Throwing dog owners under the bus in NYC Hizzoner raises funds for Gotham's Prince of Darkness: Peter Vallone Jr. Bloomberg uses and abuses his dog owning constituents So there's Hizzoner, cuddling for the cameras with a distinctly pit bull-looking pup. The photo-op was sound dog politics on the part of Bloomberg, the guy charged with riding herd over some of the most assertive, pit bull-friendliest dog owners on the planet. Not long ago, NYC's animal law power players, the Mayor's Alliance for NYC Animals and the A S P C A , scrambled to schedule face time with Bloomberg. Where are they now? Running for cover? Bloomberg's fundraiser for Peter Vallone Jr.-- support for a politico that will kill that puppy $2000 per ticket for the privilege of networking at millionaire Bloomberg's Manhattan townhouse. . .all to benefit the political aspirations of pit bull hating Peter Vallone Jr. . . . the guy who wants to ditch a ten year old state law so that cities, towns and villages all over the state of New York can profile dogs and discriminate against their owners. Peter Vallone Jr. wants "pit bulls" the hell out of New York. Now, ain't that a kick in the head? Vallone Jr. and the Politics of Hatred Peter Vallone Jr. is big on fear and hatred. Its not just "pit bulls." He hates baggy pants, and proposed legislation to eliminate them from the Big Apple. In language which reeks of poorly-veiled racism, he encourages fear and hatred of the owners of certain dogs, profiling them as "drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods." Vallone hates peeping Toms--but his overly broad proposal set off alarm bells among the civil rights-minded. He says he hates graffiti, but his law snagged a six year old who created a chalk drawing in front of her Brooklyn home. Vallone's many, many brain storms -- 56 legislative proposals as of October 1 -- rank him as #1 in the New York City Council when it comes to sheer quantity of legislative submissions. Hate-mongering leads to hate crimes? ? ? Ya think? Politicians in New York are pondering their responses to a recently reported 20% rise in hate crimes. Nooses and swastikas have appeared on college campuses and synagogues. This is a city of tolerance, a city of justice and a city where we won't allow hate to grow unchecked," Quinn said at a City Hall gathering of dozens of government, religious and civic leaders and scores of multiethnic supporters. Hate crimes are contagious," said Michael Miller of the Jewish Community Relations Council. . . Vallone's response to the spike in hate crime in New York City? He's gonna whip out his pen and sponsor a new law. Naturally. City Council Speaker Quinn is right. New York is a city of tolerance, despite Peter Vallone Jr.'s best efforts. Which makes Mayor Bloomberg's support of Vallone even more outrageous. Really sick puppies: Hate-mongering as a long-term strategy in True Blue New York Where will you be in two years, New York? Peter Vallone Jr. is term-limited. His City Council gig is just about over, and he's preparing to run for Queens Borough President in 2009. That much is clear. Is Bloomberg really okay with the politics of hate? Or does Hizzoner need to hear from civil rights-loving dog owners?

Write Mayor Bloomberg a letter, the sooner the better:

mbloomberg@cityhall.nyc.gov Is that a dog in that NYC voting booth?

Its election day in New York. In two years time, it will be again. Will dog owners--both in New York and across the country--stand up for their dogs and for themselves, and against hate and fear? Civil rights at the crossroads Connect the dots, dog and pet owners. You can vote for the Peter Vallone Jrs. of the world. Or against them. Its up to us.

