Buckles Blog: From Ben Trumble

Thursday, January 17, 2008

From Ben Trumble

HENDERSON, Nev. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he won't just be a president for the American people, but the animals too.

"What about animal rights?" a woman shouted out during the candidate's town hall meeting outside Las Vegas Wednesday after he discussed issues that relate more to humans, like war, health care and the economy.

Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, "not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog." He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.

"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," he said. "And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals

48 comments:

Anonymous said...: What constitutes genuine concern over animal welfare, and extreme animal rights is sometimes the difference of night and day.

I have had the privilage of being friends with many circus animal trainers. In almost all cases, these fine people are true animal lovers who have dedicated their lives to caring for animals.

I have seen a well known tiger trainer stop his car in the road to move a turtle out of the path of on coming traffic. I know an elephant trainer (who also has a blog site) who has a barn full of stray cats that he is feeding. I could go on and on with examples of animal passionate circus people.

I agree with Sen. Obama's concern for animal welfare. I would however want to see it a bit more defined to see if it merges with animal rights extreemism. Then I would have a problem with it.

Democrats are not the only animal welfare advocates, First Lady Laura Bush has often made pro animal welfare statements as well.

Jimmy Cole; 17 January, 2008 08:15
Anonymous said...: Well said Jimmy.
Obama has said that he supports the rights of hunters and sportsmen.

Don Bloomer; 17 January, 2008 09:00
Casey McCoy Cainan said...: Did he use the term "animal rights"?

If so, I believe he is uneducated, or a card carrying member.

Mr. Cole you are correct.
However welfare and "rights", are apples and oranges.

Webster says,
animal rights
pl.n.
The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes.

wel·fare
n.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.

I am all about the "welfare" never about "rights" that no animal could understand.

I already didn't like the candidate, over the not being sworn in with a hand on the Bible. This is not so much a political blog, but as a Republican, who is not satisfied with my parties decisions lately, and was thinking of jumping the fence, I can honestly say, the Democratic party needs some better choices then "him" and "her" to get my one vote.

A preemptive apology, to all the anonymous bloggers who are "put off" or "disgruntled" by my comment. I truly mean no harm.; 17 January, 2008 09:07
Anonymous said...: Greetings;
I live in Ill. and thanks to Obama's anti horse slaughter bill it cost $252 to have a horse that died of old age removed from my farm. (the ground is frozen so I couldn't bury it.) Similar removals of dead cattle cost less than $25.
Jim; 17 January, 2008 09:36
Casey McCoy Cainan said...: Jim,
Rest assured, the dead horse appreciates not only it's knew found "rights", but also the extra $227.00. Cows don't get any, cause at the moment (this will surely change someday as well) we still eat them.; 17 January, 2008 09:51
Anonymous said...: I agree with Mr. Cole. The news story as reported by AP was bothersome mostly because the term Animal Rights was explicitly used by the audience member questioning the Senator, and then repeated by the Senator. I think we all agree that Animal Welfare as in well-being is important, and that's what Jim Cole describes. Animal Rights however is something different. My own guess would be that Senator Obama meant animal welfare. However Chicago is a hotbed of activism, and as the Senator has been endorsed in previous elections by the Humane Society, a group that has moved firmly into the Animal Rights camp in many communities, I wish that he had parsed his words with greater care. I hope at some point somebody will ask him to clarify what he meant. And as Mr Cole notes, this isn't a party line issue. Legitimate animal welfare enjoys support from Dems and Republicans. And unfortunately radical animal rights has a handful of supporters in office on both sides. When Congress was threatening circus and zoos with a draconian "safety" law that would have criminalized all elephant rides in the name of safety back in 2001, the primary sponsor Congressman Farr of California was a liberal Democrat with long time ties to both Pat Derby at PAWS, and to PETA. However his primary cosponsor was a Republican member from Alaska. Sometimes these guys just don't know who they're becoming involved with.; 17 January, 2008 10:03
Buckles said...: Why can't politicians, when running for office, be like they were in the old days:
"I never made a dishonest dollar in my life!
All I want is a chance".; 17 January, 2008 10:19
Anonymous said...: I remember the phrase, but not who said it (maybe Mark Twain, maybe not) . . . "an honest politician is one who stays bought . . ."; 17 January, 2008 11:32
Jon Pult said...: Casey,

Obama was sworn in with the Bible. Keith Ellison, Congressman from Minnesota, was sworn in with Koran. Although I'm not an Obama supporter, this is one of the many untruths spread about him because of his name.

