Another Questionable Commercial

I have been off work the past couple of days. This means that I have been watching entirely too much tv. Which means that I am seeing a lot of commercials.

The one that is currently driving me insane is for a product called FurReal Friends. I must warn you when you access this, it's scary. I wasn't aware that this product line had so many different options. I understand the theory behind these toys. In fact, I am pretty sure that if you consider one of these for your children, you should never have a live companion animal.

Here's what disturbs me. Hasbro has the Farm Animal Line. I do have to say that I am thrilled that there isn't a cow or a chicken, but a pig? Come on. What do you say to your children. Okay, you can name this piggy Babe, but in about a year we'll have him for Giftmas dinner? I really struggle with the logic behind this. And what's with the fucking parrots? I have never seen those in a barn. Maybe it's a tropical farm?

Lastly, this country already has a very disposable mentality when it comes to companion animals. I have actually heard people say "Oh, my dog was a purebred so when it ran away, we weren't too worried". I have heard this more than once. I also love "The dog kept running off, so we decided not to go looking". Leash any one? I was making a point. Oh yeah, I hope that toys like this don't increase this countries apathy towards companion animals (well, animals in general). I would love to see toys that encouraged children to take responsibility for the companion animals in their life.

Food That Talks...

Okay, for some odd reason, the past couple of days, this has really been fucking with me. (I think I used far to many commas there, Alabaster Mom?)

I know that I have discussed the dichotomy of how we treat animals in this country. How I don't understand how people are able to love one animal and eat another. I touched on it in here (and I apologize in advance for calling it schizophrenia. I was not trying to be offensive).

Here's the thing, apparently people have no problem eating any food that talks. I have seen two commercials in the past couple of days that are grating on my nerves. The first is a Mini Wheats commercial. It's this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSVlBu2yJs

Notice the mini wheats are talking, not only to each other but to the boy...WHO IS ABOUT TO EAT THEM. Anyone who has eaten with me, knows on occasion I talk to my food. It has never said anything back. I guess I would expect the boy to have qualms about eating his 8 layered friends that are so concerned about him. Or not?


The next one is a stupid Glade Scented Oil candle commercial. They are annoying for a number of reasons, but this one bothers me for the same reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7o7lreRuP4

In this one, she bites the cookies head off to shut him up.

I know most of you are probably saying that I am making a stink out of nothing, and they are just commercials and they don't really effect thinking. I beg to differ. I think it is just another example of how we are taught at a young age not to think about what we are eating.

In general, Americans don't think about where "things" come from. They don't think about the person who made their jeans or stereo. They just want to buy it, and preferably the cheaper the better. These talking food images present another example of how Americans detach themselves from the production of food.

This ended up sounded a lot dumber than I had anticipated. I'd say I was sorry, but I'd be lying. I really don't give a shit if you think it's dumb.

Rock over London, Rock on Chicago

Dog Fighting in Green Bay

Well actually in Allouez. Which is the village where I live.

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=7127683

I know I have ranted about this in the past, but there was a woman on the news tonight discussing the case. She said something like: 'It is a horrible thing to do to those dogs and it's a sin'. Do not quote me on this because, I am not sure exactly what she said, but I know the word sin was lodged in there.

Any one know where I am going with this? Any one? Bueller?

I know I did it for years and years and years. I compartmentalized animals. There were animals I ate and animals that were companions (although, I called them pets back then). I don't know when it became so clear to me, but now I am almost unable to understand how a person can eat one animal and love another.

I honestly have no idea where this post is going. On one hand, I think it is great that people are starting to see that animal abuse is real. I am impressed that the stories are starting to get some coverage locally. Micheal Vick isn't an aberration. Dog fighting is real and is probably happening some where in your community.

On the other hand, well, see above. Compartmentalizing, eat one-love the other. I think you get it.