Bad dog? Or nailed to the wall for acting normal? Dogs and dog owners feel the squeeze as commonplace dog behaviors lead to castrations, bans, euthanasia What's the deal? Who's calling the shots? One step forward, two steps back in Frostburg, MD--HSUS leads the charge against dogs Dog owners in the college town of Frostburg, Maryland allowed the Humane Society of the United States to write their new animal control ordinance proposal. Hey, at least it ain't breed specific. Right? Wrong. What Frostburg dog owners will learn soon enough. . . Surgical sterilization: HSUS's miracle remedy for all things doggy Frostburg dogs convicted of such basic of dog behaviors as cat chasing, digging up the neighbor's garden, or barking at other dogs from the safety of a fenced yard will get the knife. Those dogs will permanently exit the gene pool, in perfect conformity with HSUS President Wayne Pacelle's master plan to rid the world of domesticated animals. Not that the presence of a complete hormonal system has a documented relationship with such doggy misdemeanors as "damaging property not belonging to the dog's owner." Like slippers and garbage cans. HSUS's kinder, gentler way to animal extinction--one conviction at a time Heads up, owners of targeted breeds, because you and your dogs don't get to slip back into the shadows just because the Frostburg ordinances aren't breed specific. Check with the folks in Louisville, KY. Selective enforcement, in which "pit bulls" and their owners pay the highest possible price for misconduct excused and unprosecuted in other dogs is the norm. Overly broad language, allowing for subjective assessment of what happened and why--like Frostburg's new laws--just makes it easier. Look forward to "humane" breed specific programs aimed at removing gonads from certain dogs living in the homes of certain owners. Kentucky Humane wrote the book on profiling dog owners by zip code. North Little Rock: what? their shit don't stink ? North Little Rock's train wreck set of anti-dog ordinances includes BSL, limit laws, tethering restrictions and more. North Little Rock allows unwarranted searches of private residences, makes dog owners guilty of infractions without allowing them to confront their accusers, discriminates against some owners by giving them fewer property rights than others--and more, so much more. Dude, in North Little Rock they've got a law on how much dog crap can smell. Seriously. It shall be unlawful for any person keeping or harboring dogs to fail to keep the premises where such dogs are kept free from offensive odors to the extent that such odors are disturbing to any person residing within reasonable proximity of such premises. A diligent and systematic effort must be made to eliminate or fill any holes on the premises to avoid said holes from holding water, urine or feces. It shall be unlawful to allow premises where dogs are kept to become unclean by failing to diligently and systematically remove all animal waste from the premises every 72 hours. Mandated poop scooping for every home with a dog, every 72 hours. Whether you've got one Chihuahua on five acres, or seven St. Bernards on a city lot. Oh, and fill in those urine-collecting holes while you're at it, will ya?

"Still, I hope you won't give up barking entirely." The New Yorker magazine got it right. NYC's new nuisance noise laws make it tough for dogs to do what comes natural: bark.

Dog, better get your gun. Audible pet noises are restricted to 10 minutes at a time during the day in New York City, and five minutes at night. After that, hefty fines kick in. The Humane Society of New York is loving it, on the theory that a barking dog is an abused dog. So. . .are we looking at brand new criteria for evidence of cruelty to animals? Audible pet noises? Punishment fits the crime. Unless the "criminal" is your dog. Dogs, and dog owners, increasingly face extreme penalties for minor infractions. Sometimes violations are actually pre-crimes, like the HSUS-supplied ordinance in Frostburg. Its a crime if dogs look like they can get over a fence in Frostburg. Walls closing in for dogs and caring dog owners Understand: I'm not arguing that its okay for dogs to wander loose, dig up gardens, or bark all night. Not at all. But the punishment has to suit the "crime." Increasingly, we're faced with reactionary, anti-dog, anti-dog owners laws, and draconian sanctions for minor infractions. These laws are often sponsored by HSUS and like-minded "humane" organizations. They don't solve problems any more than breed specific laws do. They kill dogs by forcing people who can't comply to relinquish their dogs to shelters. Where the dog dies.

Or they force owners to needlessly sterilize their dogs.

Hey. One generation and out. It works for Wayne Pacelle. Ain't that a scary thought?

Screwing the Pooch. Again. Dog laws strip away civil rights Turn your head and cough, brother. Dog laws are the new back door to demolishing the civil rights and liberties that progressive Democrats love to get teary-eyed and maudlin about.

The icing on the cake? Liberal Dems are in it up to their dainty nostrils.

Is anybody awake there at the DNC?