JP; 17 January, 2008 11:32
Anonymous said...: One good piece of good news on the animal rights front is that Cong. Tom Lantos of Calif. is not seeking reelection
Lane Talburt; 17 January, 2008 11:50
Eric said...: I believe that, under U.S. political campaign laws, it is possible to find out what special interest groups are contributing to what political candidates. A little digging should reveal which candiates are getting money from PETA and others of their ilk. (If whoever wins the presidental election was a major recipient of PETA money, you can be sure that there will be some sort of "pay back," which will not bode well for those circuses that still present trained tigers, elephants, etc.) Rather than haggling over "animal rights" vs "animal welfare," it might be better to find out who PETA is supporting and then get the word out to everyone. (If PETA's candidate is also your candidate, you might want to reconsider who you're going to vote for.) 'nuff said.; 17 January, 2008 11:58
Casey McCoy Cainan said...: Sazzie,
I have checked it out, and it appears you are correct. I was wrong, and misinformed. Those pesky untruths. I know a circus owner who changes the name of his show up to five times a season, due to "untruths". You would think the politicians would catch on to the trend.; 17 January, 2008 12:17
Anonymous said...: For what it's worth, I don't recall PETA or HSUS, or any other activist group ever endorsing or contributing to a major party Presidential campaign, and I don't think they're going to do that this time around. Some of their affiliated groups like Physicians Committee for Socially Responsible Medicine might contribute to the Vegetarian Party candidate ( I kid you not.) What worries me with any politician is that they are intellectually lazy, so if activists have their "ear" they sign off on legislation without looking at the bigger picture. I'm fairly certain that Mr. Obama for example is not opposed to bio-medical research involving lab animals, he doesn't have it in for the beef industry etc. But owing to the support he previously received from Humane Society in his races for the IL State Senate, he may very well give weight to their opinions on some subjects when in fact they're bad opinions. Congressman Farr who sponsored Pat Derby's elephant "safety" bill accepted an award from PETA connected I believe to some bit of legislation on inspection of fur farms. He was completely unaware of their anti-rodeo efforts...and the largest rodeo in California (where he always makes an appearance) is in his district. Mostly I think it's important not to let any of these guys get away with "I didn't know." I'm sure that 75% of the people that give money to PETA are completely unaware that the group killed 97% of the adoptable animals passing through its shelters last year. I'm sure that most of them don't know that PETA has given money to convicted Animal Liberation Front terrorists. "I didn't know" covers a multitude of sins.; 17 January, 2008 13:34
Anonymous said...: i have already sent a letter to democratic leadership regarding this and i will be calling obama's office today. regarding the bill that was proposed to congress regarding animals in 2001, since it has been pointed out that it was introduced by a democrat, i want to remind everyone that it was also a democrat who chaired the committee that killed the bill. obama is not my candidiate of choice because of a number of reasons, but the bottom line i would hope in the upcoming election are things like a war polls show that most people feel is unnecassary that was started on the basis of lies, an economy that's killing almost everyone and lack of health care that's literally killing people. no matter who is elected, i don't think congress will get into animal rights and if it does, we've learned in connectict, massachusetts and minnesota the power of letting our position be known.; 17 January, 2008 13:35
Anonymous said...: i just got off the phone with a lady who works in obama's campaign office and her job is to clarify his position on different issues. she says she doesn't know any more about this than we do but has promised to get it clarified and send me a clarification. she also noted my feelings and we all know that most politicians keep a record of calls from voters and their feelings. i generally feel that politics is not something we should be getting into but i appreciate ben bringing this up and i agree with his comments. in this particular case i think a clarification is absolutely necessary. i feel strongly enough that i would never vote for a candidate who wants to hurt the circus industry.; 17 January, 2008 14:06
Anonymous said...: We should ALL query ALL of the candidates (whether they are our choice or not) to make them aware of our position before the other side does. Perhaps early questions will result in them considering our position first. Reasonably presented, perhaps we can hope for thoughtful responses. Good luck to all! (Guess what I'll be doing this evening?) And thanks to all for sticking to the one political issue on which we all share agreement.
Dick Flint
Baltimore; 17 January, 2008 16:03
Anonymous said...: Once you are elected you become part of the problem. I agree that each candidate should be asked what his or her position is on public display of animals and whethere they are in sympathy with USHU, pETA or any other so called animal rights group. The fringe element has killed so many innocent animals that I shudder to think what an animal activist in office would do. Lets do our job and educate them.
Bob Kitto; 17 January, 2008 19:13
cwdancinfool said...: I also live in Illinois and he states he voted for the bill to stop the slaughter of horses, which resulted in a double-decker semi loaded with 55 draft horses destined for Canada to be slaughtered for meat overturning in Illinios, killing several of the horses. The rest were adopted out to people who helped rescue them in the middle of the night.; 17 January, 2008 19:14
Anonymous said...: There's no secret as to why animal rights activists are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats. Because they see their candidates as being most likely to enact policies based on their beliefs.
If anyone elects a candidate in the hopes of low oil prices, socialist health care and the war ending, I have a Fiji mermaid to sell them.
It is the duty of every American to elect a president who is least likely to intrude on the freedom of pursuit of happiness. Even if that happiness comes from working with animals unencumbered by endless regulations that make those pursuits all but impossible.
Anything else is un-American.

