Ask not for whom the bell tolls...

I have a lot of work to do. Last semester, I had three projects to work on simultaneously. This semester, I have fewer projects, but I'm in my college's student government and I'm the secretary of a club. So no updating until I get free time.

BTW, all you comment spammers can fuck off and die.

Where Have I Been?

Well, I haven't been posting anything lately, and there is a very good reason for this. I am a full-time student, and I've got a lot of stuff that is keeping me occupied. So, I'll update when I can, but no promises, eh? I've just got too much to do right now, and on my list of priorities, updating this blog ranks just behind school and work.

Iams: Exposing the Lies

PETA hates Proctor and Gamble. PETA hates Proctor and Gamble so much that they will stop at nothing to see that company destroyed. Why do they hate Proctor and Gamble? Because in an effort to bring us new and more effective products, Proctor and Gamble has to test on animals.

PETA has launched a propaganda campaign against Iams specifically. Now, I for one, would never buy Iams for my pets. But that's because it sucks as a pet food. It's overpriced for what you're getting. My pets get quality food.

If you believe what PETA says about Iams, then you believe that Iams has a very serious problem. Well, that's not entirely true. PETA did uncover problems at two labs that Iams had outsourced work to, but, by the time this campaign was launched, they weren't even using the first one. They fired the second lab after PETA had uncovered that the lab was not fulfilling Iams' animal care policy. However, he video taken at the third lab is a problem. First of all, PETA decries the conditions that the animals used in this lab live in, not taking into account that the animals at local animal shelters all live in the same conditions.

Here is one of PETA's misleading statements:

Another dog, referred to only as HJBMCN, had no resting board and was not removed from her cage during cleaning time, so she often had to sit or lie on wet concrete. Like so many other animals, HJBMCN was given no exercise, socialization, or psychological enrichment.

You want the truth? The woman who got that "undercover" video footage was hired in order to develop and implement programs to make sure that these animals' welfare was being taken into account. She had the responsibility for socialization and enrichment of dogs at that facility. If they were not being given exercise, socialization, or enrichment, could it be because PETA didn't want them given any? This wouldn't be the first time PETA has tried to engage in cruelty to animals in order to further their radical cause...

Here's another gem from PETA's IamsCruelty.com site:

Many Iams dogs suffered cruel and painful muscle biopsies, and Iams even allowed its dogs to be surgically debarked to silence the their tormented cries.

And now here is the truth that PETA doesn't want you to know:

Yes,some dogs were debarked. However, it wasn't because Iams wanted it done. In fact, according to an article on Iams' webpage, debarking has been against Iams company policy since 1960. The PETA operative authorized these animals to be debarked without Iams' consent. What does that tell you about PETA?

Here are some other things that PETA doesn't want you to know:

Iams adopts out all the animals they use in tests after the tests are done or after the animals are retired, as of July 2003.

Iams is committed to working toward eliminating animal experimentation as a scientifically valid procedure. They are actively using, seeking, and developing alternatives.

Killing dogs and cats is against Iams research policy, and has been for years.

The "undercover" operative who obtained the video footage was paid to be the animal welfare specialist for that facility. Getting paid to ensure that the animals are well cared for while working with an extremist activist organization that seeks to eliminate all laboratory tests on animals is most definitely a conflict of interests, and one cannot consider this "investigation" to be objective and expect to be taken seriously.

And, finally, the ASPCA sheds some light on the issue:

The ASPCA participates on the Iams International Animal Care Advisory Board. This board provides input to the Iams Company on animal research issues.

The Iams Company has requested that members of the board conduct unannounced site visits to Iams' research facilities. The ASPCA provides site visit reports for each of the visits our team participates in. These reports represent a snapshot in time based on what was seen during the visit period only.

Here are the ASPCA's stated objectives when they visit an Iams facility:

• To evaluate the care of the animals
• To assess the condition of the animals
• To evaluate socialization and enrichment for the animals
• To evaluate housing and play areas
• To ensure that animals are not exposed to inappropriate stress or hardship
• To interview staff directly involved with the care of the animals
• To review study protocols and other study related documentation
• To evaluate whether or not the research being conducted falls within the guidelines of the Iams Company Research Policy

Also, according to a statement on the ASPCA's website, the ASPCA has had a relationship with Iams for five years. That relationship definitely predates any of these allegations that PETA is making.

So, once again PETA makes false allegations against an innocent entity (in this case, a company) just because they don't agree with the methods this company uses.

Feral Cats

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell, Animal Farm)

Usually when someone references Animal Farm, they are talking about politics. After all, Animal Farm was a political work first and foremost. However, in this case, like with my entry about pit bulls, I am meaning that quote to be taken literally.