Tacoma, Washington: Julie Anderson and her continuing war on caring pet owners Well, hell. Nobody ever claimed that Tacoma City Councilmember Julie "having an unaltered animal is no longer a right" Anderson was a quick learner. Julie-the-liberal-Dem was beaten back on last year's plan mandating the surgical sterilization of all Tacoma dogs and cats unless their owners have the money to buy a breeder's permit. Julie doesn't like pet owners When making it really difficult to own an intact dog or cat without plenty of money to pay for the privilege failed, Julie developed a stunning new plan to solve the myth burning issue of "pet overpopulation": let's take pets out of their homes and send them to shelters. That's right. Julie's newest, most modest proposal offers all kinds of artificial thresholds and limitation on pet ownership. All designed to make it harder to own dogs and cats. Julie Anderson apparently subscribes to PETA's "better off dead" theory: killing dogs and cats is morally superior to letting the "wrong" [limited income, young, politically incorrect] people continue to enjoy their company. For example: Three animal control violations in two years, and you can be stripped of your private property. Under the proposal, failure to scoop poop is a violation. Three violations in two years and all of your pets can be taken from you and sent to an underfunded shelter. Where the chances are pretty good that they will die. Under the current Tacoma proposal, kids can't license their pets. You have to be 18 years old to buy a dog license. Why? Julie, why don't you just cut to the chase and require competency in English, an income of $150,000 per year and maybe five acres of fenced woodlands and meadows? Huh? I hear you knocking. "Pit bulls" and no knock searchs We were all supposed to cheer when an appeals court in that most brilliant of blue of states, Massachusetts, found that the mere presence of a "pit bull" was insufficient to justify a no knock search warrant. Give me a break. The decision in Commonwealth v. Santiago leaves the door for no knock searchs based on dog ownership wide open. Shit, the court reasoned that any dog can be a weapon: While we agree with the Commonwealth that a pit bull (or a mutt) may, under the appropriate circumstances, pose a serious enough threat to an officer's safety to justify a no-knock warrant, no such circumstances were present here. There was no information in the affidavit that the defendant might actually use the pit bull as a weapon. Dogs are weapons. And they lurk in 45% of U. S. homes. Why am I not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling from the phrasing in that decision? Maybe its the suggestion that any dog could be used as a justification for a no knock search? Lemme tell ya, I was way happier when no knock searches were illegal and dogs weren't weapons. When dog-hating freaks like Democratic New York City Councilman and ex Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Peter Vallone Jr. rants on about "pit bulls" as "street weapons". . .is he paving the way for no knock search warrants and other civil rights violations against their owners? Vallone pretends he's got a real hard on about graffiti, baggy pants, and "pit bulls". So let's face it. Vallone thinks discriminating against urban youths is a winning political formula. Is race a factor in that Democrat's thinking? Oh, baby. You better believe it. I'm just wondering what its got to do with the Democratic Party. New Rochelle: keeping the undesirables O U T. How? With a dog law. When the entrenched Democratic Party-controlled New Rochelle City Council moved to require a $250 permit, per dog, per year, in order for non-residents to walk a dog in a public park what was the intended effect?

Keep those Bronx dogs and their melanin-rich owners the hell out of New Rochelle.

The City Council wanted to keep New Rochelle safe for the right kind of people. Their kind of people.

Get it straight. This is not about dogs. This is NOT about saving puppies, open spaces for off-leash dogs, or "pet overpopulation." Its not about "pit bulls" or whether microchips cause cancer. The issue is civil rights. Your civil rights, and mine. My Dog Votes. My dog only votes for dog-friendly candidates, and the preservation of civil rights and liberties. He's a sensible dog, and he has his priorities straight. I hope yours does, too.

Blackwater, smackwater. "Humane societies" rule the out-of-control paramilitary forces scene. Private contractors prowl backyards, impound, "re-home" and kill pets. Who's watching the store when it comes to "humane law"? Rep. David Price (D-NC) is outraged over Blackwater's activities in Iraq and I'm glad he is. [T]he administration is still falling short of addressing [Price's] concerns that some contractors are able to commit criminal acts with little fear of penalty. . ."The secretary still needs to address the essential question of accountability: How will rogue individuals who commit criminal acts be brought to justice?" Excellent question, Congressman. But you don't need to go as far as Iraq to find private contractors working the public sector over. No place like home: animal law fascism on Main Street, USA Take the experience of upstate New York resident, author, and National Public Radio reporter Daniel Pinkwater. Pinkwater's unpleasant encounter with the employees of a private corporation charged with enforcement of state law began when he left two dogs in a car on a 45 degree day, sunroof open, while he went for a cup of coffee. Uniformed individuals employeed by the Dutchess County S. P. C. A. confronted Pinkwater, asserting that state law prohibits unattended dogs in cars, and even mandates dog houses for all dogs outside for longer than it takes them to pee. But New York State law does no such thing. Legends in their own minds