HM; 17 January, 2008 20:41
24-HOUR-MAN said...: I would sure like to know more details about, "endorsed by the Humane Society", Let's not get legitimate Humane Societies mixed up with "The Humane Society of the United States". This is an animal rights group who I am convinced does everything possible to make the public believe they are a government organization, when in truth they are not.; 17 January, 2008 21:49
B.E.Trumble said...: HM... In many years of wading through the mountains of financials that animal liberation groups and their not-for-profit fronts generate I've never found anything that ties them more to one party than another. As I said in another post, animal liberation legislations tends to be sponsored by members of both parties -- they're simply ill-informed. The bulk of donations to groups like PETA and Humane Society United States comes from people who believe they're protecting dogs and puppies. They aren't political donations from people leaning one way or the other. As for the real activists who know what's going on and what the real agenda is, if they belong to a party, I'd guess the "Greens." Liberals tend to be humanists, that's why they support expanded health care etc. The activists are "antihumanists." Ingrid Newkirk made her first headlines saying that AIDS was a good thing if it led to the extinction of mankind.

Mr. Strong makes a good point on HSUS. The way that a respectable animal welfare organization was hijacked and turned into an animal liberation front is appalling. For generations local society were generally run by well meaning people who didn't care who the local "President" or "Secretary" was. Hardcore activists managed to take over the local groups in just a few years, and then they were in a position to get control of the national office. The fact that HSUS has actually hired Animal Liberation Front members is disgraceful. Activists seem to be using that same tactic with local zoological societies in some towns.; 17 January, 2008 22:57
Anonymous said...: Animal welfare and rights quickly become interchangeable when, for instance the definition of welfare (i.e. animal enclosures of unrealist size for travelling shows) has the same effect as an outright ban.
This is seen in the activists who seek to ban bull hooks with the actual intent of making it impossible to safely handle elephants in public.
And, Ben, I have zero doubt that if one were to canvas AR activists, vegans, etc (especially the vocal celebrities - Baldwin, Bassinger, Anderson, etc) on would find them to be overwhelmingly Democrat.
Regardless, if members of one particular party do nothing to defend the incursions on personal freedom made by the other party, they are just as guilty, by default.