Maybe I am looking for progress too fast. Maybe it has to start some where and dog fighting is where it will start for some. I ask that when you look into the eyes of your dog, cat, bird, ferret, or what ever companion you have, imagine them all alone in a veal crate with no room to move. Imagine them in line watching others like them being slaughtered. Imagine them being bred over and over again and just used as commodity.

Euthanasia vs Execution of Companion Animals Continued

I thought I would follow up on some of the comments from last week. This are in no particular order, I am just throwing my thoughts out there.
________________________________________________

Neva Vegan:

"Dogs don't process time and conditions in the same way we do. So for a dog,
being in a cell all day long is torture. He wouldn't know why he was there, he
wouldn't realize he'd hurt anyone, he wouldn't be able to read or study for his
GED. His whole existence would be staring at the walls, bored and lonely"

This is such a good point and I cannot believe I have never considered it that way. Even a dog that has an absolute hatred for humans (and I have seen dogs like this) doesn't realize that the way s/he is acting is wrong. They are just following their instinct.

_______________________________________________

Gary:

"Resource constraints aside, I believe a "doggie prison" could be constructed in such a way that it would be worlds better than execution. We have seen countless times that even the most hardened and violent individuals can change drastically with love and guidance. Doesn't everyone deserve a chance? This seems like the compassionate ideal we should strive to achieve. They say the pen is mightier than the sword; kindness - not to be confused with passivity - may be mightier still."

Gary, although I do think this is a fantastic idea, I am still not sure about it. I am not sure that the most hardened criminals can "get better". Unfortunately, I don't know much about serial killers or rapists, so my thoughts may be weak. I know I have heard or read some where that many of the criminals I speak of are mentally ill. Or were abused (Ed Gein, Jeffery Dahmer) and Neva Vegan mentioned this as well. This is also why I am so against the death penalty.

Gary:

"In the case of human executions, I also often detect a feeling of retribution, and I feel that ultimately perpetuates our violent nature rather than eases it."

You have summed this up so much better than I could have. This is why I will never agree with the death penalty. Even survivors who have watched their son/daughter/husband's murderer be executed have said it didn't provide the closure they were looking for.

It is an odd thought that nurture can have so much to do with it. We often talk about socialization of puppies. Poor socialization is often what may lead to an aggressive dog. Why wouldn't it be the same for humans?

_____________________________________________

Neva Vegan:

"I have worked with a lot of animals that were called "monsters" by other people, and while I have met some animals with aggression problems that couldn't be fixed, I've never seen anything in an animal that remotely resembled a human psychopath.

You are very lucky then Neva Vegan. I can think of at least three dogs that something was very wrong with them. One of these dogs was Yoda, who I personally had to escort to the bridge. It is a very hard thing to explain, but these dogs just had something missing in their eyes. It was like a completely blank look. I don't know what it was caused by, but it was scary as hell.

Nearly all the animals that I encountered had fear-aggression, which means that if they feel threatened they sometimes attack. That threat might be something we would not view as a threat, like getting too close or trying to pet them, even maybe being in the same room with an animal who has been severely abused."

Razz (one of my foster dogs) has severe fear aggression. She was terribly abused. We have done a lot of work with her, a lot of counter conditioning along with lots of positive reinforcement training and she is so much better than she was when she first arrived. Something in her will always be on "trigger", as she is very territorial. But as any one who has met her knows, she is fantastic. I train with a clicker. Maybe I will do a post on it some time! ;)

"A few have had fear aggression plus food aggression. Food aggression is 'don't get between me and my food or else.'"

Yoda was also very food aggressive and we did have some success with him, but unfortunately there was too much else going on to hope for a successful rehabilitation.

"Human psychopaths hurt people because they enjoy hurting people and lack the capacity to feel empathy, so they attack without feeling threatened or really having any trigger at all."