The Dutchess County SPCA website (which proudly notes that the DCSPCA is "chartered" by the ASPCA) insists that its agents, who are peace officers, enjoy the". . .the same powers as Police Officers."

Uuhhh, let's hope not.

Municipalities across the country routinely outsource animal cruelty law enforcement functions to private service providers. Confiscated animals may be "re-homed" or put down. Their owners may be charged with felonies.

The rules under which these service providers operate are often poorly delineated, and poorly understood--particularly by pet owners and private citizens suddenly confronted by someone who looks just like a cop.

In an on-going case in Putnam County, New York, it appears that an employee of a humane society leveraged her ability to seize and dispose of dogs by "blending" her dual functions as both a humane society president and county sheriff's department employee.

The scandal raises accusations of conflict of interest and serious professional impropriety.

When rogue contractors run amok: Is Agent Orange above the law? ASPCA employees, like those of other humane societies, are accountable to its board of directors. Not the public.

The ASPCA enforces animal cruelty laws (and not animal control ordinances) in the City of New York, and refers to their employees as "humane law enforcement agents". State law governing who may enforce animal cruelty laws recognizes no such category. What recourse do the victims of rogue ASPCA employees have? After veteran ASPCA "humane law enforcement" Agent de la Torre bullied his way into a home without a warrant and illegally seized animals there, what recourse did the pet owners have?

The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board has no jurisdiction.

NYC Police Department's Internal Affairs? Fuhgedaboutit. Is there a "Humane Law Enforcement Grievance Board" anywhere? Nope. Hollywood meets animal cruelty law enforcement: Animal Precinct

The ASPCA's cash cow, the Discovery Channel reality show "Animal Precinct", elevated its agents to the status of movie stars. The New York Times reports:

An officer who left the agency several years ago, John Lopez, said one enforcement problem was that efforts are sometimes tailored for the show, whose crews routinely accompany officers in the field. . .

Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. of Criminal Court ruled that the A.S.P.C.A. officer, John De La Torre, “in an effort to play the starring role,” improperly took the animals after going to the door with a camera crew shooting from the sidewalk. Judge Sciarrino immediately dismissed the charges against the defendants.

And that's it?

Apparently so. The ASPCA, animal rights extremism and federal RICO statutes Feld Entertainment, owner of Ringling Brothers Barnum and Baily Circus, filed a RICO lawsuit in August naming the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and alleging a pattern of conspiracy and Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, including bribery, obstruction of justice, wire fraud and mail fraud.

This lawsuit is a direct result of the animal rights extremists' agenda to deny families in the United States entertainment choices like the circus and their ongoing conspiracy to harm Feld Entertainment," stated Stephen Payne, a spokesperson for Feld Entertainment. "The 65-page complaint speaks for itself and documents the RICO violations that Feld Entertainment has alleged. Feld Entertainment looks forward to proving to a jury the magnitude and scope of the defendants' conduct. "Criminal acts, with little fear of penalty." Move over, Blackwater. In many parts of the country, privately employed personnel are searching homes and seizing pets and livestock. Go ahead and choose your state. Depending on where you live, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

What oversight of the activities of such private "humane law" contractors exists? What avenues (other than a high powered and expensive lawsuit) exist for grievances from the public? Transparency in government. No longer a value? Who's in charge of law enforcement policy, anyway? Public servants with direct accountability. . . or the Boards of Directors of private organizations?

Is this any way to run a democracy? I don't think so.