HM; 17 January, 2008 23:53
Anonymous said...: Anyone who believes that Animal rights activist groups are not promnently Democrats is seriously deluded
DEmocrat Hillary Clinton proudly states that she represents the extreme liberal left
Where do you think these people are coming from ? Even the liberals admit that this is an extreme left issue; 18 January, 2008 09:17
Anonymous said...: This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue (as I recall Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut, was listed as a speaker at an animal-rights organization in October--I hope he didn't go). But it is a very important animal welfare issue to all of us who dearly wish to see elephants and lions and tigers and horses and dogs performing in the arena. I hope we can continue concentrating our efforts to support the organizations--whether they be the Ringlings or Shriners--who are demonstrating with their money where their commitment lies I believe we need to point out to the politicians--at every level of government--where their stance to exclude even one species of performing animals from circuses will lead them and the majority of voters they represent.
Lane Talburt; 18 January, 2008 10:23
Casey McCoy Cainan said...: Larry,
I agree the foot soldier "whacko" breed of AR activists are dominantly Democrats. However, the "head honcho whackos" would be smarter to vote Republican, as they have wealth, and the Republican party is much friendlier with not-for-profit tax breaks. I would guess the majority of "big wigs" in the AR movement are less concerned with legislation regarding animal welfare, and much more concerned with fund raising for their "war" against those mean old exploiters of animals.

After hearing Eric's advice on checking up to see who is giving money to who. I was enlightened to see that being a non-profit org. peta is not allowed to endorse or fund a campaign for either party. Now they obviously can hire lobbyist, to push their agenda, but they cannot donate to a political party. The fact that there are "well off, sexually suppressed, to much free time for getting in trouble, housewives" on both sides of the political line. I would say ,the animal business is in danger regardless who is elected.; 18 January, 2008 10:31
Anonymous said...: Larry. Big government and the nany state scare me. I do wish AR was a left/right issue, because all of the celebs who support AR are certainly liberals. But the paper trail just doesn't paint that picture. PETA's 2007 "Proogy Award" for the most "Progressive" politician went to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Christian social conservatives started making a case for AR back in the '90's in National Review with an essay called Animal Spirit: Respect for God's creatures should be a conservative impulse." rudy giuliani was far too supportive of AR as Moyor of New York and fought a famous battle against ferret owners. On the other side nobody has been better about defining ALF as "terroristic" than Diane Feinstein. Anyway I keep telling my wife that Ron Paul is the one candidate this year I actually trust not to make things worse and she just rolls her eyes and says she'll tell me who to vote for come November.; 18 January, 2008 10:42
Anonymous said...: Mr.Trumble,
I understand your want to rely on published financials to follow the money trail. The main thing, I believe, that you are overlooking is the fact that as a 501 (c) 3
these organizations are prohibited from financially supportting any political party or candidate. It is also unlawful for them to advertise or support a political party or candidate.
And even though you can come up with anecdotal evidence supporting your belief that the animal rights activism is evenly spread across political beliefs, even you must admit that the liberal left believes in more government control as opposed to the more conservative approach of letting the marketplace work out politcal direction.
My understanding of the entire debate between right and left ideologies is that the right believes in the masses voting with their wallets, as opposed to the leftist atitude believing that they should decide right from wrong for the great un-educated and unwashed masses.
Too politically abstract for the Forum ?
I guess my whole feeling can be summed up as " know who your enemy is"
And Obama can say he supports hunters and sportsmen as these are gunrights issues not animal rights issues; 18 January, 2008 11:55
Anonymous said...: Larry, I think we agree on the difference between Right and Left and are probably on the same side. What I've loolked at in financials for political connections isn't PETA per se, but rather PETA-PAC their political action committee, which has more leeway. And generally even there they don't support candidates, but buy media in support of specific legislation. And that legislation often has bipartisan support form elceted officials who just don't know any better. What those millions and millions of dollars donated to protect Spot the dog and Fluffy the cat really buy is a hugely sophisticated lobbying effort staffed by highly trained professionals who are focused on a very specific goal. They'll break bread with anybody who nudge the ball forward another inch. It's the death by a thousand cuts approach. Mr Obama's mention of "animal rights" is just an example of another politician who has probably never given a thought to the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights. So he pandered to an audience member asking a question. "Animal Rights" is so far down the list of issues, I doubt that any candidate is going to consider it at all in the real political world. But when politicians on either side of the aisle pander they need to get called out.; 18 January, 2008 12:41
Buckles said...: On the subject of "celebrities", I remember a young actor saying that he knew he had finally made it big in Hollywood when he started getting offers to be spokesperson for various causes and illnesses.
He added that unfortunately, all the good diseases were already taken and he had to settle for "Water on the Knee".; 18 January, 2008 12:52
Anonymous said...: Food for thought...when Bill Clinton was elected, PETA was the official presenter of one of the INAUGURAL BALLS. There were 9 balls and the President-Elect and his equally slicker First Lady had to make appearances at all the affairs.