One of PETA's arguments against eating meat and using animals in experiments is to remind us that we wouldn't treat our pets that way. Well, would we euthanize our pets for no reason? Well, PETA seems to think that we should be euthanizing feral cats. Here is what AskCarla.com says about the issue:

We believe that trap, vaccinate, spay/neuter, and release programs are acceptable when the cats are isolated from roads, people, and other animals who could harm them; regularly attended to by people who not only feed them but care for their medical needs; and situated in an area where they do not have access to wildlife and where the weather is temperate.

Here is AskCarla.com's arument for euthanizing feral cats:

Sadly, our experience with trap, spay-and-neuter, and release programs and "managed" feral cat colonies has led us to question whether or not these programs are truly in the cats’ best interests. We receive countless reports of incidents in which cats—"managed" or not—suffer and die horrible deaths because they must fend for themselves outdoors. Having witnessed firsthand the gruesome things that can happen to feral cats, we cannot in good conscience advocate trapping and releasing as a humane way to deal with overpopulation.

Advocates argue that feral cats are just as deserving as other felines and that it is our responsibility to alleviate their suffering and assure their safety. We absolutely agree. It is precisely because we would never encourage anyone to let their own cats outdoors to roam that we do not encourage the same for feral cats. In fact, the act of releasing a feral cat is, in the eyes of the law, abandonment and is illegal in many areas.

We believe that although altering feral cats prevents the suffering of future generations, it does little to improve the quality of life for the cats who are left outdoors and that allowing feral cats to continue their daily struggle for survival in a hostile environment is not usually a humane option.

So, because feral cats have to fend for themselves outdoors and they can get run over by cars, we should euthanize them? Well, let's euthanize raccoons, then. Of all the animals I've seen dead or dying in the road, I've seen more raccoons than anything else. Plus, they are notorious for carrying rabies. So let's kill them. Oh, and let's likk all the deer, too. They can get hit by cars, too.

As for their problem with Trap-Neuter-Return programs, the Feral Cat Network tells a different story:

The empirical evidence is indisputable that TNR is the most effective way to help reduce the number of homeless feral cats in both urban and suburban areas. For example, in Hamilton, New Jersey, TNR has resulted in Township health department statistics showing that the number of homeless cats killed last year is less than 20 percent of the 571 cats put to death in Hamilton five years ago. Numbers also indicate that fewer strays are brought to the shelter each year. Township spokesperson Rich McClellan attributed the decreasing number of cats killed in shelters to the work of TNR caregivers. Gwyn Sondike, who for the past year has served on a NJ state task force appointed by Gov. James E. McGreevey to examine animal welfare, stated: "It's actually more expensive to have animal control officers go out and find these cats and have them euthanized than it is to have members of these (cat welfare) groups trap, neuter and release them." According to Lucinda Tucker, who operates the TNR plan, trapping and killing a cat can cost a township between $75 and $125, while TNR costs about $50 and is paid for by volunteer organizations.

Hmm... TNR is more cost-effective and it actually works. Here is what the Feral Cat Network had to say about trapping and killing:

Traditional, agency-run attempts to trap and kill cats have historically resulted in greater numbers -- and greater suffering for that reason alone -- of stray animals, than have well-planned systems to trap, neuter, and return cats. TNR, in conjunction with public education and low-cost spay/neuter clinics, stabilizes numbers and facilitates the eventual elimination of colonies of homeless cats.

The Feral Cat Network also lists the erroneous arguments supporting euthanization and presents the facts on their webpage. It's worth a look.

Anyhow, back to PETA. I would like to know how the same group that decries the fact that we kill animals in an attempt to control their populations and their effect on local ecosystems could possibly advocate ki
lling animals that pose no real threat to the ecosystem. If it's okay to euthanize feral cats, then shouldn't it be okay to hunt seals in Canada? They aren't threatened, and they pose a threat to the ecosystem there. They are competing with polar bears for resources, and, without human intervention, the bears would lose. How about deer hunting? In my area, the deer are reproducing out of control. Should we not hunt these deer, even though they will destroy the ecosystem? Of course, PETA will say that they shouldn't be hunted, but, after knowing about their policy concerning feral cats, how could anyone really believe that they honestly care about animals? How the fuck could anyone take these douchebags serously?

If Jesus Was a Vegetarian, the Pope Is a Lutheran

I'm tired, and I don't really feel like doing any work today (in fact, this was written yesterday), so I'm going to steal candy from a baby and shoot fish in a barrel, so to speak. I am addressing the claims that Jesus was a vegetarian.

