Sunday, April 8, 2007

Cats and dogs rule, but PETA drools

I must warn all who read this, there are links in this blog that lead to extremely disgusting things. Most of them are acts of PETA, and its founder, Ingrid Newkirk. There is even a link that is less disturbing, of an animal shelter putting dogs and puppies down. Children should not read/view this blog.

For as long as I can remember, I have never much cared for fanatics of any type. PETA members have been no exception, as many of them approach the subject of being kind to animals as being at least as important as saving a childs' life. If you ask me, some of them would strangle a child so that an ape wouldn't have a new medicine tested on it.

Besides not caring for fanatics, I also believe that man, as the creature in the top spot of the food chain, has a right to use the creatures below him in the furtherance of his own needs. Leather jackets may keep you warm, but fur coats look really awesome while keeping you warm. Animal meat is an abundant(not to mention tasty) food source, and I would damn sure strangle a million apes, with my bare hands, just to possibly save the life of a single, good for nothing, but human, crackhead.

Recent events in my personal life, however, have caused me to look a little more deeply at the group. I have always corked off about how PETA is for the birds, but never thought more of the organization than as a bunch of money hungry stars, looking for a tax write off, while being kind to animals. This has led me to some startling revelations.

My first mistake, apparently, was in thinking PETA is kind to animals. What PETA wants is ethical treatment of animals, which apparently has nothing to do with kindness. One may ask how I come to this conclusion, and that can be summed up in one question. Is killing any living being a kindness? Some would say that killing unwanted animals is a kindness. I must ask of these people why don't we kill unwanted humans, then? Hopefully, the answer would be that being human is different, humans are more important than animals! While true, killing is never a kindness, but may be a necessity. PETA obviously agrees with this, as they believe animals should be put down when unwanted. Not only that, but they will promise to find a good home for your animal, and then kill it. The only argument they seem to have with this is how the animals are put down. Seems they believe there is only one humane way to do it, according to one website. It is even a remote possibility that they are correct. Their way of doing it is certainly better than the way this NC animal shelter is doing it, but how about supporting these animal shelters so they can afford to be more humane? Why do we need to feed Hollywood's tax shelter?

So PETA is not interested in being kind to animals, but is interested in animals being treated ethically. Now, how do we define ethics, then? Here are a bunch of definitions, but it all adds up to the same thing, and that is that ethics are in the eye of the beholder. A search of wikipedia for ethics shows that the definition changes according to the person attempting to define the word. So, who is it exactly that has decided to define ethical when it comes to the treatment of animals?

Ingrid Newkirk is the one who seems to have decided what is ethical. Here is a page that glorifies what she has done. At first glance, this seems a very worthwhile cause that does many great things. It is with only a little digging that other opinions start to surface. I personally would love to have a Newkirk wallet to sit my ass on every day, under an Ingrid foot umbrella, while eating Newkirk nuggets. That is just the first hint at the dark side. This site calls for the resignation of Newkirk, but to me personifies most of why PETA drools. Read away, and then I shall start my next paragraph.

So, by now you should be somewhat disgusted by what PETA, and specifically what Ingrid Newkirk is doing. On average, PETA kills 80% of the animals it takes in. It does NOT support No-Kill shelters. Their arguments sound good, but in the end say the same thing. Kill more animals! For crying out loud, this says it all, PETA hates our pets so much, they want ZERO population growth. With ZPG, all of our pets will be dead within 2 decades, then not a single soul could have a loving pet, or a seeing eye dog(PETA doesn't want you to use those either, blind people, better a blind human stumble into traffic, or live in a confined space, than an animal be made a "slave"). Hell, in the last link, you can find all kinds of things to be outraged about. Ingrid admits PETA is only 10% celebrity and truth, so that, in my book, is 5% truth, which leaves 95% (!) for lies. PETA hates our pets so much, they want them gone within 2 decades, twenty years.....excuse me, but they can get fucked, I love having my cats around!