Dog Owner Gulag

in upscale Haverstraw, NY

Are those Dems hoping to drive "undesirables" out of town?

A month and a half before municipal elections, and Haverstraw's Town Council decides now is a good time to piss off an estimated 70% of the electorate: the voters that own dogs and cats.

Talk about clueless small town bigots elected public servants. Yeesh.

Support of caring pet owners circles the drain

Back on September 24 responsible dog owners got some nasty news. The Town of Haverstraw, one of the last municipalities in Rockland County, New York without limit laws restricting pet ownership, moved unanimously to dictate the maximum number of dogs law-abiding residents, voters and tax payers are allowed to house on their own private property.

In Haverstraw, the magic number is now . . . four.

"It shall be unlawful to keep more than four adult dogs" on a residential lot.

So rescuers, pet dog owners, dog breeders, or anyone else with more than four dogs . . . you're almost certainly in trouble if you're living in Haverstraw.

Town ordinances allow you to apply for a kennel license, of course. Good luck with that.

. . .oh, and another thing. . .

Haverstraw is reportedly considering restrictions on cat owners, too.

Then they just might try to enact a breed specific law in a state that prohibits breed specific laws: liability insurance requirements for pit bull owners.

License to kill in Haverstraw: open season on dog and cat owners

Anybody else notice how far a barking dog dispute between a couple of neighbors strayed?

What is the goal of the Haverstraw Town Council, anyway?

What the hell does liability insurance have to do with barking? Haverstraw already has a nuisance noise ordinance on the books, and it covers barking dogs.

Or is the problem that these particiular allegedly barking dogs in one particular home in Haverstraw happen to be pit bulls?

Haverstraw's Town Supervisor (Democrat, running for re-election this November) Howard Phillips' genius defense of the law?

Hey, everybody else is doing it. . .

So Howard Phillips and the rest of the Haverstraw Town Council are lemmings.
Lemmings that don't hesitate to persecute dog owners. Especially pit bull owners.

Six weeks before municipal elections. Sweet.

My Dog Votes. My cat votes, too.

Devoted pit bull owner and Haverstraw resident Louis Seward votes, too. He's got five dogs and he loves them all.

Dogs are designed to be men's best friends," Seward said, as he watched his dogs basking in the sun in his front yard. "God didn't give us dogs for your neighbor to choose how many dogs you should have. God gave us dogs to have reliable companions.

Mr. Seward has a point.

Louis Seward has never been cited for nuisance noise, sanitation issues, leash law violations. . . .

Did the Town Council decide he must be a gangbanging, drug-dealing criminal anyway? Are they looking for a way to run him out of upwardly-mobile Haverstraw?

Conduct Unbecoming a Democrat

Democrats had better learn that pet and animal owners aren't looking for draconian,
abusive, destructive laws from their elected officials. They're not too happy with Democrats that line up against law-abiding dog owners, either.

And profiling? Is that what the Democratic Town of Haverstraw council members are indulging in?

You better hope not, Howard Dean. Traditionally Democratic voters, people like Louis Seward and me, don't like that shit.

Not at all.

Silencing Whoopi: A Kinder, Gentler, "Humaner" Use for Duct Tape ! Whoopi Goldberg failed the ain't-it-awful litmus test. Naughty, naughty, Whoopi.

Now, Lewis Black fans are already well aware of the critical role duct tape plays in homeland security and disaster preparedness. But Black's riff on the crucial function of duct tape? Sadly premature.

Man, if he only knew then what we all know now: Damn the torpedoes, somebody's got to shut Whoopi the hell up!

Did Whoopi have a bad first day at her new job?

Or were we played?

Calculated media strategy or not, Whoopi's talk show debut turned into a circus that won't be forgotten anytime soon. It all focused on her failure to toe the party line on the subject of Michael Vick.

Whoopi didn't join hands and sing along with the carefully orchestrated chorus in a round of "Neuter Michael Vick." Nope. She had the temerity to express a different thought on a controversial, painful, subject. She said:

THERE'S ALL OF THESE VERY VERY STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT [Michal Vick]. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY IS, YOU KNOW, FROM HIS BACKGROUND, THIS IS NOT AN UNUSUAL THING FOR WHERE HE COMES FROM.