Now, I don't know about any of you, my faithful readers (all five of you, according to Feedburner data), but I, for one, consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on the Bible. I am by no means a Christian, though. I just know a lot about the Bible. I used to be Christian, and, in this past life, I went to a Bible college program in Brampton, Ontario. Plus, in my free time, I studied what was in the Bible like mad, so I would say that my perspective on Biblical Christian theology is pretty enlightened. Not to toot my own horn, or anything...

Okay, I Googled the words "Jesus" and "Vegetarian", and I got a lot of sites saying that Jesus was a vegetarian. I decided to only comment on the first few results. So, here we go.

Probably the most absurd site I got in my results was this one. They say that Jesus was not only a vegetarian, he was also a "raw-foodist". They then cite the Essene Gospel of Peace to support their claim. I'm sorry, but the Essene Gospel of Peace is apocryphal, if not downright pseudepigraphal. I spent two hours searching for scholarly opinions about it on Google and I can find none. The fact that the only information about it is from Essene sources seems to tell me that the Essene Gospel of Peace is nothing but bullshit. It's not even on the same level of being fake as the Apocryphon of James!

If you examine the evidence as put forth in the only historical accounts of Jesus' life, the Gospels, you will see that Jesus did not advocate raw food at all. Jesus ate bread. The last time I checked, bread had to be cooked.

Now, take a look at this site. It claims that the Bible does not mention Jesus eating meat at all. Well, I distinctly remember Jesus causing Simon Peter to catch an assload of fish not once, but twice. I also remember Jesus multiplying fish and loaves not once, but twice. Jesus also ate fish after his resurrection. Of course, they claim that the fish is a symbol of Christianity, so those passages are symbolic. Symbolic my ass! The fish didn't become a symbol of Christianity until AFTER Jesus died. He never instituted it as a symbol, and in fact fish would have been a staple of his diet. He lived in fucking Galilee, where the Sea of Galilee is located. The ichthus ("Jesus fish") became popular during the various Roman persecutions that took place infrequently. Not only that, but I also remember the Last Supper, which took place on Passover. The last time I checked, lamb was part of the Seder. If these people wish to claim that Jesus did not follow Jewish law as it relates to the Passover, then they had better be able to prove it.

This site also claims that Jesus was an Essene, despite the obvious fact that Jesus never once advocated communal living or property in common. He also routinely dined with rich people, particularly Pharisees and tax collectors. If he was an Essene, he wasn't very good at being one. From what I can gather, the only label you could give Jesus would be "Pharisee", because of his belief in the resurrection, the defining belief of a Pharisee.

Then these people go on to claim that Paul, if he was being consistent with his teachings, was also a vegetarian. They use 1 Corinthians 8:13 to support this argument. I say, "Bullshit!" Do they even know what the context of that verse is? Let's examine what 1 Corinthians 8:1 says:

"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies."

And, to make sure that the context is inescapably clear, let's look at Verse 4:

"Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one."

Hmm... You know what this says to me? Paul was talking about meat sacrificed to idols. Back in the day, throughout the pagan parts of the Roman Empire, all animals were sacrificed to idols during slaughter. Some early Christians had a problem eating the meat from these animals, because the Old Testament forbade eating meat sacrificed to false gods. However, here, Paul gives a dispensation from that law, and then goes on to say that the early Christians should be careful with this freedom. If someone who does not know as they know sees them eating meat sacrificed to an idol, what would they think? Their faith would be weakened, and they might not become Christian. Paul said that he would never eat meat again if it would cause a Christian to stumble in his faith. There is no evidence that this was actually the case, so this claim is, of course, bullshit.

Then this site goes on to claim that a few Apostles and Jesus' brother, James the Less. They then say that, if James the Less was raised as a vegetarian, then Jesus probably was, as well. First of all, scholars can't even agree on what James the Less' relationship with Jesus was. Secondly, there is absolutely no historical data that supports this. Hearsay from Augustine and Hegisuppus doesn't cut it, especially when you consider that the canon of the New Testament hadn't even been set at that point, and there were a lot of apocryphal gospels floating about. Show me an authenticated letter written by an apostle that says that James the Less, Peter, Paul, and Matthew were vegetarian, or shut the fuck up. Seriously.

The rest of the sites that Google returned were more of the same, including PETA's JesusVeg.com. If you want an article that addresses PETA's claims specifically, Slate has a good one. They addressed all of PETA's claims, even the more absurd ones of Essenes being vegetarians, while I only really addressed the less absurd claims of the whole "Jesus was a vegetarian" school of thought.

