Archive for October 1, 2009
Ellie The Boxer Dog
This is Ellie, the 3 year old female Boxer dog breed from Isle of Man, British Isles. Pic was sent by Rachael.
Related Posts By Name Or Location:
- Joanie The Mixed Breed Dog
- Jack The American Staffordshire Terrier Dog
- Ivy The Mastiff Dog
- Kina The Labrador Retriever Dog
- Minnie The English Bulldog
Statistics
There were 2,015 visits to this blog during September, which is an average of 67.1 per day.
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2009/10/s…
Breaking up over a pet is not insane
It’s smart. Especially before you’ve made the decision to get married. Slate’s Emily Yoffe–Dear Prudence–does an
online Q&A with readers every week. This week, a woman wrote in to say that she is considering moving in with her boyfriend. She has a cat and wants to continue having a cat in her life, but her boyfriend is adamant that she get rid of the cat. She writes:
Neither one of us is willing to budge on this one. My boyfriend restores furniture and homes and thus his house and the things in it mean a lot to him. He has said that my bringing a cat into the house would signify that I didn’t care about his happiness. Never mind that I have addressed every single issue he had with the cat…and found viable solutions to each, but it has made no difference at all. I am a writer, home several days a week, and cats are no small part of my happiness. He will not negotiate at all. He will not live with her. And I don’t want a future without pets. What should we do? Breaking up over a cat is insane, isn’t it?
Well, no, it’s not.
The cat issue is giving this woman a glimpse of her boyfriend’s controlling and uncompromising nature and she’s wondering if it’s insane to break up over the cat? I would be thanking my lucky stars that I found out about him in time. In college I refused to date someone who declared that he hated cats (and worse, had a pet tarantula). I didn’t have a cat then, but I knew that I would in the future and couldn’t imagine being with someone who didn’t like them. (Amusingly, I saw him again 20 years later and he had a cat–thanks to his daughter, who insisted on having one. He even kind of liked it.)
Yoffe writes that breaking up over the cat is “kind of insane” but goes on to ask “what kind of compromise is ‘Give away the cat you love because I hate cats.”?
Not a smart one, in my book. Here’s my 2 cents, from a Valentine’s Day column written a few months ago:
Compromise is essential in any relationship, but if the person you’re dating issues an ultimatum–”It’s me or the pet”–think twice about whether this is someone you really want to be with. After all, which one is giving you unconditional love?
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/10/…
Technorati Tags: cat
Nike says no dough for dog-killer Vick
Nike says there’s nothing but freebies for Sick Vick. From USA Today:
Nike is not signing a new endorsement deal with former spokesman Michael Vick of the Philadelphia Eagles, spokesman KeJuan Wilkins said on Thursday.
Nike dumped Vick as an endorser and pulled his products from retail stores in 2007 after the ex-Atlanta Falcons quarterback was charged with bankrolling and running a dogfighting ring.
One of Vick’s agents, Mike Principe, announced during the SBJ/SBD Relay Worldwide Sports Sponsorship Symposium here Wednesday that the newly-signed Eagles QB had signed a new deal with the Swoosh. But Nike’s Wilkins said that wasn’t so.
“Nike does not have a contractual relationship with Michael Vick. We have agreed to supply product to Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike,” the company said in a statement.
Personally, I would be happy if I never had to type the sadistic dirtbag’s name again. But in the meantime, I like The Onion’s take on it (just to make sure you know, The Onion story isn’t “real” — it’s a joke, but sometimes humor is pretty much on the mark) :
Michael Vick’s pregame pep talk Sunday, in which he recounted the events of a brutal 2004 dogfight between his pit bull terrier Zebro and rival pit bull Maniac, failed to inspire his teammates in any way whatsoever, Eagles team sources reported.
Vick, who was playing in his first NFL game since serving an 18-month prison sentence, called the 10-minute story “really motivational,” and reportedly failed to understand why his graphic recounting of how Zebro ripped out Maniac’s larynx caused teammates to stagger out of the player tunnel and onto Lincoln Financial Field with their heads hanging.
“I don’t know what their problem is, because that story pumps me up every time,” Vick said during a postgame press conference. “It’s a classic underdog story: On one side of the dogfighting pit you had Maniac, who was a beast, and on my end you had Zebro, who was pretty good, but not great. Yet we had trained him hard. We strengthened his hind legs by forcing him to constantly jump at a teasing stick; we emotionally tortured him so that he would attack everything in sight; and from the time he was a little puppy, we toughened him up by beating him with a metal baton.”
Hell isn’t hot enough for Michael Vick, and shame on any organization that helps him to launder his reputation.
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/10/…
Technorati Tags: dog
Ivy The Mastiff Dog
This is Ivy, the 5 year old female Mastiff dog breed from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Pic was sent by Ann.