Negative stereotypes. Acceptable from the HSUS. Unacceptable from Whoopi.

So here's where it gets really interesting:

Whoopi was basically voicing the racist, elitist stereotyping drivel the Humane Society of the United States and its proxies and partners have been dishing out for years. She essentially regurgitated that "pit bulls are the breed of choice of. . ." blah-blah that HSUS has neatly packaged and pedaled all over Hollywood.

Last year Kentucky Humane red-lined by zip code the blackest, poorest sections of Louisville for special--breed specific--assistance. They wanted all those "pit bulls" residing in the "wrong" place and with the "wrong" people permanently removed from the gene pool--and they wanted it FAST.

Profiling is just fine with the "animal protection" crowd. As long as they are the ones doing it.

Wayne Pacelle protests wa-a-ay too much. Somebody pass the duct tape!

HSUS's Wayne Pacelle, president of the largest, wealthiest "animal protection organization" in the world--one that consistently stereotypes pit bull owners as "criminals, gangbangers and drugdealers"--sez profiling certain people as insensitive to dog-fighting is--gasp--just plain wrong:

To suggest that there is some ethnic group or racial group or regional group that finds this acceptable is just not accurate"

Wayne, where were ya when Peter Vallone Jr. tried to legislate pit bulls out of the City of New York by painting pictures of pit bulls as "the weapon of choice of drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods"?

Huh? Where were you when we needed you?

The Cheese Stands Alone

In his blog, Wayne claimed he likes Whoopi, but writes--

I fear that she has contracted some form of spongiform encephalopathy and her brain has been partially eaten away by a prion.

I got news for ya, Wayne. Spongiform encephalopathy is contagious. And so is Geraldo Rivera-style hypocrisy, apparently. A vegan diet won't protect you from either disease. You better get yourself checked out. You need help.

Dude! Is that a pit bull?

Or a crack pipe?

Geraldo Rivera doesn't see a difference.

His psychotic break with reality lines him up with the Humane Society of the United States.

So, who pushed poor Geraldo over the edge?

And why?

Blowing smoke: Did Geraldo's moustache get in his eyes?

Our man on the news beat, the guy asking tough questions in his relentless pursuit of truth and justice --and raking in mega-bucks as he does it-- Geraldo Rivera --placed both feet firmly in cowflop.

Geraldo announced that he can't tell the difference between a dog and a crack pipe.

Or maybe its the difference between dogs and penises he has trouble with. Its hard to tell, based on his most recent rant on "pit bulls" televised courtesy Bill O'Reilly.

Well to me if you have more than one pit bull it's like having a crack pipe. There's only one reason for it. It's for sadistic reasons. . . .

I think there's almost a sexual empowerment there. There's a sickness that goes on that I think really has to be examined. If you have one of these animals ask yourself why.

Yucking it up: Moustaches, manhood and Geraldo Rivera's dirty little secrets

Speaking of sickness, does the twisted vibe coming off Geraldo's comments make you uncomfortable? Learning more than you ever wanted to know about his fantasies of sexual potency?

You're not alone. Geraldo's many friends and admirers in show biz (not) are creeped out, too. He's been lampoon-bait for years, but things are heating up.

Back in the day, pit bull owner Jon Stewart was once inspired to walk a mile in Geraldo's shoes.

Ok, make that walk a mile with a manly Geraldo-stache hanging off his face.

But things are really getting interesting now.

Geraldo puts the Panic in HisPANIC

Adventures of the Coconut Caucus' La Bloguera picked up on Lewis Black's most recent skewering of the Geraldo debacle:

As you may have noticed sometimes I get white guys like Colbert to do my job of mocking our HisPANIC leaders, now it is the turn of a jewish guy to do this job for me…

Race, ethnicity, and pit bulls: HSUS and Geraldo paint in living color

Rivera's perverted little experiment in negative stereotypes for dogs and dog owners practically lip-synchs the Humane Society of the United States' discrimination-is-good mantra. When HSUS spokesperson Pam Rogers wrote to the Louisville, KY, Metro City Council in June, 2006 and proposed breed specific legislation (all the while lamenting the plight of pit bulls), she took the opportunity to trash their owners, too:

Pit bulls – There is no doubt that pit bulls are in bad shape in America right now. They are likely the most popular dog in the country, but unfortunately, they are also the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol.