This is also an interesting thought. I know that a lot of the interviews that I have read with or about serial killers indicate that they were delusional. One I can think of was a disorder that causes a person to believe they had a relationship with some one (usually some one famous) that didn't exist. The whole relationship was built on one simple smile or wave or an autograph. This is apparently a very common delusion in stalkers. Could it be said that even though we may not recognize a trigger, it may be a trigger for that delusional individual?

Euthanasia vs Execution of Companion Animals

This post has stemmed from a discussion on a forum which I am very active. It got me thinking and we all know how dangerous that is.

The discussion sort of centered around the difference between euthanizing an animal and executing an animal. In other words, helping an animal to die when it is sick or putting an animal to sleep because it has bit or is deemed aggressive. It is also important to note that we also execute animals simply because we don't have enough people to take care of the animals that exist now. Please think about this the next time you think about buying a puppy.

I have mentioned before that I am against the death penalty. I do recognize that people who are in prison and have broken the law have given up many of their rights. Most especially the right to freedom. (I don't want this to turn into a discussion on prisoners rights, so roll with me here). As citizens, regardless of political beliefs, we expect people to behave in a certain manner. Or maybe it would be more correct to say, we expect people to not do certain things. For instance, we expect people not to murder people. We expect people not to rape people. When you perform these acts, you have lost the right to be integrated with society.

What if it is a companion animal? What if s/he has bitten or killed some one? Would it be safe to say that animal no longer has the right to be integrated in our society? I have discussed in the past that I have seen dogs that were aggressive that were simply born that way. (A video of an eight week old puppy that bit a human on the face comes to mind). These dogs are not wired correctly and will not get better with time. A dog that shows that much aggression at such a young age is going to get worse and more dominant as s/he gets older. The question then arises, what do we do with these dogs? There isn't a doggie prison (as far as I know, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) where delinquent dogs can be sent for a life sentence. Because of the overpopulation problem that humans have created with companion animals there aren't even enough homes for all the sweet dogs in the world. What have we done?

The other interesting point that this brings me to comes back to prisoners. If dogs can be "not wired right" isn't it possible that humans could be "born that way" as well? If so, is there a solution for imprisonment of these types of criminals? I don't know if it would have been possible to reform a killer like Jeffrey Dahmer.

The whole topic gets even more frightening from this point on. If we can say that humans are born with an urge to kill (or what ever we want to call it), I am sure some one will try and find that gene, isolate it, and some how abuse power and kill all people with said gene.

I am kind of all over the place tonight. Again, this post puts a bunch of questions out there and not a lot of answers. I am interested to hear every ones views on this.

A much ado about Amazon.com

As many already know, since February of this past year, the Humane Society of the United States has been "demanding" that Amazon.com remove books relating to dog and cock (roosters you pervert) fighting. A simple web search yields many results.

Various Links

Seattlepi.com (Feb 2007)
HSUS (Feb 2007)
Petitions Online (this is a site enabling folks to sign petitions online)
The Inquirer.net (not like the tabloid) (July 2006)

Assuming that by reading this you know that I am a vegan, it seems pretty obvious that I am going to talk all of you into boycotting amazon.com, signing a petition and bad mouthing them all over town.

Right?

Nope, its not that simple.

**I need again to make something very clear. I do not advocate dog or cock fighting**

----------------------------------------

This scenario may seem pretty cut and dry, but it isn't. There are a number of problems with this.

-

First off, Amazon.com is a private business. No one has to buy books from Amazon. No one has to buy anything from Amazon. If you don't like what they are selling, the answer is simple. Don't shop there. There are a number of books that many people would probably find offensive.

• I could purchase The Anarchists Cookbook. If I am not mistaken, this teaches you how to get high and make bombs out of house hold items.
• There is a wide selection of books on the KKK.
• This book talks about 9/11 and gives alternate theories on what really happened.
• A number of fiction and non-fiction books cover abortion.
• And finally, there are plenty on homosexuality.