Wait a minute, why is this organization still around? That last link even has her admitting she, condones violence, hates kids so much they shouldn't be born(which by concatenation means she thinks humans should die off too, hmmmm, she must even hate herself, since she is human too!), is a press slut, wants to defile a grave site(Col Sanders), SUPPORTS VIOLENCE(FUCK CAN I STOP WRITING IN CAPS?)(NO!) THIS ASSHAT, HIGH UP IN PETA, SUPPORTS IT HERE! His name is Bruce Friedrich, and he is PETA’s vice president of International Grassroots Campaigns.

So let me get this straight, this is what all the PETArds in the world are trying to tell me; It is OK to blow up the works of men, and harm your fellow human, if that human is eating/wearing/using an animal; That all pets should die; That no one should have a pet; Human life is worth less than animal life; It is OK to eat a human, but not a cow; Yet, and get this, it is major, PETA says this ALLOT;


How is this ethical? FUCK! How is this even legal?!?!

Do yourself, your money, and animals a favor. Do not donate a dime to PETA. If you want to help animals, give money to your local humane society, or animal shelter, or the SPCA. PETA can go on being a tax shelter for those rich, talentless, yet big boobed idiots in Hollyweird, but they don't need money, attention, or time from those of us who live in the real world.

As I write this, I grow more incensed, and tend to drift a little. I hope you, the reader, will forgive me this in this one article. I will be better by tomorrow.

Want more reasons to hate PETA? It is easy, just Google PETA, and hot damn, more reasons will come up to hate them than to support them. That should say it all.

Friday, February 2, 2007

What I have been doing.

I haven't even come close to keeping up with my self imposed commitment to my blogging! Recently, my business has been very hectic, but I love the money, so I must see to it first. I do, however, always have plenty of time, even at work, for thought, and those thoughts build up, looking for a place to gush out. I will continue to blog!
I also discovered another blogging site that I am enjoying writing in. It is Helium. I have posted the link to the about me page on Helium that shows all my posts there, please take a look, and even join the site, it is pretty interesting for knowledge. Once again, the demands of real life intruded there as well, so I have not posted recently on it either.
I still have in mind a piece on Gitmo, but it doesn't intrigue me as much as it did when I started it, so that draft may stay untouched for a bit. Something on my mind right now is the economy, and specifically, the housing market in the U.S. By the time I get to write another "real" blog, however, that too may not interest me as much.
I have also come to a small road block on my story, mainly just stuck on a central plot device, how it is going to work, mainly just details, but very important ones. Oh well.
I guess what I am trying to say is, Pauls Way is still very much on my mind, and after all my appointments are fulfilled on Monday, I plan on getting some writing done!
Until then, have a great one!

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Same Sex Marriage

Once again, clicking on the title of this post will lead you to a post by another author that bears relevance to this post.

Here is another way to look at it:

One of the tenets of doing things "Pauls Way" is that if what you want to do doesn't harm anyone else, then you should be allowed to do it.

Many things in this country, and this world, are forbidden by law. Recreational drugs are not allowed. Same sex marriage, not allowed. These are just two examples of the things that the government of the United States does not allow. I would like to place them in a juxtaposition, just so they can be seen in a different light.

Drugs, such as cannabis, cocaine, LSD, MDMA, and heroin, are outlawed in the U.S. .
While by themselves they have no apparent victim, I can in part understand why a nation would wish that it's citizens did not partake of them. In part because of the fact that you cannot tell legally if someone is on a drug at a particular moment, as you can with alcohol, means that person cannot be accused of DUI for a drug. Cannabis LSD, and heroin reduce productivity in the workforce. The jury is still out on the long term affects of MDMA, but someone high on it is useless to do anything other than pleasure themselves. All of these things can be harmful to the community at large. At least that is the common "wisdom", but that is for another post. While I may not agree with the current drug laws in this nation, I can certainly understand them. There is some inherent harm to drug usage.

Is there any harm in same sex marriage? To begin with, I plan to throw any moral arguments out of the window. If you happen to think same sex marriage is immoral, then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Do not, however, try to impose your morals on someone else. Now that I have set aside any discussion of morals, Lets take a look at marriage first, and what it is.