Like a good little toadie, Geraldo stuck to the suggested guidelines for smearing dog owners. Then he tacked on his own special twist:

I watched [O'Reilly's] discussion with the hip-hop expert, is the — you know pit bulls have become accessories to many of the kids. Not just ghetto youngsters. But many kids who feel alienated in some way. . .

Hip hop experts and ghetto youngsters. . .

Understand: HSUS, and Geraldo-the-clueless-mouthpiece, aren't targeting just any dog owners. They're going after the lowest hanging fruit. The pit bull owners.

That "gangmember/drugdealer/criminal" imagery is deliberate. Its tactical. They can't target "people like us." Not yet, anyway.

Criminal/gangbanging/drugdealer is shorthand for poor people. Minorities. Urban youth.

Its elitist. And its racist.

Can you say "hypocrite"?

Ironic that Geraldo Rivera, that boricua extraordinaraire and proud member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists fails to understand that HSUS is profiling people exactly like he is.

Geraldo's name ends in a vowel, too

NAHJ's code of ethics includes a specific caution on prejudice.

The journalist will make every effort to present a proper and just image of those groups which make up society. Thus, he/she will not promote prejudicial or ethnic slurs. . . .

Oooopsie, Geraldo.

Playing dog owner against dog
owner. . .who wins?

The Humane Society of the United States and its team of well paid "issues specialists" do. These are the people--like Adam Goldfarb--who spend all day, everyday, pitching stories about "criminal gangbanging drug-dealing pit bulls owners" to susceptible journalists like Geraldo Rivera.

Just a little bit of prejudice?

There is no such thing as "justified" discrimination. Negative stereotypes promote mistrust, fear. . .and ultimately, hatred and biogotry.

Its a pity that dupes like Geraldo think they are immune from profiling. They are not. No one is.

What goes around comes around, Geraldo Rivera.

Death Warmed Over Dog killer Jackie Speier thinks she's ready for prime time California Dem wants to be a U S Congresswoman In classic Jackie-speak, she commented that its "a conscience thing" that prevents her from confirming a predatory move to take over 13 term Congressman Tom Lantos' job. Yeah, right. Jackie lost in the primaries when she ran for Lt. Governor a year ago, and dog owners rejoiced. "Virulent opposition from well organized and angry dog groups" That was Jackie's characterization of opposition to SB 861--her bill that removed the protection from discrimination and profiling previously offered to California dog owners under state law. Dog owners basically burned out the motors on her fax machine--causing spokespeople in Speiers office to comment that correspondence was coming in at nine to one against SB 861. Jackie turned a deaf ear to dog owners. . .and lost in the primaries. Discrimination and hatred: Does the California Democratic Party really want to go there? Just where was Jackie's conscience when she authored SB 861, anyway? The Speiers bill continues to profile California dogs and dog owners and kill countless pit bulls whose only crime was to be caught intact in San Francisco. Jackie Speiers and Wayne Pacelle: a match made in heaven Humane Society of the United States wunderkind Wayne Pacelle just made it official. Echoing PETA's perverse "we love pit bulls so much we just have to kill them" logic, Wayne reasons that discrimination like Jackie Speier's SB861 will somehow protect them. [W]e do favor local ordinances to spay and neuter pit bulls, as a way to curb the overpopulation and crack down on dogfighters and others who have the dogs for the wrong reasons. We plan to push these ordinances aggressively throughout the country. Dog owners--and most especially pit bull owners--doncha just feel the wave of love coming your way? Jackie's conscience is AWOL. How about the the California Democratic Party's? How about their political smarts? Its clear that Jackie never got the message. She doesn't grasp the fact that pissing off caring dog and pet owners is a loser political position. She should just ask Lloyd Levine. He's still black and blue after California pet owners opened a can of whup ass on him. But how about the California Democratic Party? Promoting fear, hatred and bigotry like Jackie Speiers did? Profiling dog owners as gangbanging, drug-peddling criminals like Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS does all day, everyday? Will Jackie need to call in double-dealing so-called pit bull advocacy groups like Bad Rap for a little extra animal rights protection muscle? That's not the Democratic Party I used to know. And not the Democratic Party dog and pet loving Californians are looking for, either.