Ingrid Newkirk Hates Pit Bulls

For a group that proclaims to love animals, you would think that their love would extend to a breed of dog that is currently being persecuted vis-a-vis "Breed Specific Legislation" (BSL). Specifically, Ingrid has her panties, or knickers, as they are called where she is from, in a knot over pit bulls.

If you were to ask Ingrid if she loves bulldogs, she would probably say that she does, and then recount the time that she was bitten by one as she was trying to "rescue" it. Knowing her closeness with the ALF, I wonder if that "rescue" operation was even legal to begin with... Perhaps the dog didn't feel like it needed to be rescued. If I was a bulldog, I wouldn't want to be "rescued "by PETA, either. Of course, I know that PETA has a policy of euthanasia for the bulldogs they rescue. Don't believe me? Here are some of Ingrid Newkirk's own words on the issue:

"People have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any "pit bull" who comes through the front door goes out the back door -- in a body bag...This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover. ..Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very people who are trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur, or frogs for dissection, supports the pit bull policy..."

"Those who argue against the euthanasia policy for pit bull dogs are naive."

"I have scars on my leg and arm from my own encounter with a pit. Many are loving and will kiss on sight, but many are unpredictable."

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own."

"We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note. "

Here's a news flash, you fucking bitch: Dogs are only as good as their owners. You can train any dog to be vicious, and you can train any dog to be docile and loving. It isn't the dog's fault that its owner has decided that he wants an attack dog. An entire breed shouldn't be punished because a few of them are used as attack dogs. Nor should an entire category of breeds.

Anecdotal evidence time: I have a friend. Big shocker, eh? This friend has a pit bull mutt. This dog is one of the friendliest dogs I've ever seen. It is not territorial at all. When I come over infrequently, it jumps on me, knocks me over, and licks me. That's a real malicious dog, eh?

I haven't even gotten to PETA's press release concerning pit bulls, have I? Well, let's examine that. Ingrid Newkirk justifies her position that these dogs should be euthanized because they were bred from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which was designed for bull-baiting. And? Does she have any idea how many breeds of dogs were originally designed for bloodsports (not including legitimate hunting)? Should we euthanize all those dogs, too? Oh, wait. I forgot that PETA hates the idea of pets anyway and wants to see us "admire animals from afar". Well, Ingrid, I've got something you can admire from afar...

Ingrid Newkirk also claims that pit bulls are the most abused class of dogs in America. Well? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's sterilize black people because they are more likely to become single parents! Pit bulls are more likely to be abused, but that shouldn't matter. Instead of endorsing BSL, they should be going after these people who train these dogs to be vicious and who use them in dogfights. Applying a statement that may be true for certain members of the collective to the entire collective amounts to the logical fallacy of Converse Accident. There exist plenty of responsible pit bull owners out there, and pit bulls, when raised properly, are loving and affectionate dogs, Newkirk's own experience nonwithstanding.

In the opening of the press release, Newkirk claims that a growing number of animal shelters have a "zero tolerance" policy concerning pit bulls. They are euthanized as soon as they come in. Well, considering that these are the most often abused dogs, that kind of makes sense. You cannot put a vicious dog up for adoption. It must be destroyed. Also, with the ever growing number of municipalities that have enacted BSL, is it any surprise that these shelters have to destroy the pit bulls that come in?

Newkirk claims to have amassed a small collection of news stories of pit bulls attacking people. Well, it has been my personal experience with pit bulls that they are very nice dogs. In fact, I've been attacked by a dog once that I can remember (I'm told that a dog we had when I was a toddler got jealous of me and bit me, but I don't remember that), and that dog was a dalmatian. It bit me on the head, and I've still got the scar from the attack. In fact, the scar will never go away. I have never been so much as growled at by a pit bull. I have been nuzzled by a pit bull, and I have been licked by a pit bull, but never attacked by one. Maybe Ingrid could do a little math and figure out what the percentage of viscous pit bulls to the entire pit bull population in this country is. Maybe she could do the same for all other medium to large breed dogs, as well. She may be surprised... Pit bulls get more media coverage because they are more popular right now. Did you know that, until recently, it was illegal to import German Shepherds in Australia? Any dog that size can be trained to be vicious. It is senseless to ban a certain breed or class of dogs just because a few pet owners are irresponsible or decide to break the law.

Ingrid's last comment pisses me off royally:

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones."