Marriage is a civil contract, a contract designed to improve the stability of family, it helps garner cheaper insurance rates, it makes for a desirable situation for a child(ren) to grow up in. Marriage is also an expression of love for another individual, and a commitment, to him or her, to provide for, care for, and protect that person for as long as you live.

It is a heavily debated point whether a child is best brought up by a man/woman marriage, or by a same sex marriage. However, I do not believe that this should be a criteria to judge a marriage by, since many couples choose not to have children at all. A same sex marriage can only adopt. In this case, only the other standards apply. Is the couple committed to each other? Do they understand the contract they are entering? Do they wish to achieve stability? Should they be able to share insurance together? Will they be more stable with a license than without? Will they be just as stable whether male/female or same sex?

Divorce is a common thing in today's world. The commitment and love for each other that a male/female couple has at the time of marriage has no bearing on whether they divorce or not. So this criteria is valid for marriage either way.

Their is no mental competence hearing for a marriage license, but perhaps there should be. To understand the commitment of the civil contract a same sex couple is entering into, they only have to say "I do". If this were different, perhaps divorce rates would be lower, but until then, we will have divorces as a common occurrence, and either way, there is still no way to differentiate from a same sex marriage or a male/female marriage.

The truth of the matter is, whether of the same sex, or opposite, some couples stay together, and some do not. In some cases, the commitment to marriage alone is the stabilizing factor, sometimes that commitment is too much. There is no scientific way to tell ahead of time which couples stay together, and which ones don't.

Now for the insurance. When I married my wife, my insurance rates decreased, across the board. The reason for this is that insurance companies believe that marriage is a commitment to stabilize a couples future, making them less likely to take unwarranted risks. The insurance companies have many facts to back up this belief. Why should a same sex couple be viewed differently? What difference is there, then, between a same sex couple, and a male/female couple?

The only difference is a lack of tolerance for that which goes against the "norm". A "norm" established centuries ago. As a worldwide community, we have accepted change, after change, after change. Why not this change as well?

Since the only debate left is whether a same sex couple can raise a child as effectively as a male/female couple, why don't we, as a society, enact new laws. To date, any two people, of opposite sex, can have a child, just because they decide to. This means any butt loving assholes can have a baby. We have tests to get a drivers license, but not to have a child. That is the change needed. Test all couples, same sex or not, and decide if they show the patience and love needed to raise a child. Test for the ability to care for a child. If a couple can prove they can raise a child responsibly, then let them have one. Until such a time, allow same sex marriage, and put off the decision whether they can raise a child until we can reasonably determine(as a society) if any couple would make for suitable parents.

That's Pauls Way.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

The war in Iraq: A matter of belief.

I just recently read a post on valley of the shadow. It truly helped to inspire this blog, and the topic, when inspiration for this blog was needed. Thanks again to that writer!
If you click on here, and read the article it links to, you may become very disturbed(unless you are a member of an extremist terrorist organization).
It would seem that the bad guys, al-Qaida that is, are looking to do more than to merely piss off the west. Folks, what we are speaking of here is a long range plan with an eye to world domination. Sounds familiar to me.
I remember the cold war, and the threat of nuclear war with Russia, starting from when I was very young. There were TV shows about nuclear winter, and how little the chances of survival would be. There was talk everywhere of how oppressive the government of the U.S.S.R was, and how they did not allow religious worship. The rally cry was that no American in their right mind would want their freedoms taken away by a government like this. As a small child, this was very frightening. I would wake up in the middle of the night from nightmares about nuclear war, and the devastation left behind. As a country, however, "better red than dead" didn't catch on. Despite air headed critics yammering about nuclear proliferation, we "stayed the course", and it was rewarded. Rewarded with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the advance of Democracy in Russia, and all the other things that are now a shining part of the history of the Reagan administration.
Fast forward to today. We now face an enemy even greater than communism. Even worse than no religion, these extremists wish to force the beliefs of their religion on the world as law. Beliefs founded on, and perpetuated by violence. Violence of the worst sort, perpetrated by cowards who will attack any innocent, knowing they are innocent, so that their message will carry that much more impact. Beliefs that would have your wife beaten because she dared to show her face in public. Beliefs that would not allow you to have your own faith. A Belief that would not allow this, or any other diatribe against it to be published
Despite the fact that no WMD's were found, and that many believe Bush lied, the war in Iraq must be continued. We have to rebuild the country we destroyed. It is of utmost importance that democracy reign there. Then democracy must spread from there, as well as tolerance for what others believe. The reward will be that even more people in this world can believe the way they wish to, not the way they are told to.
And that is Pauls Way.