Related Posts By Name Or Location:
- Brady The Mixed Breed Dog
- Murray The Mixed Breed Dog
- Raju The American Pitbull Dog Breed
- Ginger The American Staffordshire Terrier Dog
- Laika The Mixed Breed Dog
Camborne chosen as site for new dog training centre – This Is The Westcountry
Camborne chosen as site for new dog training centreThis Is The WestcountryDevon and Cornwall Constabulary has become the first police force in the country to train such dogs and has three Springer spaniels and one Brittany dog… More: continued here
Technorati Tags: dog
Nike gives Michael Vick his endorsement deal back
It was really only a matter of time before Michael Vick got his endorsements back, once the NFL decided having an admitted dog torturer and killer on its roster was a super-groovy good idea. Nike has taken Vick back to its bosom. From Yahoo Sports:
Michael Vick is back with Nike two years after the company severed ties over the quarterback’s involvement in a dogfighting ring.
“Mike has a long-standing, great relationship with Nike, and he looks forward to continuing that relationship,†his agent, Joel Segal, said Wednesday.
Segal would not reveal terms of the agreement. Nike declined a request for comment.
The deal was announced during a panel discussion at the Sports Sponsorship Symposium by Michael Principe, the managing director of BEST, the agency that represents Vick.
The endorsement is the latest step forward for Vick as he seeks to rehabilitate his career and his image after serving 18 months in federal prison. On Sunday, Vick played his first regular-season game since December 2006.
“It is quite evident that athletes that run afoul of the law are by no means relegated to obscurity when it comes to pitching products,†said David Carter, a professor of sports marketing at the University of Southern California.
Why is Nike doing that? Because apparently we don’t care enough about what Michael Vick did to those dogs:
Nike, which signed Vick as a rookie in 2001, terminated his contract in August 2007 after the Atlanta Falcons star filed a plea agreement admitting his involvement in the dogfighting ring. At the time, Nike called cruelty to animals “inhumane, abhorrent and unacceptable†and halted release of his fifth signature shoe, the Air Zoom Vick V.
Back when Vick first signed with the Eagles, Carter had said he was “too toxic for most companies to even consider taking a chance on him.†What’s changed? As Carter noted Wednesday, there has been little backlash to the quarterback’s return to the NFL.
Protests have been limited, and the Eagles’ sponsors have stood by them. That experience could make companies less wary about adding Vick as an endorser, though the biggest determinant might be no different from any other athlete: how well he performs on the field.
So Nike only does the right thing if they have no choice. Got it. Way to go, you mavericky shoe-making juggernaut, you. There’s nothing like a guy who has killed and tortured dogs with his own hands, while laughing about their agony, to sell stuff for a red-blooded American sporting goods firm.
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/09/…
Technorati Tags: dog
Moral Vegetarianism, Part 11 of 13
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism†at the bottom of this post.
The Argument from Human Grain Shortage
All of the clearly moral arguments for vegetarianism given so far have been in terms of animal rights and suffering. New moral vegetarianism, however, rests on moral arguments couched in terms of human welfare. It is argued that beef cattle and hogs are protein factories in reserve. In order to produce one pound of beef, cattle eat approximately sixteen pounds of grain; and in order to produce six pounds of pork or ham, hogs eat approximately six pounds of grain. It is estimated that the amount of grain fed to cattle and hogs in the United States in 1971 was twice that of U.S. exports of grain for that year and was enough to feed every human being with more than a cup of cooked grain every day for a year. Given the people in the world who are hungry or even starving, we should not eat meat, since in eating meat we are, as it were, wasting grain that could be used to feed the hungry people of the world. It only takes a little imagination to suppose that every bite of hamburger we eat is taking grain away from a hungry child in India.
The difference between this argument and the arguments considered above should not be overlooked. Whereas those arguments maintain that grain-eating animals should not be slaughtered, this argument is at least consistent with the position that they should be: grain-eating animals, it might be maintained by a new moral vegetarian, should be slaughtered to prevent them from eating more grain and producing new grain-eating offspring. This argument also differs from traditional ones in its selective and restrictive moral prohibitions against eating flesh. The eating of non-grain-eating animals, e.g., fish and wild game, is morally permissible on this view. Indeed, it might even be encouraged in order to utilize all food sources as effectively as possible.
KBJ: The first difference mentioned in the preceding paragraph betrays a misunderstanding. Nobody wants existing animals to be slaughtered. The proponent of the argument wants to stop replacing them when they die.
These differences aside, is the argument valid? Does it follow that because grain that could be used to feed hungry people is used to feed cattle, people should not eat the meat produced by feeding these cattle grain?
To see that it does not, one must be clear on what this argument assumes in order to arrive at its conclusion. First of all, it assumes that if many people in countries with surplus grain, e.g., in the United States, did not eat grain-fed meat this would cut down on the amount of grain used to feed animals that produce meat. Second, it seems to assume that not eating meat is the best way to conserve grain. Third, the argument assumes that if the grain used to feed cattle in the United States, e.g., was not fed to cattle, the grain would be used to feed the hungry people.
KBJ: The argument does not assume that “not eating meat is the best way to conserve grain.†It assumes that not eating meat is one way to conserve grain. Martin has a disturbing habit of misstating his opponents’ arguments.
