debate the best way to start Green Revolution 2.0 Perishable food expert slams CSPI's "riskiest" foods report

You're receiving this Email because you are subscribed to the Center for Consumer Freedom's daily news list. If you want to change your email preferences, click here. If you want to be removed from our news list, click here. Or you can send a brief response to: info@consumerfreedom.com.

Posted via email from capri

Enough With the Dummy News!

Okay, I'm really sick of dummy news reports, and I don't just mean the usual food-cop, climate change big brother "Let's ban everything and blame the whole universe and everything that's ever gone wrong in it on the evil human race!" bulltosh.

This time, it's stupid broadcasts and articles that are announced to sound like one thing, and turn out to be another and to top it off, it's a complete useless other to boot.

Take for example the urban legend that says eating turkey could make you sleepy. Turkey, along with several other foods such as beef, milk, chicken, all contain a small amount of tryptophan, all well below any amount where it has any effect on you. Plus, tryptophan doesn't work on a full stomach, you have to take it on empty to become drowsy, and that's if you are taking a strong enough dose to make you drowsy. You would have to eat about ten turkeys or at the very least, ten servings of turkey in one sitting to even get that much tryptophan into your system. Well, obviously that's an impossibility or if you actually tried that, you would end up killing yourself or at the very least, seriously sick and in need of emergency care.
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/turkey.asp

So, that's an urban legend, but it's also a perfect example of a dummy news report.

There was another that claimed beer contained something that was good for the heart or some such idea, but it turned out that whatever it was, it was in such small amounts that you'd have to drink a vat of the stuff in one sitting to get enough of whatever the special heart-helper was claimed to be in it.

Big flipping deal, so what was the point in reporting something so utterly useless and just plain dumb? Obviously if you drank that much beer, your heart would be the least of your problems - and that's if it was still beating.

So this brings me to a recent example of yet another dummy news story that's floating around the web and landing in my inbox via Google alerts.

DON'T GET TOO POKEY ON FACEBOOK! The Facebook poke COULD LAND YOU IN JAIL!

Oh NOES, Really!?!?!?

Well, that's what the online headlines say!

So, checking it out to see if maybe there is a story about somebody who spent all their time annoying their 5000 Facebook "friends" with enough incessant poking to finally get reported, and maybe it resulted in a big row where ugly words were said, maybe a few punches thrown and the poke-addict got tossed in the slammer for an unprecidented amount of obnoxious behavior on the net, right?

Well, that would've been a much better fit for the anti-ppoke scare-mongering headlines so that anyone else could keep it in mind and be sure not to go too crazy poking their friends.

No, the story is nothing like that, not even remotely. It isn't about your average Facebook users getting too carried away with poking.

The real story goes that the poke itself isn't the problem at all, but the misbehavior and violation of a court order by a bullying stalker by the name of Shannon Jackson, is! Shannon has been stalking and bullying some other woman, who put out a court order against her. Shannon disobeyed and poked this woman on Facebook.

Okay, WHAT THE HECK!?

First of all, how did Shannon manage this? Surely they weren't "friends" on Facebook! But they would've had to be for Shannon to be able to poke her. You can't poke people who are not your "friends" on Facebook.

So why on earth wasn't Shannon deleted from this woman's friend list and blocked? That would've been the way to handle a stalker on Facebook!

Shannon Jackson has a history of committing harassment, so it's not even as if the poke is such a big deal just because it is a poke. Shannon could've "followed" this woman on Twitter, and the online reports would be going totally nuts warning about the dire consequences of following people!

No, this wasn't just a poke, it wasn't a normal situation, and whoever Jackson was stalking could have blocked her.

So why proclaim such idiotic things as "Poking could get you jailed!" if that really doesn't apply to regular citizens who are not deranged stalkers?

Oh, probably because no one would be all that interested in a title that told the truth "Woman Jailed After Misusing Social Network to Harass Another Woman" ? Hmm?

You know, that would've still been just as interesting and much truer.

So spare me all the over-the-top bullcrap headlines that scream one thing when the real story says another! You can't get jailed simply for poking someone you're on good terms with, and if you're not on good terms, you shouldn't be friends on Facebook! Clear?

Posted via email from capri