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

On the hanging of Saddam

Like many others, I first saw Saddam's hanging on CNN. My first thought was, why is there no sound? My second was,"why don't they show him swinging"? The first question was answered for me when I joined millions of others in webland in searching for more video. The sound was edited because of the taunting that was being done. I was concerned about not seeing him swing, since that would have left open the question of whether he really was hung. I am surprised the world hasn't heard from conspiracy theory crackpots about this one, but it will come, oh yes, it will come.

Now that a little time has passed, and the reactions are rolling in, I can only shake my head in resignation.

I have heard that Saddam is being viewed as a martyr.Come again with that? Yes, that is right, many people are now viewing him as a martyr who faced his death with dignity and pride. I will agree that this travesty of human reproduction was better behaved than the crowd around him, but why should they have behaved any differently? Secondly, how does his composure make him a martyr?

To my first question, some would say they should have behaved more solemnly because a man was being killed. I could not disagree more. This so called man was responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own countrymen! If it had gone my way, his execution would have been done in the middle of Baghdad, tied to a post, and the very citizens he terrorized would have pummeled him to death with small rocks being thrown at him. This was a brutal and vile subhuman excuse for a man, and no death could have equaled the pain he caused to others. At least with the taunting, he went to his death with the exact reasons for his death ringing in his ears to his very last moment.

As to my second question, why is Saddam being viewed as a martyr? I cannot believe that any but those with the lowest respect for human life and dignity, and the witless automatons that follow them, could brand Saddam as a martyr. I suspect in many cases, such as with the governments of nations who proclaim and uphold this view, that it is only with an eye to yet another way to sway public opinion against the U.S. . What they downplay is the fact that Saddam was tried, and executed, in Iraq, by Iraqi citizens, in an Iraqi court appointed by its democratically elected government. Once again, the method of execution, and the behaviour of the witnesses to it have no bearing on how Saddam should be viewed.

Saddam will soon be no more than a vile stain on the history of the world, a stain who was eradicated way too late, but was eradicated nonetheless. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Thank you Iraq, for almost doing it Pauls Way.

Monday, January 8, 2007

Explaining Pauls Way

To begin, I feel that I must expand on what I wish this blog to be about. I am a highly opinionated man with a lot of ideas about how our world could be better. I do not truly believe that it should all be Pauls Way, but I could point out a lot of things that are worse than my way, and will. I aim to write as often as possible about the things I read and hear about. I may also throw in some thoughts on books, movies, music, and other media, but I mainly want to address issues that bother, inspire, or otherwise pique my interest. I hope that any of you out there in webland that stumble across this will pause a moment or two to think about some of the things I say. I may not change your mind, but hopefully I can open it just a bit.
I certainly welcome comments, especially those that disagree with me, as they may help pry open my somewhat closed mind as well. Besides, I always enjoy a good argument!Just show a little respect for other readers sensibilities, and do not swear at me too often.
I would like to briefly touch upon some of the topics I will write about. The drug war, Iraq, racism, bad driving habits, tipping, immigration, workplace conditions, current events, political activism, liberals, conservatives, political nutcases, affects of TV and the Internet on peoples opinions, same sex marriage, separation of church and state, the state of organized religion, alternative fuels, global warming, and just about anything else that springs to mind.
I will also welcome suggestions for future posts, such as if one of you weblanders are interested in my opinion on a particular subject that I have yet to touch upon.
I will endeavor to be as clear and precise as possible. If I get my facts wrong, let me know, but please have a credible source to refute me with, or just your own opinion may be enough, but I doubt it.
One last note before I close this post, any sacred cows are open to prodding!
Let the games begin!