Swedish Meatballs anyone?

So the little old ladies who send in a $25.00 check to PETA are just adding to the bank account to influence more politicians.

While visiting a Law School recently I was shocked to see several posters soliciting new members for their Animal Rights Club.

I think the lawyers are stirring it up, too. Afterall, wills and real estate dealing are kind of boring.; 18 January, 2008 13:50
Anonymous said...: Bab Barker long time host of The Price Is Right has donated millions of dollars to Law Schools to establish Animal Rights Law programs.; 18 January, 2008 14:41
Anonymous said...: this whole thing is becoming too much a democrat/republican issue. animal rights legislation has been sponsored and supported by both parties. Beatle paul mcCartney donates really big bucks to peta- yet i have a photo of him and his family at the ringling bros. circus. it's usually the celebrities staff that makes decisions about who and what they support. frankly, i doubt that a bimbo like pam anderson even knows if she's a democrat or a republican. alec baldwin is big-league democrat but he was most vocal on animal rights when married to kim basinger, who is just plain looney and while acting as peta's number one spokesperson was in africa filming a movie riding circus elephants. i don't recall baldwin doing much about animal rights one way or another since their divorce. nobody is going to convince a stubborn conservative republican that republicans have ever done anything wrong even though they got us into the most unpopular war in history on the basis on non-existant weapons of mass destruction. likewise, nobody is going to convince a stubborn democrat that the democrats have done anything wrong. i think everyone has to admit middle america had more money to spend under clinton than bush. the president cannot make a decision about animal rights without going through congress. it has been pointed out that laura bush is a big supporter of animal rights. no matter what else she might be , a liberal democrat she is not. instead of fighting about the democrats vs the republicans, we need to concentrate on the issues themselves. we all want to keep animals in circuses. no politician wants to be known as the person who took elephants out of circuses. that's political suicide. there is too much at stake in this next election for anyone to create another issue and i doubt very seriously if animal rights will ever be a presidential issue. as far as obama, his stories have been known to change radically. the strongest point politcally i can make with the democrat/republican issue i have already made-- when congress was considering a bill to ban elephants from circuses and kim basinger and bob barker went to the hearing with all their bs, the democrat chairing the committee made sure the bill never got past committee. there are good guys and bad guys in both parties.; 18 January, 2008 17:47
Anonymous said...: PETA has never hosted an official inaugural ball. The official balls are sponsored by the inaugural committee. Clinton had 11 balls in 1993 and 14 in 1997. PETA does hold a ball annually and they time it fall during inauguration week. It's called the "Animals Ball." Clintons probably weren't invited. Remember, Clintons had close ties with Tyson Chicken, and one of things Clinton was accused of at various times was using Tyson corporate jet for campaigning.; 18 January, 2008 18:10
Anonymous said...: Washington certainly parties at inauguration time so the Post’s Dec 29, 1992, article headlined “It'll Be Party Town, U.S.A., for Clinton” quoted below more accurately describes the facts that yet another anonymous blogger uses to mislead us about an inaugural ball. PETA merely threw a party at the same time just as could the Circus Producers Association if they so wished:

“As the Presidential Inaugural Committee this week finalizes its official list of events, large-scale celebrations are also being planned by myriad special interests, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Screen Directors Guild, MTV, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and George Washington University. The final count will include at least 19 full-fledged balls, 11 of which will be produced by the presidential committee but the number of unofficial events and the first-time status of many sponsors have added to the unprecedented nature of the week... [even] a vegetarian society is planning a gala. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), long an aggressive animal rights group, feels it may find some respect within the Clinton camp... PETA has asked the chefs at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel to prepare a veggie affair for Jan. 19. The guests have been asked to pay $250 and to leave their fur coats at home... among those expected are singer k.d. lang, poet Rod McKuen, actors Lindsay Wagner, Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger, Elvira and Kevin Nealon, and baseball manager Tony LaRussa.”

Ben Trumble has been very careful to show that the animal issue has supporters and opponents on both sides of the political spectrum though, yes, more may be on one side then the other. Does it make any difference? We need our advocates from all sides and, of course, have some. Kudos, too, to Casey for both signing his name and standing corrected when necessary. If unsupported statements, misleading information, and emotions rule the day, we will never gain the upper hand in this serious issue.
Dick Flint; 18 January, 2008 20:05
Anonymous said...: Looks like it may be a toss-up. What subject matter results in the longest blog thread. Politics, the K&N show or the Monte Carlo awards.

Henry, since it looks like Hilary will be the next president with a Democrat Congress, we'll soon get to see zero inflation, 50c gasoline, no unpopular wars (unlike the bombings of Serbia and the hundreds of missiles launched into Bagdad as cover for Monica gate), free health care for everyone (like we had 7 years ago), a solvent social security system, the immaculate handling of every natural disaster, no claims of WMDs (like her husband propogated), children who can read.

It will be heaven on earth - I can't wait.

HM; 18 January, 2008 22:01
Anonymous said...: PS, Laura Bush supporting a spay/neuter program does not make her a "huge supporter of Animal Rights". Let's get a little real here.

HM; 18 January, 2008 22:04
24-HOUR-MAN said...: HM:
Bob Barker closed his show every day with the statement, "have your pet neutered or spayed", where thre's smoke there's fire!!!!; 19 January, 2008 08:34
Anonymous said...: Only on the Blog can you get into an argument about whether Hillary or Obama has the most balls and who throws them.

I cite the old factoid that Elks have more balls than Shriners because they sell more tickets.

And welcome to the 21st Century; 19 January, 2008 22:06
Buckles said...: I can live with a Democrat for President, I've done it before, but must we have four more years of Bill Clinton cruising the cloak rooms unattended?; 20 January, 2008 08:35
Anonymous said...: Please vote for my ex-boyfriends' wife!!; 20 January, 2008 09:27
Anonymous said...: Here's a politician who gets it. Of course he's one of those Dictator For Life types.

" ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan - Don Giovanni and the Big Top are returning to Turkmenistan.

President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov reversed his predecessor's ban on operas and circuses, saying that with increasing development in the Central Asian nation, it deserved to have such artistic performances, state-run TV reported Sunday.

"Our flourishing nation should not stand separate from the world," Berdymukhamedov told a group of Turkmen intellectuals at a meeting Saturday. "It absolutely should have a worthy operatic theater and a worthy state circus."; 20 January, 2008 13:18
Anonymous said...: to LAD and all registered voters:

actually, the support of sportsmen & hunters is also an animal issue. just as there has been political aggression by the ARs in the exotic arena, there has been political aggression by the ARs in the domestic arena as well.

check out The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA):
http://saova.org/index.html

although they don't have much on the presidential race as of yet, this site has information on political candidates in office.

just fyi - i spent a few minutes flipping through the endorsement page and, in the random states i chose, nearly all of the AR endorsed officials were democrat.; 20 January, 2008 15:31
Anonymous said...: MIGHT we not all be better off today if the folks way back when had listened to Shakespeare...
"First we kill all the lawyers"?