Now, I have not read all of the books or suggestions above. Some of them I have no desire to read. I don't give a shit about the history of the KKK. Point is, Amazon.com has the right to sell what ever they want as along as it is not breaking the law. So they can't sell drugs (damn, I was looking for a good hook-up). I am pretty sure they couldn't ship weapons. I think you get the picture.

If Amazon was hosting dog fighting or cock fighting. That would be a whole different story. They are distributing information. Shit, if laws like this went so far, they could take away my blog.

The other big problem that I have with the argument that the HSUS is making, is that it is covering up a much bigger issue. If the HSUS is really an animal rights organization (which it's not), it would not only be after dog fighting, cock fighting and animal abuse, but it would be asking people to go vegan and explaining the effects of factory farming. It would take a stance against things like free-range and cage free. In short, it would grow some big, hairy balls (or ovaries for that matter).

HSUS will state that Amazon is not a proponent for free speech. They have pulled books of their shelves numerous times in the past. Again, that is their choice.

I believe that this case is completely out of line. Again, no one has to shop at Amazon.com. You have a choice. If you don't like what they stand for then don't shop there. Think about it before you jump on the "Down With Amazon" wagon. What if they took all blogs away? What if we weren't allowed to peacefully protest? What if I wasn't able to hand out vegan literature?

Use your brains. If you believe in free speech, you believe in it. That's the way it works. You can't decide who has freedom of speech and who doesn't. We all do.

Beautiful, isn't it?

Puppy Mills...again

Tonight our local news did another story on puppy mills. They investigated Puppy Haven in Manitowoc with hidden cameras and the whole shebang. It was sad and disgusting. I am appalled at the way the owner of the mill lied in the face of hard evidence. It saddened me to no end. It is hurtful to know that is the situation Cosmo (one of my pups) would have ended up in had his mother not come into rescue.

Here is the link: http://www.nbc26.com/news/local/7571552.html

There have been a number of different features on puppy mills in the state of WI. We have no laws regulating the breeding of animals. I am glad that people have latched onto this as a big issue and one of importance.

But (and there is always a but)

I don't get the schizophrenia (thanks Jenna and Bob Torres, and I believe Gary Francione for that term). How can one logically (LOGICALLY) look at dogs living in these conditions and say it is wrong, but don't see any problem with all the chickens, pigs, cows, and other "live stock" living in the same and sometimes worse conditions (holy run-on sentence)? I don't understand why the connection is so hard to make. In one of the stories a woman commented "They are treating these dogs like chickens, but expecting them to act like dogs". I screamed at the TV: "WHY IS OKAY FOR CHICKENS TO LIVE THAT WAY?"

The other thing that was entirely frustrating was talk of one of the laws that they wanted passed. "Similar to a lemon law on cars". Not fucking kidding. Comparing a quality animal to a quality car. I don't even know how this is possible. Fuck that.

I don't want to complain because progress is being made. I guess I don't understand why the progress has to be so fucking slow. Why can't every one see the world as I see it? Is that so hard? Animals don't deserve to be used for humans AT ALL. It doesn't matter if they are bred for pets, food, milk, eggs, or fur. Its wrong.

Work with me here people, work with me.

Puppy Mill Investigation

Wow, people do care about animals sometimes.

Our local tv station did a puppy mill investigation and it was pretty hard hitting. You can check it out here: http://www.nbc26.com/news/local/7409851.html

I have been crazy blogger girl today and I still need to frost a cake. Peace out.

What I Have Learned as a Vegan - Chapter Two

Companion Animals

_________________________________________________

Companion Animals and Breed Selection

Well, first I have learned it is not really nice to call them pets. They are companion animals, which I am cool with. But this whole veganism thing really makes me think about a lot of shit which was second nature before.

I have been thinking a lot about different dog breeds and how they relate to a selection of a dog. I do purebred rescue (Boxers) and I will always have a boxer. I recently said that I don’t have much of a problem with some one stating they would like a specific color or gender of a dog. (For example, if you already have a female boxer, it is with in your best interest to get a male). Would I prefer that people just meet the dogs and work from their personality? Yes. But a person that prefers a fawn boxer to a brindle on is just like some one who liked to date people with blue eyes. We all have a preference and a type.