None of these assumptions seems plausible. Let us take the first assumption. It is useful to remember that grain was fed to cattle and other animals in this country in order to use our surplus; it was an economic move. Given a depressed demand for meat caused by widespread vegetarianism, other economic moves could be made. More grain could be fed to fewer meat-producing animals resulting in the same consumption of grain. Or the same number of meat-producing animals could be produced and fed the same amount of grain, but new markets could be found for meat and new needs created. Or new markets could be found among the countries of the world where meat consumption is slight; more need for meat could be produced among nonvegetarians and dogs and cats.
The next assumption is no less dubious. It is doubtful that the best approach to conserving grain is to become a vegetarian. It is important to realize that beef cattle and other ruminants do not need to eat protein in order to produce protein. Indeed, beef cattle can be fed on a variety of waste materials, e.g., cocoa residue, bark, and wood pulp, and still produce quality meat. Various lobby groups, world food organizations, and consumer and environmentalist groups putting pressure on meat producers to utilize these waste products to feed animals might be a much more effective way of conserving grain than vegetarianism. If beef cattle and other meat-producing animals were fed on waste products instead of on grain, there would be no reason not to eat meat in order to feed the hungry people of the world. Indeed, one might feel that there was an obligation to eat meat. Eating meat from animals fed on waste products would be a way of saving grain that could be shipped to the hungry people of the world.
KBJ: Yes, beef cattle can be fed on waste materials, but they’re not (at least exclusively). The argument under consideration is about the real world, not some fanciful world of Martin’s imagination.
The third assumption of the argument is also dubious. It is highly unlikely, given the present policy of the United States government, that surplus grain, even if it were available, would be shipped to the most needy people. The government’s policy has been (and it is likely that it will continue to be) to sell grain to those countries that are able to pay and to those countries in whom we perceive our national security interest. In 1974 we shipped four times as much food to Cambodia and South Vietnam as to starving Bangladesh and Swahelian Africa.
To put it in a nutshell, without vast changes in the economic systems and the policies of governments with surplus grain, not eating meat in order to help the starving people of the world is an idle gesture. Such a gesture may make people happier and may make them feel less guilty, but it does no good. With vast changes in economic systems and governmental policy, however, not eating meat hardly seems necessary.
Singer also uses the argument from human grain shortage to support his provegetarian position, although he is aware of its limitations.
This does not mean that all we have to do to end famine throughout the world is to stop eating meat. We would still have to see that the grain thus saved actually got to the people who need it.
Singer is no doubt correct that the problems in getting the grain to the people who need it are not insurmountable. But the economic and political changes that would have to occur in order to do so are very extensive—more extensive than Singer wishes to admit. In any case, as we have seen, changes in how meat-producing animals are fed, together with changes in political and economic policies, would enable us to feed the starving people of the world without a vegetarian commitment.
Frances Moore Lappé, in her fine book Diet for a Small Planet, also points out the simplistic thinking that is involved in supposing that going without meat is going to help the starving people of the world. But in the end she still advocates a meatless diet.
A change in diet is a way of saying simply: I have a choice. This is the first step. For how can we take responsibility for the future unless we can make choices now that take us, personally, off the destructive path that has been set for us by our forebears.
But if Lappé is correct in the major arguments in her book, such a first step is not really necessary. There are ways to feed the starving people of the world without forgoing meat, e.g., by changing governmental policy. Indeed, Lappé, in the next section of her book, recommends a list of organizations that one can join in order to change government pol
http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2009/09/m…
Skunk’s BMI Off The Chart After Bacon Binge
I’m a hearty eater.
If I had input into my daily rations it would look something like this:
Breakfast: bacon and eggs- hold the eggs and extra bacon-crispy
Lunch: bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich- hold the lettuce and tomato. Oh, and substitute the bread for some bacon.
Dinner: A pig. Yeah the whole damn thing. It’s dinner time for crying out loud. You want me to starve?
As much as I pray for such a varied selection of food, I know it’s not forthcoming. Unless of course you substitute the words dry kibble with bacon. Then I’m getting more than enough of it.
Anyway, I’m not the only one with a hankering for anything bacon. A skunk in the UK does too. But his world is about to change. The BBC News has the full story.
An overweight skunk from Somerset, whose main diet was bacon sandwiches, has been given a new home and put on a strict diet.
The owners of Mr Bumble the skunk handed him over to the RSPCA when they realised they could not look after him.
Park owner Chris Noisier said Mr Bumble weighed one stone (6.8kg) and needed to lose 5-6lb (2.2-2.7kg).
For the uneducated dogs out there one stone is about the weight of an average Thanksgiving turkey.
Mr Noisier said: “We’re now working on dieting him down to what he should be. Clearly bacon butties are not a normal part of a skunk’s diet in the wild.
“We’re putting him on the vegetarian option at the moment. It’s very much like a human weight watching issue.
Chris Noisier said Mr Bumble was currently being fed on a vegetable high-fibre, low-energy diet consisting of greens and melon.
He is also taken for two 30-minute walks each day on a lead.
Asked for a comment Mr Bumble said, “This stinks.”
Extremeanimallover's Blog 