On another note on a similar circus-oriented plain might we not bear (my goodness, an animal term) in mind the words of Ben Franklin..."...we must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately."

"Damn everything but the Circus!!"

Paul G.; 20 January, 2008 16:35
Anonymous said...: "Animal Rights" is not a liberal- conservative much less a Republican-Democrat issue. It is about a few people's desire for power to conrol others and a lot of prople who care about animals being deluded into giving them money.
However since the Republican approach is that goverment exists to help people make their own choices and take care of thamselves and the Demacrat viewpoint is that gavernment must take care of people since we are unable to help ourselves, Democrats are more likely to swallow the lies ofPETA and their ilk.

Mark Horton; 21 January, 2008 03:39
Anonymous said...: We can continue this Republican vs. Democrat squabbling until the "bulls" some home, and it's not going to resolve a cotton-pickin thing. While we're wasting time fighting amongst ourselves over who's politically right or wrong, PETA is attacking Jerry Hogan over last week's newspaper photo showing him blessing circus animals.

PETA has not not been successful in the legislative arena as of late--thanks to circus people and fans who have stuck their necks out to testify (including Fr. Hogan in Massachusetts) and to write letters to legislators and city councilmen. So now the Norfolk "charity" is playing the religion card by writing Fr. Hogan's bishop ink Boston (and, of course, sending a news release to the Boston media). PETA says the church ought to put a leash on the good father and prevent him from tending to his flock.

According to PETA's release, the priest's actions offended a PETA vice president, who is a "deeply pious" Catholic. What does that make Fr. Hogan?
(And by the way, I haven't asked Jerry lately whether he's a Democrat or Republican. I'm more interested in what he's doing on behalf of circus peoples and the welfare of circus animals than in his political beliefs.)

We'll settle our political arguments at the polls this November. Some of us will be happy, and some of us will be displeased by the results.

In the meantime, we have this sanctimonious organization with absolutely no governmental mandate trying to tell people not to enjoy animals performing at Ringling Bros., Circus Pages, Gibtown Circus, Circus Sarasota, etc.

Going back to Jimmy Cole's original statement at the top of this series of meandering posts, "What constitutes genuine concern over animal welfare and animal rights is sometimes the difference of night and day."

PETA does not hold the high ground on animal welfare. People who take proper care of their animals do.

Lane Talburt; 21 January, 2008 10:26
Anonymous said...: paul mccartney who donates to peta
did the beatles ever have pig skins
in their drums.
Robert Perry Australia; 22 January, 2008 05:57
Anonymous said...: According to my wife who follows such things, Sir Paul became a vegetarian while doing the whole small farm, living off the land thing with his wife Linda. At that time they were associated with traditional animal welfare, and still kept farm animals. His marriage to his secodn wife Heather changed that, and she became and remains one of PETA's largest individual contributors. Their divorce has been nasty, so perhaps his own enthusiasm for animal liberation isn't what it was. I think it's safe bet that Ringo Starr pounded on the pigskins. And at one point John Lennon and Yoko Ono owned a dairy operation in rural upstate New York, though I'm sure they were absentee landlords.

Bothers me more that country music/americana artists like Emmylou Harris are so active in PeTA. Whatever are they thinking?; 22 January, 2008 10:04
cwdancinfool said...: Whenever I get mailings from PETA, I put all of their materials in the return envelope (they have to pay the postage) and write on the outside of the envelope "I love circus and I love rodeo". Then across the envelope "PETA - People Eat Tasty Animals" in marker. And they still send me requests for donations.; 22 January, 2008 18:48

Buckles Blog

Buckles Blog

Contributors

Recent Comments

Retirement Fund

Favorite Links

Subscribe

Blog Archive

Translate this Blog

Where are you?

Web Page Stats

Click to listen to my Music

Store

Thursday, January 17, 2008

From Ben Trumble

48 comments:

Kids