Where the problem starts coming in is when you start to read the AKC Breed Standards. (http://www.akc.org/). If we used this type of language to describe people, I can’t imagine what would happen. For example here is the breed description of a Chow Chow:

Temperament: Keen intelligence, an independent spirit and innate dignity give the Chow an aura of aloofness. It is a Chow’s nature to be reserved and discerning with strangers. Displays of aggression or timidity are unacceptable. Because of its deep set eyes the Chow has limited peripheral vision and is best approached from the front.

Would we ever use this type of language to describe a human? It is the very basis for racism. Temperament: A general feeling of superiority gives white people a rather aloof nature. What The Fuck. (In case any one was wondering, I used white as an example because I am white.) I have read numerous times that there is a parallel between racism and speciesism, but for some odd reason this screams at me loud and clear.

The problem is, I don’t know that these descriptions of dogs are wrong. I do know from a lot of my dog education (har) that each dog has to be treated as an individual. For example, not all Boarder Collies are natural herders. Or not all American Pit Bull Terriers are dog aggressive. Forget that, bad example. There may be Golden Retrievers that are not good with kids. So each dog has to be viewed as an individual. But, because these dogs have been bred with specific traits in mind, you can generalize. Or can you? Is it fair for us as humans to generalize on dog breeds? This is obviously just a step away from us generalizing about people and races and religions.

Companion Animals and Euthanasia

Here is where things get really icky (which is a very technical term). Before I get into the war that goes on in my head, I should give you just a little back ground on where I stand on certain issues. First, I am anti-death penalty. Next, I am pro-choice. Many people don’t understand how I can believe in two things that seemingly look like they should match (In other words, I should either be pro-death penalty or pro-life). Let me be clear on something here, I am not pro-abortion. In fact, I doubt it is something that I could ever do. But, I have never stood in any one else’s shoes and I am not going to pretend to know every situation that every woman has gone through. I can’t pretend that all unplanned pregnancies can be solved with adoption. I will always be anti-death penalty, because it doesn’t make sense to me. We are saying that murder is wrong, but yet that is how we punish the murderer?

So, this is what got me thinking. I have had to euthanize dogs in the past. One for aggression and one for quality of life (she had horrible cancer). I am wondering how I can justify euthanizing an aggressive dog, but can be against the death penalty. Let me be very clear, the dog I euthanized for aggression was dangerous; he tried to bite me in the stomach (this is an extremely aggressive move). It was fucking scary. This is the only dog I have had in my house that I was actually scared of. Could I very well place that dog in the general public? I think most peoples answer to this would be no, I couldn’t. Something deep inside this dog was broken and would never be fixed.

The thing is, it wasn’t the dogs fault (or imo any aggressive dogs) that he was this way. He was either raised improperly or was the product of poor breeding. More than likely, it was a combination of these two issues. So humans made him this way. It is unfortunate that the only way we have to “solve” this is euthanasia. In a perfect world (one I am still not sure I can grasp) the dogs wouldn’t have been bred in the first place, so the aggression wouldn’t have existed.

A while back An Animal Friendly Life (http://www.ananimalfriendlylife.com/) posted a story about California’s new spay and neuter law. (You can read about it here http://ananimalfriendlylife.com/2007/04/committee-passes-mandatory-spayneuter.html). I had posted that I thought this could be drastic. Eric (the owner of this fabulous blog) let me know that what really is drastic is the fact that we have to put half a million (or more) to death every year. If mandatory spay an neuter laws were in place, I would hope that more owners would make responsible choices. I would hope that they would take better care of their animals. I would hope that a law like this would take the responsibility and burden off of rescues and shelters to have to make these decisions.

I am not sure where any of this leads, and I obviously don’t have any answers, just more questions.