Are you a dog owner. . .or a sex offender? What's the difference? Online registries treat dog owners like rapists. Fasten your seat belts, boys and girls. You, your dog, and your privacy could be thrown under the bus in the mad scramble to cope with screaming headlines and "dangerous" dogs. Electronically shunning wrong-doers: perpetual purgatory The State of Virginia's press release on their brand spanking-new online database of personal information on dog owners is explicit: The registry, which is similar in concept to the Sex Offenders Registry, enables people to check to see if dangerous dogs reside in their area. . . Users may search by locality or by zip code to determine the presence of dogs deemed dangerous by the courts or local officials. . . The publicly accessible section of the Virginia registry will ultimately include the name of each "dangerous" dog's owner and their address, along with photos, the name and the breed of the dog, the acts that resulted in the dog being deemed dangerous, and information necessary to access court records of the adjudication. A little bit "dangerous" In Virginia, "dangerous dog" means a dog that has "bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat." Dogs that bit other dogs are in the online registry. Dogs that killed cats are in the online registry. 75 -100 dogs per year are typically found "dangerous" in the State of Virginia, and the owners of those dogs will have to update their address and other private information for the database each January. They also must comply with a long list of automatic sanctions including muzzling in public, "dangerous dog" signs for their homes, and special "dangerous dog" tags and orange "dangerous dog" collars. How could neighbors be unaware of such dogs, even without an online registry? Cost to taxpayers in the Old Dominion? News reports indicate $200,147 to set up the registry, plus $78,302 a year to operate it. New York politicians just itching to sell out dog owners

Not to be out done, Westchester County, New York, under County Executive Andrew Spano, took the initiative to establish its very own online dangerous dog registry to publicize the home addresses of dog owners. Westchester Cty. is busy pressuring local municipalities in the county to contribute home addresses to its public listing.

Even though state law doesn't require them to do it. So far, they've snared one dog for the Westchester registry. Sex offender, or dog owner. . .what's the diff to vigilantes? In his piece titled "Virginia Bureaucracy is Foaming at the Mouth over Dogs", Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher wonders if there's much of a connection between people whose dogs bite other dogs and sex offenders. But is a registry the right tool for the government to wield against this particular social ill? A sex offenders' registry shines light on something that people try to keep secret -- their disgusting and dangerous criminal records. The problem with dangerous dogs is not finding out where they are, but getting something done about them, and the registry isn't of much help there. Fisher is right, of course. But treating dog owners like sex offenders could have far more serious repercussions. Bad dog, bad dog! Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? In the opinion of John LaFond, a retired University of Missouri law professor and leading expert on sex offenders and the U. S. penal system, online registries are an open invitation to vigilantism but there is no evidence to indicate that they enhance public safety. Vigilantes have used online registries to hunt down, and murder, individuals whose information appeared on them. The killings have provoked debate and criticism, particularly in "progressive" circles. States like Idaho have added a warning to their registry's home page, warning against the use of the information to criminally harass or intimidate. Murder, arson and assault get a free ride. Not owning a dog. So tell me: Is this any way to treat the owners of a dog that bit a cat? Does anyone out there really think its reasonable to treat dog owners like rapists? Why do politicians think its okay to treat our private information like a public commodity? Do drunk drivers have a greater right to privacy than dog owners? How does that work? Nationally, dog owners represent a healthy chunk of the electorate--an estimated 43% of residences include a dog, and in many places that percentage is much, much higher. Why are we permitting these useless laws this crap? My Dog Votes, and he sure won't vote for politicians that cannot distinguish between the owners of a dog that gets into a scuffle with another dog, and a sex offender. Yeesh.