No, you can stop killing pit bulls by enforcing laws already on the books. And some people have a preference as to what kind of breed of dog they want. If you get a purebred dog, you are more likely to be aware of the breed characteristics and you are more likely to find a dog suited to your personality. My mom loves beagles, for example. Beagles are very social animals and love attention. My mom loves giving attention to our beagle. Beagles are also energetic, and my mom loves watching our beagle run around the house (she runs up the back of our couch). I completely understand that some people like mutts. My dad likes mutts. But I also understand that some people like to know what they are getting when they get a puppy, and the best way to do that is to get a purebred. With that said, I encourage responsible breeding, as advised by the American Kennel Club. I also encourage going to breed rescues, if possible. If you don't mind not knowing what your dog's temperament will be like, then, by all means, adopt from your local animal shelter. I also encourage adoption.

Okay, off the rabbit trail. PETA is full of morons. Of course, they do have a point about the animals in shelters, but you shouldn't get on the backs of people who like a particular breed for that. If you want to reduce the number of dogs in shelters, encourage spay/neuter programs. BSL is not the answer, especially if the aim of your organization is to encourage ethical treatment of ALL animals. Is it just me, or is PETA getting a bit Orwellian?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Of course, in the case of PETA, we ARE talking about animals. Seeing as they are quick to claim "specieism" when arguing against using animals in experiments, entertainment, or for food or clothes, shouldn't they be trying to avoid discriminating against certain animals themselves?

Children Chumps

My friend Stephanie brought the PETA propaganda campaign "Chicken Chumps" to my attention, saying that it was probably more damaging than the "Your Mommy Kills Animals" campaign. I Googled the relevant words and, lo and behold, I came upon a news article that explained everything I needed to know.

PETA markets these trading cards that feature a slightly mean-looking boy, a fat girl, a sick girl, and some chickens. Here are what the backs of each card say:

"Sickly Sally":

"Most chickens in stores have germs on them that can make you sick, and often those germs are really just poop! Sally feels awful after eating that poop-covered, germ-filled chicken sandwich. Her head is pounding, her stomach hurts, and she can’t get out of bed without throwing up."

"Cruel Kyle":

"Kyle is mean because he scarfs down legs, wings, and bony things. The chickens he eats live in big sheds, where they can’t breathe fresh air or feel the warm sun. Bored to death, they have to sit all day in their poop and pee with no room to move. When they grow up, their throats are cut with a big knife. Help these chickies: Say “no, thanks” to chicken sandwiches or chicken anything. Tell your friends, too!"

"Tubby Tammy":

"Chicken doesn’t have any fiber at all and is packed with fat and cholesterol. Eating buckets of fingerlickin’, grease-drippin’ drumsticks, nuggets, and wings has made Tammy’s tummy so big that she can barely button her pants—and she has to use a bungee cord for a belt!"

"Feathered Friends":

"Scientists who study chicken intelligence say that chickens are as smart as dogs or cats. They form friendships and remember each other. Some have lots of friends and others prefer to be by themselves. They love their families, want to spend time with them, and don’t want to be eaten any more than you do."

Well, I've been searching Google for hours, and I can't find a single scientific study where they said that chickens were as smart as cats or dogs. I did see an article on Science NetLinks that mentioned chicken intelligence in passing, saying that parrots were much smarter than chickens. I searched AnimalScam.com as well, and I couldn't find anything. If anyone can find something about chicken intelligence, I'll amend this article to reflect that. But I think that PETA is utilizing their usual strategy, which is talking out of their ass.

Now, let's address "Tubby Tammy". I have the biggest problem with this card. Have these PETA nutjobs forgotten what grade school is like for fat kids? Don't they have enough problems? Especially girls. Of course, who am I to think for even a moment that PETA gives a shit about these kids? All they care about is spreading their radical ideology to whoever they can.

Not only that, but does it really matter whether or not chicken has any fibre? The last time I checked, the meat and protein food group wasn't where you were supposed to be getting your fibre anyway. It's the grain group and the vegetable group that supply one's dietary fibre.

Onward, to "Cruel Kyle". PETA is trying to paint every single person who eats chicken as "mean". Bullshit. You know what's mean? Taking another kid's lunch money. Shoving a kid in a locker. Ostracizing someone. That is mean. Eating chicken can hardly compare. The best PETA could possibly say is "apathetic", or "indifferent". But, again, since when did PETA give a shit about rationality?

Finally, we arrive at "Sickly Sally". PETA again shows its utter disregard for facts by claiming that whatever germs are on chicken are really just shit. Microbes and shit are two different things, although shit is a breeding ground for microbes. PETA bases this claim on a USDA study that found E. Coli on 98% of the chicken carcasses it studied. The thing that PETA doesn't consider is that E. coli levels are used to test fecal contamination in WATER, not meat, and that E. coli is not a fecal bacteria. According to Wikipedia, E. coli also grows well in other environments, like paper mills. Hey, maybe our nation's paper mills are contaminated with shit!

Ah, I love the smell of bullshit in the morning...